this is bbc news, the headlines: president biden has confirmed that the us will begin its final military withdrawal from afghanistan next month. mr biden said his goal was for the pull—out to be completed by the 20th anniversary of the september 11 terror attacks, and that it was time to end america's longest war. a white former policewoman in the us state of minnesota has been charged with manslaughter over the fatal shooting of a young black man following a confrontation at a traffic stop. kim potter resigned after the death of daunte wright, saying she had meant to draw her taser, not her handgun. british mps have rejected a labour proposalfor a parliamentary inquiry into lobbying, after the former prime minster, david cameron contacted ministers while working for the finance firm, greensill capital. the vote doesn't affect a review, led by a lawyer, already announced by the government.

now on bbc news, it's time for wednesday in parliament. hello again, and welcome to wednesday in parliament. as labour demand a full inquiry into links between ministers and lobbyists. dodgy contracts, privileged access, jobs for their mates — this is the return of tory sleaze. with civil servants dragged into the row, borisjohnson admits there is a problem. i, indeed, share the widespread concern about some of the stuff we are reading at the moment, mr speaker. also in this programme: how to make your point at prime minister's questions silently. but first: it's almost five years since david cameron left downing street, but the former pm dominated prime minister's

questions. the fall out from his work with the finance firm greensill capital — lobbying government ministers for access to a covid loans scheme — continues to fill the front pages. the firm, which was the main lender to liberty steel, has collapsed, possibly putting thousands ofjobs at risk. but david cameron says he's not broken any rules. the labour leader, sir keir starmer, said the revelations showed that sleaze and cronyism were at the heart of the conservative party. borisjohnson said the tories had been "consistently tough on lobbying". what he called a "proper, independent review" would examine the issue and report back by the end ofjune. and, after it emerged that one official had been working for the government and greensill at the same time, civil servants are being told to reveal any potential conflicts of interests. keir starmer kept up the pressure. mr speaker, does the

prime minister believe that the current lobbying rules are fit for purpose? i, indeed, share the widespread concern about some of the stuff that we're reading at the moment, mr speaker. and i know that the cabinet secretary shares my concern, as well. i do think it is a good idea in principle that top civil servants should be able to engage with business and should have experience of the private sector. when i look at the accounts i'm reading to date, it's not clear that those boundaries had been properly understood. and i've asked for a proper independent review of the arrangements that we have to be conducted by nigel boardman, and he will be reporting injune. and if he has any representations he'd like to make on that subject, he should do so to mr boardman. mr speaker, i know the prime minister's launching an inquiry.

that inquiry isn't even looking at the lobbying rules. i'm not sure it's looking at very much at all. because every day, there is further evidence of the sleaze that's now at the heart of this conservative government. let's just look — shake your heads, let's just look at the latest scandal. a wealthy businessman, lex greensill, was hired as a senior adviser to david cameron when he was prime minister. we've all seen the business card. after he left office, he, cameron, became a paid lobbyist for lex greensill. next thing we know, cameron arranged access for greensill with cabinet ministers, ministers and senior officials, and he lobbied for taxpayers' money on behalf of greensill capital. officials were also involved, he said, one working for both the government and greensill. does the prime minister accept

there a revolving door — indeed, an open door — between his conservative government and paid lobbyists? mr speaker, this is a government and a party that has been consistently tough on lobbying. and, indeed, we introduced legislation saying that there should be no taxpayer—funded lobbying, we put in a register for lobbyists. and there's one party, mr speaker, that actually voted to repeal the 2014 lobbying act — and that was the labour party, in their historic 2019 election manifesto, which he has yet to repudiate! who was it who introduced that legislation? david cameron. who was it who voted for the legislation? half the conservative front bench. we said it wouldn't be tough enough — and where did two years later, david cameron camping out in a saudi desert with lex greensill having a cup of tea!

