hello. this is bbc news. the latest headlines: nasa has successfully landed a probe on the surface of mars. there was jubilation at mission control in california, after it survived a dramatic seven—minute plunge to the planet's surface. it's already sent back its first image from the red planet, kicking off two years of scientific discovery. president trump has suggested britain's brexit agreement with the eu could leave it unable to negotiate a free—trade deal with the us. his comments are a fresh blow to the british prime minister theresa may. she has two weeks to try and get the agreement passed in british parliament. ukraine has declared martial law in part of the country, following russia's seizure of three ukrainian navy ships on sunday. now on bbc news, it's monday in parliament. hello and welcome to monday

in parliament, our look at the best of the day in the commons and the lords. on this programme, that brexit deal. the prime minister says it's the only show in town. and i can say to the house with absolute certainty that there is nit a better deal available and my fellow leaders... but other mps take a different view. we don't know whether this means chequers or canada or norway, or an endless backstop or something worse, or a massive security downgrade. we have no idea where this is heading. peers react to rising tension between russia and ukraine. it's no secret that mr putin hopes to destabilise nato and to undermine the european union.

but first, as one newspaper headline put it, now for the hard part. theresa may has been given a further stern reminder of the huge challenge she faces to get her brexit deal approved by the house of commons. on sunday, eu leaders at a special summit in brussels gave their formal backing to britain's so—called divorce deal, hammered out by uk and eu negotiators over many months. but opposition to the deal shows no signs of letting up at westminster. with britain's june eu exit date edging closer, mps will have a lengthy debate and crucial vote in december on the divorce deal. reporting back after the brussels summit, the prime ministerfaced a packed house of commons once again. she said the nature of any negotiation required give and take on both sides. mr speaker, the withdrawal agreement

will ensure that we leave the european union in march next year in a smooth and orderly way. it protects the rights of eu citizens living in the uk and uk citizens living in the eu so they can carry on living their lives as before. it delivers a time limited implementation period to give businesses time to prepare for the new arrangements. onto the irish border issue and the insurance policy known as the backstop. and the withdrawal agreement has a legal duty on both sides to use best endeavours to avoid the backstop ever coming into force. if, despite this, the future relationship is not ready by the end of 2020, we would not be forced to use the backstop. we would have a clear choice between the backstop or a short extension to the implementation period. if we did choose the backstop, the legal text is clear that it should be temporary and that the article 50 legal base cannot provide for a permanent relationship. but this deal honours the result of the referendum, while providing a close economic and security relationship with our nearest neighbours, and in so doing,

offers a brighter future for the british people outside of the eu. and i can say to the house with absolute certainty that there is not a better deal available, and my fellow leaders... my fellow leaders were very clear on that themselves yesterday. she said there was a clear choice for the commons. we can back this deal, deliver on the referendum, and move on to building a brighterfuture of opportunity and prosperity for all our people. or this house can choose to reject this deal and go back to square one, because no one knows what would happen if this deal doesn't pass, it would open the door for more division and uncertainty, with all the risks that will entail. mr speaker, i believe our national interest is clear. the british people want us to get on with the deal that honours the referendum and allows us to come again together... interjections allows us to come together again as a country which ever way we voted.

this is that deal, a deal that delivers for the british people, and i commend this statement to the house. jeremy corbyn! there can be no doubt that this deal would leave us with the worst of all worlds. no say over future rules and no certainty for the future. is it not in the national interest for the prime minister to plough on when it's clear this deal does not have the support of either side of this house or the country as a whole? mr speaker, ploughing on is not stoic, it's an act of national self harm. instead of threatening this house with a no deal scenario, or a no brexit scenario, the prime minister now needs to prepare a plan b — something her predecessors failed to do. many people from areas that voted leave feel this deal has betrayed the brexit they voted for.

