this is bbc news. the headlines at 3pm. government say both houses will get a vote on the brexit deal. we intend that the vote will cover not only the withdrawal arrangements but our future relationship with the eu. the lords speak at lord fowler says he would keep an open mind about the view to letting president trump address parliament.” view to letting president trump address parliament. i would consider any request by mr trump to address ourlament ifand any request by mr trump to address our lament if and when it is made. —— our parliament. the government announces plans for a million new homes by 2020 as ministers admit england's housing market is ‘broken‘. opposition mps say it will do little to provide

genuinely affordable housing. a warning the uk tax burden is set to rise to its highest level for 30 years, despite continuing cuts to public services. a jailed royal marine goes to court to appeal his conviction for murdering an injured afghan insurgent. also, a ten minute appointment with your gp. how the uk has some of the shortest doctor appointment times in europe. and how children as young as ten are feeling the pressure to look good in selfies. sometimes people get more likes than you and you get a bitjealous. i'd take about five before i pick one and then i post it. in the last half hour, the government has

conceded that parliament will get a vote on the final brexit deal before it is put to the european parliament. brexit minister david jones said the final agreement will need to be approved by both houses of parliament and that votes will take place before the european parliament rubber stamps it. labour described it as a huge and important concession. our chief political correspondent vicki young is in westminster. there was a growing rebellion on the conservative side to see effective in this parliament would be rubber—stamping this effectively with no see if they didn't like the deal. so ministers have been coming up deal. so ministers have been coming up with words to placate the side of the conservative party. there will bea the conservative party. there will be a vote in this place before the european parliament signs this off and this was welcomed by the labour

government as a big climb—down. interestingly, ken clarke got up and said let's not be too hasty, let's see exactly what you are offering us and now questions from the labour side and the snp. it's been heated. let's dig into what they are saying in the commons. he said, and i quote, one of the virtues of the article if the process is that it's setting you on the way, it is hard to revoke, it may be revoke a ball, i don't know. but that is the basis we are being asked to take on the fundamental decision affecting this country. we have to know these things because it will determine the position that the house finds itself in. if it is it revoke a ball, then

negotiations don't work and the guillotine comes down. —— unrevokble. would he agree with me that triggering article 50 on the basis of possible revoke ability is like walking down the m4 in the middle of the night and hoping you won't get killed. you might not but better not to walk down there in the first place. i think the analogy is there. we note that the noble lord kerr who drafted article 50 believes it to be revokable and he had that in mind when he drafted the article.

perhaps i can clarify, the attorney general was clear that it was revokable,, so does he agree it is revo ka ble. revokable,, so does he agree it is revokable. i give way to the former attorney general. it was merely for the purpose of those preceding. i say to the right honourable gentleman that we can derive nothing from that as to whether it is revo ka ble from that as to whether it is revokable or not. the two gentlemen should talk amongst themselves before they come to that house so they can take the same position.

what matters is the confusion in the front bench and the fact that whatever the right honourable member thinks, the brexit secretary didn't know whether it was revokable or not. one last time, from me, please. the honourable gentleman is pursuing this relentlessly but might i suggest that he knows on the outcomes of the answers the question he is asking depends on whether the european courts gets its hands on its? to say i'm pursuing something relentlessly is a compliment from him which i shall treasure! it's not about the european court ofjustice, it's about this house having a genuine choice at some stage about

seeing what the government has negotiated and whether it is right or not. whether it will be the sword of damocles. i thank him for giving way. isn't one of the problem with the concession just way. isn't one of the problem with the concessionjust made way. isn't one of the problem with the concession just made that it ta ps the concession just made that it taps together in one boat all —— potable pota ble vota ble potable votable option that of a trade deal and of leaving the eu.” think the issue is even more fundamental. i think we have to know what happens when we see no before we go ahead at the present moment. new clause 180, this would call the reset amendment and when i asked the

prime minister if this house and the other place refuse to negotiate them we reset to existing membership are in current terms and try again. they will only approve a deal when we believe is good for this country. we wa nt believe is good for this country. we want a deal which will be in the interest of our constituents and this country. i think this is absolutely fundamental to this debate. i know and understand the issues with political leadership, but at the end of march comes the tory conference at about whether brexiteers believe that the prime

minister isa brexiteers believe that the prime minister is a born—again brexit or a secret sub—remain. it is unwise to invoke article 50 until you know what the end destination will be. subsequently, i find what the end destination will be. subsequently, ifind it what the end destination will be. subsequently, i find it difficult to believe that we will leave until you know what the alternative will be. instead of giving these points away and putting all the negotiating power into the hands of those you are negotiating with, is a tension between two parties, and any negotiation would depend on the cards you have in your hand, and it the other side knows that that sword comes down after two years then it puts them in a much more powerful position in negotiation. puts them in a much more powerful position in negotiationlj

