time now for a look back on the week in parliament. hello there, and welcome to the week in parliament. coming up: the government reveals it won't be sending all primary children in england back to school before the summer after all. labour says the plans lie in tatters. it's no good the prime minister flailing around, trying to blame others. this is bbc news, i'm tim willcox but the prime minister reckons it's the headlines at 4:00pm.. the labour leader who can't make up his mind. he still can't work out whether he's saying schools are not safe enough or whether we should be atlanta's police chief resigns after a white officer fatally shot 27—year—old rayshard brooks. going back more quickly. the family's lawyer expresses his despair. the government insists i could even say we wantjustice the housing secretary acted properly but i don't even care any more. over his approval of a £1 billion i don't know what that is and i've property scheme in east london. been doing this for 15 years. and after the anti—racism i don't know what

protests, a call for action. justice is any more. does the home secretary recognise the death sparked protests on the streets of the us city. that there's structural inequality, the fast food restaurant where the shooting took discrimination and place was set on fire. racism in our country? the education secretary has confirmed he's dropping plans borisjohnson orders a review of the two—metre social for all primary school years distancing rule in england, ahead of nonessential shops in england to go back re—opening tomorrow. to the classroom before the country has come together the end of term. to squash the incidence ministers were aiming for them of the disease down, to spend four weeks in school before and that gives us the potential now the summer break, but the idea is no longer thought feasible and instead, heads will be given "flexibility" over whether or not to admit more children. while we are not able to welcome all primary children back for a full month before the summer, we continue to work with the sector on the next steps, where we would like to see schools who have the capacity to bring back more children in those smaller class sizes to do so if they are able

to do before the summer holidays. i know students who are due to take exams in 2021 will have experienced considerable disruption to their education this year and we are committed to doing all we can to minimise the effects of this. exams will take place next year, and we are working with quual and the exam boards on our approach to this. for weeks, head teachers, education unions, school staff and many parents have warned that the plan to open whole primary schools before the summer was simply impractical while implementing social distancing safely, so i welcome the secretary's decision to roll back from that today. however, i must state my dismay at the way this has been handled. if the government had brought together everyone involved in implementing these plans from the outset and really taken on board what they had to say, they would not be in the situation of having to rollback at all.

why is it that we can turn a blind eye to thousands of demonstrators campaigning for pubs and garden centres to open, yet it is so hard to reopen our schools? we know that around 700,000 disadvantaged children are not doing school homework, and 700,000 don't have proper access to computers for the internet. so what is the government doing to help these disadvantaged children learn again and avoid an epidemic of educational poverty? we are already in the process of rolling out it equipment right across the school estate, as well as to those children who are most vulnerable. 100,000 of those laptops have already been distributed to children who are most vulnerable and most disadvantaged. many people in the bame community, living in multi—generational households, are not planning to send their children to school because they're afraid of them bringing the virus home to their grandparents. how is the secretary of state going to persuade parents from disadvantaged backgrounds and from the black and minority ethnic community to send their children to school?

speaker: secretary of state. well, of course, the best advert as to why your children should be going back to school is when we see those incredibly powerful images of children returning to school for the first time. the absolute joy you see across their faces, their passion for learning, the fact that they are so pleased to see their teachers and their friends once more. gavin williamson there. well, the next day at prime minister's questions, the labour leader attacked the prime minister over the english schools u—turn. sir keir starmer said boris johnson was "flailing around" and had failed to come up with a robust plan to allow the majority of pupils back into the classroom. the current arrangements lie in tatters. parents have lost confidence in the government's approach. millions of children will miss six months' worth of schooling and inequality will now go up. last week, he was telling the — he was telling the house that it was not yet safe for kids to go back to school.

