on the top court. the conservative has sided with liberals on many decisions, including the 5—4 rulings that decided same—sex marriage and upheld abortion rights. more than 200 migrants on a rescue boat have been taken in by malta, following an informal eu agreement to share out those on board. seven european countries will each take in some migrants. the deal comes on the eve of an eu summit aiming to tackle divisions over migration. german football fans have reacted with dismay to the defending champions‘ humiliating exit from the world cup. one newspaper called it a nightmare come true. the four—time winners lost 2—0 to south korea. now on bbc news, wednesday in parliament. hello and welcome to

wednesday in parliament. on this programme: jeremy corbyn, attacks theresa may about splits in her cabinet over brexit. the real risk to jobs in our country is a prime minister who is having to negotiate around the clock with our own cabinet to stop it falling apart. but the prime minister defends her government's record and its approach to brexit. a britain fit for the future, and leaving the eu on the 29th of march, 2019! also on this programme: mps back plans to ban the sale of knives online. and in the lords an archbishop calls for an end to religious hatred, wherever it comes from. if you don't mind, an african saying, when two elephants fight, or make love, the grass gets hurt. but first: jeremy corbyn has challenged theresa may

about cabinet splits over brexit. the foreign secretary, borisjohnson, is reported to have responded to concerns from big companies about our exit from the eu, by saying "eff business". in contrast the business secretary greg clark and theresa may have reassured that their concerns are being listened to. the business secretary believes that business is entitled to be listened to with respect. i'm sorry to see the foreign secretary is not today with us. he... he takes a very different view using an anglo—saxon term to make his point. which is the prime minister's view. this party and this government has always been a party that will back business and will continue to back business. can i say to the right honourable gentleman that if he wants to start standing up and talking in good terms about business

he has a decision to make. he can either back business or he can want to overthrow capitalism. he can't do both. i take the prime minister's response as a thumbs down to the foreign secretary. in recent days, there have been unprecedented concerns raised by trade unions, business and even some cabinet ministers. today, the cbi director general said facts ignored today mean jobs lost tomorrow. airbus supports 110,000 jobs in the uk supply chain. many of them, very highly skilled and well paid and unionised jobs. the company says no deal would force airbus to reconsider its footprint in the country. its investments and its dependency in the uk. can the prime minister reassure thousands of workers today and take the phoney threat of no deal off the negotiating table? i say to the right honourable gentleman, he has raised

the question of airbus, if he is so concerned about our aerospace and aviation industry, why did he not back the expansion of heathrow in this chamber? the real risk to jobs in our country is a prime minister who is having to negotiate around the clock with her own cabinet to stop it falling apart, rather than negotiating to defend jobs of workers in this country! theresa may reeled off a list of what she said were her government's achievements including a successor to trident, action on obesity, better mental services and the expansion of heathrow. record levels of employment. record levels of employment, falling borrowing, rising realwages, we've triggered article 50, we've agreed to an implementation period, we've passed the eu withdrawal bill. a britain fit for the future, and leaving the eu on the 29th of march 2019! the snp‘s westminster leader,

also accused the government of failing to listen to business. has insulted the business community and left companies in the dark. can the prime minister tell the house why 186,000 car manufacturing jobs are disposable to her? i say to the gentleman, we have been consistently listening to business throughout so far, business said that they wanted us to give priority to citizens and the eu rights in the uk and we did. business said they wanted an implementation period so there wasn't a cliff edge next march and we have negotiated an implementation period so that there will be a smooth and orderly brexit. business say they want as frictionless trade as possible so we are putting forward a proposal to ensure we provide that. but alongside that, we will be developing a global britain and looking around the world and signing trade deals around the world and if he thinks trade and business is so important, why didn't he support heathrow expansion?

will the prime minister join me in congratulating the foreign secretary for expressing so pithily what hard brexit will do to britishjobs and british businesses? can i say to the honourable lady as i have said many times and this house before, we are pursuing a brexit that will be a good deal for the uk, and a good deal for business, and a good deal for citizens. a good deal forjobs. on saturday about 100,000 people gathered in parliament square outside to demand a people's vote on the final brexit deal. i didn't see the prime minister amongst the many conservatives in the crowd. and the leader of the opposition was in the middle east avoiding the many labour supporters.

but since the... since the prime minister has such confidence that she will produce a good a brexit deal, why is she so afraid of allowing the final say for the public to endorse it? can i say to him the liberal democrats in the past have argued that we should have a referendum to give people the choice to whether the stay in eu or not, we gave the people a choice and may have voted and we will deliver. a conservative alluded to another cabinet disagreement, how much money should be spent on defence. will the prime minister confirm to the house today that she is absolutely committed to this country retaining its tier one military status and equally open to the idea that increased threats require increased resources but she's also committed to reforming that the apartment so that we in this narrative of cost of the client of uk military capability with the truth is in fact the complete reverse?

