to him personally that north korea is prepared to denuclearise. after talks with the japanese prime minister, us president donald trump, who's due to meet north korea's leader on tuesday, said he was optimistic about success at the summit. leaders of world economic powers are preparing to confront donald trump over the new us tariffs on steel and aluminium imports. beforejoining them for the g7 summit in quebec, donald trump has complained that france and canada were also hurting the us economy. the american space agency, nasa, says it's detected organic molecules on mars, raising the possibility that the planet may have harboured life. scientists say the mars curiosity rover discovered three different types of organic molecules when it dug just five centimetres down on an ancient lake bed. now on bbc news: thursday in parliament. hello, and welcome to the programme.

coming up: more pressure on the government to decriminalise abortion in northern ireland. minister, i beg of you, don't make a victim go to court. name the date the domestic abuse bill will come to parliament, and we can get on and end this scandal. the shadow leader of the house gives her verdict on the arrangements for brexit legislation in the commons next week. i just can't believe what i've heard, mr speaker. what a mess. what a shambles! and a plea from the lords to help cancer patients get the drugs they need. and bring the bean counters in nhs england to heel. but first, following the recent decision to relax the law on abortion in the irish republic, earlier this week mps backed calls to decriminalise abortion in northern ireland. their vote wasn't binding and won't bring in a change, but that doesn't mean the issue

has gone away. on thursday, a challenge to northern ireland's strict abortion laws was rejected on a technicality. the supreme court said human rights campaigners didn't have the legal standing to bring the case, even though it agreed the current law was incompatible with european human rights legislation. after the court's decision, the northern ireland secretary, karen bradley, came under renewed pressure to step in. the women of northern ireland deserve better, they deserve control over their bodies! they deserve not to be forced to go to court and talk about these issues in order to get the government to listen. they deserve the kind of control that eileen foster currently has over this government. the secretary of state has the power to take such action that is required under international obligations. human rights are an international obligation! minister, i beg you, don't make a victim go to court! name the date the domestic abuse bill will come to parliament, and we can get on and end the scandal! we can give control. it is the view of this government

that the decisions about abortion and the laws that should apply in northern ireland should rightly and properly be decided by the people of northern ireland and their elected politicians. and that's why i call on those elected politicians to come together to form a government instalment and deal with this issue. because i want to ensure that where those victims, those personal stories we have heard, that those stories are dealt with. and i know the honourable lady feels strongly, i can hear her talking, there are many people in this house who feel strongly about this issue. but the right way to deal with is instalment, it is incumbent on the state to recognise the vulnerability of women and girls, the uk in relation to abuse. does she agree that she and the government have the responsibility for them? now, i with her agree that it

would be better if those who were able to change that law for northern ireland, but i also have to say to the secretary of state, in the absence of stormont, i believe she has to set out a clear timetable that says to northern ireland politicians that if they are not prepared to come to that stormont assembly, westminster would have to act on the moral and legal basis that thejudgement is about the judgement of the united kingdom's compatibility, not northern ireland. she must consider that really seriously. the law in northern ireland which criminalises abortion is contained in two sections of the offences against the person act 1861. the secretary of state said repealing it wasn't straight—forward. if we proceeded down that path

of repealing sections 58 and 59, we would be left with no laws on abortion in northern ireland. in a vacuum of abortion laws, i don't think it's helpful either to those women and girls we are thinking about. so i want to be clear, we want the politicians in northern ireland, those who need to make the law around abortion in northern ireland. we want them to come together and do what is right for the people they represent. it is time for northern ireland to get back into place and take its responsibility for setting the way forward? but also can i urge her to accept that parliament, in the absence of that, will now start to look at what steps we can take to make sure we have it better for women in northern ireland? how long is it reasonable for us to weigh in this parliament before we can properly begin

to exercise our responsibility as citizens of northern ireland? i want to see stormont back functioning. it always feels like a tragedy to walk around an empty parliament building and not see it active and making those decisions that the politicians were elected to make. i will continue to speak to parties later today because i want to see them come back together, i want that devolved government in stormont and i want it urgently. karen bradley. the prime minister spent much of thursday morning meeting key brexit—supporting ministers in her cabinet, amid speculation that the brexit secretary, david davis, might resign. are you about to lose your brexit, secretary prime minister? the sticking point was theresa may's proposed plan b or "back—stop" if the negotiations don't produce a deal. they were concerned that the current customs arrangements could go on indefinitely. in the end, the document says that temporary arrangements will be just that, temporary and time—limited. meanwhile in the commons, brexit was also on the mind and the agenda of the leader of the house.

