and refocus the us immigration system. he said younger, better educated, english—speaking workers who already have job offers in the united states should make up more than half of all legal immigrants — up from twelve percent at present. china is threatening retaliation against the latest american sanctions — which effectively block companies in the united states from using products made by the chinese tech giant huawei. the white house says the order is to protect national security. taiwan's expected to become the first place in asia to legalise same—sex marriage. the declaration was actually made in may 2017 — with parliament given two years to enact the changes. law—makers will vote on three draft bills — each with a different view of what equality looks like. now on bbc news,

thursday in parliament. hello again, and welcome to thursday in parliament. a government u—turn as ministers rip up their own blueprint on the probation service. the announcement that he's made today covers up one of the most catastrophic pieces of public policy and waste of public money that we've seen in many a long year. theresa may promises to set out her retirement plans after the next brexit vote. mps assess her strategy. doing the same thing over again and again and again, and hoping that you'll get some different result as a conclusion of that. and an mp shares his experience of serving as a soldier in northern ireland. i was investigated along with others.

the investigations were thorough, aggressive, and bloody awful to go through. all that to come and more. but first: thejustice secretary has announced that the supervision of all offenders on probation in england and wales is being put back in the public sector, after failings with the part privatisation of the system. it reverses changes made to the national probation service, or nps, in 2014 by the then—justice secretary, chris grayling. david gauke explained why he was making the u—turn. i believe that bringing responsibility for delivery of all management within the nps will remove some of the complexities that have caused challenges in the current model of delivery, and make it more likely that an offender will have continuity of supervision throughout their sentence, while strengthening processes for managing risk.

alongside these changes, we will develop a more clearly defined role for the private and voluntary sector in delivering core intervention to offenders, and securing innovation in the provision of these services. the national audit office said problems with part privatisation had cost taxpayers nearly £500 million. labour backbenchers were scathing about the cost and the former justice secretary, chris grayling. the announcement that he's made today covers up one of the most catastrophic pieces of public policy and wastes of public money that we've seen in many a long year. it has let down communities who suffer from crime, it has let down victims of crime, and it has let down those people who commit crimes who have a right to try at least to change their ways. will the minister say something about the secretary of state, one of his predecessors, who actually thought that this would work? and will he talk to us about ministerial accountability? because there seems to be absolutely

none of it left in this flailing government. david gauke said reoffending rates had fallen, and there were areas of good practise, but other labour mps piled in to criticise the changes chris grayling had made. we know from reports that this outsourcing error has wasted nearly £500 million. but can the secretary of state tell me what assessment he has made of the human cost of privatisation, including those badly injured or even killed by people under probation supervision, such as my constituent, jacqueline wileman? every individual case, such as the one that the honourable member highlights, is a tragedy. what i would say is that we want to do everything we can to ensure that such cases are kept toa minimum. my focus is on ensuring that we have a sustainable system for the future, and i believe what i've outlined to the house today provides exactly that.

when are we going to know what the impact on crime that all our constituents are concerned about, of the secretary of state for transport? i mean, this is something that this increase in crime that he must've caused by this flawed probation is service is something that only a mafia don could be proud of. david gauke explained some of the problems facing the community rehabilitation companies, or crcs. the caseload of low and medium risk offenders has been significantly lower than was anticipated when this system was set up. as a consequence, the crcs have not had the work that they expected. and as a consequence, we've been in something of a vicious cycle — vicious circle, because there's been less work, the clcs have been financially under strain and they've invested less. and that's why in some cases, the service has not been

what we needed it to be. can i welcome the statement — and i hope that anyone who actually cares about the criminaljustice system will welcome the statement? because it is actually a good thing for governments to reflect upon the experience and adjust policy, and that's what the secretary of state should be commended for doing. does he agree that a critical part of the new arrangement must be to ensure sentencer confidence ? and therefore — not only must there be continuity of supervision, also an assurance to sentencers of the quality of supervision? and will he perhaps look up the means by which the judiciary can be better involved in the follow—up to sentencing to ensure that that is the case? i think that's a very interesting point, and certainly something i'm keen to explore. but i think the chairman of the justice select committee has hit the nail on the head here. sentencer confidence is key, and it's well—known that there is support among the house for trying to move away short

