the headlines: president donald trump and japan's prime minister, shinzo abe, have said maximum pressure must be maintained on north korea until it agrees to complete nuclear disarmament. at a joint press conference after talks in florida, mr trump also promised to press the north korean leader to send home japanese citizens abducted in the 1960s and 70s. cuba's vice president, miguel diaz—canel, has been named as the country's next leader. he's 57 and is expected to take office on thursday. the handover of power will bring to an end nearly six decades of rule by mr castro and his late brother fidel, who led the revolution in 1959. air safety officials are investigating the death of a passenger who was almost sucked out of a plane window in mid—air. the southwest airlines flight, which had taken off from new york, made an emergency landing in philadelphia after a window, wings and fuselage were damaged in the incident. it has just it hasjust gone it has just gone half—past two in

the morning. now on bbc news, wednesday in parliament. hello there and welcome to our look back at the day in westminster. coming up... the government suffers its first defeat in the laws on its flagship eu bill, as ministers demand it try to keep the uk in the customs union, but peers told the upper house not to interfere. this amendment and other amendments, are part of a campaign, which is putting peers against the people. this amendment is about plain politics, this is not about unscrambling brexit, it is about how we leave the eu. jeremy corbyn accuses theresa may of callousness as the route continues.

under her, the home office becomes heartless and hopeless and she now runs a government that is both callous and incompetent. but theresa may hits back, demanding the labour leader look to problems in his own party. i will not take an accusation of callousness from a man who allows anti—semitism to run rife in his party. and mps argue companies need to do more to close the gender pay gap. time is up on pathetic excuses, it is time that organisations got serious about action. but first, the house of lords, where the government was heavily defeated on the eu withdrawal bill. the vote came on the first of six days of what is known on report states, when peers have a second test to examine and amend a bill. peers from across the chamber combined to vote in favour for a proposal requiring the government to report back on what steps are taken to negotiate a continued eu uk customs union.

countries in the customs union don't impose tariffs on each other goods. the vote in the lords showed a large majority of peers backed the idea. have voted contents, 348, not contents, 225. so the contents have it. so, a defeat for the government by 123 votes. the successful amendment was introduced by lord kerr, a former senior ambassador and co—author of article 50, the part of european law which was invoked at the start of the brexit process. the ineluctable rule is, that as distance doubles, trade halves. i'm talking trade in goods, but it is a standard rule. so looking at further reviews,

i am well aware that doing it will be very hard not to see a foreman and overall exports, if our trade with the european union is obligated and it would much be obligated if we don't have the customs union, we must try to limit the damage of leaving our largest and closest market. the house knows that that i was and i remain a keen remainer. i believe that the country should, when a deal is struck, be given a chance to say is that what it wants. i believe that would be fair. but, i nevertheless, think that it is our duty to try and help improve the deal to see how the deal could be made better. if in the end we do leave, it should be in a way that limits the damage to our country's wellbeing and the future

of our children. and that is why, i believe it makes sense for the government to be asked to explore customs union. i beg to move. the amendment was also supported by the conservative former cabinet minister, lord patten, who spoke about the difficulty of making trade agreements without eu membership. the deal between switzerland and china is a good example of how difficult it is to get in a bed with an elephant. the swiss have agreed with the chinese nothing about services, hardly about cars. but on other goods, they have accepted that china will have for a number of goods, free access, tariff free access to switzerland straightaway. in return, switzerland gets tariff free access to china after 15 years. so sleeing with elephants, bit of a problem. but there was strong

opposition as well. this is a political argument dressed up as a trade argument and it bears no substance whatsoever. therefore, i urge the house to reject what is in a sense, in essence, a wrecking amendment. have a care with what we are doing. we are an unelected house, and this amendment and the other amendments are part of a campaign which is putting peers against the people. yes, it is. yes, it is, the people — the people set out very clearly that they wish to leave the european union, which meant leaving the customs union as well, as my noble friend has pointed out, it was central to the whole campaign. so what is going on here, is an exercise by remainers house who are the majority, who refuse to accept the verdict

of the british people and i believe they are playing with fire. this is not about playing politics or unscrambling brexit, it is about how we leave the eu, and it is about our future relationship once we are outside. and all it asks is for the government to seek to negotiate our participation in a customs union with the eu. we will support this, for the sake of the economy and the sake of the country. for the uk to remain in the customs union and bound by the eu's common external tariff, it would mean providing preferential access to the uk market for countries that the eu agrees trade deals with, without necessarily gaining preferential access for uk exports to such countries. alternatively, we would need the eu to negotiate with third countries on the uk's behalf. this would leave us with less influence over our international trade policy than we do now, and would not, my lords, and our humble assertion,

