to uphold his travel ban targeting five muslim—majority countries. he said that in an age of worldwide terrorism, "we have to be tough and we have to be safe." one dissenting judge said the ban was motivated by bias against muslims. the human rights group amnesty international has published what it calls detailed, new evidence of the extent of the burmese military‘s crimes against the rohingya people in myanmar. it accuses the army's commander in chief and 12 others of orchestrating rape and murder and driving out more than half a million rohingyas. six european countries have agreed to accept more than 200 migrants stranded for nearly a week on a rescue ship in the mediterranean. but italy's interior minister has accused charity—run rescue ships of operating a "taxi service" for migrants. now on bbc news, tuesday in parliament. hello there and welcome

to tuesday in parliament. on this programme, the foreign secretary is back in the commons having missed the vote on heathrow. and comes under pressure over his support for donald trump. this is somebody who can only be described as a serial child abuser, putting children into concentration camps is not acceptable. a former head of the armyjoins calls for a big boost in defence spending. 2% spent on defence is a derisory amount. and a minister predicts growing calls for longer prison sentences. as you give more voice to citizens, as you give more voice to victims, i think almost inevitably we are going to face pressure between now and 2030 for longer and more brutal sentences. but first, boris johnson was back from his surprise visit to afghanistan. he had been awayjust as mps

were voting on whether or not to press ahead with a third runway at heathrow airport. taking his regular round of questions in the commons he was confronted by mps angry about his support for donald trump. who one labelled a serial child abuser for his policy of separating migrant children from their parents. but the exchanges began with some mockery over borisjohnson‘s decision to be away for the heathrow decision. i must say the foreign secretary is looking rather spritely this morning after his overnight flight. i hope thejet lag was not too severe. when the prime minister was asked about donald trump's policy of ripping toddlers from their mothers and holding them in cages, she would merely say it was wrong and not something that we agree with. so can i ask the foreign secretary on behalf of the british people if he can do better than that and describe the genuine outrage that we as a country felt about this obscene policy? i think that when the prime minister spoke, she spoke indeed for me and for everyone else in this house and indeed the nation.

and no sooner had she spoken than the honourable gentleman will have noticed that the president signed an executive order repealing the policy. this is somebody who can only be described as a serial child abuser, putting children into concentration camps is not acceptable. he has not yet taken them out of these camps, mr speaker. he is holding them hostage to force their parents to give up their claims to asylum. he's trying to abolish due process by having no courts and no judges to decide on them. how can this person be fit for a state visit? too long. hopelessly long. foreign secretary. with great respect to the answers i have already given, the president of the united states has repealed the policy in question and he remains the head of state of our most important economic, military and security ally. since the government has chosen to appease rather than confront the trump administration, can the foreign secretary say what success he has had in persuading president trump and his administration to adopt an open rules—based trading system on which the future of our country depends

and which he is trying to destroy? obviously we dispute the president's tariffs. and we have made that point very bluntly. on the other hand, there is clearly a problem with the dumping of chinese steel. and we need to work on that together and that is the point we have been making to the president both at the g—7 and we will continue to make when he comes on his visit on the 13th ofjuly. can i agree with the foreign secretary that sometimes being a friend of the united states means being a candid friend. but is it not the case that when it comes to nato, osc and sharing intelligence information, the united states keeps britain safe? i'm grateful to my honourable friend for a characteristically perceptive point. yes, the united states has not only kept the uk safe, it has kept in many ways the whole of our continent safe since the end of the second world war. and that is a giant political fact that this house should recognise. may i firstly sympathise with the foreign secretary that due

to his emergency duties abroad he was unable tojoin last night's fight against heathrow expansion? four years ago he was asked the biggest lesson that he had learned... four years ago he was asked the biggest lesson that he had learned from his supposed hero winston churchill. and his answer was, i quote, never give in. never give in. for some reason, churchill didn't add, unless you can catch a plane to kabul! the foreign secretary clearly has a new hero and we know who he is, mr speaker, the clue is in the hair. so can i ask the foreign secretary when he said, as he did on the 6th ofjune, that he is, i quote, increasingly admiring of donald trump, he has begun to tell us some of the reasons why but could he help those of us who are yet to be convinced three things about this current president that he increasingly admires about him.

mr speaker, i hesitate to say it but i have anticipated the right honourable lady's question and i pointed out, number one, that i thought it was an admirable thing that after the chemical weapons attack led by the assad regime supported by the russians, that donald trump's administration actually responded. i think it is a good thing that the united states is trying to solve the problem of a nuclear armed north korea and trying very hard. and i admire at least the president's efforts in that respect. and i think it is a good thing too that the president is encouraging our european friends and partners to spend more on their own defence. i thank the foreign secretary for his attempt to answer that question. but even he knows, surely, in the depth of his soul, that when we have a president like donald trump who bans muslims and supports nazis, who stokes conflict and fuels climate change, who abuses women and cages children, that is not a record to be admired, that is a record to be abhorred.