this week, he is saying that not enough kids are going back to school. i think — i really think he needs to make up his mind. 97% of the schools that have submitted data are now seeing kids come back to school, and i think what we would all like to hear from the right honourable gentleman is a bit of support for that and a bit of encouragement to pupils, and perhaps even encouragement to some of his friends in the left—wing trades unions to help get our schools ready. it's no good the prime minister flailing around, trying to blame others. a month ago today — a month ago today — he made the announcement about schools without consulting relevant parties, without warning about the dates, and without any scientific backing for his proposal. it's time he took responsibility for his own failures. the labour leader said one way the government could help children would be to extend a voucher scheme which has been providing free school meals during the coronavirus outbreak. because child poverty numbers are so high in this country, 1.3 million children in low income families rely on these vouchers.

they mean children who can't go to school because of coronavirus restrictions still get free meals. the labour government in wales has said it will continue to fund these meals through the summer. yesterday, the education secretary said that won't be the case in england. that's just wrong, and it will lead to further inequality, so can i urge the prime minister to reconsider on this point? we don't normally continue with free school meals over the summer holidays, but we are also, of course — and i'm sure that's right — we are also of course aware of the particular difficulties faced by vulnerable families, and that is why we are announcing a further £63 million of local welfare assistance to be used by local authorities at their discretion to help

the most vulnerable families. mr speaker, this government has put its arms around the people of this country throughout this crisis and has done its absolute best — has done its absolute best to help. has done its absolute best to help. and i may say it is not helped by the wobbling and tergiversation of the labour party, the gentleman opposite. borisjohnson said he'd announce further easing of the lockdown later. the snp's westminster leader wondered if that meant relaxing the two—metre social distancing rule. sage reported that being exposed to the virus for six seconds at one metre is the same as being exposed for one minute at two metres. that, mr speaker, is a significant increase in risk. will the prime minister continue to ignore the experts or will he start following the advice of those who have actually read the scientific papers? clearly, as the incidence of the disease comes down — as i think members of sage would confirm — the statistical likelihood of being infected, no matter how close or far you are from somebody who may or may not have

coronavirus goes down. borisjohnson. the government says 100,000 anti—racism demonstrators took to the streets in more than 200 protests across the uk following the death of african american george floyd, who was killed by us police. one of the biggest gatherings was in london where police said that following a "predominantly peaceful protest," officers faced "scenes of violence and disorder" which were "entirely unacceptable". in bristol, a statue of edward colston — a prominent 17th century slave trader — was ripped down by protesters and thrown into the docks. the tearing down of the memorial and the attacks on police were strongly condemned by the home secretary in the commons. some protesters regrettably turned to violence and abusive behaviour

at the weekend. this hooliganism is utterly indefensible. there is no justification for it. there is no excuse for pelting flares at brave officers, throwing bikes at police horses, attempting to disrespect the cenotaph or vandalising the statue of winston churchill — one of the greatest protectors of our freedoms who has ever lived. does the home secretary actually understand the anger and frustration felt by so many people? does the home secretary recognise that this protest has been led by young people? does the home secretary recognise that there is structural inequality, discrimination and racism in our country? does the home secretary recognise that people want to see action from this government? my son turned three yesterday. i do not want to have to wait until he is a teenager before we see changes in this country. the home secretary gave a graphic account of some of racism she'd faced. i'm really saddened that the honourable lady has effectively said that this government doesn't understand racial inequality.

on that basis, madam deputy speaker, it must‘ve been a very different home secretary who, as a child, who is frequently called a ‘park‘ in the playground. a very different home secretary who was racially abused in the streets, or even advised to drop her surname and use her husband's in order to advance her career. a different home secretary recently characterised — if, madam deputy speaker, i can say so — in the guardian newspaper as, "a fat cow with a ring through its nose" — something that was not only racist but offensive, both culturally and religiously. this is hardly an example of respect, equality, tolerance or fairness. so when it comes to racism, sexism, tolerance or social justice, i will not take lectures from the other side of the house. meanwhile in the lords, peers asked if the government was looking at its policies following george floyd's death.