tuesday, 12june, consideration of lords amendments to the european union withdrawal bill day one. wednesday, 13june, conclusion of considering this consideration of amendments, day two. she said two other pieces of brexit legislation would also be debated before the summer recess. every week, i look carefully at the progress we're making on all legislation, and i am pleased the return of these bills, along with a return to this house of the eu withdrawal bill, demonstrates continued progress towards ensuring that we have a fully functioning statute book when we leave the eu. as leader, my absolute priority is to give parliament the time it needs to debate and scrutinise these important pieces of legislation at every stage, and i will continue to do exactly that as further progress is made. but that didn't seem to satisfy her labour shadow. i can't believe what i've heard. what a mess, what a shambles!

briefing this week, there'll be one day, only 12 hours on tuesday, and now the leader announces two days. could we also see the programme motion to the usual channels, so we know how long we've got for the two days? this government can't handle democracy. the leader of the house is one of those who said to bring back sovereignty to parliament, but no say to parliament. they say to be grateful for the 12 hours, then be grateful for the two days, when we have asked for four days. the most important piece of legislation that will affect our country, and most important future generations. those young people who voted overwhelmingly to remain. 196 amendments from the other place, 14 important amendments defeating the government's entrance position. even over two days, that is no way to treat parliamentary democracy. parliament has spent 258 hours debating the eu withdrawal bill, 88 of them in commons, 170 in the lords.

across both 1390 amendments have been tabled, of which 1171 were nongovernment amendments. we are not providing a further two days for the consideration of lords amendments on subjects which have already been discussed and voted upon in this chamber before now. what an absolute shambles presents itself today. firstly, a cabinet that simply cannot agree, but also rumours that the brexit secretary are partly on the point of walking? mr speaker, that is not a backstop we need, it'sjust for them to stop! this is in taking back control, this is taking back purgatory! secondly, i have no idea what is actually going to be going on next week with the repeal goal.

apparently it will be... i don't know when we'll actually see the repeal motion, but from my understanding, it looks like it will still be the 12 hours, but 12 hours over a two—day period. can she confirm if that is indeed going to be the case? this is unsatisfactory, particularly with the lords amendments would must consider. our constituencies will be appalled. 12 hours reserved for 196 amendments, with possible breaks of 20 minutes or so, with 21 verbal commitments as we go round and round in circles with this archaic practise of eight 20 minute headcount in this house? on the membership of the customs union, onto opportunities in his chambers, against including any state of membership in the bill. so we will be obviously dealing with the amendment by their lordships for the third time. on the charter of

fundamental rights, the commons has also voted in favour of the government supporting the removal of the charter from our lawbooks. on exit day, the commons again supported the government, so there has been considerable debate already, and we will continue to provide further debate in this house next week, as i have set out. but one conservative seemed a bit jaded with the whole thing. can we have a debate on how out of touch this house it is clearly also out of touch with public opinion on sending more criminals to prison, which clearly the public want to do, the house always wants to send fewer. and the splurge of overseas aid, which the people of the house seem to think that's wonderful. can we have a debate on if there is anything at all that this house is with on public opinion? andrea leadson said she was sure that would make a very wide—ranging and well attended debate, and she would give it some thought.

you're watching thursday in parliament with me, mandy baker. if you want to catch up with all the news from westminster on the go, don't forget our sister programme, today in parliament, is available as a download via the bbc radio 4 website. the government has insisted that the taxpayer will not be liable if expansion plans at heathrow airport do not in the end go ahead. on tuesday, the government announced its backing for a new runway at the airport, despite opposition from environmental groups, and a number of mps, including the foreign secretary, borisjohnson. in the commons, the conservative former transport secretary, justine greening, repeated her claim that the taxpayer would have to cover all heathrow‘s costs if things went wrong. but the minister told her there was "no liability here". the government is not entered into any agreement that gives heathrow devoted to recover its losses and nor would accept any boy buddy for the costs it has incurred or will incur in the future.

matt i've press quote directly, this does not give either airport or the senators said the claim for damages, liabilities, loss or expenses or other relief. if for whatever reason this scheme does not proceed. he mentioned one part of the statement. but he will also know that the immediate cause after that says as follows, not withstanding to .1 point five. in other words the paragraph he let out loud. he said in spite of that, heathrow airport limited reserves its right, including but not limited to its rights to pursue any legal remedies including cost recovery available to it. and i set out that yesterday. it is clearly being written by a lawyer.