it does not take back control, it will not make them better off, and it will not solve the economic deprivation that affects far too many communities and towns and cities across this country. this deal is not a plan for britain's future. so, for the good of the nation, the house has very little choice but to reject this deal. the snp's westminster leader focused on the issue of fishing rights. under this agreement, fishing boats registered in northern ireland would continue to gain zero tariff access to the eu and uk markets, but fishing boats registered in scotland and other parts of the uk wouldn't. we now know that the eu will start negotiations based on existing quota shares. mr speaker, that's not taking back control of our waters. it is the eu exercising an effective veto. scottish fishing communities have

been duped once again by the conservatives. we, on these benches, will not, we cannot accept this sellout from the conservatives. i call upon the secretary of state for scotland and the secretary, search your conscience because your fingerprints are all over this. and back to the irish backstop. in page 309, article 2 of the northern ireland protocol, it says the backstop can be superseded in whole or in part. and shall cease to apply in whole or in part. we need accuracy because it is the legal text that will apply and this is what would bind the country. will she promise to tell us, as the chancellor has rightly said, that the backstop is bad for the union, bad for the economy,

that is what he has said. can she tell us what bits are so bad for the union? what we want to be able to do is in the future to be able to have our independent trade policy, the issues in relation to the backstop is whether or not we would be able to do that, that's one of one of the issues we would not want to see us continuing to be in the backstop for. theresa may. in total, mps questioned the prime minister for two and a half hours. she faced repeated challenges from former ministers on both sides of the eichmann. —— chamber. it's very hard to see how this deal can provide certainty to business or to anyone else when you have half the cabinet going around reassuring businesses that the uk is effectively going to remain in the customs union and in the single market, and the prime minister... the prime minister herself continuing to say that we are going to take back control of our laws, ourtariffs, and do, as she said just now, realfree trade deals.

they can't both be right. the prime minister said in her statement that her deal will protectjobs. could i ask her please to tell me which region or regions of the uk will be more prosperous, with higher productivity and higher gdp per capita than they will under present arrangements within the eu? the prime minister has tried her very best. are we not, nonetheless, being asked to take a huge gamble here? paying, leaving, surrendering our vote and our veto, without any firm commitment to frictionless trade? the majority of honourable and right honourable members in this place will not vote in favour of the prime minister's deal, despite her very best efforts. so, she needs plan b. what is the prime minister's plan b? is it norway plus? the single market? the customs union? which some of us have been arguing for for over two years?

by refusing to make choices now about our future economic relationship with the eu, what the prime minister has done is to put off the moment when we will have to make those choices to a time when the eu will have much greater leverage over this country, because any future trade agreement will require the unanimous approval of every european member state. how can the prime minister expect the house to vote to put the country in such a weak position? is this not the biggest failure of this negotiation? this isn't a deal for the future. it's just a stopgap. we don't know whether this means chequers or canada or norway, or an endless backstop or something worse, or a massive security downgrade. we have no idea where this is heading and other countries are already saying that this gives them more leverage it reduces our negotiating power. the ink was hardly dry

on this agreement before the french president was saying that he would be using the legally binding provisions of this agreement to leverage further concessions on fishing and other issues from the uk government. and other states are no doubt thinking the same. does the prime minister not recognise that by signing legally binding agreement she is handing the eu a deal which they will use to mug us for the second time when it comes to the negotiations on the future trade arrangements? then there were those prepared to support theresa may. car manufacturers warn us that no deal could result in tariffs of £45 billion, so can my right honourable friend confirm that her hard won deal would provide much needed certainty, continuity, and above all, safeguard jobs? we cannot play games with business. and we must have a deal that enables

businesses to thrive whilst, at the same time, leaving the eu, which is what people wanted! and, surely, my honourable friend, this deal addresses both of those. since the summer, i have knocked on the front door of 7000 of my constituents. i've done hundred of supermarket searches, and i can say to the honourable member for perthshire that not only the vast majority of my constituents say get behind the prime minister and her deal, so do my executive council, so do my officers, and so do i. but the prime minister came under fire for saying a brexit deal would stop eu migrants jumping the queue. last week, the prime minister managed to insult and upset over 3 million european citizens who live and work in this country. over 150,000 of them, like my german husband, a gp here for over 30 years, felt absolutely thrown away when they have spent decades