and i simply ask the foreign secretary not just why he joked that a man like that should be in charge of our brexit negotiations, but why he thinks, seriously, that a man like that should have the honour in two weeks' time of visiting chequers, blenheim palace, and windsor castle, and shaking hands with her majesty the queen. hear, hear! mr speaker, i have given several examples already of the ways in which our views coincide with those of the current american administration. i have also said where our views differ and that we're not afraid to say it when our views differ. but the fundamental point on which i think the right honourable lady and i are in complete agreement is that it is right that the united kingdom should welcome to this country the head of state of our most important and most trusted ally. a labour mp asked about a comment the foreign secretary was reported

to have made when asked about the warnings from airbus and bmw over brexit. can the secretary of state confirm and remotely justify that his response was to say f business? i don't think anybody could doubt the passionate support this government has for business, and it may be that i have from time to time expressed scepticism about some of the views of those who profess to speak up for business. borisjohnson. labour has refused to support a trade deal between the european union and canada. the comprehensive economic and trade agreement, or ceta, has already been provisionally implemented. but national governments must ratify the deal before it can ta ke full effect. labour shadow ministers called on their mps to abstain, but 18 defied that instruction. the international trade secretary laid out the case for the agreement.

this debate comes at a crucial point in world trade. with the potentially disruptive rise in protectionist sentiments. free trade is the means by which we have taken collectively millions of people out of abject poverty in the last generation and we must not put that progress into reverse. we should also realise that trade is not an end in itself but a means to a wide and shared prosperity and that prosperity underpins social cohesion and in turn political stability. after exit day we will be bound by these treaties, ceta and hopefully japan, but there is no legal obligation for canada and japan to honour their obligations to us because we will be out of the eu. this is the big problem with leaving the customs union. mr speaker, we already have had substantial bilateral discussions with canada.

they agree with the united kingdom that the ceta agreement should form the basis of a bilateral agreement between the uk and canada as we leave. however, we will of course have greater leeway to look at what additional elements we might want to include when we are no longer tied to the european union. yes, a labour government would very much welcome a trade deal with canada, a trade deal built on the commercial and diplomatic ties that bind our two countries together. and that sought to further elevate our sha red standards, rights and protections and that would lead to increased economic prosperity and jobs. but, mr speaker, the eu—canada comprehensive economic and trade agreement is not such an agreement. could he for clarity tell me, is his position and the position of our party now that we believe we will be able to strike a better deal than the eu 27 as a stand—alone nation after brexit? madam deputy speaker, indeed i do.

and the reason for that is we actually said so in our manifesto. we made very clear in the manifesto that both he and i stood on, that we went to the voters of this country and he was elected on it, just as i was. i propose to stand by it, i'm not quite sure what he does. that is why, mr speaker, on this side of the house we cannot support the government in the lobby this afternoon on today's motion. several labour mps didn't take the same line. i'm not entirely clear what the front bench are going to do if this issue comes to a vote. and so i will make my own mind up based on the debate that we are having. and from what i can see, madam deputy speaker, ceta is actually quite a decent trade deal. what is not to like? and also the question we have to ask is, if not canada, who? if we were to take advice from the shadow front bench and go down the contortions of his route and not ratify this treaty, i simply ask this. what opportunities will be lost? what investments will not be made? what deals will not be done? and what jobs will not be created? well, in the end, the trade deal

was approved by 315 votes to 36. a majority of 279. of the 18 labour mps who rebelled, 14 voted in favour of the agreement and four voted against. you're watching tuesday in parliament with me, alicia mccarthy. the defence minister has said that the public might be worryingly naive about the need to invest in the uk's armed forces. tobias ellwood was speaking to the defence committee which has published a report urging the government to increase expenditure by billions of pounds to maintain uk influence with united states and other nato allies. thank you for the report,

i think it is helpful to the debate. clearly there has been a raising of the public profile of defence spend and that is good. i think if we are honest and fair, it got a little undignified. and we must move to making i think a more reasoned, convincing and cost—effective argument that unites rather than divides opinion. he said there were four stakeholders who had to be convinced about defence spending. the first is that we need to persuade all mps, not just 20 but all mps that a failure to invest would lead to the demise in our capabilities at the very time that the world is getting more dangerous. i think we need to persuade the treasury that the world is getting more dangerous and with a post brexit economy i think ever more reliant

