welcome to bbc news, broadcasting to viewers in north america and around the globe. because federal agencies have been my name‘s mike embley. our top stories: barred from using its products. huawei isn‘t backing down. the chinese technology giant the company made the announcement announces that it‘s suing the us government. at a news conference in shenzhen. republican senator martha mcsally the lawsuit was filed says she was raped by a senior officer in the us district court while serving in the military. i blame myself. for the eastern district of texas. i was ashamed and confused. a us senator who was the first woman to fly in combat for the air force i thought i was strong. but felt powerless. has said she was raped by a superior officer while serving behind bars — in the military. the us singer r kelly is back in custody after a court hearing martha mcsally said she didn't report the attack at the time over unpaid child support. because she lacked faith in the system. and we talk to the the american singer r kelly is back celebrated photographer who‘s in custody after a court hearing been documenting british society in chicago on unpaid child support. for nearly half a century. officials said he'd be detained until he paid more than $160,000 that were owed. he's also facing separate charges of sexual assault, which he denies. now on bbc news, wednesday in parliament.

hello there and welcome to wednesday in parliament. coming up, jeremy corbyn says there aren't enough police to tackle knife crime. you cannot keep communities safe on the cheap by cuts and privatisation. you have to invest in all of our communities. but theresa may insists money is going in to law enforcement. it is a fact that more money is being put into the police this year, that more money is being put into the police next year. there's a defeat for the government on its trade bill, as peers back calls to keep the uk in a customs union after brexit. and a lib dem has a damning verdict on the government's plans to protect workers‘ rights after brexit. it's like trading in a car that has

a lifetime guarantee for a lemon without a log bookjust because the floor mats are thrown in. but first, theresa may and jeremy corbyn have clashed over the rise in knife crime. the prime minister is to hold a downing street summit to look at ways of tackling what she said was a cycle of mindless violence. but the labour leader claimed the police didn't have the resources to deal with the problem. their clash during prime minister's questions followed the killing of 17—year—olds jodie chesney and yousef makki in separate knife attacks. they were the ninth and tenth teenage victims of fatal stabbings this year. the prime minister told mps the death of anyone through an act of violence was an appalling tragedy. a growing number of young people have lost their lives in a cycle of mindless violence that has shocked us all. our thoughts and prayers are with the friends and families of all the victims. the responsibility for these crimes lies with the perpetrators of them, but we must all do more to ensure

thatjustice is served and to tackle the root causes of this violence, so that we can bring it to an end and ensure the safety of our young people. mr speaker, i will be holding a summit in number 10 in the coming days to bring together ministers, community leaders, agencies and others, and i will also be meeting with the victims of these appalling crimes to listen to their stories and to explore what more we can do as a whole society to tackle this problem. many of us in this house will have sat in the living rooms of homes where a young person has lost their lives through knife crime, and will never forget that experience and never forget that feeling of hopelessness and loss that those families are going through. we owe it to those families, and those young people that lost their lives, to do far more about knife crime and far more about ensuring there are sufficient resources for the police to deal with it. he said the number of police officers had fallen by 21,000 under this government. does the prime minister now regret the cuts in police numbers, and will she undertake that in this review, they will be restored

to the level they were formally at? i would say to the right honourable gentlemen, as i havejust indicated, we are putting more resources into the police this year... it's no good, it's no good members on the opposition benches standing up and saying, "no, you're not." it is a fact that more money is being put into the police this year, that more money is being put into the police next year. the labour leader widened his attack to include austerity and cuts in public spending. can the prime minister not recognise there has to be a holistic response to this? you cannot keep communities safe on the cheap by cuts and privatisation. you have to invest in all of our communities, in every part of this country, something this government is incapable of doing. an attack rejected by theresa may. more money into our local

authorities, 1.3 billion next year, voted against by the right honourable gentleman and the labour party. more money into our police, nearly £1 billion extra available to them the next year, voted against by the right honourable gentleman and the labour party. jodie chesney‘s local mp spoke of her "profound sadness" at the murder of her constituent. the public don't want to see politicians throw blame at one another for these stolen lives. they want to see them take responsibility for what is within their control, provide resource if resource is necessary, and then demonstrate a relentless and total commitment to snuffing out violent crime. i welcome the announcement of the emergency summit, but what action will the prime minister be taking after that, constantly, to drive performance on these issues until we get the result the public rightly demand to keep children safe? can i say to my honourable friend, as i did earlier, any death of a young person at the hands of violence is a terrible tragedy? and i recognise, as she says, her constituency has seen just one

