agreed to lift sanctions during his meeting with kimjong—un in singapore. as well as stopping military exercises with south korea. earlier reports from north korea said its leader has accepted an invitation from president trump to visit the united states. the british government has averted a damaging defeat for its brexit strategy — a mix of last—minute promises and negotiations persuaded a majority of 26 members of parliament to reject an amendment to the eu withdrawal bill. the amendment, from the unelected upper chamber, the lords, would have given parliament wide powers over the brexit process. france and italy have exchanged sharp words over hundreds of migrants on a ship in the mediterranean. the french president accused the italian government of "cynicism and irresponsibility" for refusing to let them land in italy. now on bbc news, tuesday in parliament. hello and welcome to the programme.

coming up, the government condemns amendments the house of lords made to the brexit bill. unconstitutional shift, which risks undermining our negotiations with the european union. it enables parliament to dictate the government's course of action in international negotiation. but one tory dismisses the idea it'll weaken britain's hand. it is based on the proposition that out there, on the continent, they don't know there are divisions in the cabinet. laughter. also on the programme, who's clock watching on the committee corridor? just give us five minutes. no, no, no. you said we had left 20 minutes and we've run way past 20 minutes. so, i'm sorry, but i'm afraid it's time to go. well, it's been a day of high drama at westminster.

the main piece of brexit legislation the eu withdrawal bill, was back in the commons. but now it was different, amended 15 times by the lords. the most significant change was one which would force the prime minister to get the approval of mps before she signed a final deal with the eu, the so—called "meaningful vote". the government seemed to be on the ropes. to add to the tension, a juniorjustice minister, philip lee, unexpectedly resigned from the government, saying he couldn't support the way brexit was being delivered. in the chamber the government whips were circling, trying to convert errant tories. a group of rebels slipped away for a meeting with the prime minister. tensions were running high. the brexit secretary set out his stall. the government respects the constitutional role the house of lords has played in scutinising this legislation. we have listened whenever possible to sensible suggestions to be made to improve the bill. but where amendments have been made that seek to or inadvertently undermine the essential purpose of the bill to provide a smooth

and orderly exit or undermine the referendum result, we must reject it. the brexit secretary then moved on to the vexed issue of the meaningful vote. a point taken up by a labour brexiteer. what it actually amounts to is an unconstitutional shift which risks undermining our negotiations with the european union. it enables parliament to dictate the government's course of action in international negotiation. professor... well, what's wrong with that? i'll read a quote from a constitutional professor. not exactly a well—known leaver. a constitutional expert described this at the weekend as quote, "a constitutional absurdity that would weaken the position of britain's negotiations." a point taken up by a labour brexiteer. is it not true if we passed what the awards want us to do, we would be sending our negotiators back naked into the negotiation room? but a veteran tory remainer said the idea that a meaningful vote would undermine negotiations was ridiculous.

it is based on the proposition that out there, on the continent, they don't know there are divisions in the cabinet. laughter. it is not known what the situation is here in the house of commons. and actually, were whispers to get out with some slightly unusual votes in the house of commons, this would undermine my right honourable friend's position and that of the prime minister. david davis said there was no need for an amendment. is it the principle of parliamentary consent or as of the foreign secretary making damaging, on guarding remarks at a private dinner? is it that the brexit secretary playing the hokey pokey about whether he is going to stay in the government or not, or is it the spectacle of government ministers resigning because their own government is too intransigent to listen

to the constructive and sensible direction on brexit that many of us would like to see the government pursue? instead, we have provided in the event that the parliament rejects the deal to it, the government is legally obliged to make a statement on its proposed next steps in relation to article 50 negotiations within 28 days of that rejection. this house would of course then have plenty of tools at its disposal to respond. but i am confident as ever that we secure an agreement to which this house will want to support. are honourable members really content with the sum of their role to be the chance to listen to a ministerial statement and to attempt to catch the speaker's eye to ask a question? because that is what honourable members will be giving their consent to if they vote for the government's amendment today. it's the same take—it—or—leave—it vote the government offered last year with a few extra boggles. a labour mp wanted advice as to what he should say to his constituents. how will we explained to them that an unelected house of lords,

if there are amendments are passed, can overturn both the commons and the referendum? how will labour voters be explained that? i'll tell my honourable friend how we'll explain it to them. will say that their lordships asked us to consider and vote on. whether in the event a majority of this house do not approve the deal that we take control of the situation and shape how the executive then proceeds. the snp was concerned with the abuse suffered by some mps over their brexit views. it's almost two years since the labour mpjo cox was murdered. i say to colleagues on all sides of the house that can disagree passionately and fervently with each other. but please get the language of violence out of the vocabulary of this debate, out of the vocabulary of all debates. then the now former conservativejustice minister got to his feet to explain why he'd resigned. in all conscience, i cannot bring myself to vote for it in this