i rest my case in relation to that legislation. keir starmer said what was needed was a full parliamentary inquiry. the prime minister disagreed. his own proposal is simply to have, yet again, politicians marking their own homework. what the country wants — that's all it is, a committee of mps to look at it, it won't do a blind bit of good. that's why we're having a proper independent review. if he has any representations or allegations to make about what has taken place, he should make them to the eminent lawyer who's been asked to do it, and who'll be reporting to us byjune. keir starmer. mr speaker, the prime minister should be voting with us, not blocking a proper inquiry. the greensill scandal is just the tip of the iceberg. dodgy contracts, privileged access, jobs for their mates — this is the return of tory sleaze. mr speaker, it is now so ingrained in this conservative government, we don't need another conservative party appointee

marking their own homework. mr speaker, we know the prime minister will not act against sleaze. but this house can. so can i urge all members of this house to come together this afternoon to back labour's motion and start to clean up the sleaze and cronyism that's at the heart of this conservative government? prime minister. mr speaker, that's why we're putting in an independent review, that's why we have tougher laws on lobbying — a great shame that labour opposed to them. after the leaders' exchanges, a backbench labour mp tried a direct question. will the prime minister tell. this house when he last spoke to former prime - minister david cameron? the honest truth, i cannot rememberwhen i last spoke to dave. if she wants to know

whether i've had any contact with him about any of the matters that have been in the press, the answer is "no". well, labour laterfailed to win a vote to demand that full parliamentary inquiry. they'd insisted the review set up by the prime minister under the lawyer, nigel boardman, was inadequate — not least because of mr boardman�*s own connections to the conservative party. it is a fact that nigel boardman is a good friend — a very good friend of the conservative government. now, some may suspect that the son of a former conservative cabinet minister might be unlikely to make waves. but let's look at his own record. mr boardman has been paid over £20,000 per year as a nonexecutive director at the department for business, energy and industrial strategy - a department with a real interest in the british business bank, which lent to greensill and the british steel industry where so many jobs that are now at risk. her charge list went on.

and to cap it all off, mr boardman was appointed to a prestigious role at the british museum by... oh, by david cameron! what is being proposed by the government is not remotely fit for purpose. it's not an inquiry, it's not independent — it's an insult to us all. we should all condemn the kind of lobbying that gives politics and politicians a bad name on all sides of the house. but this motion does not achieve that. instead, it sidetracks, proliferates, and duplicates. in conclusion, i invite labour to settle its own view, find its own position, and agree with us that transparency and probity are vitally important. i urge all honourable members and right honourable members to join us in this work to continue to scrutinise these critically important matters through the work of existing select committees, through the committee on standards in public life, through the inquiry we have now setup.

before he became prime minister, david cameron vowed to fight secret lobbying. and today, david cameron — i that self—styled great reformer — is up to his neck in the same cronyism, corruption, - and sleaze that he promised to call out, expose, - and eradicate - while in opposition. the hypocrisy is breathtaking! i wonder if the attention given to the former prime minister, mr cameron, is somewhat of a red herring. it is no doubt a tasteless, slapdash, and unbecoming episode for any former prime minister — but is it the central issue? after all, what is the key attribute of a former minister or senior official? surely, we are all institutionalised and deskilled by public life. what possibly qualifies a former minister or senior official? food for thought. i think we are seeing

a slippage of standards in public life. our current prime minister has been sacked from two previous jobs for lying, and the former prime minister has been hawking his government connections for personal enrichment. i believe that the behaviour of our elected ministers has impacted our appointed officials' perception of what's acceptable. why was lex greensill. allowed to roam so freely across whitehall, pushing his financial chicanery? - and why on this earth - was the government's senior procurement official- responsible for £40 billion of public contracts, - allowed by cabinet office to work part—time for greensill whilst he was still in _ the civil service? madame deputy speaker, the stench is growing. - unfortunately, the opposition, and in particular the members that i've been watching on the screen, have decided to run with this in a way that is deeply unhelpful and doesn't help to solve any of the problems that they are highlighting.