custodial sentences that appear to be ineffective when it comes to rehabilitation. if we are to move away from that, we need to ensure that we have robust alternatives — that there are robust community sentences available, and we need to build the confidence for that. and this is a part of achieving exactly that. could the secretary of state please assure that in the future, he will make sure that his department is not run on ideological grounds, but on grounds based on evidence? and to that end, can he assure us that this new system — that we need people to deal with what is basically which i welcome — won't overly rely on digitalization, but will remember that we need people to deal with what is basically a people service? david gauke agreed that probation officers should be valued, and their role was crucial in bringing down crime. theresa may has promised to set a timetable for the election of her successor after the next brexit vote. the agreement follows a meeting between the prime minister

and senior tory mps. if she loses the vote on her brexit plan, already rejected three times, sources tell the bbc she would resign. and we do now have a date approximately for that vote. i can also inform colleagues that the withdrawal agreement bill will have a second reading during the beginning of monday, 3june, 2019. the bill will be introduced as soon as possible to give colleagues the chance to consider the provisions within it. of course, they've already voted on and against the deal in principle three times. mps were keen to find out exactly what they'd be voting on in the withdrawal agreement bill. and whether civil servants would break the so—called purdah rules in play before elections by publishing the bill. there have been noises off from numberten, who said that the bill will be published next week. if the bill is published before 23 may, could she publish the advice and perhaps lay it in the library

whether this would be a breach of the purdah rules? because we do have an impartial civil service, and we don't want them to be compromised while there is an election going on. it's important in the interests of democracy, mr speaker, that we do see the bill as soon as possible, but not breach any purdah rules. andrea leadsom said the government had checked and there were no issues around purdah. the snp doubted whether mps would actually vote for the bill. in advance of the withdrawal agreement bill, mr speaker, can we possibly have a debate about masochism? because it seems to me that the very definition of may—ite conservatism seems to be doing the same thing over again and again and again, and hoping that you might get some different result as a conclusion of that. it's one condition that seems to involve dilution, deafness, self—flagellation, eventually leading to schism, paralysis, and then eventual political death.

the idea that she'll somehow get this through this time is almost like abandoning all sense of reason. they're all rushing out to tell her that they're not ready to support her and this withdrawal agreement? conservative brexiteers can't wait to see the legislation. so could it be published so that members of this house can actually decide how they'll debate and vote on it? but more importantly, sir, could delete or explained to me why it's coming back in the first week after recess? we have the very important d—day celebrations that week, and also on the political side, the peterborough by—election. and we have donald trump coming that week. is it the intention of the leader to invite donald trump to sit in the special box in the chamber reserved for important people so he can see how british democracy works on a major constitutional bill? well first, can i say that the president of

the united states will be very welcome as far as i'm concerned in this place? he asked specifically about the timing of the withdrawal agreement bill, and it's quite clear that in order for us to leave the european union in line with the will of the referendum in 2016, we need to get on with it. that's why the bill is being brought forward, and we certainly will publish the bill in time for colleagues to be able to consider the legislation. so what could possibly go wrong? well, the government doesn't have a majority and many conservative mps don't like the withdrawal agreement — already defeated three times. and the shadow brexit secretary, has told mps that labour will vote against the bill unless there's an agreed cross party brexit deal. in february, the secretary of state told this house, and i quote, "the withdrawal agreement bill is a significant piece of legislation and we will need to get it through the house. but the key issue is getting

