"a total waste of time" — that's how donald trump's described a meeting with democratic leaders aimed at ending the partial shutdown of the us government. democrats again refused to approve funding plans for a border wall with mexico. they say the president threw a temper tantrum and walked out. australian police have arrested a 48—year—old man over suspicious packages mailed to foreign embassies and consulates. they say 38 items were sent to the missions of countries including the us, uk and south korea. a 48—year—old's charged with sending dangerous articles through the postal service. the contents have not been identified. opposition candidate felix tshisekedi has been declared provisional winner of the presidential election in the democratic republic of congo. the result could mean the country's first democratic transfer of power since independence from belgium in 1960. you are up—to—date with the

headlines. now on bbc news, wednesday in parliament. hello and welcome to wednesday in parliament. as labour urge theresa may to go to the country: will the prime minister do the right thing, and let the people have a real say and call a general election? the prime minister tries to sell her brexit deal: the only way to avoid no deal is to vote for the deal. and the speaker is forced to defend his wife's choice of car sticker: she is entitled to her views, that sticker is not mine and that is the end of it! all that to come and more. but first, it was almost as if they hadn't been away. theresa may and jeremy corbyn clashed at the first prime minister's questions

of the year over — you guessed it — brexit. the labour leader picked up where he'd left off before mps disappeared for their christmas break. the prime minister scrapped the brexit vote last month, and promised legally binding assurances would be secured at the december eu summit. she failed. she pledged to get these changes over the recess. she failed. isn't the prime minister bringing back exactly the same deal she admitted would be debated four weeks ago? the conclusions of the december european council went further than before in seeking to address the concerns of the house and they have legal status. i have been in contact with european leaders over since then about mps concerns. these discussions have shown that further clarification on the backstop is possible and those talks will continue over the next few days. but we're also looking at what more we can do domestically to safeguard the interests of the people and businesses of northern ireland.

and that is why this morning we published a package of commitments that give northern ireland a strong voice and role in any decision to bring the backstop into effect. we've also been looking at how parliament can take a greater role as we take these negotiations and onto the next age. so i can tell the house that in the event that our future relationship or alternative arrangements are not ready by the end of 2020, parliament will have a vote on whether to seek to extend the implementation period or bring the backstop into effect. the secretary of state for exiting the european union will be saying more about this during his speech in the forthcoming debate. mr speaker, no amount of window dressing is going to satisfy members of this house. they want to see clear, legal changes to the document that the government presented to this house. the foreign secretary said the prime minister has not been asking for anything new in her discussions with the eu. she didn't tell us... so, doesn't that tell us that the prime minister has been

recklessly wasting time, holding the country to ransom with threat of no deal in a desperate attempt to blackmail mps to vote for her hopelessly unpopular deal? the rigth honourable gentleman can say what he likes about no deal, but he opposes any deal that the government has negotiated with the eu. he opposes the deal — he opposes the deal that the eu say is the only deal. and that leaves him with no deal! the only way to avoid no deal is to vote for the deal! if the right honourable gentleman is uncertain about what i am saying, perhaps i can give him a tip. he might like to use a lip reader. laughter. the prime minister says that it's the only deal available,

if that is the case, why wasn't it put to a vote on december the 11th in this house? why has there been a delay of five weeks? jeremy corbyn then focused on the government's preparations for leaving the eu without a deal. mr speaker, instead of backing industries in this country and protecting thousands ofjobs in manufacturing and service industries, her transport secretary is awarding millions of pounds of contracts to ferry companies with no ferries to run on routes that do not exist and apparently they won't even be ready by the beginning of april either. this is the degree of incompetence of this government in dealing with the whole question of relations with the eu! the prime minister has spent the last week begging for regards from eu leaders, and achieved nothing! not one single dot or comma has changed. she'as already squandered millions of pounds of public money on last—minute half—ba ked planning for a no deal that was rejected last night. so, if her deal is defeated next

week, as i hope and expect it will, will the prime minister do the right thing and let the people have a real say and call a general election? no. we've put a good deal on the table that protectsjobs and security but i noticed in all of that, that we still don't know what the brexit plan the right honourable gentleman has. i was rather hoping that he might turn over a page and actually find a brexit plan. because what do we know about the honourable gentlemen? he was for and against free movement and the customs union and for and against an independent trade policy, he was a eurosceptic, now he's pro the eu, he wanted to trigger article 50 on day one, now he wants to delay it. he didn't want money spent on no deal, now he says it is not enough.