on the security and access to international markets, without that access there is no prosperity. and if there is no prosperity then there is no money going into the coffers of the treasury and there is no money for any departments. and i think thirdly, we must underline to number ten that defence posture does matter. it is part of our national identity and allows us to sit with authority at the international top table and help us shape global events. and the last stakeholder i think is to actually persuade the nation that expects us to step forward as a global influence but possibly takes our security that we have and have enjoyed for granted. and it is perhaps worryingly naive about the need to invest in our armed forces. it is not an issue on the doorstep, as we know, in every general election. and he said the uk could only be a force for good if there was an increase in defence spending of at least 2.5%. well, a short time later, peers held a debate on nato ahead

of the summit due to be held injuly. a former defence chief, lord dannat, dismissed the current level of spending on defence, 2%, as derisory. it is no wonder that mr putin has chipped away at eastern ukraine, exploited the west's weakness over syria, mounted cyber attacks on estonia and threatened other baltic states. he is challenging the core of nato, he is challenging article five. would the us go to war over lithuania ? would the uk go to war over poland? well, we did in 1939. but we couldn't even contemplate that now. 2% spent on defence is a derisory amount. we know it. mr putin knows it. but do we care? and he said a resurgent russia was not the only threat. pointing to what he said was the rise of militant islamism. and all this comes back to the tussle.

through brexit, we are signalling a strong independent, instinct, where the traditional relationship with united states, membership with nato and our permanent membership of the security council. we just 2% of gdp, we're not putting our money where our mouth is. we're taking an enormous amount of risk and a lack of militant capabilities. a level of risk that history shows will come back sooner rather than later to bite back hard. but they government said nato transformed significantly in recent years and at game. thanks to the investment pledge, to spend 2% of gdp on defence and 20% of that on investment in you capabilities, we are reversing the long—term decline in defence spending, the three this consecutive years across europe and canada. our message is straightforward.

we see what you're doing. we have responded and we are ready to do more unless you stop. but disagreement is not inevitable. choose another path and expect a better relationship. the only contribution depends on responsibility. and for the defence secretary to be reported in relation to the prime minister, "i made her, and i can break her." that does nothing for the strength of the prime minister's ability for negotiation. it seriously undermines her authority. i must say, if these had been the days of prime minister thatcher, and chief whip jopling, for that matter, then anyone who said anything to that effect would have found themselves in a room behind the speaker's chair with a letter already written out, which they would be called upon to sign without delay, and further, in this whole

question of credibility, as the result of what many people have thought, the increased expenditure proposed in relation to the national health service, the chancellor is now, it is said, telling his cabinet colleagues that there is no more money. it is hardly the way in which to go into a summit of this importance. he too turned to the role of russia. he has twin objectives. the first is to undermiine nato and the other is to destabilise the european union. i would argue that we are helping to bring the latter of these about ourselves. and that president trump has so far done a great deal in respect to the first. lord campbell. now, they're polluting, exploitative, potentially dangerous, probably unlicensed and almost certainly near you. mps have been investigating an explosion in the number of unregulated hand carwash services around the country. it's thought there could be anything

up to 20,000 and the environmental audit committee has been looking into concerns that they are damaging the environment and abusing workers. the mps heard that many of those washing cars were victims of modern—day slavery. we studied 45 hand carwashes in detail. if i summarise it for you, none of them were observing the national minimum wage or the living wage. we have got that testimony from the workers who were working there, once we gathered their trust. obviously, in many hand carwash sites, the health and safety requirements that would be imposed on normal businesses, if you like, or legitimate businesses are not really in place and also the workwear which many of the carwash operatives wear, whilst undertaking the work, were not really compliant with regulations, particularly in relation to safety, for example hydrochloric acid, which is the spray solution which is used work cleaning alloy wheels. how serious are the health

and safety issues relating to the use of corrosive chemicals used in hand carwash? we have seen evidence of operators being burned and injured. i think the evidence is, well, we have seen evidence, we have got a connection with the queen's medical centre at the university of nottingham, we have talked to people there in relation to carwash operatives coming in and developing things like trenchfoot because their feet are soaking wet all the time. hydrochloric acid burns not necessarily from the actual sprays themselves, but the vapours stay around and just get on your skin and you get more water on it and you gradually get slow burns. so, i think the working conditions are pretty bad. staff were not just at risk from their working environment. professor clarke gave an example.