and actually, i therefore fear that this is much more about party political posturing than it is about clearing up the system. in the end, labour's motion was defeated. the ayes to the right: 262. the noes to the left: 357. the noes have it, the noes have it. you're watching wednesday in parliament with me, david cornock. still to come: advice on your summer holidays. the snp�*s westminster leader has questioned the prime minister over the uk government's decision to challenge a bill on children's rights passed by the scottish parliament. uk ministers are concerned the legislation could exceed holyrood's devolved powers. so they're referring the bill, and another on local government, to the supreme court for a ruling.

instead of supporting this new law, the uk government is shamefully taking the scottish parliament to court in order to strike it down. apparently, the only basis of the uk government's legal case is that the law constrains westminster powers. so, prime minister, can you do everyone a favour by explaining how protecting children's rights in scotland threatens the tory government in london? hear, hear! the government of the united kingdom ratified the un convention on the rights of the child 30 years ago. we all supported it. it has nothing to do with the rights of vulnerable children, which we all protect, this is simply an attempt by the snp to stir up constitutional chaos and create another fictitious, fictitious bone of contention between themselves and the rest of the country. if they really cared about the rights of the child, mr speaker, they would do much more to improve education

in scotland, where they are so lamentably failing, mr speaker. mps have heard that violence and abuse towards shop workers is "endemic" and has worsened since the beginning of the pandemic. retailers told the home affairs committee that coronavirus has become "another trigger" for shop violence. in our latest survey, which we released last month, we surveyed 2,729 retail workers during 2020, and we found that 88% of those members had experienced verbal abuse in the past year. 60% had been threatened and 9% had been physically assaulted. and as i say, it's something that's been a growing issue for some time. readers james lowman represents more than 10,000 convenience stores convenience stores in the uk.

over the past year, there have been 40,000 violent incidents in those stores, over a million incidents of abuse. there have been over 40,000 violent incidents in those stores, and over 10,000 are involving a weapon. so these are really serious incidents that are violently perpetrated in those stories. there was a general consensus that the pandemic had led to many covid related incidents of abuse around mask wearing and social distancing. the co—op said the virus had become a weapon. the frequency has got worse, it's happening more often. but the violence of it has got worse. the violence and the threats, which increasingly includes racism and homophobia and misogyny. it's also the weapons, you know, we have had colleague attacked, typically with syringes, with knives. we had a colleague attacked with a mediaeval mace and who lost their eye. and during covid, covid has changed... covid has been weaponised. the number of instances,

i was looking in the last few weeks, spitting at colleagues is now a common way to intimidate and threaten them. and what goes along with that spit would be, "i've got covid, you're going to get it now." there was concern about whether the police take the crimes seriously. how do we get, then, the police to take this more seriously? - how would a specific - offence be framed such that you would expect, then, the police to turn up - and pursue that person? because, in fact, _ the supermarket i spoke to, in fact, we've got - them as witness later, they don't stop anybody. theyjust have cctv and thenj report that to the police later and then hope that it will be i

taken on from there if they can identify the person known. yeah, i think one of the problems is that all too often, the level of police response depends on the value of the theft. you know, there is this thing about thefts less than £200 not getting a police response, which is an issue, and the human impact isn't really being measured there. you know, whether you are dealing with a shoplifter who is stealing something worth £10 or whether you are dealing with a shoplifter who is stealing something worth £500, the impact on you as an individual isjust as much. and that is part of the reason that we want to have this offence in law is to drive up levels of enforcement. boots said incidents would continue with lockdown restrictions easing. do you think this is going to change some of the challenges you are facing in your stores? do you think there will become different challenges? what you think is going to happen over the next few months? i don't know if you want to start, iona, again? i'm quite happy to start. every time we've seen - restrictions ease, we've seen an increase in incidents. so quite the opposite. some of that is because there is more footfall out there. - but equally, people becomej a little bit more lax in terms

of social distancing - or a little bit less tolerant of those that aren't - observing social distancing. so, definitely numbers i of the public feeling quite agitated with each other. there's definitely. a presence of that. the british retail consortium wanted action. so for us, it's very much a situation where you are making this investment to ensure that you are executing your duty of care and you're making your staff feel as safe and as protected as possible. but you're not getting to the point where you are actually, sort of, stabilising and addressing some of those underlying issues. and that inquiry continues. now are you planning a summer holiday yet? the government recently published plans for people in england to resume foreign travel. a traffic light system will see countries graded on their risk. but industry representatives told the commons transport committee that there was still a lot of work to be done, ahead of the hoped for changes in mid may.