the one thing we know about the right honourable gentleman is his brexit policies are the many, not the few! the snp‘s westminster leader raised tuesday night's vote by mps to make it harder for the uk to leave the eu without a deal. last night, the prime minister suffered another humiliating defeat. when will the prime minister face the facts? there is little support for her deal or no deal in this house. the new year began without concessions. the dublin talks failed without concessions. the debate on her deal restarts today without concessions. mr speaker, the prime minister is frozen in failure, asking mps to write a blank cheque for her blindfold brexit. theresa may told him if he was concerned about leaving with no deal, he should vote for her deal, the only one on the table.

she got more support from her own side — up to a point. i propose to vote for the prime minister's withdrawal agreement, but i doubt whether it will pass, and if it is passed, and we get into a transition, there is no majority or consensus on what the government is supposed to be negotiating for in the years that will follow that will settle our future political and economic relationships with europe. so, the prime minister has to be flexible on some things, so would she consider, that if she loses the debate next tuesday, will bring to the obvious step in the national interest of delaying or revoking article 50 until a further time? consider what the british actually want. first of all, can i say to my friend that he said that he referenced the withdrawal agreement and said that there was no position in relation to what the future

relationship should be. of course, the framework for that feature relationship and greater detail many had expected is set out in the political declaration, which is the instructions to negotiators for the future. the prime minister said it was right to consider the role of parliament in that future relationship, but she didn't answer mr clarke's question about possibly delaying brexit. that was just the warm up act. before mps could actually get on with their 5—day debate, there was a huge row about the rules that sanohn bercow‘s judgement as speaker called into question. these points of order went on for more than an hour, longer than pmqs. the row was all about what happens if the government loses the so—called meaningful vote next tuesday. there was even speculation that the speaker had overruled his clerks to allow mps to vote on whether to change the rules for the debate. i am grateful for your reply. my question is really, did the clerk of the commons propose that your solution was acceptable

or did the clerk advise against it? the answer is i discussed the matter with the clerk of the house... order! the clerk offered me advice, we talked about the situation that faced the house today. and at the end of our discussion, when i had concluded as i did, he undertook to advise me further in the treatment of this matter. that seems to be entirely proper, that is the situation, and i think that is what colleagues would expect! for many of us, we will have an unshakeable conviction that the referee of our affairs, not least... not least that you gave your opinion and your vote on the issue of brexit publicly, that we will have an unshakeable conviction that the referee is no longer neutral. i have always been scrupulously fair to brexiteers and remainers alike,

as i have always been to people of different opinions on other issues. that has been the case, it is the case, it will continue to be the case. we've all noticed in recent months a sticker in your car making derogitory comments about brexit. no, this is a serious point about partiality! have you driven that car with the sticker there? the speaker said he'd got his facts wrong and his reply drew applause from labour mps. that sticker on the subject of brexit happens to be affixed to or in the windscreen of my wife's car. laughter. yes, and i'm sure the honourable gentleman wouldn't suggest for one moment that a wife is somehow the property of her husband. applause. she is entitled to her views.