the deal through because once we've done that, we will have the basis for the necessary consensus in the house to approach that legislation." that makes sense. deal first, implement second. so can the secretary of state tell us, will the government hold a fourth meaningful vote before the withdrawal agreement bill is introduced? or will the house be asked to do the opposite of what he advocated in february and implement a deal that's not been approved? stephen barclay refered to the tory labour talks. those talks, as the gentelman knows, are ongoing, including the discussion between the prime minister and the leader of the opposition this week. what we have made clear, and what the prime minister has made clear, is we will bring the withdrawal agreement legislation to the house the week after recess, and the house will get an opportunity to vote at that point. i would have thought it is clear that if the prime minister's deal is put for a fourth time, if it is allowed, it will fail just as it has failed

three times already. but i want to make it clear that labour opposes the idea of passing the withdrawal agreement bill without an agreed deal. that would put the cart before the horse. and labour will vote against second reading on that basis. so how on earth does the secretary think that a bill to implement a deal that isn't before the house can pass in two weeks' time? or is this about keeping the prime minister in office for another week to give her a lifeline for today's meeting at the 22 committee? we have been clear, and i think these talks now with the bench opposite have been going on for over six weeks, we have been clear that the house has looked at the meaningful vote on three occasions and made clear its view. the question therefore, and it came through from amendments from a number of members of this house, as to whether there

were changes to the withdrawal agreement bill which would enable it to command a wider body of support. and it is on that basis that not only have we had those discussions, but indeed he has welcomed those discussions. stephen barclay. you're watching thursday in parliament with me, david cornock. still to come: are our children being taught the facts about climate change? the government has been accused of a "rancid backstairs deal" with sinn fein over reports that plans to protect armed forces veterans from prosecution will not apply to northern ireland. bloody some conservative mps fear that former soldiers involved in the bloody sunday killing of 28 unarmed civilians in 1972 could be prosecuted, whereas veterans who served overseas could be offered legal protected for actions carried out in the course of duty after 10 years. mr speaker, after the appalling tragic events in londonderry, we all want to see the northern

ireland executive re—established. of course we do. but that cannot be at the price of a rancid, backs stayers deal between the northern ireland office and sinn fein ira, to sell corporaljohnny atkins down the river as the price of reestablishing the executive. up with that, sir, i believe, this house will not put. we have a moral duty to defend those who defended us. and we abrogate that duty if for reasons of political convenience we allow the scapegoating of our veterans to pander to terrorists. i am sure my honourable friend speaks for everybody in this house, he certainly speaks for me, when he says we will have no rancid political deals here. that is not acceptable and it is something which if we are going to ask people

to potentially put their lives on the line, to serve in her majesty's armed forces, anywhere in the world, then we need to make sure we are doing the right thing by them when they have done the right thing by their country. as he will also understand, as somebody who has served, the importantance of military discipline, that is not an unqualified thing because there are rules within the armed forces, but providing people having to adhere to those rules, then we in this place on all sides of the aisle and across society owe something in return and therefore there will be there no rancid political deals under my watch and i'm sure he will be absolutely certain to make sure that that cannot happen more broadly. it is very hard for me to recognise that when a soldier has broken that solemn oath of allegiance to the queen, the solemn oath to uphold our laws, and willfully breaks that, leading in the death of individuals,

that is something that should be put beyond time for investigation. i think we have to be very clear that in this house, investigating the most serious crimes — a death has taken place — crimes, we have to be resolute and absolute so there can be no statue of limitations. crime is crime. murder is murder. and we need to establish as a house, as a nation, that our principles uphold the rule of law. uphold not simply our international obligations, uphold our moral obligations. the good friday agreement remains incredibly important today, and we have duty to defer to the frameworks underneath it. david cameron, when he was prime minister, gave a formal apology for the events of bloddy sunday and he said what happened was unjustified and unjustifiable and it was wrong. i would suggest that it is reasonable having acknowledged this that we determine whether anybody is culpable of criminality for the events of bloody sunday. i completed seven tours

of northern ireland, all with the infantry or associated units. i lost many men. and i was involved in fatality shootings. i was investigated, along with others, the investigations were thorough, aggressive, and bloody awful to go through. when the investigations were completed, we sometimes had to go to court to prove that we acted in accordance with the yellow card. i told two soldiers in 1978 who were with me that because they had been to court, and been proved innocent, and acted within the law, they would never ever be asked to do such a thing again. how the hell can our government allow such people to be investigated again?