puts them in a much more powerful position in negotiation. i thank thee on the ball gentleman, and that's why it's important we get an amendment on this until we know where we're going. why don't we put the front bench on a course to learn how to negotiate. i agree. ithink the front bench on a course to learn how to negotiate. i agree. i think a lot could be learnt from a negotiation position and do not put yourself in a position of weakness, do not do this with the eu who are on the whole, decent people. conclusion, i would argue strongly

for the new clause and the amendments we put down to secure the position at the end of the negotiations before we embark on something that is going to leave this house, notjust with something that is going to leave this house, not just with a something that is going to leave this house, notjust with a bad deal or no deal, but with a metaphorical gun pointing at its head when it comes to addressing the serious questions. we have to know the end position before we can bark on that fundamentally dangerous course. —— embark. i agree with the right honourable member that we shouldn't wa nt to honourable member that we shouldn't want to do anything to undermine the british bargaining position, and with all the efforts of this house as we try to knit together, should be designed to maximising our leveraged in the best possible

future relationship with our partners in the eu. which is why i feel disagreement towards these well—intentioned agreements. i feel they will damage the negotiation, may be inadvertently. he says nonsense. let him explain. we are invited to believe that if the house of commons decided that it did not like the deal that the government had negotiated in future negotiations have voted it down, the eu would immediately say sorry and offer us a better deal. i don't think that is practical. i don't understand how they believe it's going to happen. but what could happen is that those in the eu who wa nt to happen is that those in the eu who want to keep us there may feel they can offer our support deal to tempt

parliament into voting the deal down, so there was no deal at all. why is he so worried about the house of commons? why is he scared? i'm supporting government, offering this house a vote, and the government can't deny the house they vote. but it's important for those who want to go further and press the government for more this approach should understand... it could be deeply damaging to the united kingdom negotiating position. let's return now to our correspondent who's inside the house of commons. the confusion is that the government says it won't this seek further negotiations with the eu the

government votes down its brexit deal. they are pushing for a meaningful vote, so they don't want to be rubber—stamping a deal that has been signed off by teresa may and the eu parliament, they want the option to send it back to the negotiating table. the labourfront bench welcomed it, that since then, on more discussion, mps are not as happy. what do you make of this? is ita happy. what do you make of this? is it a concession? i am not encouraged by what i've heard. there are three problems with what's you have seen there. the concerns about this have been brought up by labour members, kenneth clarke, the former chancellor. first of all, we want

the government to come to parliament and consult before a final deal is reached. you can wait until you've got a complete deal and present that to parliament and parliament is left with no time to object. i will come back to that. or heads of terms, the re nta ble back to that. or heads of terms, the re ntable points of back to that. or heads of terms, the rentable points of the deal have been breached. at that point, you come to parliament and finally conclude it. in respect of that, that's not what we want. the second thing is in terms of parliament having the opportunity to send the government back to the negotiation table if we don't like the deal they have come to britain with because it is unacceptable. the big hole and this is that if the government decide to do no deal we don't get stay on that. it would mean that the

trade rules we use and that means for our businesses, it means a 10% tariff on the top of the cost baker, 10% on your clothes, our agriculture, 40% on some meat. now thatis agriculture, 40% on some meat. now that is a decision not to do a deal and to go want to trade without eu partners on those rules. that is not a cce pta ble partners on those rules. that is not acceptable to being left to government with the government being —— with parliament being a spectator. now it's been said that it's about the future as well as the withdrawal deal. initially i took that to mean it at face value. there

are that to mean it at face value. there a re two that to mean it at face value. there are two parts to the deal, one part of it is the divorce settlement, the marriage between the uk and the eu institutionally is going to break—up, so what do we pay into the eu that we have incurred as a result of our membership after we have left. the second part is the trade deal we do with them after we left. we won't be allowed to trade on the same terms as a member. that is what's exercising colleagues, and we brought up that if we don't do a deal and flip onto world trading organisation roles, that itself is a decision that parliament should be consulted on. i don't think they will flip on that. this is about

reasserting parliamentary sovereignty and that we are not a spectator and we have a role. we will be looking at the impact, at 5pm this afternoon of an eu exit and what it will affect —— how it will affect public finances. we had that us affect public finances. we had that us with borisjohnson affect public finances. we had that us with boris johnson saying 350 million words go into the nhs. that is being debated today and hopefully we will have a vote on it and you'll be able to see whether those who promised all that to the nhs will stick to what they said or betrayed you. mps still not happy with the