my lords, no—one needs to tell me that black lives matter. this is an everyday occurrence and it is part of our lives. what will her majesty's government do to make sure that black lives matters in the policies going forward in the uk? 50 years ago, i was stopped in my car and aggressively questioned by the police. my three brothers have all been stopped and searched aggressively. 20 years ago, my 16—year—old nephew was stopped and brutally beaten up in the back of a police van and then falsely charged. shockingly, in 2020, during lockdown, we saw excessive force being used when a black man was tasered in front of his toddler. today, protests have shown we are at a tipping point. so what action is the government planning, especially through education, to reassure the black community, including children, that their lives matter? we have set up the government's race disparity unit, which is a world—first for publishing data on ethnicity, and they are working across whitehall and with local authorities to ensure that all of our interventions are properly considered to ensure that black lives matter in everything we do.

lady sugg. meanwhile, the first minister of wales, mark drakeford, said the government there was working with local authorities to see if there were things on display in the country which should be removed and put in a museum. speaking in welsh, plaid cymru's leader adam price argued that what was commemorated from the past reflected society's values today, so would there be a wales—wide review? translation: in order to ensure that we do not in any way celebrate slavery, colonialism or racism in our national monuments or our local monuments, i thank adam price once again for raising this important point. we want to educate and remember but not celebrate — and that's why we are working with local authorities and others

in wales in order to consider whether there are things that are still being displayed at the moment which would be better placed in a museum. mark drakeford. in the northern ireland assembly, the chair of the justice committee argued the credibility of lockdown regulations had been undermined by inaction over anti—racism protests. a mass gathering, deputy speaker, was facilitated by the police service on the 3rd ofjune with follow—up comments that it was proportionate. any wonder there was then further protests on the saturday in londonderry and in belfast. these regulations, by not being enforced and by not being policed, have then undermined our credibility and the public are then left to take decisions by exercising their own best

judgement, which is going to be the way forward in the future. naomi long said many of the exceptions that had been applied to the coronavirus regulations had been requested and pre—emptively announced by one of paul girvan's dup colleagues, edwin poots. therefore, it would be fair to say that having requested that the people have more freedom to move, more freedom to travel, more exceptions to the reasons not to, it therefore was always going to become more difficult for the police to enforce those regulations. if he chooses to liaise with his executive colleagues, they will make him well aware that i raise those concerns at that time, and i have continued to raise them since. naomi long. thejustice secretary has confirmed that the probation system in england and wales is to be returned to a state run service. in 2014, private companies were brought in to oversee low and medium risk offenders. under changes set out last year, the private sector would have had a further role, running

rehabilitation programmes. but the justice secretary said he?d reassessed the plans following the coronavirus outbreak and decided the national probation service, a state run body, should control both the supervision of offenders and their rehabilitation. the opposition welcomed the change, but wondered why it had taken so long. let this momentous u—turn be the end of the assumption that the private sector always knows best. the government outsourced school dinners and we ended up with obesity and turkey twizzlers. the government outsourced the cleaning of hospital beds and we ended up with the highest rates of the superbug. the government outsourced probation and we ended up with higher re—offending rates. the private sector is not the answer for everything. in some of his remarks, i felt as if the years had fallen away and we were back in the 1980s in some sort of ideological death struggle. public, good. private, bad.