of the latest examples of a young life cut short far too early. can i also say to her, yes, what we are doing is bringing... as i said, bringing together ministers, local governments, police and others, other agencies? this needs to be a cross society approach in terms of dealing with this issue, because it's notjust about catching the perpetrators of the crime, it's about preventing crime from taking place in first place. the arguments over knife crime and how to tackle it dominated pmqs. but with little more than three weeks before the uk is due to leave the european union, mps also took their chance to question theresa may about brexit and the future of eu citizens living here. toby mcdonald is 87 years old. she was brought up under nazi occupation in denmark. she's lived in scotland for 59 years. why is she being forced to register in a country she's called home for almost the last 60 years, prime minister?

i would say to the right honourable gentleman, we want to ensure that eu citizens living here have their rights protected. we want to be able to ensure that they have the necessary support that they need, and indeed, the recognition of their status here in the united kingdom. if the right honourable gentleman is interested in defending and protecting the rights of eu citizens here in this country, then i hope he will vote for the deal, which does exactly that. a message the prime minister also offered to a conservative who had a suggestion for the first day of lent. would my right honourable friend agree with me that it would do our national soul some good if we all took up voting for the government to leave the eu, with her good deal and in an orderly fashion, on the 29th of march? can i thank my honourable friend? he has put forward a very positive

suggestion for members of this house, during lent, to vote for the government in the meaningful vote, and then of course across this house, we would all be able to give up being a member of the european union on the 29th of march. now, there were two defeats for the government in the house of lords on its trade bill. the first saw peers demand parliament have a say on ministers‘ negotiating strategy before embarking on future trade talks. the second defeat saw the lords back a labour proposal calling for the uk to stay in a customs union or trading tax arrangement with the eu. a customs union with the eu would guarantee a continued uk access to existing eu trade agreements without having to roll over after the 29th of march, though that doesn't seem to be going terribly well. it would enable the uk to have a say on the direction of future european trade negotiations, allowing us to push forward our principles on development, strong standards and our values in tackling issues such as climate change. it would offer certainty and stability to british industry, thereby protecting jobs and allowing businesses to secure new trading opportunities.

it's becoming a cliche of business needs certainty, but for many businesses, that is now too late. the least that this house can now do in this trade bill is to state with a degree... to offer a higher level of certainty to businesses, that there is some support for the uk to remain a member of a customs union. the red lines laid down by the prime minister are ones which have stopped the possibility of getting a deal, including a customs union and a single market possibly, which would have avoided the difficulties with northern ireland, which would have safeguarded the position of gibraltar, and more than anything, would have looked after the manufacturing industries for which we worked so hard in wales, with different parties in government, to secure over the last 30 years. but not everyone thought a continued customs union was the way forward. i think that the customs union has not been quite so marvellous for this country as noble lords

opposite suggest, and i very much hope that the government will stick to their policy of leaving on a basis where we will have our own independent trade policy, which will enable us to do more trade and enter into trade agreements with economically faster growing parts of the world. what this amendment proposes to do is, right at the 11th hour, when we're in sight of an agreement, we have an agreement... we have an agreement and we have an exit day which meets those criteria. at this 11th hour, it proposes to require her majesty's government to reopen the whole negotiation process which has been going on over the past two years to somehow help business. i don't think that many businesses would sign up

for that level of reopening of negotiation and uncertainty. and of course, again, it presupposed in the presentation of this that the outcome and benefits of a customs union are known. no, they would have to be negotiated. but when it came to the vote, peers ignored lord bates‘ appeals and backed the call for the government to try to keep the uk in a customs union by 66 votes. ministers needs the trade bill to pass before the uk‘s scheduled exit on march 29th. you‘re watching wednesday in parliament with me, alicia mccarthy. the business secretary has been told his plans to protect workers‘ rights after brexit are like trading in a car with a lifetime guarantee for a lemon without a log book. mps have been promised a vote on any changes to workers‘ rights after brexit as theresa may seeks labour support to pass

