the prime minister of antigua and barbuda said at least one person had been killed by the storm and almost all the buildings had been damaged. six are reported dead on st barts. bangladesh has lodged a strong protest with myanmar over the violence that has caused more than 140,000 rohingya muslims to flee across the border. myanmar has denied its troops are committing abuses, and accused rohingya militants of burning villages to force civilians to flee. facebook says it's discovered a russian—funded campaign to promote divisive social and political messages during last year's us presidential election campaign. it said $100,000 was spent on around 3,000 advertisements over a two—year period, ending this may. now on bbc news, it's wednesday in parliament, with alicia mccarthy. hello there, and welcome

to wednesday in parliament. the first prime minister's questions of the new term sees theresa may being urged to lift the public sector pay cap. nhs staff are 14% worse off than they were seven years ago. is she really happy that nhs staff use food banks? as a result of the decisions the labour party took in government, we now have to pay more on debt interest than an nhs pay. peers argue it is time for a new approach to illegal drug—taking. and their support for the government's plan to scrap letting fees in england. if one letting agent can charge £6 for a check, how can others charge £300? we start with the first

prime minister's questions since the summer recess. while mps and peers have been away, the brexit talks have been continuing, and the morning's news have been dominated by leaked report suggesting the uk could take a much tougher approach to immigration once we have left the eu. jeremy corbyn didn't raise the potential change for overseas workers, but did raise pay and conditions for workers already here. with nurses protesting outside the houses of parliament, jeremy corbyn stepped up his calls for an end to the public sector pay cap. mr speaker, today, thousands of nursing and other health care staff are outside parliament. they are demanding that this government scrap the 1% pay cap. poor pay means experienced staff are leaving and fewer people are training to become nurses. there's already a shortage of 40,000 nurses across the uk. will the prime minister please see sense and end the public sector pay cap and ensure our nhs

staff are properly paid. there are two pay body review reports for 2017—18 to be published, for police and prison officers, and that will happen shortly, and then later, as always happens every year, later in the autumn we will publish the framework for 2018—19, and we will continue to balance the need to protectjobs, the need to protect public sector workers and the need to ensure that we are also protecting and being fair to those who are paying for it, including public sector workers. he asks consistently for more money to be spent. he can do that in opposition because he knows he doesn't have to pay for it. the problem with labour is they do it in government as well, and as a result of the decisions the labour party took in government, as a result...as a result of the decisions the labour party took in government,

we now have to pay more on debt interest than on nhs pay. that's the result of labour. the prime minister had no problems finding £1 billion to please the dup, no problems whatsoever. and nhs staff are 14% worse off than they were seven years ago. is she really happy that nhs staff use food banks? warm words don't play food bills. pay rises will help to do that. she must end the public sector pay cap. the snp westminster leader did turn to brexit. does the prime minister agree with me that immigration is essential to the strength of the uk economy as well as enhancing our diversity and cultural fabric? as i have said on many occasions before, overall immigration has been good for the uk, but what people want to see is control of that immigration. but i think what people want to see

as a result of coming out of the european union. we are already able to exercise controls in relation to those who come to this country from outside the countries within the european union, and we continue to believe as a government that it's important to have net migration at sustainable levels. we believe that to be in the tens of thousands because of the impact particularly it has on people at the lower end of the income scale in depressing their wages. from the backbenches, a conservative raise the eu withdrawal bill, which mps are due to begin debating on thursday. it transfers eu laws into uk legislation, but there will need to be some changes to make those laws work after brexit. that has caused concern that the government may use potentially sweeping powers to make alterations without parliamentary scrutiny. could my right honourable friend assure me that she would use those measures to affect the withdrawal bill so that it doesn't become

an unprecedented and unnecessary government power grab? i'm very grateful to my right honourable friend from raising this issue, and i know that like me she wants to see an orderly exit from the european union, and will be supporting this bill which enables us not just to leave the eu but to do so in an orderly manner with a functioning statute book. as we do that, we will require certain powers to make corrections to the statute book after the bill becomes law, because the negotiations are ongoing, and we will do that via secondary legislation which will receive parliamentary scrutiny, an approach which has been endorsed by the house of lords constitution committee. from this month, all three and four—year—olds in england are entitled to 30 hours of free childcare week, up from 15 hours. but labour says parents