let me reassure him that i take no ideological view about what works, and i will follow the evidence, and when the facts change, i will change my mind. i make no apology for doing that today. does he think it is morally right to make private profit out of incarceration and rehabilitation, because i don't? i do not accept this suggestion that somehow there is a moral difference here between the mixed approach that i want to take and one that rigidly sticks too, shall we say, an ideological position that i don't really think he believes in. robert buckland. labour has accused the conservative party of accepting cash for favours following the the housing secretary's approval of £1billion property scheme, which he later accepted was "unlawful "by reason of apparent bias". robertjenrick granted planning permission for a company owned

by conservative party donor richard desmond to build on the westferry printworks site on east london's isle of dogs. he gave his consent to the scheme on the 14th of january in the teeth of opposition from tower hamlet‘s counsel and his own planning inspector — who both considered the scheme oversized and lacking affordable housing. when tower hamlet‘s took out a judicial review to challenge the secretary of state, he took the extraordinary step of admitting his decision was unlawful because of "apparent bias." that meant he avoided publishing all correspondence revealing the true reasons behind his decision in open court. by an astonishing coincidence, just two weeks after the secretary of state took his decision, mr desmond made a generous donation of £12,000 to the conservative party. the sequence of events raises grave concerns about cash for favours. if he wants to restore trust, the secretary of state must immediately publish all documents and all correspondence relating to this decision. the public needs reassurance that the integrity of the planning process cannot be auctioned off at conservative party fundraising dinners.

the junior minister who answered the question said robertjenrick acted with propriety and he had "no relationship" with richard desmond. as to the decision on the 14th ofjanuary, which is outlined publicly, which the honourable gentleman and honourable members can see online, that decision is all very clear — there were no discussions about the sales issue between my right honourable friend and the applicant. he's been very clear about his involvement with the applicant. i don't think there is anything further that needs to be added. christopher pincher. now, let's take a look at some news from around westminster in brief. following the row over mps having to queue up to vote in what became known as the ‘mogg conga'. ministers made further concessions to members who can't travel to westminster in person. mps who are shielding themselves

or members of their household will continue to be allowed to take part in most commons business by video link and will now vote by proxy. a bill to ensure the most serious offenders spend longer in prison cleared its first commons hurdle. ministers had promised tougher action following terror attacks in london. one in streatham at the start of this year where two people were stabbed and the other at fishmongers hall in november 2019 where two people were killed. in both cases, the attack was committed by a known terrorist offender who'd been automatically released from custody halfway through their sentence. the commons science committee was told that starting lockdown a week earlier could have cut coronavirus—related deaths in the uk by half. the epidemic was doubling every 3—4 days before lockdown interventions were introduced.

so had we introduced lockdown measures a week earlier, we would have reduced the final death toll by at least a half. the level of coronavirus testing in care homes in scotland has been a persistent theme of questions from the conservative leader to the first minister. at fmqs, he once more demanded faster action. why are we still hearing about problems with testing three weeks after the health secretary promised it would be sorted? why is the story we hear in the daily press conferences in edinburgh so different to what we are picking up on the ground — where it matters? i ask if the first minister's confident about this, then she should set out a clear timetable clear deadline for the first round of care home tests to be completed. this is her chance. will she now take it? i'm not sure how much jackson carlo knows or bothers to find out about how these things actually work on the ground but when we say that 50,000 staff of care homes have to be tested,

of course, there has to be a programme of work over time to make that happen. the processes have to be put in place and the resources, which are in place, have to be put in place — that is work that is ongoing. a bill introducing no—fault divorces in england and wales cleared its first commons hurdle but was opposed by a dozen conservative mps. currently, in order to start divorce proceedings immediately, one spouse has to allege adultery, unreasonable behaviour or desertion. under the proposed new law, they will only have to state that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. i think it is our responsibility to, in the legal process, try and reduce conflict, because conflict leads to emotional difficulty, it can lead to damage, it can lead to really serious consequences, not just for the adults in the relationship but, let's face it, the children too. the acid test is, as a result of this legislation, will there be more

divorces or fewer? it is my contention, if you make something easier, people are more likely to do it. as someone who is very tragically going through the divorce process, and as someone who has had to put blame on my partner — when actually i would've preferred to have had a no—fault divorce. labour welcomes this bill that offers a common sense approach that continues to respect the institution of marriage and civil partnerships but avoids unnecessary antagonism and costs for people dealing with and often incredibly difficult time in their lives. the bill passed by 231 votes to 16 and is expected to clear parliament in the next week. the agriculture bill sets out the future of farming after brexit. some people are pleased to see the back of the eu's common agricultural policy and welcome the government's focus on paying farmers for productivity

