against north korea. it's the latest bid to curb it's nuclear and ballistic missile programmes. two key players, china and russia, aren't involved in the meeting. us media is reporting that donald trump's former chief strategist steve bannon has been ordered to testify before a grand jury, as part of an investigation into alleged russian interference in the presidential election. it's said he was subpoenaed by former fbi director robert mueller, who is leading the inquiry. international gymnasts have been confronting the former usa team doctor, larry nassar, in court, and describing how he sexually abused them when they were children. nassar was jailed last month for 60 years for possessing images of child abuse. he's awaiting sentencing after admitting sexual assault.

the government is dealing with this in a responsible and measured way, rather than making cheap political shots. mps resumed debate on the bill that transfers eu laws on to the uk statute book, and focus on the environment. and there are calls for celebrities to weigh in to the fight against childhood obesity. it is notjust a coincidence of scheduling that these type of ads are run alongside some of our biggest tv shows, such as the x factor, britain's got talent, i'm a celebrity, hollyoaks, or the simpsons. but first, the government has ordered a fast—track investigation

into directors at the failed construction giant carillion. the company went into liquidation on monday after running up losses on contracts and struggling with heavy debts. the business secretary has asked for an investigation by the official receiver to be broadened and speeded up. facing questions in the commons, the chancellor was asked about the effect of carillion‘s collapse on the taxpayer. but yesterday, the treasury approved a minute providing for a contingent liability on carillion, for which we've had no estimate, so could the chancellor please explain to the house what sort of expenditure is going to be covered? i see he's given an indemnity to the receiver. and how he's going to report to the house on how much money the government is going to be liable for? yes, mr speaker. the government has given an indemnity to the official receiver in order to take on the role of special manager of the assets of carillion to ensure continuity of public services in the many schools,

hospitals, localauthorities, that have contracts with carillion. and what the treasury has done is provided the official receiver with a line of credit that enables the official receiver's office to operate the company's public sector contracts, recovering the cost in due course from the department that would have paid fees for those services anyway, but the official receiver is only able to step in and do this with the treasury's underwriting, and we deemed it appropriate to give that underwriting. neil gray. mr speaker, clearly, there is an element of risk, notjust from government borrowing, but from the borrowing of companies against the uk government. can the chancellor therefore advise the house what exposure his government has from lending to carillion via the likes of uk export finance or george osborne's direct lending scheme? i'm not aware of any direct exposure of hmg as a creditor of carillion. i put it no stronger

than this, mr speaker. at this stage, there are real suspicions that the government was too close to this company, and too wedded to its privatisation role. we need full transparency of the meetings and discussions that took place between government ministers, civil servants, and representatives of carillion, and what warnings were given to ministers, and what actions recommended implemented or not. we now need the treasury to start playing its proper role, and provide an independent assessment of the potential costs and risks facing the taxpayer. it's already been referred to. the sca cabinet office minutes was published after the statement establishing a contingent liability. we urgently need to know from the treasury, what is the potential range of costs now facing the taxpayer? chief secretary. well, first of all, we publish all of those minutes, all of those details of meetings already. we are a transparent government. we make decisions in an objective fashion. those decisions are signed off

by the treasury and they are signed off by the cabinet office, and recent decisions on carillion contracts have been made on the basis ofjoint and several liability to make sure the taxpayer is protected. we always look for value for money in the way that we set up our contracts, and i think that the government is dealing with this in a responsible and measured way, rather than making cheap political shots at a time... at a time when people'sjobs are in question and we are working to sort that out. liz truss. now, after a breakfor christmas, mps returned to the debate on the eu (withdrawal) bill, the legislation that moves european rules and regulations on to the uk statute book to stop a legislative black hole opening up after brexit. mps are now holding their final debates on the bill before it goes