are in limbo because of failings in the government's scheme. the shadow education minister attacked the tory policy for being shrouded in secrecy, misinformation and mayhem. from the beginning, the application process was not fit for purpose. settings were run ragged trying to help parents, and this afternoon, there are parents who have been waiting weeks and are still in limbo. this childcare has been advertised as free, but it is clear it will be subsidised by parents or providers. this risks pricing out the poorest, and top providers leaving the sector. will he now listen and commit to reevaluating the policies funding? thank you, mr speaker. i'm afraid the honourable lady's rhetoric doesn't accurately reflect the experience on the ground. i can update her in terms of we predicted that around 75% of eligible parents would apply and the scheme. there are some parents

who have a very good reasons in terms of family childcare would not apply, that figure would have been 200,000, so we have exceeded that prediction, and i can confirm that as we are only six days into september, 152,829 parents have secured a place, that is 71% of those parents have now found a place six days in. that is a great success story. but mps continued to raise questions, some hostile and some not. he knows that i wrote as the incoming chairman of the treasury select committee to the head hmrc over the summer, he replied the the 17th of august saying that a total of £45,000 or thereabouts had so far been paid in compensation. is the minister able to update the house, and can he confirm what he said about those parents who had codes by the 31st of august that they will be able to access childcare this autumn?

i thank my right honourable friend for the question. it is indeed a pledge that is being delivered. it is no secret that there were technical problems with the it system, and indeed my honourable friend from the treasury is here, listening to what we say. around about 1% of cases who applied online were stuck, that is a technical reason those cases were not processed. there were another group of cases that could not have been processed online, amber cases, for example, a person who applies for child care on the basis of a job offer rather than on the basis of the job, that would give us a catch—22 situation that a person could deprive childcare for someone who doesn't have a job, and didn't get the job because they didn't have childcare, so in situations like that there is a manual system. there were 2200 stuck cases, there are now 1500, but there are many new cases some of which have only been

on the system for a week, and certainly my honourable friend will write to her with regards to compensation, but we have a small number of people affected by this. the situation was operational 93% of the time during which people could apply. i wonder if the minister has read the report published last week with the social market foundation that showed that of the extra money the government is pumping into the early years over the course of this parliament, 75% of that expenditure is going on the top earners, the top 50% of earners, and less than 3% is going on the most disadvantaged. this comes at a time when the government's own evaluation of the two—year—old offer is showing a good quality early education is life changing for those families that receive it. is he happy with this distribution of expenditure, and what more is he doing to ensure that low—income and disadvantaged families are accessing this high—quality education? the snp scottish government confirmed that childcare entitlement

will double from august 2020. the tories have decided to cherry pick who receives the childcare. the minister told the snp that he wouldn't take any lessons from the scottish government. the conservatives were committed to spending billions of pounds and to transforming the lives of working parents. you are watching wednesday in parliament with me, alysia mccarthy. don't forget there is much more from this programme on our website. in westminster hall, there was broad support for a government plan to ban fees paid to letting agents in england. a new tenants fees bill was announced in the queen's speech which will stop tenants having to pay.

the money is used to taking references, getting credit checks or investigating immigration status, but mps argued the amounts charged could be excessive. a leading figure in the estate agency industy was talking to me about his daughter, who went to college in manchester, rented a student house with four fellow students and were charged £500 as a tenant fee, each. simply unfair. they use it to lower their charges to landlords, to attract more landlords, and then transfer that cost on to the tenant. that can't be right. others use it simply to maximise profits. take my constituent, david, for example. he rents a small room in what was originally a three—bedroom house. there are now two further bedrooms in the loft and two reception rooms on the ground floor used as bedrooms. there are currently ten households in that house. and he is charged £550 a month for his room. not the highest in my constituency, but still high enough.

and he was charged an astounding £1,250 in letting fees and a further £50 to simply get the letter that explained how much his deposit was and what he had paid for. on average, i'm told that it's up to five hours to prepare for a tenancy, looking at all the different documentation, going through the reference request, checking on the credit history, liaising with external referencing companies. i had a session with a couple of agents and they explained to me all the work that has to be done. and what they pointed out was that this is, in many ways, quite a blunt instrument. and that is why it i was saying to the minister that are there no other possible ways forward that could be looked at? for example, what about a cap on fees, would that not solve this? what about taking referencing fees at the scope of the action the government is taking?