some mps argued that soldiers were being treated differently from suspected terrorists who, under the peace process, were given so called "letters of comfort" to say they were no longer wanted for past crimes. could the minister explain what the fundamental difference that there is between soldiers following orders in uniform in afghanistan and iraq and soldiers following orders in uniform in northern ireland? other than a militant republican drive to rewrite history, to make it seem as though their bloodlust against the three scottish soldiers and all of those other men and women slaughtered by evil people was in some way acceptable. we must have equal treatment for all who served in army uniform, wherever it was, or is in the world. people suggest we should have some statue of limitations for forces that have been serving abroad. and they need to realise that if we try and do that in the uk, that statue of limitations, according to human rights law,

it would have to apply to all sides of the conflict in northern ireland. and the northern ireland... as i've already said... they do not stop prosecutions under the latest legal guidance. so therefore, we have to come up with something which gets us to the point he is trying to illustrate, it has to have a different legal foundation to it. i wish it was simpler. i wish it wasn't the case, but it is. we have to take the world as we find it and that should be an explanation about why it is hard but not a satisfactoryjustification for not trying and not getting there and not getting there soon. i don't know how i can honestly with a clean heart say that my government represents the best interest of ex—servicemen and women who have served their country. i simply say to him this simple principle — when natural justice collides with the law, we change the law. that happens to be correct,

that is why we are talking about bringing a bill to parliament in order to change the law in order to put this right. john penrose. the government has been condemned over its rejection of a definition of islamophobia proposed by a cross party group of mps. the all party parliamentary group on british muslims wanted to define it as "a type of racism that targets expressions of muslimness or perceived muslimness". but the communities secretary said more work needed to be done to overcome legal and practical difficulties. during a passionate debate, mps shared distressing examples of islamophobia. the attempted murder of a muslim woman and her 12—year—old daughter as revenge for the parsons green terror attack, the torture of a muslim convert by two women, while they shouted, "we don't like muslims over here," and worse. the muslim mother attacked for wearing a hijab on the way to collect her children from primary

school in london. i wanted to highlight the aspect of hate crime against those who are perceived to be muslim. an infamous recent example was when a hate filled individual felt the urge to try and remove the turban of one of my seat guests queuing up just outside our parliament and shouted, "muslim, go back home." we should, i am afraid, question whether the effect of this debate will not fuel the extreme and far right, who i am profoundly concerned are getting a foothold again in our country. the proposal at the heart defines islamophobia as a type of racism. and i say to honourable members, i am in no doubt that racism forms a part of the bigotry that we need to confront. but combining race and religion together within the definition

causes legal and practical issues. james brokenshire. peers have warned the government not to "rest on its laurels" when it comes to tackling climate change. at the beginning of the month, mps approved a motion to declare an environment and climate emergency. the proposal demonstrated the will of the commons on the issue, but it didn't legally compel ministers to act. a lib dem peer was concerned about how climate change science was being taught in schools. could the government categorically state that the teaching on climate change is not a party political issue and would the government be prepared to meet with representatives of the teaching unions and head teachers to make sure that they understand this? i absolutely agree with the noble lord. this is not a party political issue. this is a generational issue and it is our responsibility of the mostly ageing to protect the environment for the young people of tomorrow.

could i ask the minister if he would locate maybe some tiptop teachers in the schools, providing the science on climate change to our young citizens, to maybe invite them to come to this place for a day to teach the climate change deniers in this house what the young people are being taught, because they were conspicuous by their absence in the recent debate, they clearly haven't got the confidence to put their case but the fact is that the science is there and i think it would be a suitable opportunity across the generations to deliver the science to them. the direct effect of doubling the amount of c02 in the atmosphere will be 1 degree centigrade increase in the average temperature of the globe. but higher estimates based on much less certainty, feedbacks for which there is not observational confirmation, and all the forecast based upon climate models assume very high feedback, which have been falsified by observations. and therefore those models need to be amended.