be in the best interests of uk businesses. by leaving the customs union, by establishing a new and ambitious customs arrangement with the eu, we will be able to forge new trade relationship with our partners around the world, and maintain as frictionless trade as possible between the uk and the eu, providing a positive voice for free trade across the globe. lord paladin speaking before the government. theresa may told the commons that the windrush generation of caribbean immigrants, some of who were wrongly threatened with eportation was taken by a labour government in 2009. the children of commonwealth citizens who arrived in the uk with their parents up until the early 1970s, were automatically granted leave to remain. but some have recently

lost theirjobs and access to nhs services, or been detained in immigration removal centres, because a change in law means they have to prove they have been living in the uk, even though they have been in the country legally for decades. at prime minister's questions, theresa may was asked what the government was doing to reassure those affected. these people are british, they are part of us. and i want to be absolutely clear, i want to be absolutely clear, that we have no intention of asking anyone to leave who has the right to remain here. and for those who have mistakenly received letters challenging them, i want to say — apologise to them, and i want to say sorry to anyone who has been caused confusion and anxiety felt as a result of this. yesterday, we learnt that in 2010, the home office destroyed landing cards for a generation

of commonwealth citizens and so have told people, we can't find you in our system. did the prime minister, the then home secretary, sign off that decision? no, the decision to destroy the landing cards was taken in 2009 under a labour government. at which point, events got so rowdy the speaker had to step in to tell mps to calm down. jeremy corbyn resumed his attack and disputed the claim that the cars were destroyed under labour. it was under a tory government and she was home secretary at that time. and that is what is causing such pain and such stress to a whole generation. jeremy corbyn said it was a shameful episode and that the responsibility for it lay with the prime minister,

who had pandered to what he called bogus targets and created a hostile environment for immigrants. isn't the truth, mr speaker, that under her, the home office became heartless, and doesn't she now run a government that is both callous and incompetent? the decision was taken in 1971 not to require the blood documentation, that is what led the problem we now see in relation to the anxiety for these people. the right honourable gentleman talks about being callous and having a disregard for people. i have to say to him that i am the prime minister who initiated their race disparity audit which said what are we doing in this country to ensure that people have equal opportunities in this country? and following, can i say to the right honourable gentleman, he talks about being callous, i will not take that following a debate last night...

where powerful contributions were made, particularly by the members from stoke—on—trent north, from barking and liverpool, i will not take an accusation of callousness from a man who allows anti—semitism to run rife in his party. when prime minister's questions was over, a labour front bencher callenged theresa may's assertion that the decision to destroy the cards was made in 2009. mr speaker, i've had it confirmed, i was briefed yesterday that the decision was taken in 2010, and the records were destroyed in october 2010. mr speaker, can the house,

the windrush generation, the leaders and the country, get a clarification for the prime minister or home secretary? the speaker said every member of the house was responsible for what they said and that the record needed to be corrected, he was sure that it would be. well, staying with pmqs, the smp leaders turned to a different subject, a benefit change the critics have dubbed "the rape clause". child tax credits are limited to the first two children, there's an exemption for children born as a result of rape. before a committee on tuesday, the secretary called the measure an opportunity for women to get double support. ian blackford picked up the comment. hanging benefits on improving trauma is not a choice. it is a disgrace and one which will get traumatised woman involved. the organisation responsible

says it is fundamentally damaging for women. forcing them to disclose rape and abuse at a time and in a manner of not of their choosing. at pain of financial penalty. this is the form with a box for the child's name, what kind of society do we live in? prime minister! we live in a society where we have taken every care to ensure that this is dealt with as sensitive a manner as possible. that is why the government took considerable time and made extensive consultations in putting the arrangements in place. as i said, nobody will be, no mother in these circumstances will be granted the exemption. they will be granted by dealing with specialist professionals. you are watching wednesday in parliament with me. the minister for women has hinted that the government