and further to the point the honourable member made, he was saying that the landlord should pay for those, well, to be fair, the potential tenant would go to the agent and the tenant forms that relationship with the agent. the agent carries out the referencing work on that particular tenant and then the tenant has the opportunity through the agent of bidding for those properties. so what i would suggest is that, if the onus is put on the landlord, that rents will go up. the shadow housing minister pointed out that fees don't end there: if the tenant wishes to stay in the property beyond the length of the initial contract, they can be charged a fee for renewing their tenancy, which while in practice is as simple as changing the dates on the contract, can set tenants back by as much as £150. for an average of £400 per household, private renters received the service that the landlord has already paid the letting agent for. the fees charged by different letting agents vary hugely. this shows that they bear little

or no relation to the service that they supposedly buy. 0ne letting agent contract just £6 for a reference check, how can other agents justify charging £300? and more affordable and transparent lettings market. we hope that a ban will help to deliver a more competitive and more affordable and transparent lettings market. and i think we have heard from scotland, it hasn't had a negative consequences that some suggested that it might do. good letting agents provide a valuable service. ensuring that properties are properly managed. the problem is that the letting agent is chosen by the landlord, so tenants can be charged on fair or excessive fees, with a limited ability to negotiate or opt out. evidence shows that this is a problem right across england, and colleagues have referred to this. by banning tenant fees we will enable tenants to see what a given property will cost them and the advertised rent levels without any hidden costs. we believe this will reduce the upfront costs that tenants face when moving home and ensure

that they are only committed to a property that they know that they can afford. a new fleet of warships will be built over the next six years. the defence secretary told the commons that they will be constructed at a cost of no more than £250 million each. so michael fallon acknowledged that previous warships have been over budget and delivered late, but this time, the prize will be —— the price will be fixed in advance. the first chips are said to be in service by 2023. so, this will be the first demonstration of our new strategy in practice. the new frigate will be procured competitively, providing an opportunity for any shipyard across the united kingdom to bid for this programme of work. the strategy confirms in the clearest statement of this policy for a decade that all warships will have a uk owned, designed, and will be

built and integrated inside the united kingdom. warship build will be by competition between united kingdom shipyards. the government's commitment to a ship building strategy must be complemented by a comprehensive industrial strategy. we need more than warm words. so can i ask the secretary of state, how he intends to maximise opportunities for the uk supply chain? and when determining best value, will he commit to giving weight to the positive impact on local economies and employment opportunities when awarding contracts? the news that only 50% of the steel in the type 26 is uk—sourced is very disappointing. so how does the government intend to improve on this for future contracts? can you confirm that the type 31 frigate is a complex naval warship and therefore should be built

at the centre of excellence which is on the clyde which he, under then—prime minister promised in november 2015, and finally, in respect of fleet and support ships, why are these being procured internationally when surely the uk shipyards could be block building them? secretary of state? well, the honourable gentleman is doing his best to turn sunshine into a grievance, and... laughter. you know, we... it is, you know, it is extraordinary, just to be clear about govan, govan is going to build for 20 years, eight enormous frigates. that is a frigate factory by any definition. will he give an undertaking today that wherever possible, we will use british steel in the building of these ships? well, we are going, as i said, to take a very, very close interest in the percentage of steel that will be used in each of the bids that is put forward. we'll be watching that extremely closely. i do remind the house,

there are some specialist steels that are not produced in this country that are needed for the hulls of our warships. but we will be looking to those who submit their bids to demonstrate just how much british steel they are using and also show how they are going to fully engage their local supply chains and indeed take the opportunity to refresh local skills in theirarea. i recently wrote to the secretary of state asking if he would consider naming one of the type 26 frigates hms colchester and i got a very pleasant and polite response from the undersecretary of state saying no, but i'm nothing but persistent and i would ask, we waited patiently since 1746 for another hms colchester and i would ask the secretary of state to please consider one of the new type 31 e class as hms colchester. we will certainly bear that in mind.

if my honourable friend has waited since 1746, perhaps he can wait a little longer. laughter. the government says it has no plans to review a new law banning psychoactive substances, formerly known as legal highs, following a prosecution last month. the crown prosecution service is reviewing two cases after a judge said that nitrous oxide, was exempt from the ban. the gas can be held as a recreational drug but the court ruled it wasn't covered by the law as it is also used by doctors for pain relief. it is believed that highlighted a flaw in the legislation. it hasn't taken long for the courts to expose the unworkability of part of the legislation. faced with a very serious and pressing problem of new psychoactive substances,

will the government now see reason and accept that prohibition, the orthodoxy of the last half—century, and reiterated on a peculiarly crude model in the 2016 act, has failed with disastrous consequences in terms of the growth of crime, the blighting of innumerable lives, not to mention the chaos in our prisons? will the government now both its policy not on the wishful thinking and populism, but on the evidence of science, the analysis of specific harms and the experience here and in other countries of what does work and what does not work? my lords, i disagree with the noble lord about the psychoactive substances act not working, because we have managed to close down over 300 retailers across the uk who sell psychoactive substances, and in 2016 there were 28 convictions in england and wales and seven people jailed under the new powers.