off to the house of lords. the green party mp caroline lucas made another attempt to transfer the idea of animal sentience into uk domestic law. eu treaty law says governments must have regard to animal sentience, in other words, their awareness of their feelings or pain. the government here says it wants to transfer that into uk law later, in a separate bill. but caroline lucas did not want to wait for that. i don't have confidence — maybe those on the other side do — but i don't have confidence that this new bill, brought forward by the secretary of state, is likely to be on the statute books by the time we leave the eu, if that's what happens. i simply want to make sure that there is legislative certainty, belt and braces, by making sure that we have my amendment in that eu bill as well. would she not agree with me that perhaps a bird in hand, in other words, her proposal, is much better than two in the bush, and of course, would it be cruel of me to remind the house

that the secretary of state for defra, of course, is on record having made a solemn pledge to support, in this case, the foreign secretary in his bid to be leader, but then ended up stabbing him repeatedly in the front? we can do better on animal welfare than the eu currently allows us to do. foie gras, for example, is prohibited in this country, but we can't stop it being imported in from those who make it, such as belgium, france, etc, in the eu, because it's against free movement of goods. and wouldn't she agree that it's this side of the house that actually is now putting in tougher sentencing on animal welfare breaches, and that's where we should be focusing on, rather than looking at the past? well said. well, i thank him for his intervention. i think i would certainly agree that the new laws on sentencing are certainly to be welcomed, but i don't see why we have to have an either/or. what i am simply trying to do is to make sure that there isn't a legislative gap. but caroline lucas failed to get her amendment through.

earlier, a labour mp put forward her amendment, preserving all environmental protections currently provided by the eu. this new clause seeks only to properly realise the government's stated ambition for this bill, which it has repeatedly assured us of during this process, that the same rules and laws will apply after we leave the eu as they did before. we have been promised a green brexit, and told that leaving the eu will not threaten the health of people or nature. so why is their opposition to amending this bill to make those promises legally binding? another labour mp pointed to what he said were lower welfare standards in the united states. what i find very perplexing is, honourable members opposite who say that their salvation is going to be a trade deal with president trump and with the united states, but of course, we all know that the united states' primary goal, their driver, will be to have a treaty in respect of agriculture. if we do a deal... i will give way in a moment. if we do that deal on agriculture, the americans will want to sell

products in, animal products, that have come under lower welfare standards, and lower regulatory standards. that will be the nature of the deal they are seeking. if the secretary of state for the environment, though, has said, no, no, that is absolutely not the case, we're going to have exactly the same regulatory standards that we have now, he is effectively telling the americans, "no trade deal". on the subject of animal welfare, you know, at dover and at ramsgate in east kent, we have to put up with the evil and wicked trade of live animal exports, and we have to do that because of european law, and we see an opportunity for our area, for our communities, for animal welfare, in stopping that evil trade, by leaving the european union so we will be able to take back control. but caroline lucas argued that ministers could have stopped live animal exports already. they could have done it

if they had the political will, but secondly, if the government wants to persuade us that they care as much about animal welfare as they claim to, then why on earth would they oppose this amendment? it simply makes sure that we do not have a gap when we leave the eu and before the new bill, if it happens, comes in. we have here a problem which ought, in fact, to unite both sides of the house as to how we best go about retaining what is best of eu law. and though we have made some steps in the right direction, i have to say that i regret that i don't think we have yet got anywhere near enough to the point where i can feel really comfortable that we've done this as well as we should. you're watching tuesday in parliament, with me, alicia mccarthy. now, more whiplash and personal injury cases in england could be dealt with by small claims court, if the government gets its way. ministers want to increase to £5000 and £2000 respectively the value

of the claims which can be dealt with in this way. small claims courts deal with lower value cases for a lower cost, but there are caps on the compensation that can be awarded, and many claimants represent themselves. lord keen explained the government's thinking. as regards what are sometimes termed whiplash claims — it's a somewhat misleading term, whiplash is a cause, a soft spinal injury or soft neck injury is the effect — most of these are relatively straightforward in the context of causation, for example. in other words, liability is not normally a significant issue. the issue is the extent of injury and any consequent loss in the context of wage loss and other things, and these can, we believe, be adequately dealt with under the small claims procedure, particularly as it is being further developed. and that is why we consider it appropriate to increase that limit to 5000, which would cover about 95% of all claims. he explained why he thought there was a problem.