and protecting the environment. but there are fears that future trade deals could mean food produced under lower standards being sold in the uk, with particular concern about chlorinated chicken and hormone—treated beef both illegal under eu law. the minister tried to put those concerns to rest. i can confirm that all food — and, again, i emphasise all food — coming into the country will continue to have to meet existing import requirements as the withdrawal act transfers eu standards onto the uk statute book. that specifically means, my lords, that the import of chlorine—washed chicken and hormone—fed beef, for example, is prohibited. amendments introducing legal obligations on food standards were rejected by the commons last month, but opposition parties intend to resurrect them.

dealing with the issue of standards is one of our top priorities. domestic standards of production are a clear commitment and all imported produce must comply with food, environmental and animal welfare standards that domestic production has to adhere to. this has been the key concern of every submission, letter and e—mail i have received on the bill. existing uk agriculture policy, agreed as members of the european union, has been pivotal in guaranteeing consumers the safety of their food and respecting the welfare of livestock. it's kept out pork from pigs confined in sow stalls, beef from cattle injected with hormones to enhance their growth, and chlorinated chicken to wash away the shame of poor husbandry. the government says it's sincere in its commitments to maintaining those standards, so why not put it on the face of the bill? if there is to be one standard for imports and another

for home—produced food, it is vital that labelling regulations are updated to give transparent and full information to the shopper, who tends to buy primarily on price considerations. on the issue of standards, my lords, the government has rightly committed to maintaining them. and there is a lot of the opposition to — a lot of the amendments in this name are driven by protectionism disguised as animal welfare. free trade is a huge export opportunity for agriculture. a green party peer wasn't impressed with the bill. what we have is a shell. a statement of a few principles. not so bad on their selves, sometimes even admirable, and somewhat have improved since earlier iterations of this legislation. but there are few commitments to action. this is a grade d effort. lady bennett. which brings us to the end of this edition of the programme, but dojoin david cornock on bbc parliament on monday night at 11pm for a round up of the best of the day at westminster. but for now from me, alicia mccarthy, goodbye.

for most of us another fine day, some by weather clouds will develop into towering thunderstorms, and we could have downpours of hail and gusty winds as well, but the chance of actually any one storm hitting your region is very low, and most of us will not be getting thunderstorms. there is a weather system circling the uk at the moment, that is helping to generate some of the clouds and thunderstorms. it is with us for the next few days, so we could have similar weather generally across the uk for a few more days, that risk of showers and thunderstorms. by the end of the afternoon, storms developing across parts of the midlands, and in the south it is probably going to be shower and storm free, so warm sunny weather here, but from the east midlands into northern parts

of wales and eastern areas of northern ireland, we could see heavy downpours through the course of late afternoon and into the evening hours as well. eastern scotland, in fact the entire, or most of the north sea coast, completely different story, it has been overcast, misty in places, see fright will continue through this evening and overnight. the showers will die away overnight, so very warm in places, no lower than 1a degrees in liverpool. that weather system that i showed you are still with us, it will continue to generate showers and thunderstorms, but tomorrow the distribution of the showers and storms will be somewhat different, the thinking is across more northern parts of the country, so the midlands and the south will see far fewer storms. temperatures in the sunshine up to around 2a celsius.

into tuesday, we are expecting the showers to once again become more widespread across the uk, and you can see the showers brewing in almost every corner of the country, so again thunder and lightning is a possibility on tuesday almost anywhere, and a typical summer temperatures, low 20s in the south, high teens across the north sea coast. this weather will continue for a few more days yet, it looks as though at least until thursday we will see those showers. 00:28:23,013 --> 4294966103:13:29,430 bye— bye.