bastion of liberty, freedom and human rights. the people of my constituency are my first and most important responsibility as their member of parliament. certainly now it seems inevitable that the people, economy and culture of my own constituency will be affected negatively. and i cannot ignore that they did this to them that i owe my first responsibility as the member of parliament. i must be able to speak out on their behalf on this greatest political issue of our age. as the debate continued the main battles were mostly confined to the conservative benches. a former attorney general was behind the key amendment. he explained why it was needed in the event of no deal on brexit. if in fact we don't achieve a deal at all, the fact is we are going to be facing an immense crisis. there may be some of my colleagues on the side of the house who are excited at this prospect and think it is a wonderful moment. i am not.

i think it will be catastrophic. and so the question is, how do we take some sensible steps to anticipate that happening and try to make sure that there is a coherent process for dealing with that? that's what this is about, not about obstructing brexit. the solicitor general got up to intervene. we can't bind the negotiations nor can we disrespect the referendum result. but we do commit as my honourable friend the secretary of state said in his speech to meet to see how we can build on her majesty's government on the amendment today ahead of the lords stages. and arranged to meet my honourable friend tomorrow in order to make that important progress upon what we have achieved today here. i take at face value and i am most grateful to my honourable friend

for making the point. but he must understand that when we get to the stage we've faced some difficult challenges. and there is a lords amendment. of course that is what could go to the bill. if we endorsed the government's approach and my own amendment which could be adopted by the government, it's a rather arcane procedure but if they do not want to do that, i need to have some cast—iron assurances that when this bill goes back to the lords with the government's amendment, we will implement significant parts of what i have put forward because we cannot allow a situation in which there is no mechanisms for dealing with no deal. i give way. robert buckland intervened again and again until the speaker had had enough. this is not a private conversation with a member. if the house wants to hear

everything being shouted, they would want to hear it briefly! dominic grieve later disappeared from the chamber could he have been making a deal with the government? inside the chamber, the arguments raged on. those who support the house of lords are dressing up their arguments in terms of parliamentary sovereignty. it is in order, is it not, for parliament to debate, amend, as the house of lords can do, a bill. that's what we do all the time. but what they really want to do is create a situation in which the whole process is frustrated. and it's been said again and again, we ourselves voted 6—1 to transfer this decision from ourselves uniquely in our history to the people. they decided to leave. mr speaker, i know and i understand how difficult it is for many of my colleagues to go through lobbies

and vote against their party. but i say this. i am getting a little tired of honourable members and right honourable members on the back benches in government, even in the cabinet, who come unto and others in quiet and dark corridors to british businesses who demand private meetings where they lay bare their despair and refuse to go public. to the commentators who said to me, "you are doing a greatjob, keep on going" in the face of death threats and then having to attend an engagement with six undercover police officers, and that is the country we have created and it has got to stop. we believe that when parliament has considered this matter, the matter should be put, whether with a deal or absence of deal should be put to the public who should have the final say on the matter.

this is not an extraordinary observation. countries like switzerland regard confirmatory referendum as a course. in the closing moments of the debate, a potential tory rebel spoke. i do accept that the solicitor general has given an important concession today. and i would have supported the lords amendment had that concession not been made. but i give way. i think it will be very helpful to the house if she could offer a little bit more detail about what the consensus is. time is up. order! the speaker preventing labour's ben bradshaw and anyone else from speaking, because time was up for this part of the debate. so what happened ? the ayes to the right, 324. the noes to the left, 298. so after all that,

the government won by 26 votes. and if you're wondering what that concession was, a statement from the department for exiting the eu said that the government had agreed to "look for a compromise" when this goes back to the lords. but it added that ministers would not agree to the house of commons "binding the government's hands in the negotiations." you're watching tuesday in parliament with me, mandy baker. on the day that mps grappled with the eu withdrawal bill, one of the leading leave campaigners arron banks was in parliament to answer questions about fake news. mr banks, a millionaire and former ukip donor, founded the leave.eu campaign group. at the weekend, there were newspaper reports about his links with russian officials. mr banks told mps there was "no evidence" of a conspiracy. and he described his campaign to leave the eu as "disruptive". when we started our campaign we realise to get a share