the safety of vehicles in this country has improved enormously in the last ten years. the thatcham assessment of safe car seats, and this is relevant to whiplash injury, has moved from a new car number of about 12% in 2006 to 88% in 2016. so there has been a vast improvement in safety of vehicles. in the same period, the number of road traffic accidents has dropped by more than 25%. in the same period, the number of claims for whiplash—related injury has not moved in a downward direction at all. it remains at about 85—90% of all road traffic claims, and the numbers remain at a very high level, and that is regarded as indicative of the fact that there is a claims culture with regard to whiplash injuries, and part of that is, you term it fraudulent, exaggerated claims, set up claims — these exist.

it was the limit on personal injury claims for employer liability and accident at work to £2000 that caused the most debate. the question really is not so much, in my opinion, the value of the small claims limit, it is a question of... the degree of complexity in personal injury claims and at what point the claim is capable of being handled by an individual by themselves, and at what point they need legal representation. if you remove the ability of injured workers to pursue claims against their employers, which is what these changes will effectively do,

the threat of litigation is now the main driverfor maintaining health and safety in the workplace, and that is with cuts to the hse, and also with lack of local government inspections. and what this will mean, it will be particularly bad for low—paid workers with unscrupulous employers and working in non—unionised premises. and what we believe these changes will do is that they will render low—paid workers more vulnerable to injury because there will be less focused in terms of austerity by employers on health and safety. but then it will be the double whammy of them being less able to seek redress after they have been injured. with regard to employers' liability claims and public liability claims, rather different issues do arise. because you are dealing with issues of health and safety. and that can lead to complexity. and that is why we have retained a lower limit of £2000 for that type of claim. lord keen.

now, we have all heard the messages warning about the dangers of obesity. there is particular concern about the impact of being overweight on the health of children. too much fast food and too many sugary drinks have led to a rise in the number of youngsters who are obese. but what can be done to tackle the problem? a conservative mp opened a debate in westminster hall and called for the stars of prime—time television programmes, such as britain's got talent and i'm a celebrity, to take a stand againstjunk food being advertised to children watching their shows. the poorest uk households are exposed to double the amount of television food adverts compared to the most affluent viewers. this exposure is problematic. with food advertising in the uk disproportionately featuring unhealthy food items, and young children especially vulnerable to marketing techniques that promotes unhealthy food, the pervasive harms of adverts placed puts pressures on the poorest in society. it is notjust a coincidence

of scheduling that these type of adverts run alongside some of our biggest tv shows such as the x factor, britain's got talent, i'm a celebrity, hollyoaks or the simpsons. if we are truly to affect change, as jamie oliver has already demonstrated, we need some of that star magic on this issue. the power of celebrity can never be underestimated. with this in mind, i am calling on those household names like simon cowell, ant and dec, dermot o'leary and amanda holden to take some corporate responsibility, stand up to the broadcast and say that they will no longer be used as a hook to sell harmfuljunk food to our children, their own children. a dup mp told how he had been diagnosed with type two diabetes after living on a diet of takeaways and fizzy drinks. he had since last four stone. 11 years ago, whenever i was diagnosed as a type two diabetic, food management for me at that stage was important. but more important for me ten years or 15 years previous. because the lifestyle i had

grossly affected by health. i say that as an adult, and i look at my grandchildren, katie and mia, and i don't want them to be in the same position as me. and a life changing illness that was preventable. there is a wealth of evidence worldwide to prove the facts that we are arguing about. the american psychological association to studies from deakin university in australia. the most recent contribution at cancer research uk further confirms further that children who are exposed to junk food advertising on television each more unhealthily than those who are not. so tv advertising works, and that is exactly why so much money is spent on it. it is also why ofcom's broadcast restrictions on junk food advertising came into effect ten years ago. following, as i understand it, a report commissioned by the government's office for science, which identified that same link. further action by the government is now necessary and restrictions need to be extended