if it doesn't legally matter, why did heathrow airport limited have it in the statement of principles? it paves the way for heathrow recovering costs off the taxpayer when things go wrong stop it up this is in the nature of the standard document and with the government took advice. and what the document does is simply to allow heathrow airport limited to reserve rights that it would normally have under commercial law while making clear that the department has no liabilities in respect of the issues board. we as a department are clear that the disagreement is not legally binding, it is not created an expectation. it doesn't give heathrow the right to claim damages, losses or any relief. but heathrow retains rights of its own. there may be some circumstances in the future with some future government possibly have a different

political persuasion. which did create a liability convention. they would than be under obligation to present to parliament in the normal way and heathrow airport might in the exercise of its legal rights have the ability to sue them in some respect. but that is not touched on by this question. does he not see that this is a massive revelation and that this is of the upmost importance? given all the opportunities the government has had to bring this statement of principles to the attention of this house, and complain, why has it come to this that this statement of principles affectively indemnifying hl has been on earth at this critical stage? mr speaker i believe it is dampest of damp squids. no indemnification has been given, or was in question here. the position of the opposition if i may say so is not a legal position. it is an expression

of some other kind. the honourable member cannot quote a legal authority. i invite them to quote any legal authority is taken. we have legal authority from leading solicitor supporting the government's position. why they admit no liabilities. we don't need to worry that it isjust normal commercial recovery mechanism that heathrow has put out so we have nothing to worry about. the government has to be clear about that. we have a very limited time. a reference there to the fact that mps will be asked to vote on the expansion decision within the next three weeks. there are no mixed messages here and there are no fluffy positions here. the government has taken advice. let me remind him that the statement

was posted in 2016. and has been available for almost two years. if it is fluffy it is not on the government side of this house. jesse norman. now, what is the world's deadliest infectious disease? it's not malaria. not hiv. not ebola. it's tuberculosis, a disease that kills 1.7 million people a year. and it's been causing death for millenia, as one conservative reminded mps in a debate highlighting the problem worldwide. in the late 19th century, tb killed more people in the united states than any other disease. it's a disease that killed things, poets and poppers ——— kings throughout history. from carmen, edward vi, eleanor roosevelt, checkov, dh lawrence, they all died from tb. he said it was thought tb could be eradicated. but tb researched.

it was not eradicated or eliminated at all. it resurged on the back of the aids epidemic. tb is a bug carried by a third of the world muslim population, can exist and our bodies later, —— world's population. nick herbert said he was particularly worried because tb was the only major airborne drug resistant infection. he called on the government to renew its efforts in the global fight against tb by boosting research into new drugs, diagnostics and a vaccine. a former conservative cabinet minister has called on the government to re—assess the treatment of some cancer patients. he questioned the role of nice, the national institute for health and care excellence, which recommended that the drug ibrutinib should be given to patients. what is the point of nice if nhs england can get away with denying funding for some patients with relapses chronic, leukaemia, contrary to nice guidance

that the drug was a option for all parents relapsing? is my noble friend comfortable that clinicians in england but not in scotland or wales are being forced into reuse chemotherapy against clinical judgement and at considerable risk and suffering to their patients? and shouldn't they listen in a letter sent out to the times and the 18th of may by our leading clinicians and bring the bean counters in nhs england to heal? i like to thank my noble friend for the question but also the opportunity to meet sufferers of this illness two weeks ago. as he knows and the house of commons, the point of nice is to provide an expert evaluation on the benefits of drugs both clinically and they clearly made the recommendation in this case. i know there was also concerned about that disparity between nice's guidance or the summary of it

and the nhs's guidance. it is precisely that discrepancy or concern about discrepancy which we are investigating at the moment and he will be dispatched as a bit of a meeting that we would have. is it not whilst a very different treatment and challenge exactly the same issues that was raised that the most appropriate treatment should be available as quickly as possible and as easily as possible to everywhere and everyone wherever they lead? wherever they live? grateful to the noble lord for that. i was privileged to be invited to the funeral which was a moving occasion for a very special lady. in terms of his overall point, nice approved 71% of cancer drugs that are applied. there is an absolute focus on making sure that the most effective cancer drugs can be brought to patients in england as soon as possible. and indeed under the reform

cancer drugs fund that can happen to the point of which there is a draft guidelines which was offered many months before. that means that tens of thousands of people have been able to access earlier than they ever would have done before cancer drugs and as a consequence of that, many lives have been saved suddenly the nhs constitution states that patients have a legal right to drugs and treatment that had been recommended by nice for use in the nhs. many men women have cataracts deemed as ready for operations. they have drugs that nice has said is ready for operation but their cct is ever these commission and are waiting longer and longer. i wonder if the minister can shed any light on this. i'm afraid i don't know. a slight handbrake turn on the topic.