isn't the noble lord right that young people are aware and frightened of the effects of climate change in the environment and that they are asking us as a generation it represented in this house to make a step change in what we are doing and resting on our laurels will not protect our grandchildren? i would respectfully disagree with the noble baroness, we are not resting on our laurels. i gave some examples of the things we are doing and how we are leading in the developed world in developing a carbon reduced economy. we only very recently introduced a 25 year environment plan, which encourages children as well to participate. i absolutely think we are on track, but we have to keep this in the public eye. a crossbench or independent peer returned to lord rooker‘s suggestion that climate change teachers give a lesson in parliament.

could the government get the united states president to drop in on one of these classes during his visit? laughter the noble lord makes a very interesting suggestion. i will pass it on to the foreign office. the optimistic lord agnew. that was thursday in parliament. i do hope you canjoin me on bbc parliament at 11pm on friday evening for the week in parliament. i'll be finding out how mps cope with stress, and what the meps elected next thursday will do when and if they get to brussels. thank you for watching. bye for now. hello. after what has been a largely dry

and pretty warm week for many of us, things are about to change as we head through friday and into the weekend, turning a little bit more unsettled. but this is how we ended the day on thursday, a beautiful, serene sunset there in topsham in devon. during the day on friday, there's going to be more cloud across the country, and that cloud will bring with it a few spots of showery rain. we've still got some spells of sunshine on offer, but as we head through the day on friday, what we're going to see is this week frontal system moving its way in on this easterly breeze, so that will bring some cloud and outbreaks of rain too. now, during friday morning, the areas most likely to see the rain are across central and southern england, through wales as well. further north, perhaps the odd shower across parts of scotland but there will be plenty of sunshine once again in the bulk of scotland. more cloud working in across eastern parts of england during the day on that easterly breeze with one or two spots of rain. i think northern ireland should stay mostly dry, with a bit of sunshine. temperatures still 17 to 19 across northern ireland and scotland, but england and wales, you're more typically 13 to 16,

so cooler than it has been. so as we move through friday evening and overnight into saturday, we'll see more persistent, heavier rain working in from the east, particularly affecting scotland and northern england too. so quite a murky start to saturday here with that drizzly rain and low cloud too. further south, we're going to see some brightness to start off your weekend. but in general, the weekend is looking slightly cloudier and cooler than we've seen through this week. there will be some showers but it won't be a washout, a bit of sunshine on offer through the weekend too. so let's look at some detail then for saturday. what have we got? we've got low pressure sitting across central parts of europe, the winds rotating around that area of low pressure bringing us quite a bit of cloud off the north sea and some outbreaks of rain. the rain affecting quite a bit of of northern england and scotland through saturday morning. a few of those showers will push into northern ireland through the day. i think the southern half of england and much of wales should see some sunny spells through the morning, but a chance of showers breaking out almost anywhere during the afternoon.

now, temperatures around about 1a to 18 degrees — cooler than it has been — but there should be some brighter spells in the south. it will still feel quite pleasant. moving on into the second half of the weekend, and there's not much change in the pressure set—up so not much change in the weather. sunday, another fairly cloudy day, particularly in the north. there could be some sunshine in southern and eastern england in particular, but again, there'll be some showers. they'll be heaviest and most frequent in scotland, where we could have the odd rumble of thunder. a few showers further south too, but warming up a touch compared to saturday, so highs of around 13 to 19 degrees. bye for now.

welcome to bbc news — broadcasting to viewers in north america and around the globe. my name is mike embley. our top stories: president trump says he wants a radical overhaul of the immigration system to favour skilled workers who speak english. it establishes a new legal immigration system that protects american wages, promotes american values, and attracts the best and brightest from all around the world. history in asia — taiwan is to become the first country in the region to formally legalise same—sex marriage. us—china relations reach a new low as washington blocks the tech giant huawei from american markets. the sanctions come into effect immediately.