to what is considered as family viewing or stop content such as soaps and game shows and those programmes broadcast before the watershed. products with fat, salt and sugar are often found to sponsor sporting events or teams of which children are a key part of the audience. for example, cadburys in the official snack partner of the premier league. the current restrictions do not encapsulates these areas, and in our digital world it is important that restrictions advance in order to protect children. i see this as presenting a huge challenge and cost to the health and well—being of the individual, of course, but obviously to the nhs and the country with overweight and obesity—related ill—health estimated to cost the nhs — and again i suspect this underplays it — some £5 billion a year. now, there is no denying that obesity is a complex and far—reaching problem. this will not, sadly, be solved by one action alone. as all pretty much have said in this debate today and my honourable friend the member for erewash said

in opening the debate. neither, i have to say, will it be solved overnight. this is a tanker to turn round. but action was being taken. as part of the plan, we introduced two key measures to challenge the food and drink industry to improve the healthiness of the food children eat everyday and these policies are already showing positive signs. the soft drinks industry levy, which is set to become law in april, has already seen almost half the soft drink market reformulate their sugary soft drinks to include less sugar. companies such as the makers of lucozade, who i will be visiting myself later this week to see in more detail, and ribena, and tesco, have been leading the way removing millions of tonnes of sugar. i think this is a crucial step forward towards our children's health. as data shows us that sugary soft drinks are the main contributor of sugar in our children's diets.

steve brine. the government has been challenged in the lords over the protection of women's workplace rights after the uk leaves the european union. the minister said there had been a clear commitment to protect those rights. other peers were more sceptical. i am not sure i am convinced with his re—branding of the government as a champion of equality and workplace rights. their lukewarm response to the recent house of commons women and equalities committee report on this very subject speaks volumes, my lords. will the noble lord the minister accept that british women facing discrimination in accessing their maternity rights for instance at work, and his own government figures bear this out, that there are thousands of women who do face discrimination in this area? would they have a better future if we align ourselves as closely as possible to eu legislation and european ofjustice case work in this area post—brexit? my lords, obviously, we will take

note of what the eu does, but i think one of the important things about brexit is that we can make our own decisions about this, and we do not have to be part of the eu to have high standards in the workplace. we already go way beyond the eu minimum standards in a number of important areas such as annual leave, maternity leave and flexible working. but i think it is a matter for the united kingdom parliament to consider these matters, and not the eu. i am very glad to hear the minister say that the government will not roll back on eu rights for women in the workplace. the european commission this year introduced proposals for a directive on work—life balance for parents and carers, which would provide, forfour months, paid, nontra nsferable leave for fathers. will her majesty's government commit to keeping pace with the eu regarding equality and employment

rights, including this directive? my lords, whilst we are in the eu, we will obviously continue to take a constructive approach to the various council working groups, and particularly that that the noble baroness refers to, the new work—life balance directive, and we will seek to ensure that the text is appropriately clarified. and we look forward to continuing discussions under the bulgarian presidency. i am not going to make any commitments as to what we decide to do about different parts of that work—life. .. it is called the work—life balance directive. certainly, we will continue those discussions and if we are part of the eu we will sign up to it if appropriate. if not, these are decisions for ourselves. one eminent equality lawyer has said

that the failure to bring across the charter of fundamental rights into uk law means that the freestanding right to equality will have no equivalent in domestic law. so we would lose one of those fundamental standards underpinning the other regulations that we are bringing across in the withdrawal bill. given that we have heard the new brexit minister in the other house anyway wants to get rid of such rights, what comfort can this minister offer to women that their right to equality will not be weakened? well, my lords, one eminent lawyer has made that statement, but not all eminent lawyers agree with that statement. we are fully signed up to human rights and we will continue to be fully signed up to all other aspects of human rights. and leaving the eu does not make a difference in this matter. an snp mp says that consumers are being ripped off by mobile phone companies. patricia gibson said many consumers were continuing to pay for their handset after they had covered the cost of buying it. having a mobile phone today

has pretty much become a necessity to all of us. even though we may often wish we didn't, we rely on them all to a certain extent. it is just the modern way that we live our lives. and i am sure, like me, the minister is deeply concerned to hear about the report from citizens advice that too many loyal mobile phone customers are being ripped off by their providers. and i use the term advisedly, mr chair — ripped off by their providers. most people pay for their handset over two years of their phone contract. she pointed to research by citizens advice. it seems that 36% of mobile handset customers stay on their previous contract after the 2a month fixed period. on average, people stay on their contract for an extra seven months. however, the chances are, that if you are a customer with one of the bigger mobile phone providers who dominate the market, the price consumers are charged each