but i would be delighted to meet the noble lady to discuss the issue. i was unaware of that but i would be happy to investigate it for her. lord o'shaughnessy. mps have backed a motion summoning a prominent leave campaigner in the referendum to appear before a commons committee inquiry into fake news. dominic cummings has repeatedly refused to appear before mps despite a formal summons being issued. so the chairman of culture committee introduced a rarely—used motion in the house of commons to persuade him to come along. this is the first time since 1920 that a motion of this kind has been put before the house. it is not been done lightly and in some ways done with regret because i wish we had not come to this point and we could have reached a successful conclusion to the invitation we issued to him before now. before i continue with my remarks, it might be right to explain why that we are in this position now. the select committee in march asked him to come to the committee as part of our investigation into disinformation and fake news. i should say we're

not doing an inquiry. we are not seeking to have people come in from the referendums and to scrutinise the details of the campaigns. we are conducting an inquiry into an important part of that inquiry the use of data in the course of campaigning. during the course of our investigations, other witnesses come forward and made allegations about worker fully. and as the communications writer he is the person most fit to speak on that. mps from across the house stressed the importance of taking action. if you think of the really important role that the parliament has played recently in calling in, they may regard themselves as private individuals but the chairs in chief executives of major companies have done the set of impacted huge on the lives of our citizens, if it comes to pass that people think i don't have to turn up, then how can we continue to do ourjob as select committees and as parliament in holding the powerful to account?

the work we carry out as select committees is on behalf of the public and the house delegates to us and almost every case the ability to call for persons, papers and records. i think that's an extraordinarily important role that we have on behalf of the public. i would like to join my honourable friend in condemning the action of dominic cummings for the way he has behaved. i think it is a disgrace as frankly and we should call it out. the idea of politicians deciding they should have a political motion being arrested is enough of a... it is not under habeas corpus. we don't believe in pursuing it wayjust as any more. ———justice. so that why i say i think in and we do to legislate. we must make sure there proper bodies which operate in full recognition of human rights legislation in this country

and in the european convention of human rights. and provide due process for somebody so that they are not just... so they cannot claim they are sadly being arrested on the political whims of politicians. in the absence of legislation though, mps backed the motion, without a vote to summon dominic cummings to appear before the culture committee. finally, if you're a follower of parliamentary procedure you'll know that at westminster voting is done by a division, mps literally walking through the yes or no lobbies to register their preference. well, there's going to be a lot of marching up and down next week when the brexit bill comes back to the commons. one mp was concerned about the health and safety implications. it does seem rather bizarre mr speaker that we stop hundreds ——stuff of people into here — we'll would have no less than 15 divisions.

i think we should adopt electronic voting which would make this place going to the 21st—century. i thank them for that and i read anticipated that would be his line of inquiry. the first thing i would say is obviously members who do suffer an injury should of course be reporting it. in relation to the two incidents i mentioned there will be action taken to improve lighting which should happen next month. and on the subject of electronic voting, he knows the answers i've given in the past that this a matter for a back bench this is the date and reference the procedure committee to consider. it seems unlikely then we're going to see electronic voting in time for next week, but with new lighting at least mps will be able to see where they're going. and that's all we've got time for. so from me, mandy baker, goodbye. the weather pattern is not changing

very much. most places dry with a few showers. this weakness from the north here. to the south—west, the odd storm for western parts of northern island. the numbers may be a shade lower than yesterday, the best of the sunshine south—west scotla nd best of the sunshine south—west scotland and improving in the south—east later. showers fading away later. obituary for eastern scotla nd away later. obituary for eastern scotland and north—east england. after a bit of adult and misty start, a lot of cloud trend in to break up. very few showers on wednesday. the bulk of developing across the heart of scotland and they could be heavy and thundery. temperatures into the low 20s. welcome to bbc news, broadcasting to viewers

in north america and around the globe. i'm mike embley. our top stories: after meeting japan's prime minister, donald trump declares he's optimistic about progress at the north korea summit. i really believe that we have the potential to do something incredible for the world, and it's my honour to be involved. but other leaders of the world's most powerful nations gather in canada for the g7 summit, facing deep divisions with the us on trade. britain's prime minister arrives for the summit, leaving behind another storm in her cabinet over brexit. and was the red planet always a dead planet? nasa says it's found something that suggests there might have been life on mars.