you know, i guess i can't emphasise enough the urgency of pushing forward with this, given the, you know, the state of the industry which has been in suspension for over a year now. and, you know, the fact that we've gone through easter, now the other side, with international travel illegal means that there is even more pressure on the summer season, and, you know, a week lost is vital for a lot of members who could be, sort of, teetering on the brink. the approach to reopening we believe is still too complex and too cautious, i'm afraid. you know, we have to call it out, we are approaching a point where the pandemic in the uk is under control. we have good protections in place with testing, if vaccination as well, and we think we can open in a more, in a faster but safe way. many airlines already told us that they'll be curtailing - the plans they had for the summer. l as you know, aviation is already 95% down i on passenger flying compared to pre—coronavirus crisis, -

so this means it's going to continue, and that i means our members, pilots, there's already been 3,000 i pilotjob losses over the past 12 months. | we've had two airline failures. i'm really, really concerned l for our airlines and our whole aviation sector for the summer. the concerns were put to the minister. we are trying to protect public health, but we are also seeking to unlock international travel. and from my own perspective, i am absolutely passionate about the industries that are part of this sector, i'm the aviation and maritime minister. and i want to see people flying again, i want to see people getting out on ships again, i want to see people out on trains again. and this incredible travel sector that we have has always been a world leader, and i wanted to be again. and as some comments have been made on the other panel, you know, it's not just about holidays. you know, this is about the way the country sees itself. it's about businesses that need to get out and connect around the world, it's about families, people who have been apart for years, and we want to have

that happen again, but it must happen in a way that is robust and that is sustainable, because we don't want to go backwards. given the aim is to allow people to travel from the 17th of may, why have you taken the decision to put traffic lights in place and the rules on each traffic light, but not which country sits per traffic light? because there is, again, a tension here between giving certainty but also being accurate. because at the moment, we have said in any event, there will be no international travel before the 17th of may — that's the earliest date — assuming that the roll—out continues to go as planned, continuing, assuming that we continue to make the good progress that we have. so we need to be in a position whereby when we make those decisions, it is on the data that exists at that time, because we are still some distance away from that date at the moment.

we've heard the logistics involved in aviation, the cruise sector, to be able to plan ahead. when will you put those countries into the traffic light classifications? so, i anticipate that at the early part of may, we will be able to give some more detail, chair, as to which category each country will fall. he said there would be a watch list for countries most at risk of going from green to amber. what should people expect if they, you know, is that l essentially saying don't book a holiday to one of these - places because you might get stuck? . well, i think it's quite important we tackle this

question. it's a very good point about, you know, should people book a holiday? and i think, you know, what people ought to be doing, i suggest, is look at the situation that exists at the time, and look at their own circumstances and look at the terms and conditions of a holiday that they have booked. government can't say, "you should book this can be shouldn't book that." what government can do is say, "this is the situation that exists in this country and this is the information you need," and then people have to go away and consider the circumstances, consider, for example, what their working practices are, can they afford to carry on working at home, for example? some people can, some people can't. it's not the same rule for everybody. and then to look at what kind of holiday, if it's a holiday, if it's not a work trip, if it's not a family trip, they're talking about booking. can they get refunds? can they move their holiday if they have to do that? that's what we are seeking to do with this green watchlist. the transport minister, robert courts. back to prime minister's questions now. during the pandemic, we've got used to mps contributing from their constituencies, but it's still quite unusual for a question to be asked using sign language. and if the prime minister

doesn't understand, imagine how those who rely on british sign language feel at his press briefings. 2.6 million spent on the new pressroom, yet still no interpreter. what message does he think this sends to disabled people? prime minister. i am grateful to the honourable lady and grateful for the way she has set out her question. i will revert to her as soon as i can. borisjohnson, who also used prime minister's questions to pay tribute to shirley williams, the former labour cabinet minister who was one of the founders of the social democratic party, the sdp. she died earlier this week at the age of 90. the prime minister called her a pioneerfor women in politics and government. sir keir starmer said for many years she was labour's loss but now she was britain's loss.