additionally coming from manchester, i would have to disagree with the noble lord if he saw some of the sight that i have seen on the streets of manchester recently. the un changed the basis of global drug policy in april last year at their special session. we now know that banning drugs will never create a drug—free world. the un therefore wants nations to pursue evidence—based policies as the noble lord has mentioned, public health policies to reduce addiction and reduce the harms to our young people. my lords, the psychoactive substances bill runs counter to the evidence. it does nothing to reduce addiction. it increases the risks to young people. yes, the head shops were closed. they were the last vestige of any kind of protection for young people, pretty inadequate though it was. so i will therefore reiterate the point already made, really.

will the minister give an assurance to this house that she will give the most serious consideration to instigating an independent review of all our drug policies? what are we doing? we are simply making matters worse, and to come forward with evidence—based policies. i must say to the noble lady that i don't disagree. in fact, on previous occasions i haven't disagreed that evidence—based policies are absolutely the right way forward, in fact the who is currently undertaking some work of its own and will report next year on the various elements of cannabis, and we wait with interest on the results of that work. finally, back to the commons, where mps were debating finance. nothing unusual about that, but this is what's known as a ways and means debate, about the budget. the khan budget was back

in the spring but ways to enact it were delayed and mps are onlyjust getting round to it now. i appreciate having a chance to take part in this ways and means debate, which i understand is one of very few that doesn't follow a budget, somebody told me that this is the first one since 1987 that hasn't followed a budget. which is when i was one. a treasury minister argued it was much needed. the changes this bill will make are important, making a major contribution to the public finances, tackling tax avoidance and evasion and addressing areas of unfairness in the taxation system. but the labour front bench thought it was in a muddle. a chaotic government chaotically stumbling from crisis to crisis, not knowing one part of its anatomy from another. and after the election, we return to a zombie parliament where little in the way of business

was put forward to be debated in this house and i think the speaker referred to this whole question today about scrutiny, which we are supposed to be doing and the government is not putting anything forward for us to scrutinise. so not only is the prime minister one of the walking dead, but she wants parliament to be, tojoin her. but the minister argued the alternative plan brought by labour at the election would not be good for the country. to be going out there with a plan which will basically see corporation tax rising up to 26%, for small companies as well, and changing the higher rate tax threshold to bring many, many more people into the higher rate of tax is not a way of incentivising jobs, wealth and economic growth. the snp had reservations about the proposal in the bill but did welcome one item. the fact that the government is going to be taking action

on those people that have been enabling tax avoidance schemes and notjust those people have been participating in tax avoidance schemes, i think that is a really positive move and i hope it will do what the government is intending in that it will discourage people from being clever and covering up tax avoidance schemes. so my fingers are crossed on that, we will wait to see how that comes out. that's it from me for now but to join me at the same time tomorrow as mps hold their first big debate on the eu withdrawal bill. but now, from the, goodbye. good morning.

0ur weather looks set to take a turn for the autumnal over the next few days. having said that, central and eastern region start an ace sunny speu eastern region start an ace sunny spell but things will cloud over from the west. showers from southern areas, persistent rains in northern ireland scotland and eastern england and temperatures around 16 in belfast, 18 in cardiff, made be reaching 20 degrees in london. during thursday night in the early hours of friday we will see bands of rain sinking southwards and eastwood, blown along on blustery winds and big there could be gales out west. friday will see this area of rain getting stuck across south wales in southern england. heady bursts of rain. further north, brightness with rain and hefty showers, call was a blustery wind. we get on into the weekend, it looks u nsettled. we get on into the weekend, it looks unsettled. quite autumnal, cooland windy with some rain at times. welcome to bbc news,

broadcasting to viewers in north america and around the globe. my name's mike embley. our top stories: hurricane irma causes chaos in the caribbean — now puerto rico braces itself for one of the atlantic's worst ever storms. the full force of hurricane irma is still hours away and you can still feel its effects. myanmar rejects accusations its armed forces are targeting rohingya muslims, as thousands continue to flee the violence. you can see what a dangerous voyage it has been for them, the boat is listing dangerously on its side. did russia use facebook to interfere with last year's us presidential election? new evidence emerges. and lights, catwalk, curves — the nigerian fashion show celebrating the african woman's body.