he was living effectively on site in a container, where there were, a shipping container, a former shipping container that had been converted for accommodations for the carwash workers. i think they'd got a shower in there. other electrical items. there was water, an electrical item, go and touched it and was electrocuted. the employee was trying to bypass the electricity metres, and so while showering himself, he was electrocuted, unfortunately. you also have reports of passports, id documents begin held, threats of denouncement to immigration enforcement, infliction of physical abuse, and debt bondage. can you say a little bit about some of those areas. yes. some of those, we got our information from a number of sources, including professor ian clarke's research and petrol retailers association and various police authorities. what i have noticed, especially speaking with police authorities, again, this differs across all localities, so in some area, police authorities there were definitely, say it is definitely a case of modern slavery. victims are being held in bondage, and they are not being paid. in one case, workers were made

to hoover coins out of a car, to survive on. what percentage of them, would you say, are going to be regulated operators, and what per cent would be a pop—up covers. of the hand carwashes, i would suggest 90% plus would be unregulated. so the vast majority. a tiny number are regulated, the vast majority are unregulated. absolutely correct. so how can you tell the difference? certainly, signs of poor housekeeping, signs of poor safety clothing for people who are doing work and certainly when you actually go to use it, if you do, it is a cash only environment. you cannot pay by credit or debit card. it is cash only, and therefore, it leads onto a number of, i am told by the chair and others, likely criminal activities, including sale of illicit drugs on the site, including the sale

of illicit tobacco and even one case in north wales, prostitution services while you get your car hand car washed. now, how do you balance demands for tougher sentences with calls to cut the prison population? it's the conundrum facing thejustice minister, rory stewart. he told mps that he reckons demands for tougher punishment would rise as the view of victims became more prominent. generally, in society, i feel that over the next 15 years, there is going to be an increasing suspicion of perceived elites, and increasing demand, i don't know if you call it a populist demand or democratic demand for the expression of the citizens‘ views, and that would express himself i believe

in more and more focus on victims. you can see this already in people coming forward all the time in legislation. probably the most dramatic example is going to be around sentences for people killed in car accidents. so death by dangerous driving. death by careless driving. traditionally, the view of the law, as you know, would be that somebody driving the car was not intending to kill that person and therefore the sentence length was correspondingly shorter. we are moving to a situation now that victims are increasingly saying, "if you kill someone, that feels to the victim, feels to the victim like murder," even if it does not appear to be in the point of the law. and you can see members of parliamen coming forward with more and more pressure. for that, for new laws and sentences on things like attacks on service dogs, attacks on police officers, the pressure for sentences is rising. and that has to be balanced against all the research and evidence we gather which is pushing towards a smaller prison population.

many of us have very strong reasons to want to reduce the prison population, particularly around short sentences. we feel stronly it does not do any good but this voice of the victims, i think, is going to be a huge challenge over the next 15 years. rory stewart. now, it's consumed hours of parliamentary time and frayed nerves of many an mp minister, but the eu withdrawal bill has finally become law. the bill, which transfers over eu law, allowing for it to be amended after brexit, cleared its final parliamentary hurdles last week, after a few final skirmishes and a threatened tory rebellion. the speaker, john bercow, read out the list of bills which had been given royal assent. european union withdrawal act 2018. cheering cheers there from some mps. of course it's not the end of the story, with plenty more brexit bills to come before we exit the eu in march. finally, the conservative

and former cabinet minister peter lilley has taken his seat in house of lords. the ex—secretary of state for social security was flanked by former ministerial colleagues lord baker and lord lamont as he swore the oath of allegiance to the queen. also joining the upper chamber was the former democratic unionist mp for south antrim, william mcrae. and that's it from me for now. dojoin me on bbc parliament on wednesday night at 11pm for another round up of the day here at westminster, including the highlights from prime minister's questions. but for now, for me, alicia mccarthy, goodbye. —— prime minister's questions. well, we've seen temperatures up to

31 degrees celsius. that was on tuesday. wednesday is going to be another hot day, and i expect temperatures to go above 30 degrees once again. lots of hot sunshine on the way for many of us midweek. scotla nd the way for many of us midweek. scotland and northern ireland could have the highest temperatures on wednesday. starts off with a lot of sunshine across the uk. temperatures first thing in the morning will be around 12, 13 degrees. it may be the case there could be some cloud first thing in the morning around the eastern counties, could be quite grey grey but not for very long, soon the sun will be out and then it's a case of sunshine all—round. a bit of a breeze around south—eastern and southern areas meaning the temperatures won't be spectacularly high. in fact, temperatures won't be spectacularly high. infact, in norwich, around 20, 26in high. infact, in norwich, around 20, 26 in london but in northern ireland and the lowlands of scotland we could get to 30 celsius. here's the forecast for thursday and friday, look at perth, 30. welcome to bbc news, broadcasting to viewers

in north america and around the globe. my name is lewis vaughanjones. our top stories: a victory for president trump as the us supreme court upholds the travel ban targeting five muslim—majority countries. many migrants now face a more uncertain future. we have a special report from the us—mexico border. fresh claims of atrocities against myanmar‘s rohingya minority. amnesty international accuses the country's army chiefs. and a last—gasp goal from argentina sends them through to the last 16 of the word cup. we'll bring you all the latest from moscow.