her withdrawal deal. greg clark told mps they‘d be given a say over whether or not to adopt any new protections introduced by the eu and to stay aligned with its standards. while the eu sets minimum requirements in many areas of workers‘ rights and health and safety requirements, time and again, britain has been in advance of them and has chosen to exceed them. the uk offers 39 weeks of statutory maternity pay compared with the 1a weeks required by the eu. we‘ve given fathers and partners a statutory right to paternity leave, something that the eu is now onlyjust starting to consider. our national living wage is one of the highest in the eu, and the low pay commission that advises on it is widely respected. because we have not in practise been limited to eu standards, there‘s no reason why we should not maintain this record of leadership outside the eu. he said there‘d be two requirements. first — a duty on ministers bringing forward legislation on employment

or workplace health and safety to make sure that it wasn‘t regressive. secondly, in regard to the future eu legislation... parliament will be given the opportunity, at least every six months, to consider any changes to eu workers‘ rights and health and safety standards in the workplace. the government would be required to table an amendable motion on its intended course of action on those new eu rules. for example, the government may set out that it intends to legislate, to give effect to those commitments, or that it intends to give effect to them in a different way, or that it does not intend to give effect to them, setting out its rationale. sadly, the proposals, as drafted, don't yet provide full guarantee nor assurance for uk workers, and i do hope that this spirit of collegiality will continue and we'll work together quickly to address my concerns and provide the changes and assurances that i seek. now, as he knows, the tuc have stated today, "in the face of a government determined to reduce rights, these measures would, in no meaningful way, compensate for the loss

of the protections that currently exist. the assessment of less favourability will be decided by parliamentary majority and not by the objective standards of the uk courts. the provisions can be easily revoked by a hostile government, and even without being revoked, they can be rendered fairly meaningless in practise. " 0n the promise not to water down existing rights and protections, even if a bill is found to be incompatible, there are, at present, no powers to stop the government proceeding. she said the proposals didn‘t yet show the government took workplace rights seriously. you'll forgive me if the political party who created legislation the master and servants act 0f1823, which codified corporal punishment for workers, has got a good record in workers' rights, and indeed bringing us up to date, the anti—trade union act. and can i say to the secretary of state, i think that rather than guaranteeing or protecting workers' rights, this statement does no such thing. in fact, it would be a misrepresentation to suggest otherwise.

the secretary of state will be aware that currently, the eu are discussing regulations on the gig economy and rights for working parents, which are far better than can be found in the current government's good work plan. the business secretary knows, as i do, that he has conservative colleagues who would like to see workers' rights diluted or swept away in the name of deregulation. and who knows? one of them could be prime minister before long. so, can he confirm that the mechanisms he has outlined could be repealed by future government passing primary legislation? and isn't it true that exchanging enduring eu protections on the environment and workers' rights for these flimsy mechanisms is like trading in a car that has a lifetime guarantee for a lemon without a log bookjust because the floor mats are thrown in? i disagree with the honourable lady. i would say that there are far more of my colleagues who recognise that the benefits for the uk of being a country in a jurisdiction that is associated with high

standards rather than a race to the bottom is the way that we will prosper as a country, and i think she should have a little more faith in that. greg clark. the work and pensions secretary has announced that disabled pensioners will no longer face "unnecessary" repeat assessments to continue receiving benefits. that means more than 270,000 people will not have personal independence payments or pips regularly reviewed. but campaigners for the disabled say that will mean millions of younger people will "still be stuck in a failing system". a point put to minister bya labourmp. i welcome yesterday‘s announcement that there will be no pip reassessment for disabled people over state pension age. but why aren‘t all disabled people, particularly those with aggressive conditions such as multiple sclerosis, and cancer being exempt from repeat assessments? i have a constituent with terminal secondary breast cancer that it‘s gone into her bones and she‘s

being refused pip. i'd like to remind her that we did bring in the severe conditions criteria so that people who have reached the highest level of support on pip will not be routinely reassessed. so, we have introduced a ten—year light—touch review. so many people with the sorts of conditions and illnesses that the lady describes will not be undergoing further reassessments and i am pleased that we have worked very closely with the medical profession who i think weren't often aware of the special processes that could so easily be put in place to enable people to get benefits within days. sarah newton. now, a warning from the head of the civil service in northern ireland about the potentially "grave" consequences of leaving the eu without an agreement has sparked a political backlash from pro—brexit politicians. in a letter to stormont‘s political parties, david sterling said no deal could lead to a sharp rise in unemployment and a halt to cross border trade in agricultural products. his letter has been dismissed