absolutely committed to this country remaining a leading military power. there is no question that the government will do what it needs to do to ensure we are a leading military power. but can i say to my honourable friend we do need to ensure we look at the threats that we are now facing in the capabilities we need to ask these threats change. theresa may. a bill to make it harder for young people to buy knives and acid online, as well as banning the possession of weapons such as zombie knives has moved a step closer to becoming law. mps were generally supportive of the measures, although some thought the home secretary needed to go further. sajid javid began by describing a recent fatal stabbing. we sadly saw a vivid example ofjust this this last weekend with the fatal stabbing ofjordan doughty. this was a young man only 15 years old who should have had

a great future ahead of him, but whose life was tragically cut short. the bill will ban the sale of industrial strength acid, but one conservative questioned why the rules would only apply to under 185. when it comes to private purchase of these corrosive acids, then there is little point restricting the sale to just those below the age of 18. people over the age of 18 can also get and use these. my friend makes an important point. from the evidence we have seen, the real issue has been around young people getting their hands on these acids. the home secretary said he found it appalling that vicious weapons were on open sale. it shocks me that flick knives are still available despite being banned as long ago as 1959. and that zombie knives and knuckle dusters and other dreadful weapons are also still in wide circulation, the bill will therefore make it

an offence to possess such weapons whether in private or on the streets. the young man that was murdered on saturday evening by a knife, in terrible circumstances, the fact is the home secretary needs to be aware that if somebody with criminal intent wants to get a hold of one of these weapons you can ban them if you like but they will find a way. surely, apart from doing what he is doing i commend this bill and will support it, but surely we should also be looking at how young people are brought up. 0ne senior conservative questioned whether another measure, banning high energy rifles, would be effective. i am from the woodford forest and we have handguns available to any criminal that was to use them and yet we banned those as well, so the right people can use things but the wrong people certainly carry on.

sajid javid insisted that the increase in violent crime was due to a number of factors and so the debate shouldn't be about police numbers. labour took issue with that. the home secretary might not want today to be around police numbers, because of dangerous delusion to his predecessor that police numbers do not make the difference to the rise in violence. but that is not a view widely shared. the met commissioner has said she is certain police cuts have contributed to the rise. but overall opposition parties were supportive. we will support the limited but necessary measures contained within this bill and throughout committee stage and we will take a constructive approach on areas where we believe it is in need of strengthening. ultimately, we cannot arrest and imprison our way out of these problems. the secretary of state explained some of the new work the uk government is undertaking to prevent knife crime and to stop people

carrying knives in the first place and we welcome any emphasis on prevention. and one conservative mp had some suggestions about what else ministers could do. we could stop faffing around, interfering with the police on stop and search and let the police get on with the job. and we can also ensure that harder sentences are handed down to serious offenders. this bill is clearly the government's attempt to do something, ijust hope as i do with all bills that there are no unattended consequences. —— unintended consequences. he wanted tougher punishment for offences involving knives. some young people do carry, unfortunately, because they are afraid. and simply brandishing a knife does not necessarily mean they wanted to use it, b, they were anything other than terrified by the situation they found themselves in, and i am pleased that our courts are showing some discretion and i would just urge him to consider carefully where he is going with this. where i'm going is the somebody who had 14 previous knife offences who was then convicted of another knife offence should be sent to prison. the bill will now move

on to the next stage, of its detailed scrutiny. you're watching wednesday in parliament, with me, alicia mccarthy. tougher action must be taken to tackle dog attacks according to representatives of farmers and postal workers. mps are looking into the effectiveness of the 1991 dangerous dogs act amid figures suggesting an increase in attacks. the law banned certain breeds like pit bull terriers, and covers attacks on private property. but the environment committee heard that the law continued to be ineffective and unfair. 3000 postal workers are attacked and injured annually by dogs. that's around seven every single day. 43 every week. 500 of those cases which occurred last year are very serious injuries. physically and psychologically with life—changing or permanent disabling injuries as result of those cases and in some cases, months of surgery and rehabilitation.

the number of attacks has also risen yearly in hospital admissions for dog bites has increased by 76%. since 2005, 80% in scotland since 2005. now running at 7500 hospital admissions per year as a result of dog injuries. a huge cost to the ihs apart from the personal cost to the victims of dog attacks. the application of the law, he said, was inconsistent. unfortunately, 20—30 postal workers have their fingers bitten off every year. simply through pushing mail through the letterbox. we had one conviction in romford which ended with a fine and costs of £9,000. a similar, very similar case in another part of the country with a fine of £200. so there's no consistency there. and one of the things we would like to see is we would like to see the sentences that are available and the ancillary orders that are available to the courts fully utilised.