could increase the number of firms that after report their gender pay gap. with 250 employees or more, they're required to publish this annually. the figures revealed that 78% of companies paid man more than women with the financial sector having the biggest gap. an urgent question, she updated in peace. i'm delighted that as of yesterday, 10,055 and lawyers covering all sectors of the economy have reported that gender pay gap. these new regulations have shown a lot of the injustice that has existed for too long. and also a new conversation for change in gender equality. we are now working with employers to support them to take action to close the gender pay gap. we are building our research based on what works to drive real change and will be supporting employers to understand what is caused their own gender pay cap. what they can do to make

a real difference. questions have been asked. what women have always known that previously did not have proof of which is that there is systematic pay discrimination, and that is cleared eight out of ten employers that pay man more than they pay women. this is got to stop and we are not interested any more in rationalizing explanations, orjustifications the time for excuses has passed. we want stretching targets year on year to narrow the gap. it's about unequal pay and so much more. it is about the fact thatjoss and care and other rules are undervalued because they are predominately done by women. as for the 511,000 women a year who lose theirjobs because they have the baby. it's about the toxic workplace cultures where the boys club makes decisions, and time is up.

0n pathetic excuses. it is time for the organisations to get serious. lu the applies to those with employees of more than 250 employees. when they look at lowering that limit their is a lot of women that are receiving unequal pay that are in the smaller organisations. i am delighted that she has raised this that employed fewer, that is something i'm looking at with the research data show that that is appropriate. the online retailer amazon has been questioned by mps over the sale of products, containing real instead of fake fur. they're found to be made of animalfur, despite being labelled at stake. the products are being sold in markets and on the high stream, as well as online. the environment committee heard that it was the humane society, which first tested the products. does a company like amazon have the right checks and balances in place and react

quickly enough to this? because i think this is what it is, we would not be having this inquiry today, if action had been taken more quickly. and are we confident what are you confident, that not only are you stopping him now, that this won't happen again in the very near future? what i think we're going to do with that, rather than, make sure that we have the education and place them at the checks in place. we have a lot of sellers, very different kind of sellers. i was afraid of, there are lots of big brands in tiny brands. and, because of them, and that size, in some cases you would need to do more to ensure that they have the right information. so we have reinforced our communications of sellers, we have sent out the guidance. to remind them that this

is how you do it. and most of the sellers did not want to lose the opportunity to sell, and they will. if you do not comply with our policy, we understand that mistakes can be made, but if you persistently are not compliant with our policy then you will not be notes on amazon. why the humane society whether something is realfor not, than you are. i absolutely accept that this is a problem to which, we thought our policies were adequate and that the test that were doing to stop that is clearly been a mistake. and since that time, we have gone back to every single seller in the fashion category.

and said, you need to understand what the policy is. you need to have processes in place. they want to know when amazon would alert trading standards by a company trading on their website. 0nce, twice, three times, four times, 20 times, how many times they have to break your rules before you think they should be put across to trading standards. or perhaps they can break their rules as many times as they like? they could come here when you are clearly have a problem, and do not actually tell us if you ever were preparing to bring ends trading standards. we are actually prepared to bring in trading standards, i am sorry we don't know the exact threshold for that. is there a policy of when you call and trading standards? 0rissa just, is itjust bounded discretion of the managers and were hosting? as a company, you're a very large company, so is it not in the high street, is there a policy? we monitor, our primary means of checking people out to see, even if you buy things from the seller who was not ours, there is a guarantee that if you've got something that is not confined

to what you required to be. you can return the product. so that is the way we do things. we did not have this race by customers. over a long period. the attorney general, has been defending the uk governments decision to launch a legal challenge to the scottish and welsh governments brexit bills. passed legislation last month, acting as alternatives to westminster is eu withdraw bill. the government has asked the supreme court to rule on whether the legislation is constitutional and within devolved powers. the key purpose of the eu withdraw bill before this parliament is to provide certainty across the uk on day one after exit from the eu. and the scottish and welsh continuity bills would frustrate this objective. if the continuity bills were to become law, they would impacts not just on the government and the legislators,

but on widespread understanding and confidence and, uk law after exit. to the right clarity, the matter had been referred to the supreme court. i do however, remain hopeful that the ongoing negotiations between the devolved administrations will result in an agreement. it is clear that this would be the best outcome for all involved. and should an acceptable agreement be reached, and should the scottish and welsh governments, see—through drawled the references. i think the attorney general for his answer. these combined challenges are unprecedented in the 20 year history of devolution. patch by the scottish parliament. does he appreciate that this would be widely seen as an attack on the scottish parliament and the democratic? and finally, how much is this going to cost? and who is going to meet the legal costs? mr speaker, i agree with the honourable lady that this