in the lords, the lib dem leader paid his tribute. shirley was no ordinary politician. what set her apart from any other politician i've met was her empathy and her charisma. she was genuinely interested in other people, their ideas and their lives. and she had a special magnetic charm, which meant that people went to her and were energised by her. she was never with a note, spellbinding sometimes. she could hold the house in the palm of her hands. and perhapsjust as importantly, all agreed she was gracious and courteous, even with those she fundamentally disagreed. as the prime minister has recalled, "even when we disagreed, as we often did, she have the gift of sounding so completely reasonable at all times." labour's leader in the lords described shirley williams�* reaction to being touted as a potential prime minister. there were then so few women in politics, if you are quite -

good at yourjob and a good speaker, you were almost l inevitably going to be tipped for the job, but the feminist| in her also claimed i that she had learned, and i quote, "that politicians, especially male ones, - tend to overestimatel their own capabilities, so i'm careful not - to overestimate mine." a group of us would go walking regularly in the chilterns, and it was quite often that people coming in the other direction would go past us, and then turn back and realise theyjust walked past shirley williams, and they would turn back and come and pay tribute. and it was wonderful, but slow. and if you want to hear more about shirley williams�* life and times, bbc parliament is showing a special hour long interview with her at 9pm on thursday evening. that was wednesday in parliament. thank you for watching. from me, david cornock, bye for now.

hello there. most of us had a fine and dry day yesterday with some welcome sunshine. now, across quite widely the north and west of the country, temperatures are actually a little bit above average for the time of year. about 3 degrees above around the glasgow area. across eastern england, there were some areas a little bit on the cool side, for example, london. mainly because we had the wins come again from the relatively cool north sea around this area of high pressure. similar wind pattern on thursday, similar distribution of temperatures again across these north—western areas we will see some of the warmest weather. it's not particularly warm at the moment. indeed temperatures are dropping very quickly underneath these clear and starry skies. temperatures at the lowest, —3, —4 celsius or so across parts of north—east england. there will be quite a widespread frost first thing.

so a frosty start to the day but a beautiful start as well with clear blue skies in many places. lots of sunshine on the cards. but as we head through the day, we are going to see some cloud build in, particularly across central and eastern england, and indeed a line of showers will develop across east anglia and south—east england, with some of them heavyish but i don't think there will be any thunderstorms around. the further north—west you are the clearest the skies will be. plenty of sunshine even into the afternoon, even for these areas. and it's here where we will see some of the highest temperatures again probably reaching around 15 degrees celsius. if anything, those temperatures down a little bit compared with wednesday's. for the end of the week, high pressure is still with us and that means another fine, frosty start to the day. plenty of sunshine, a little bit of cloud bubbling up as we head into the afternoon. towards the north—west, you might find a little bit of slightly thicker cloud beginning to make inroads, but most of that's going to be quite high. just making the sunshine a little on the hazy side.

so for many of us, after a cold start to the day, a bit of cloud bubbles up but essentially a fine day. for the weekend prospects, weather fronts are going to get pretty close to the northwest of the country. across most of england and wales were looking at this fine spell of weather to continue. probably of the two days, saturday looks like being the sunniest, but sunday is still not bad. further north—west, a bit more cloud around and across the far north—west of the uk through sunday, there is the threat of seeing a little bit of rain. that's your weather.

welcome to bbc news, my name's mike embley, our top stories: president biden confirms all us military forces will withdraw from afghanistan by september the 11th — he says it's time to end the war. we went to afghanistan because of a horrific attack that happened 20 years ago. that cannot explain why we should remain there in 2021. a police officer is charged with the manslaughter of the young black man, daunte wright in minneapolis. the nos have it. british mps reject opposition calls for a parliamentary inquiry into the former prime minister david cameron's attempts to gain government contracts for a business which has collapsed.