government and what they have said. we will keep you posted. news from the old bailey. a 19—year—old has been handed an unlimited hospital order for killing an american tourist and injuring five other people during a rampage with a knife in early august last, in russell square. retired teacher darlene horton was visiting london with her husband when she was killed. the 19—year—old has taken a guilty plea on diminished responsibility. a growing number of conservative mps have criticised the speaker of the house of commonsjohn bercow

after he publicly opposed the idea of president trump addressing parliament during his state visit. he told the house of commons yesterday that addressing mps "was not an automatic right, but an earned honour." it's prompted calls for him to consider his position with some conservatives accusing him of ignoring the tradition that the speaker should stay neutral. here's our political correspondent chris mason. the ultimate accolade on a state visit. the red carpet and the chance to address both houses of parliament. so this is where president trump might have got to stand and now he won't. it is the oldest part of parliament, westminster hall, dating back to the 11th century. critics say that the speaker's remarks went too far. i don't think he wants to play politics, but that is how it is being interpreted. he prides himself on being able to speak for the whole house and remain neutral. i think this... statement that he made takes him away from that position and exposes him to the accusation of hypocrisy. i invite you, mr president, to address us. there was gushing words and the hand of friendship for the president of china, despite criticism of his

country's human rights record. he addressed parliament's royal gallery. but the speaker's view of president trump... 0ur opposition to racism and to sexism... good on you say some mps, what you said was music to our ears. i was in the hall at the time and brilliant. respect to him. he did a fantasticjob and articulated the way the british people feel, not necessarily about the president of the united states, but the tones in which he has used in his campaign to become the president and i have not seen him roll back from that yet. sojohn bercow spoke on behalf of many of us. it has become traditional to keep an eye on president trump's twitter account. no response from him yet. but some of his allies have noticed. that is disappointing, if ever

in recent years there have been a more pro—british president of the united states it is donald trump. next up, this man, the lords speaker will weigh in with his view. the speaker in for me he was generally sorry for —— genuinely sorry forfailing to generally sorry for —— genuinely sorry for failing to consult with me. my view is that i will keep an open mind about mr trump addressing parliament when a request is made. this row is not over yet. meanwhile the latest round of donald trump's legal battle with the courts over his temporary travel ban continues today. a federal appeals court is due to decide whether to restore

the president's 90—day ban on people from seven, mainly muslim countries, a decision that's led to protests in america and elsewhere. president trump says he believes a lot of bad people are making their way to his country. president trump returned to the white house with the fate of one of his signature policies still unclear. he wants to temporarily close all america's border to all refugees and to travellers from seven predominantly muslim countries, but his move has been blocked by the courts. earlier, he told members of military that controlling access to america was the key to its security. we need strong programmes so that people that love us and want to love our country and will end up loving our country are allowed in. not people that want to destroy us and destroy our country. this appeals court is due to hear arguments for and against the ban before making itjudgment. in motions filed

by the two sides, the department ofjustice said the executive order is a lawful exercise of the president's authority to decide who can enter the country. but the states of washington and minnesota, which brought the case, argue the list of countries targeted by the order is intended to disfavour muslims, which is a breach of the constitution. when we first created the constitution, one of the things we said was there would be no religious tests for office. this goes even further and erects a religious test for entry. and that just goes beyond what the constitution has. this executive order was done in the bests was done in the best interests of protecting the america people and this is something that has broad support from american people from one coast to the other and we are going to continue to do what we have to do and this president's committed to making sure this country and it is people are safe. around 130 tech companies are also opposing the ban, arguing they need access to foreign talent. among then are two companies owned by elon musk — spacex and teslar.

he has now chosen to resist the ban, despite being on the president's business advisory council. for now though the people that president trump wants to block are coming to america as fast as they can. all have been processed by immigration officers and have valid us visas and it may finally be that the supreme court will have to rule on how much power mr trump has to keep them out. richard lister, bbc news washington. england is being promised a million new homes by 2020, under plans being published by the government this lunchtime. it's setting out its strategy for fixing what it says is a "broken" housing market in england. the plans include building more affordable homes, help for first—time buyers, and measures to make rental agreements more secure. joining me is the housing spokesman for the local government