is an unprecedented situation, she is right that in relation to scottish legislation. no reference to the supreme court has previously been brought. but your recognise that that is not the only way, the only factor here that is unprecedented. the first time, that the scottish parliament has been prepared to proceed in the face of the advice of its presiding officer, that the bill is not with and the competence of the parliament. so there is more than one way, mr speaker, in which history is being made here. let's return to the eu withdraw bill in the house of lords. what i was a second defeat for the government. this one was to stop ministers from being able

to change their own laws which without putting a bill through parliament. these so—called retain the loss, such as employment equality and safety. up until now, all those areas have been safeguarded by eu membership requirements. the an what we now need to do is bubble wrap those protections. and we're bringing into our law to safeguard them from meddling hands. because without such, without any protection, those standards could be weakened by secondary legislation and that would happen without consultation, with stakeholders, and without even a bill through parliament war peers can interrogate the rationale and rationale and cost and benefit of any change. the government had already taken steps to address her concerns. my lords, i look forward to discussing in detail the amendment on this subject in later days, i believe that they strike the right balance between one hand,

protecting the law from erosion, while still giving sufficient flexibility to ensure that we have the ability to deliver an operative and stable domestic status. i cannot give false hope that it will reflect, an issue between now and further reading, unless she wishes to test the opinion of the house as i suspect she does, she should do so now. when he came to the vote, the government suffered a heavy defeat. 314, not contents, 217 not content. so the content habit. why they look to overturn both of those to feeds when it returns to the commons, and continue their debate on the bill on monday. and that is it for me for now. please do join me on thursday night at 11 for another round above the day here at westminster.

but for now, for me, goodbye. hi there. it's been the warmest day of the year so far, with temperatures climbing up to 25 degrees celsius on wednesday around the greater london area. and it was a fine end to the day, as well, for western wales — in gwynedd, a fine sunset there. looking at the picture today, it was good to be even warmer in the sunshine, which will be widespread as well. however, at times there will be a little bit more in the way of cloud across western areas. that's because we've got a weak

weather front out west. it's not really going to do much for rain, but there is the strip of cloud. maybe one or two spots over the hills of northern ireland, western areas of scotland, but otherwise it's fine. any early—morning mist patches, perhaps through the thames estuary, will clear through the day. with winds coming from the south, and even hot today. temperatures will reach 27 degrees, which will be the first time we've pushed into the 80s in terms of fahrenheit. now, looking at the weather picture for thursday night, we'll see a little bit of cloud developing of a western areas, maybe a few mist patches forming, as well. the cloud across the west of scotland threatening some showers. but another relatively mild night. temperatures between seven and 13 degrees. more of the same on friday, although there will be some showers coming and going across the highlands of scotland, across the northern isles too. fresher air working across scotland, northern ireland and northern england. the temperatures will be easing in the northern half of uk, but in the south it's another very warm one,

temperatures 25 towards london and the south—east. so all this fine weather is being brought to us thanks to this high pressure. the area of high pressure is slipping away a little bit as we move through the weekend, to allow a greater risk of some showers to come up from the south. so they're most likely to swing up ahead of a weather front that's out just to the west of the british isles. we may well see some showers or thunderstorms developing across western areas of the uk. sunny spells, though, elsewhere — the best of the sunshine probably for scotland and across eastern areas of england, where it will feel pleasantly warm, with temperatures up to 23. for the second half the weekend, again it looks like we may see further showers, and we'll continue to see the temperatures just ease back, particularly across the north—west of the country. in fact, sunday could turn out to be quite a wet day across the far north of england, northern ireland, and the west of scotland. still, not many too showers across the south—east, just one or two passing ones, with temperatures continuing the trend ofjust cooling a little. a good dealfresher across the north—west. and there'll be a further cool—down

with the weather as we look at the forecast for next week. that's your latest weather. welcome to bbc news, broadcasting to viewers in north america and around the globe. my name's mike embley. our top stories: president trump says maximum pressure will continue on north korea until it ends its nuclear programme. there's a bright path available to north korea when it achieves denuclearisation, in a complete and verifiable and irreversible way. cu ba's national assembly names miguel diaz—canel as the next president, ending the castro era. air safety officials investigate the death of a passenger

who was almost sucked out of a plane window in mid—air. trouble in paradise. the philippines government shuts down an entire island because of growing environmental issues.