of the voice, what we had to do was slightly alternative, but teased journalists. they are the cleverest, stupidest people on earth. because actually they are clever but also they really want to believe some of this stuff so we were not above using alternative methods to to sort of punch home oui’ message. or lead people of the garden path if we had to. but the piece of advice we got right from the beginning was remember this is referendum, it is not about facts, it is about emotion. you have to tap into that emotion, it does not matter how many facts you throw out, it is white noise to people. a conservative questioned mr banks, who runs an insurance firm, about his business interests. all of these different companies and names and different arrangements that people are trying to unravel journalists or whoever suggest that you do have something to hide in all of this that might somehow have some connection to influencing politics across the world. i would like to think i am an evil genius with a white cat that controls the whole of western democracy but clearly

that is nonsense. don't lecture me about offshore tax structures and complexities, you set the law and you make the law. and are you quite clear about what sources of finance are permitted in order to donate to political parties or campaigns? i am crystal clear. so we will not find anything untoward? no. and i am frankly sick and tired of this. the reason why i went in with the referendum is i have a different version of what the future of this country is. i respect your right to disagree with that and i know you are all remainers, i think. all remainers? hands up? i think so, you have a vested interest in trying to discredit brexit campaign. mr wigmore said allegations

about mr banks‘ links with russia prompted them to arrange meetings with the american embassy in london. this information i have here which is top—secret, that as all the e—mails, i have protected the names. i have informed the us embassy that i am going to do this for you because i think it is important in relation to everything that we have been accused of that you see it. if you want to speak to the security services, the united states embassy, please do because we have been pretty open about everything that we have done and we have done nothing sinister, we had a couple of great lunches. by the way, the ambassador of russia was very generous to us and his wife could does the food which was fantastic. he is one of seasoned diplomats. at a quarter to two, the committee chair said there would be a few final questions. but mr banks had other ideas. i think that will be it. that will be it. do you want us to sign the book in? actually, you said 20 minutes

and i generally do have another appointment which i don't want to be late for. is itjust one or two questions? this is the last question. one were questioned. i will have to insist i was told at a certain time and we have a luncheon employment that we don't want to be late for. you canjoin us if you want. we will be in the house of commons bar. can you give us five minutes of your time? no, you said 20 minutes and it is way past 20 minutes so i am sorry but i am afraid that it is time to go. i think we have been as open with you. it turned out that mr banks and mr wigmore were meeting two democratic unionists mps for lunch. the government has come under pressure in the house of lords to scrap the cap on the number of skilled migrants who can come to the uk. the demands follow the revelation that more than 2,300 visa applications by doctors looking to work in the uk have been refused in five months. and it is ludicrous and frankly shameful that patient care in this

country is being compromised every day by the shortage of doctors and yet every day, doctors from overseas recruited to positions in the nhs are being turned away and refused visas by the home office. yesterday we learned that 2360 such doctors have been refused visas, we learned that through a freedom of information request, not in response to my question four weeks ago when at the dispatch box, the minister didn't give me the numbers. that is in the last six months. is in a time that the government took urgent action and him did this damaging and dogmatic policy? my lords i would like to think the noble baroness for her question and the noble baroness is quite right, this issue does need to be looked at seriously and this is why my right honourable friend, the home secretary, and my right honourable friend, the prime minister, have been discussing this issue. progress as i said it will be made in the very near future. given the fact that we are tens

of thousands of doctors short, will the minister explained to the house and through this house to the british people why they are prepared to put their health at risk by refusing thousands upon thousands of doctors who have been recruited the right to come into this country? my lords, as the noble lord will be aware, we have taken as a priority to actually increase the doctor numbers in this country. a record number of undergraduates will begin medical training by 2020 with 1500 new funded places and five new medical schools. the noble lord mightjest but this is a very serious matters. practise what is also known my lords, the migration has recognised being a shortage in the uk, and given a priority on the soul, no one in the specialisms have been refused visas.

lord courtown. 11,000 jobs are now at risk after two big high street names, house of fraser and poundworld became the latest to run into trouble. a conservative former cabinet minister wanted to know what the government was going to do to stop more shops closing. does the government presently feel that there is a level playing field between internet providers and businesses on the high street? he absolutely highlights a key issue which is the transition from traditional bricks and mortar to online and alone we saw a 9% increase in the retail online last year and that clearly is a challenge for government and for business. that is why we are looking at the business rate structure but also why we are looking at what we can do to help business transition during this difficult period. since the start of the year,

tens of thousands of retail workers have lost their jobs. 3.9 million people work in the retail sector. they, their employers, and anyone who cares about the high streets wants a retail sector deal, so when is the government going to publish the strategy, and more to the point will it have any meaningful action? i think the honourable gentleman for that question and i can tell him yesterday i spoke both to the chief executives of house of fraser and poundworld to properly understand the challenges those businesses face and what the government can do to support them. but he was optimistic about the future of high street shops. retail employment has been stable at about three million and yes those jobs are changing but retail sales total some £362 billion last year and jobs are being created in the retail sector. the business minister.