policing was a problem too. in the met in west midlands and in merseyside, they will prosecute every single dangerous dog offence that actually comes before them. at the other end of the scale as an example in norfolk and suffolk, they won't prosecute any. they will not prosecute any. we've had two recent cases where two members in separate incidents have had their fingers bitten clean off. and the police force will not prosecute. we've heard about people who have been seriously injured. and have had to live with conditions as result of dog attacks and there doesn't seem to be any mechanism for those people to be able to claim any compensation. or if they have gone to the court, very often the people who owned the dog didn't actually have any way of paying that compensation. would you support a compulsory third—party insurance system? absolutely, said mrjoyce.

sadly, it depends who the owner is as to whether you are actually going to get compensation. again, i can give you an example. the two cases that were near fatalities in 2007. one of our members was attacked by two rottweilers owned by a multimillionaire. and he received — and he wasn't able to carry on as a postman — a 6—figure sum in compensation. the other one was attacked by two dogs owned by a drug dealer who subsequently was put in prison for nine years for various offences. he got zero. absolutely zero. and that's not right. farmers wanted tougher action too. the cost of dog attacks on livestock reported to the authorities rose by 67% across the uk between 2015—17. it is clear that the majority of livestock cases are done when the owner is not present. so, this is a dog escaping from a property where it is domiciled and then they're involved in killing livestock and they may be returning.

and the owner being oblivious. as a dog lover, the last thing i would want to inflict on anyone else is the destruction or confiscation of their dog. however, there comes a point where that is the best for every person affected by an out—of—control, undisciplined, badly—trained animal. the chief constable of the police service of northern ireland, george hamilton has given a warning that criminals and terrorist groups could try to "exploit" any new arrangements at the irish border after brexit. the psni has drawn up a policing plan for brexit but — with the northern ireland executive out of action — the chief constable told mps he was not sure who, in government, the force should be dealing with. hear me out on this. you may not agree with all of them but in the absence of us getting working assumptions from the government

or from political leadership, local or whitehall, this is what we have come with. we think this is reasonable. so, number one, that an assumption this is. while the uk government seeks to be in greater control over immigration, that seems to have been the main motivator behind brexit, which we are not advocating for. we are simply stating it as an assumption. 0n the other hand, the government is also committed to maintaining the common travel area. which is perfectly understandable. it is not eu dependent, from before the creation of the european union. but those two things create a certain contradiction or a bit of a dilemma. on one hand, total control over immigration and on the other hand, on one hand, tighter control over immigration and on the other hand, holding firm to the freedoms brought to the common travel area. and he said any "variances" at the irish border would be open to exploitation. whatever the implications of the border are going to be, any variance will be open

to exploitation between both organised criminals between violent dissident republicans and potentially even the challenges of a porous, open, frictionless border in terms of a route into the uk for an international terrorist threat, something that we can't overlook. but the simple assumption that we are asking people to agree on is that any variances will be exploited by those who wish to cause harm to communities and to nations either uk or ireland. there's a consequence, there's an impact of us leaving the eu on something that everybody said would be sorted and it is looking increasingly fragmented. so, european arrest warrants, exchange of biometric data, all of that needs fixed and there is a real operational impact for us if we don't have either a transitional period, a continuance of the current arrangements or some parallel bilateral mechanism to deliver the same thing. chief constable, you said that finding the appropriate authority to present your business case to end up to the appropriate authority, simply isn't there.

normally, it would be to the justice committee and someone on the police board or whatever. i mean, i don't want to say it's a shambles about psni. but it sounds like it. we are ending up producing this sort of six page, pretty high—level document that touches into some operational issues that i've just outlined. but we are sending it to lots of people because we don't have the go to person to say, "my name is and myjob is responsibility for coordinating the policing response and the scenario planning around the post—brexit border issues between the european union and the uk as regards to the land border." this has been very troubling. the evidence should be very worrying indeed. but can i ask a range of questions here? i mean, have you any confidence that the prime minister is aware

of the concerns that you have articulated very clearly, very comprehensively this morning about the pressures on psni and the significance of brexit? have you met with the prime minister, george, do you mind me asking? i tend to meet with the prime minister once every six months or at least once a year and that would be giving her assessment along with partner agencies into the national security issues relating to northern ireland and brexit. but we are actively engaged with the n10, with the department ofjustice and the minister. i have met with members of the cabinet formally and informally to flag these issues. i think the problem is frankly and i'm not even being supportive or dismissive of the cabinet or the government and simply stating it as it is. i think there are so many issues to be dealt with in such a period of time that things aren't getting the attention that they require.