here looking after us. for most people here in the united kingdom, they want to see people coming to this country with the skills and wanting to make a contribution. her husband has made a contribution as a gp here in this country. they want people to be judged, as we will, on their skills and contribution to our economy, rather than simply on where they come from. mrs may also repeated calls for a second referendum. if she wants to go to the people, why is she afraid to put this question to a people's vote? can i politely suggest that she's not knocking on enough doors? and will she commit to giving the nation a final say on the exact terms of her deal? give the people a choice between her deal and staying in the eu to see which they prefer. can i say to the honourable gentleman, i am looking ahead to december the 11th and to when this house will be faced with a decision as to whether or not it wishes to deliver on the vote of the british people, with a deal that not only delivers that vote but also protects their jobs. the latest exchanges over brexit.

an outrageous violation of international law, the verdict of the united states on the seizure of three ukrainian naval ships by russia. the vessels were captured on sunday off the coast of crimea, the territory annexed by russia in 2014. six ukrainians were injured. ukraine called it an act of aggression by moscow. russia said it was defending its territory. it claimed it was provoked, saying the ukrainian ships had illegally entered russian waters. the incident was raised in the lords by a lib dem peer. are we confident that our major allies, the french, germans and the united states, hold as strong position on this as we do? if the russians succeed in converting the sea of azov into an internal sea, that will have a devastating effect on the economy of a substantial chunk of the ukraine because of the port of mariupol. regrettably, i think these

developments present a step change in the creeping annexation by russia of the sea of azov and their use of force, including use of firearms against ukrainian vessels marks clear aggression. the actions are a breach of international law. would the noble lady, the minister, not agree that this act by the russians is not like all the other things they do in euston ukraine, denial in any way, because it is an act by the russian navy? and as it also not the case that to use force to enforce a blockade is in fact an act of war? i hear the noble lord's definition. i would say it is certainly an act of aggression, and it is a further example of russia's ongoing violation of ukraine sovereignty and teritorial integrity.

the noble minister will be aware that we're sending a warship to the black sea. thre warship as i understand it is actually a survey ship. if things are hotting up in the black sea, to send a ship in harm's way that's not really capable of looking after itself is not a clever idea. should this be reviewed and perhaps we should send a ship like the a5, that's able to look after itself in the circumstances? i'm very reluctant to comment on specific operational matters for reasons i think you lordships will understand. the mod response to such situations is carefully assessed, carefully reviewed, and any decision to deploy our ships would only be made after the most careful assessment of all the circumstances. following on from my noble friend's comment, there is a step change in russian aggression, does she not think that perhaps the ministery of defence should be looking more closely at what it's spending our money on and whether it should not be spending more money on, for instance, cyber measures and indeed conventional warfare, given what the russians

have just done? does she agree with me rather that the russians feel more able do this, while western europe is preoccupied with brexit, while the united states are coping with trump, the election of which, and the referendum of which, the russians interfered with. would it not make us more skillful and adept in reacting and responding appropriately to russia if we were to abandon the foolishness of brexit? i think we have to deal with global situations as they arise. i happen to think this particular issue probably has nothing whatsoever to do with brexit. this is no accident of timing. in the kremlin, they don't take these actions unless they have a very clear understanding of what the consequences may be. it is no secret that mr putin hopes to destabilise nato and to undermine the european union, and this action is clearly part of that concerted plan. the uk has made clear what its response to this is,

i do reaffirm, and i think it's very important that we do not act exclusively on our own in relation to such an incident but we do act with the appropriate and senior partners in nato, the united stations and in the osce. reaction to the latest clash between russia and ukraine. you're watching our round—up of the day in the commons and the lords. still to come, concerns about the dangers of fireworks. 1918 is known as the year the first world war ended. it's probably less well known as the year the royal air force started. the 100 year anniversary of the force was thrown up a great many famous aircraft, such as the spitfires that flew in the 1930s in the second world war, then in more recent times the english electric lightnings, and the very latest f35s, all instantly recognisable to the experts.