month will not change. meaning that consumers continue to be charged for their handsets even though they have already paid for them over the course of their two year contract. the fact is, mr chair, that most providers don't tell the customer how much of their monthly bill goes towards the mobile phone handset and how much is paying for data and calls. the minister said there was a competitive market and that the government was determined to make billing easier to understand. in my opinion, this means more transparent. it includes making it clearer when a customer has paid off the price of their handset and is in a position to switch to a cheaper deal, saving them money. and, in future, it would be easier to move to a different phone provider. consumers will be able to send a free text to their current provider to request a switching code that they give to their new provider in order for switching to be very timely and seamless. the change will make switching much quicker and easier for consumers

and will go some way towards helping to address the issue that the honourable lady has raised. margotjames. and that is it from me for now. but do join me at the same time tomorrow for another round—up of the day here at westminster, including the highlights from prime minister's questions. but for now, from me, alicia mccarthy, goodbye. well, there's been some significant accumulations of snow across parts of northern ireland and scotland, the far north of england, and we continue to see wintry showers, snow showers, through the course of the night, early into wednesday so that's prompted the met office to issue an amber warning for parts

of south—west scotland, northern ireland, for this combination of snow and ice. very windy too during the overnight period. gale force winds, particularly across irish sea coasts in towards the south—west for a time. plenty of snow showers continuing across scotland, northern ireland and into northern england that accumulate and continue to tot up. across the south, some dry interludes in fact, particularly across the south—east, but wherever you are it's going to be a chilly start to wednesday. wednesday itself looks like to be another cold and a windy one, there will be wintry showers again but also some good spells of sunshine and increasing amounts of sunshine as we head on into the afternoon. but plenty of wintry showers, snow showers across scotland and northern ireland to begin the day. strong winds too so there'll be some drifting of snow, blizzard conditions, take extra care on the roads, watch out for icy stretches as well. the same too for parts of northern england but the further south that we head, fewer showers through the morning period. a few running through the cheshire gap there in towards the pennines and the odd wintry showers

across the higher ground, the moors of south—west england. but elsewhere it should be dry, chilly and bright with some sunshine through the morning. those showers continue across many northern and western areas, but through the afternoon, like i mentioned, increasing amounts of sunshine for england and wales with most of the showers confined to scotland and northern ireland, the far north of england with snow amounts continuing to tot up here. it will be cold if you factor in the wind, subzero feeling temperatures in the north. but to the south with the sunshine, it shouldn't be too bad. now, onto wednesday night, this is the area of low pressure will the next hazard to our shores. it's going to bring a spell of wet and very windy weather to all areas. across the north of this rain band, we're likely to see a spell of snow for northern ireland, northern england, central, southern scotland, which could be heavy for a time. severe gales sweeping through england and wales along with that rain but it clears out quite quickly through thursday morning, and in fact, into thursday afternoon, and improving picture, the winds falling lighter. likely to there'll be fewer showers, most in the north and west, against snow on the hills, but some good spells of some joint

further south and east. but that area of low pressure is cause some disruption, the severe gales, heavy rain and also the snow, which could fall across southern areas, so keep tuned to your bbc local radio. and then into friday itself, it's looking quieter. not as strong, those winds. still blustery across the north and the west where there'll be most of the snow showers. good sunny spells further south and east. welcome to bbc news, broadcasting to viewers in north america and around the globe. my name is mike embley. our top stories: 20 countries back the strict enforcement of sanctions against north korea in the latest bid to curb it's nuclear ambitions. is steve bannon set to testify to a grand jury? reports suggest the special counsel investigating links between the trump campaign and russia is now turning its sights on the president's former chief strategist. confronted over 100 cases of sexual abuse, usa gymnastics' former doctor awaits sentencing as more and more victims speak out. little girls don't stay little girls

for over. they turn into strong women who return to destroy your world. —— forever.