george hamilton. there were cries of "shame" and "nonsense" in the house of lords as lord pearson, a ukip peer, described islam as "the world's most violent ideology". lord pearson asked the government if they would require preaching in mosques and teaching in madrassas in england and wales "to be monitored for hate speech against non—muslims". 0ur government is clear on its strong objective to tackle hate crime, free speech and freedom of belief are fundamental principles of our society. the government has no plans to require monitoring preaching in mosques or any other faith institution. my lords, i am grateful to the noble lord for that reply. but i find it

underestimates the problem. because the government must know that hatred of us is central to radical islam. that it is being taught in our mosques. and that our own behavioural insights team has said that their present policies are failing. so, my lords, shouldn't the government get real by requiring all such teaching to be in english as soon as possible? and by insisting on far greater collaboration from our peaceful muslim friends in the meantime? after all my lords, they know what is going on. and my lords, will the government... and my lords will the government please stop using the word "islamophobia"? because it is surely reasonable and not at all phobic to fear the world's most violent ideology from which indeed... shame! from which indeed most hate speech now comes. the minister said the government was committed to tackling islamophobia. will the noble lord and minister agree that the attempt to the stigmatise muslims

as the original question does is unworthy of this lordship‘s house? and such language aids those who oppose cohesive communities and encourages hate crimes, attacks on both mosques and individual muslims? my lords, i very much agree with the noble lady on that issue. she knows that the great mass of people want the cohesive communities that we have. as a teacher of islamic law, i would like to make a correction to the statement. islam accepts all religions that preceded it. all religions of the book are respected and accepted. and this is a koranic teaching. therefore there is no time for respect for anyone who demonises any religion and that should include islam as well. my lords will the noble lord, the minister, agree with me that

pursuing anti—terrorism is notjust the business of the government but all citizens in the united kingdom? therefore, if you do not mind an african saying, that when two elephants fight or make love, the grass gets hurt. what won't work is either side of the house thinking it is doing a betterjob than another. all of us are involved in trying to resist terrorism and it doesn't matter where it comes from. john sentamu. finally. back to prime minister's questions where a conservative was getting into the world cup spirit. nick boles thought it was time for a show of support for the england team. would my right honourable friend signal her government's support for the campaign during the play—offs by asking public buildings across england to fly st george's cross alongside the unionjack if they want? i can assure that number ten will be

flying the england flag on the day of each of england's matches from now on. and we will be encouraging other government departments to do the same. but can also say to my honourable friend that i am going to go further than my predecessors. next year, we will do the same for the women's world cup. theresa may. and that's it from me for now, but do join me at the same time tomorrow for another round up of the day at westminster. but for now from me, alicia mccarthy, goodbye. hello there. it's a bit of a case of deja vu with the weather forecast at the moment.

day—on—day, we're seeing those temperatures building. lots of sunny and dry weather during wednesday. top temperatures reached 32 at porthmadog in north wales. and we could see a similar story, i think, during the day on thursday. so high pressure well and truly driving our weather, keeping things dry and settled, with generally gentle breezes around. i think we will have one or two areas of cloud around through thursday, particularly around the east, down towards lincolnshire, east anglia, some cloud around the coast that should thin and break during the day, but anywhere you could see fairweather cloud. as we draw in the breeze from the north—east, it's looking a little bit cooler around those eastern coasts. but, for central and western parts of the country, temperatures widely in the high 20s. some seeing top temperatures of 30 or 31, particularly for central scotland, but those temperatures could just kick off one or two isolated showers. if you do catch one, could be a bit pokey, but most places will avoid any of those isolated showers through central parts of scotland. hot again for northern ireland, england and wales having a decent, dry and bright day. lots of sunshine, just that gentle breeze coming in, keeping things a little bit cooler around the east. top temperatures, though, once again 29 or 30 degrees.

welcome to bbc news, broadcasting to viewers in north america and around the globe. my name is lewis vaughanjones. our top stories: all change at the us supreme court. as one judge steps down, president trump's choice of replacement could shape the political landscape for a generation. more than 200 migrants stranded on a rescue ship in the mediterranean are allowed entry into europe but the row over migration continues. auf wiedersehen, germany. the reigning champions crash out of the world cup, beaten by south korea. there's despair and delight among the fans and no small measure of disbelief. i will be honest, i thought deutschland would win because they are really good. i was really surprised when we scored two goals! prince william speaks of his hopes for lasting peace