the commons marked the raf‘s centenary with a special debate. mr deputy speaker, what was a battle—winning force in the first world war had by the second war developed into a war—winning force. this was both in the form of fighter command, which, in the summer and autumn of 19110 prevented the invasion of this country by the germans, but also in the form of bomber command, which smashed germany's means of war production. the whole history of the raf is about amazing people. i cannot tell you how wonderful everyone i have ever worked with who have come from the raf has been. and how willing and open to new ideas and innovation they have been. during the cold war, the raf played an absolutely

critical role in keeping us safe. actually, if you look at what we have been doing in nato, the fact that we had the royal air force in romania, a key and pivotal part of their air defence command, and when you go to romania and you speak to romanians, there's a real pride and sense of appreciation that they have to the role the royal air force has played, and they were not there just passively. they were scrambling in order to respond to potential threats that the romanian air force were also having to deal with. i think one of the mentions that the secretary of state and other honourable and right honourable members today have made, is about the duty that we owe these people with regard to their well—being and halth, and i think it's imperative upon us that we remember this, because while they serve with the raf in whateverjob, from the very smallest of opening the doors for someone,

all the way through and everyone puts pilot at the top, but i think there are others who are equally right to claim superiority. when they do that, they find they have the support, and it's important as they move out of the raf and into other industries that we find a way to offer that support into the future. the debate on the raf. remember, remember, the 5th of november. guy fawkes failed in his meaningful attempt 413 years ago to blow up the houses of parliament. nevertheless, the tradition bonfire night continues and should the use of fireworks be confined to just organised events? firework safety has been a long—running issue, following the many injuries that have resulted from accidents on or around november the 5th. now an e—petition, backed by nearly 300,000 people, is calling for a complete ban on the sale of all fireworks to the public. the petition has been debated in westminster hall. fire crews are increasingly

coming under attack. i've had a number of e—mails from serving firefighters raising this with me, and they are quite right to do so, because even a cursory trawl through the websites can throw up lots of incidents. in north wales, crews had fireworks thrown at them. in manchester, a crew went out to an incident and were immediately attacked by a gang throwing fireworks. i'm not personally the owner of a dog or a cat, but to be honest, if i was, i would live in terror of what it must be like for them every time there is a noise, every time there is a bang, every time someone thinks it is funny to have an informal display in the middle of the night. we have to recognise we have to strike a balance between the individual... the liberty of the individual and of course social good and social welfare, and it's important

to recognise in this case were we to follow through entirely it does mean that you will be effectively outlawing the chance for individuals to have a small firework display in their back garden and so on and so forth. it is also possible to note that those might be individuals who might not have the money to go to a public display. the use of fireworks is a devolved matter, but the sale of fireworks is reserved, and it does not take a genius to work out that unless we can tackle in some way the sale of fireworks and who can get their hands on them, then we have lost any meaningful influence over who uses them. it has been suggested that graphics depicting horrendous injuries sustained would deter some from purchasing fireworks. however, if you think of the many graphic games young persons play on their computer console showing scenes of terror and horror, maybe these graphics may not be wetting their appetite with such packaging. i would prefer plain, unattractive packaging.

if we must sell them, let's put them in plain, so it's not an exciting aspect for the potential purchase. the argument over firework safety. why do fewer and fewer people want to work in this industry? driving a bus is not a job young people want to do anymore, according to a union leader — he's been telling mps why that might be. "the health of the bus market" is the title of an inquiry being carried out by the transport community. there is an ageing workforce who are clinging onto some of the terms and conditions that were negotiated quite a while ago, and younger people don't see the bus industry as a place to make a life. i presented a medal to a bus driver last week in decon who had been driving 55 years, would you believe? he was 71 and they asked him to come back from retirement because they cannot get any bus drivers in the exeter area. that is what life used to be like. we have a lot of a0 year members