now, rockstar, monster energy, relentless, rock bands headlining at glastonbury? nope, they're actually energy drinks. for the last four months the sale of energy drinks to youngsters under 16 has been banned, on a voluntary basis, by several of the nation's supermarkets. the drinks contain high quantities of sugar and caffeine. so, is it time to take stronger action and make it unlawful for anyone under 16 to buy an energy drink? the science committee has been hearing from experts. what level of caffeine do you think would be acceptable in these energy drinks? and i think you alluded to it, is there a level of caffeine supplied to a particular volume of the drink because... a very recent systematic review that goes along with children 2.5 milligrams of caffeine per kilogram of body weight per day in the european food safety authority is it is three so we are talking about proportion sizes, it is also availability. these are still available.

i have a lovely quote from one of our young participants that says you can get them everywhere apart from the furniture shop and the pet shop. which is true. they are everywhere. they are almost pick me ups, the idea that we are breeding a culture where people believe that they need external pick me ups to get them through the day. adults tend to believe that "oh, god i need a coffee." i suppose in all night sittings of the house. but i suspect you know the decisions made in the all night sittings of the house gets worse and worse the more caffeine everyone drinks. it is an addictive substance and the research around the want centre of the brain and the response to energy drinks on the brain at young ages is already discussed but there is emerging evidence to say they are addictive and can lead to future use in adulthood. children at ten years old say they drink them because they are cool

and they want to fit in with their peers drinking them as well. there is this culture around energy drinks that they are linked with gaming and sports events and that is the way that they have been advertised. you also advocated these exclusion zones but you say you favour a ban from 16? cons are it is difficult to actually control and do we make them even more attractive because that adds, this is banned, let's have it. but it has worked with success when it comes to alcohol and cigarettes. i would suggest the consideration of being banning under 18s simply because 58% of the volume of energy drinks are consumed with alcohol. so if we were to just make that link between energy drink consumption and alcohol consumption we already are saying we do not allow under 18s to drink alcohol, would this be

a way of trying to reduce alcohol consumption of young people. a total ban under 16 consumption of these energy drinks is desirable but we evaluate that may be a longer term because there may be more obstacles to securing that in practise. it is a graduated approach and must do things we can do now to exerts downward pressure on consumption and look at longer—term policy solutions as well including a complete ban on the consumption or sale of these drinks to 16—year—olds or those young ones. all four of you are advocating a ban? yes. the debate over the future of energy drinks. finally, returning to our top story, the eu withdrawal bill. mps were supposed to also discuss amendments relating to northern ireland.

but because there were so many votes earlier on, there was less than 20 minutes left of the allotted time, much to the irritation of dozens of mps. after a very speedy debate, a government amendment on the irish border, guaranteeing there'll be no new border arrangements without the agreement of the uk and irish authorities, was approved by mps. but that's not the end of the story, on wednesday mps will look at more amendments from the lords, including controversial issue of customs arrangements. and that's all we've got time for. so from me, mandy baker, goodbye. hello. there is wet and windy

weather in the forecast for the next 24- 48 weather in the forecast for the next 2a— 48 hours. you may not know that as you step out on wednesday morning, there are spells of sunshine. it is not until quite late on that things will turn wet and windy from the north—west. a decent enough day. spells of sunshine. our starting to increase from the west. the odd shower and rain splashes into the western side of northern ireland and the west of scotland as we go through the afternoon. the wind strengthening as well. before that whether arrives, we will get up to 22 degrees or part of the south—east. going through wednesday night, it is wet and windy across northern ireland, scotland, and northern england. across these areas the winds will strengthen through the winds will strengthen through the small hours of the estate. wind gusts up to 50— it 60 mph, perhaps stronger in places. for places like glasgow, edinburgh, aberdeen, there could be travel disruption for thursday morning rush hour. your bbc radio station will keep you up—to—date. welcome to bbc news,

broadcasting to viewers in north america and around the globe. my name is mike embley. our top stories: north korean state media says president trump agreed to lift sanctions, at tuesday's summit with kim jong—un. and kim has accepted an invitation to visit the united states. both leaders have accepted invitations to visit each other‘s capitals. at the talks, north korea claimed yet again it would get rid of its nuclear weapons, but the us president shocked his allies in the region with this pledge on military exercises. we will be stopping the wargames, which will save a tremendous amount of money. in the uk, the government avoids a damaging defeat over brexit — but only just. and the french president criticises the new italian government for refusing to take in 600 migrants stranded on a rescue ship in the mediterranean