by brexiteers as "scare tactics" and prompted sharp exchanges in the northern ireland committee and on the floor of the commons. are you and your colleagues prepared to risk the consequences of a no—deal brexit? if we finish up with a no deal, it will be as a result of the intransigence of the eu. we have been quite clear all along and the government has made it quite clear all along that they would wish to have a deal. this is a really serious issue. i mean, i‘m going to quote from the head of the north ireland civil service, a man of great

stature and wisdom, david sterling. who warned yesterday of the potentially in his words, "grave consequences of a no—deal brexit" and he said, "it could have a profound, long—lasting impact on society in northern ireland". is that the risk that the dup is prepared to take for a no deal? i think you've got to look at the timing of this. a regurgitation of an earlier letter that he wrote. secondly, i know a civil servant shouldn't get involved politically, but i've no doubt that this was written for a political motive. it's a scare tactic because if you look at the studies which have been made about the impact of a no deal, i don't care if he's the head of the civil service or whether he is santa claus, it really doesn't matter. the fact of the matter is he has got it wrong. a short time later, lady hermon raised david sterling‘s letter in the commons. i like to ask the minister how he is going to reassure the business community today after the very serious warning yesterday by the head of the north ireland civil service, david sterling, that there would be "grave consequences if we have a no—deal brexit"? mr speaker, i think that a number of people will have raised their eyebrows at such politically—charged comments from a civil servant. and the simple answer to avoiding any of the scenarios which people may or may not agree with, which were being painted

by david sterling, is to find a deal which will work and which therefore means we won't be in no deal territory and that will, i think, solve the problem, i hope for everybody. david sterling, the head of northern ireland's civil service gave the honest assessment that it was apparent that businesses in northern ireland are not adequately prepared for a no—deal brexit. mr speaker, who could possibly blame northern ireland especially when the uk government is not prepared — i'lljust ask the transport secretary. but given the stark advice, why wouldn't the secretary of state support goals to take no—deal off the negotiating table now? mr speaker, i disagree with the honourable gentleman who i have enormous respect for it that the government is not prepared for no—deal. we are working towards preparing for all of eventual outcomes. but we want to leave the european union with a deal. we want to ensure we respect the results of the referendum and leave with a deal and the best way to do that is vote for the deal. karen bradley. well, during that same session, the northern ireland secretary said killings by the security forces

during the troubles were "not crimes". karen bradley had been responding to questions about legacy issues, with the dup‘s emma little—pengelly suggesting there had been too few prosecutions. very few prosecutions and investigations are under way. innocent victims are being left behind with thousands of unsolved cases. when is the secretary of state going to address this issue and put in place a mechanism to investigate the over 90% of acts of terrorism that caused those murders during the troubles? mr speaker, the honourable lady sets out the figures very powerfully. over 90% of the killings during the troubles where the hands of terrorists, every single one of those was a crime. the fewer than 10% that were at the hands of the military and police were not crimes. they were people acting under orders and under instruction and fulfilling their duties in a dignified and appropriate way. and i look forward to working with her more to ensure that we can

deliver the much—needed reforms and changes that we all want to see. later in a point of order, karen bradley said those comments "might have been open to misinterpretation". the point i was seeking to convey was that the overwhelming majority of those who served carried out their duties with courage, professionalism, and integrity and within the law. i was not referring to any specific cases but expressing a general view. of course, where there is evidence of wrongdoing, it should always be investigated whoever is responsible. these are of course matters for the police, prosecuting authorities who are independent to government. karen bradley. the international trade secretary liam fox has declined to rule out backing a no—deal brexit if theresa may‘s withdrawal agreement is voted down by mps next week. dr fox told the commons international trade committee that no deal was "hugely sub optimal, compared to getting a deal" and all mps should back mrs may‘s

agreement in the vote due by march 12th. the prime minister has said that if the house of commons rejects the withdrawal agreement next week, it will get a vote on whether to extend article 50. so what do you view as the most likely outcome of the votes next week, and does he still consider the chances of a no—deal brexit to be 60—110 as you said in august? i thought that i might have a better chance of predicting the lottery numbers as guessing what the house of commons would do next week. you did seem quite confident. there‘s been previous confidence of this, of course... well, it's dependent upon a lot of factors. what‘s your opinion on leaving the european union without an agreement? it's not as good as leaving the european union with an agreement, which is why i will vote for it. so, if the deal goes nowhere and the choice is between a no—deal or revoking article 50 or extending, what is your preference in those three? i will abide by collective responsibility, chairman, i'm not going to pre—empt discussions that we may have