in the bus industry, but now if anyone ever gets a 25 year medal, i'd be very surprised, because they cannot stand the stress. it's an extremely stressfuljob, and the wages in country areas in the west country, you are looking at between £10.50, 11.20,11.50 an hour as a top rate. no premiums for overtime, no shift money, flat rate all the time. that's not minimum wage, but compared to what you can get in the retail sector, do you want to be a bus driver sometimes working 21w, with all of that responsibility, you know, some in the morning, 50, 60 kids in the evening, a lot of rowdy people wanting to go into town for their night out, for a rate you could go off to a big retail provider and get something much more steady? the knock on effect is we are seeing in my part of the country crises in the bus services — there's not enough drivers, and it's the passengers who end up paying as a consequence. and the fares do not

get any lower either, the are right up. there's a strange thing going on with this market. there's not a level of competition that forces the fares lower, but they cannot get the labour either. i don't quite follow how it is. the have taken nearly £3 billion in profit out of the industry in the last ten years, the bus company, so there's something going on that's causing them to do very well out of the current situation, even though it may go too far over the next couple of years, they cannot provide service and cannot lower the fares. nick lynch of the rmt. that is it for this programme. alecia mccarthy is here for the rest of the week, but for now for now from me, goodbye. hello there.

well, we certainly started off the working week on a pretty chilly note for most of us, didn't we? if it was too much for you, i can offer you something just that little bit milder. but unfortunately, it comes at a price, turning increasingly wet and windy over the next few days. let's take a look at the main culprits. it's these areas of low pressure pushing in from the atlantic, and they will move across the uk a little bit later on today, and they will bring some extremely wet weather at times, but also some mild weather. so we lose that easterly flow that has been coming in off the north sea. the winds swing round to a south—westerly, coming in with that area of low pressure, drags in the mild air. but the winds will be gusting to gales or severe gales over the next couple of days. we start off, though, with a little bit of patchy mist and fog around. but as the breeze picks up, that'll help lift that. a chilly—ish start, as you can see, with temperatures into low single figures first thing. but it won't be long before that cloud and rain starts to move into the south—west. so it's going to be a wet start across cornwall and south wales, and into northern ireland as well.

slow improvement here for you as we go into the afternoon. let's take a look at the finer detail for this afternoon and see what's in prospect. there's the brighter weather starting to push into cornwall through the afternoon. double figures, but some heavy rain into the south—west, across wales, the midlands and stretching up into the north of england. the rain shouldn't arrive into the east of england, so here it should stay dry and relatively bright. but we'll see most of the rain starting to ease out of northern ireland as we go through the afternoon. it stays relatively dry, windy with it across much of scotland. by the end of the day, you can see that rain starting to show its hand across the south—west. so, that moves through overnight. the next area of low pressure moves through. and thenjust look at the isobars squeezed together. that's where the strongest of the winds are going to be across the southern flank of that area of low pressure. so we could see gusts of winds in excess of 60mph in exposed coasts, maybe higher, and it will bring heavy rain particularly through northern ireland, south—west scotland and north—west england.

although the rain is lighter in nature further south, it's still going to be pretty windy with it as well. in terms of the feel of things, i did promise you something a little bit milder. double digits, in fact, mid—teens for many. but when you factor in the wind and the rain, it's probably not going to feel very great out there. and it's not long before we see another area of low pressure moving in, bringing some heavy rain. this time, the emphasis is across central and southern parts of england on thursday. so, wet and windy again to the south on thursday. something drier, brighter and a little less windy by the end of the week. welcome to bbc news — broadcasting to viewers

in north america and around the globe. i'm duncan golestani. our top stories: nasa celebrates a perfect landing on mars, as the insight mission sends back its first image of the red planet. it's a very, very nice looking picture. it looks pretty flat, which makes ourjob very easy to do. and, uh, it's time to get going. a warning for britain, as president trump says the brexit deal could damage us—uk trade. ukraine imposes martial law, after sunday's naval clash with russian warships off the coast of crimea.