association. thank you forjoining us. you are saying that increasingly, homes are not being built even though planning applications are being approved at, as you are saying, record rates. so where is the problem in this? let's be clear that we support the government's ambition to build a million houses by 2020 and we want to play a part in that. nine out of ten planning applications get approved, but our problem is that so many of these applications never get converted into houses being built. 5000 houses could be built under existing permissions, buti 5000 houses could be built under existing permissions, but i know from developers that they hang on to those so they can maximise on the

market. we want powers as councils to get those houses built. so you see developers are putting a squeeze on the number of being —— bodies being built to squeeze the prices? for many developers, they want to maximise their profits, it's understandable but as a society we need to get those houses built and we wa nt need to get those houses built and we want local councils to bring those onto the market. the government is making concessions. rather than having three year planning permissions, they are going to make that tune. to make that two. the local government association, i understand, once more powers for

councils and access to funding so they can become major builders of affordable homes themselves? its 250,000 houses a year that need to be built. the private sector normally builds about 130,000, maybe 160,000 houses per year. if you want to get these levels the government are aspiring to, then the public sector has got to pick up the slack. so we are saying that councils are on stand—by to help the government. particularly those at affordable rent that the government wants but we need the government's permission to do that because we need to borrow in order to build these houses. thank you very much, martin. doctors' leaders say it's "crazy"

that the uk's standard ten—minute slot for gp consultations is among the shortest in europe. they say plans to move more care out of hospitals will leave even less time for patients. the department of health says it's up to practices to decide how long consultations last. what we are seeing is people using x—ray, mri and etta integration. i'm walking through this practice to find out how you integrate all this care. i will enter at this conversation. you are a cardiologist

working for the hospital trust, but also here is a gp? is an tacit facility that means i can get out to see patients where they live. —— it's a fantastic facility. i can get close to where patients need to be seen. patients should be cared for, that's the general gist. do you agree with that principle? yes. kent isa agree with that principle? yes. kent is a large geographical area, and we need to do what we can to make sure that we penetrate all the areas in kent so that patients get the right ca re kent so that patients get the right care wherever they are. it may be that we had to hold certain clinics in certain areas and we have two at

set that it's a large area we cover, but by getting out and doing these clinics it's the big boss of the nhs, simon stevens, is coming here in a few weeks. in the end it is all about money. who is going to invest in services like this? let's see how the weather is looking for the rest of the afternoon. much of the country has had a good day. a lot of sunshine in england, wales and northern ireland. it has not been the same story everywhere. some hill snow and rain in scotland. the heavy showers we have had crossed —— across wales and south—west england fizzling out overnight. for the least you will hold on to the cloud and damp weather. 0utbreaks hold on to the cloud and damp weather. 0utbrea ks of hold on to the cloud and damp weather. outbreaks of rain. maybe some sleet and snow over high

ground. through wednesday, central and eastern parts remaining cloudy. the best of the sunshine and the temperatures in the west. cold in the east. that is the theme into thursday, friday and the weekend. easterly winds feeding in cloud. wintry across parts of england. it turns much colder towards the end of the week. a bite in the easterly wind. a lot of cloud and the increasing chance of snow showers towards the weekend. hello. this is bbc news. the headlines: both houses of parliament will get a vote on the final brexit deal, the government says, in what labour says is a huge and important concession. the brexit minister said the government would not renegotiate the

deal if it was rejected by parliament. we intend the vote will cover not just the parliament. we intend the vote will cover notjust the withdrawal arrangements but also the future relationship with the european union. the speaker in the lords tells peers he does not intend to argue for or against any request by us president trump to address parliament during his state visit later this year. my my view is that i will keep an open mind and consider any request for mr trump to address parliament if and when it is made. the government announces new plans to build affordable homes, tackle the high cost of renting, and offer more help to first time buyers — but critics say it will do little to provide genuinely affordable housing. tax rises and spending cuts are set to continue into the next decade, according to leading economists at the institute for fiscal studies. doctors' leaders say average ten minute gp appointments, which are thought to be the shortest in europe, are ‘crazy‘ — and plans to move more care out of hospitals will leave even less time for patients.

just hearing that theresa may will visit china later this year. that announcement coming from downing street. brexit very much on the agenda. now let's get the sport. good afternoon. alastair cook has been speaking for the first time since stepping down as england test cricket captain. he says he can longer give the job 100 percent effort anymore, and feels sad to walk away. he's been speaking to our sports correspondentjoe wilson. it's a job you need to do at 100% and you need to be committed to everything. unfortunately, i've gone to the well a few times and i have to be honest and look in the mirror. i couldn't do it any more. i could do 95%. i could not 5%. i could not 5job - can do icould not5job can do fr? 7 , fl