in government on that. have you given it any thought as to which option? because you are a leading member of the government. 0h, indeed. but unlike some of my other colleagues, i prefer to have my conversations in cabinet rather than in the media. so you are keeping no—deal on the table? as i say, i will make my views known if the deal does not go through, and i think i still will campaign over the next few days to make sure that that deal does go through. does that mean that you could potentially be voting for no deal this time next week, potentially? potentially. all things are possible. so, yes is the answer? no, potentially all things are possible is the answer to that question. so we have got before us a secretary of state for trade who potentially, in seven days' time, could be voting for a no—deal brexit?

no, a secretary of state who wants the house to vote for a deal, including all members of this committee, because he believes that's the best way to avoid unnecessary friction in our economy. you described no—deal as "survivable", the word you use. industry and major corporate leaders are saying that no—deal would be catastrophic and would be existential, that it would be seriously damaging, and i‘m talking about major names that you are familiar with. are they wrong? to be existential means that it threatens your existence. if the argument is that not getting a deal with the european union would end and threaten the existence of the uk economy, i think that's hyperbole. butjust to be very clear, ford are talking about their business. they‘re not talking about the uk economy, because of course that will survive in some form, there will be some residual economy for sure. they‘re talking about their existence, their existence as a business and they are saying it will be catastrophic for them. that‘s the point. well, can ijust say i completely take exception to that view? that leaving the european union without an agreement with the european union would leave us with a residual economy of some form. this is an economy with record

employment, with half the rate of unemployment as the eurozone. this is a country that had a 20% increase in foreign direct investment last year when continental europe went down 73%. this is a country where we are seeing our strongest export performance of all time. the idea that not leaving with a deal, which i accept is hugely sub optimal, compared to getting a deal would leave us with a residual economy of some kind, does not help to encourage rational debate about this issue. liam fox. and that‘s it from me for now, but i‘ll be back at the same time tomorrow with another round up of the day here at westminster. but for now from me, alicia mccarthy, goodbye.

a vigorous jet stream pushing areas of low pressure right across the uk is the weather pattern we‘re in. and we are staying in all the way through the weekend into next week as well. here is a recent satellite picture. this is swirl of cloud is an area of low pressure, edging its way eastwards. but as it does that it is dragging in behind it some colder air as well. and what will be a strong and gusty wind as we go on through thursday. we‘ve still got some wet weather to clear away as well. most noticeable, for thursday‘s weather, will be that strong wind. and for many of us how much colder it feels compared with wednesday. this is how we are starting the day. nothing particularly cold first thing, there is too much wind and cloud for the temperatures to have dropped too far overnight, and this is where we are starting the day with wet weather through northern ireland, scotland, some hill snow. it is pushing slowly southwards during the day, but not much reaching the far south of wales or southern england until quite late on.

and, again, that‘s moving south with strong, gusty winds. let us take a wind speeds and temperatures during the afternoon at three o‘clock and where the wet weather will be. very gusty winds. much of scotland will be brightening up. a few showers following on. wintry on the hills. brightening up for northern ireland through the afternoon. a lot of cloud through northern england, into the midlands, east anglia, with the outbreaks of rain pushing south. bright spells in south wales into southern england, maybe the odd passing show during the day. also very gusty winds. in the evening we will pick up showers in the far south and south—east. that is clearing away on thursday night and into friday morning. as that happens and the winds eventually ease, temperatures will drop away. plenty of widespread frost as friday begins. temperatures will be lower, away from towns and city centres. highland scotland could be —5 or —6 as friday begins. the odd mist and fog match. a lot of sunshine to start the day, not going to last. quite quickly cloud increasing from the west. quite a cold feeling day. you can see more hill snow to come in scotland out of that.

that‘s friday covered. i want to show you the big picture for the weekend. still with the jet stream driving weather disturbances across us. it will be wet at times over the weekend. looks to be pretty windy throughout the weekend as well. but still something to play for in the detail aboutjust how wet and when it will be wet. so keep up—to—date with the latest forecast, but these are the main thing is for the weekend. just bear in mind it‘s not going to be wet all the time, 00:29:40,715 --> 2147483051:51:35,072 there will be some 2147483051:51:35,072 --> 4294966103:13:29,430 sunshine at times, too.