that sticker is not mine. and that's the end of it. some mps got fed up with the endless points of order. thank you very much, mr speaker. i have to tell you, i am absolutely hopping mad that when i became an mp three years ago, i was determined that i would not become part of the establishment. do people in this house have any idea how out of touch the general public think we are most days? we are talking about 79 days to potentially crashing out of europe without a deal. should our focus not be on the details and the arguments about the process in this place, but getting on with a plan b if the parliament decides next week that the plan is not the one for the people? when will we start acting

like public servants doing the right thing and having the debate and getting on with it! and eventually they did get on with it, voting on the amendment put forward by the conservative former attorney—general dominic grieve to require the prime minister to return to the commons within three days if she loses next tuesday. ayes to the right, 308. the noes to the left, 297. and that result means that if the government loses next tuesday's "meaningful vote", theresa may will have to return to the commons within three days to explain what she'll do next. and mps will get the chance to vote on alternative approaches to brexit. then finally, it was on to the debate on the brexit deal. britain's due to leave the european union on march 29th, but labour suggested that timetable might have to be extended. there is the question of extension of article 50. that may well be inevitable now given the position that we are in, but we can only if the other 27 agree. sir keir starmer complained that although the debate

had been paused before christmas to enable the government to secure assurances from the eu, mps were still facing the same choice. the prime minister is often mocked for saying nothing has changed. but this time, nothing has changed. the proposition before the house today is the same proposition as the prime minister put before the house on the 5th of december when she opened the initial debate. i have my own copy. but these two copies were laid there at the beginning of this debate. they are the proposition before the house. as everybody in this house knows, these are precisely the same two documents that were put before the house. when we go to the lobby, next tuesday, we are voting for or against these two unchanged documents. the brexit secretary offered parliament more of a say before britain either extended the transition period or entered the backstop an insurance policy to keep an open border in ireland. but some tories remain unconvinced. does he not accept however that

extending this transitional period amounts to kicking a can down the road and that in order to solve the problem of the irish backstop which is the most repugnant element of this withdrawal agreement as is agreed across the house, what is needed is a rewording of the withdrawal agreement? has he agreed a rewording of that agreement? no, because the part about it is whatever do we have, will need to have the elements that we talked about in terms of the agreement and that will include a backstop and let's not forget what is that that too about. because of the unique circumstances come the fact that ireland has a land border, the only part of the uk with a land border, the fact that it has a history in terms of the peace process, how do we provide that guarantee. a guarantee like insurance. but the dup, on whom the prime

minister relies to stay in power, were not persuaded, and concerned about the possible consequences for the peace process. the withdrawal agreement, and especially the backstop arrangement, which actually forcibly would remove northern ireland from the rest of the united kingdom, laws made in brussels rather than westminster, northern ireland economy cut off from trade deals which the united kingdom would enter into with the rest of the world, that is — has put injeopardy they find a balance which there was in the belfast agreement. on these benches, we cannot fight for a deal that will make us poorer, less secure, more isolated, the liverwurst public services, and a worse feature for young people to depriving them of the rights and opportunities we ourselves have enjoyed and taken advantage of as well. a time only had the biggest crisis in modern times,

with a weak and unstable government that is clearly the most incompetent and living memory, same time as the screen is going to be coming to the united kingdom soon. stephen gethins with one eye on a future exhibition at the british museum. you're watching wednesday in parliament with me, david cornock. and the rest of this programme is a brexit—free zone. now, it was revealed last month that the boss of motability operations is to step down by 2020 following criticism over his pay, and a scathing review from the government's spending watchdog. the motability scheme provides wheelchairs, cars and scooters to disabled people. the report, from the national audit 0ffice, revealed that mike betts was in line for an extra £1.86 million bonus on top of already "generous" pay. mps on the treasury and work and pensions committees have been trying to find out more. so the eye—watering sums —

do carry on please. but they would say, and not unreasonably, our scheme has been to try and reduce a pay structure that will attract the best talent from industry, so it needs to compare with what leading industry performers would get. let's say ftse 250 executives — that's what they're aiming to do with the pace game. even looking at that, i would say, normally the bonus structure that you see in place, if it's going to be motivational rather than simply a part of the base pay package, it needs to be something which won't be achieved on every occasion, certainly not achieved to the maximum. what we actually found was, over the life of the reward scheme, over 90% of the available benefits have been achieved every year — every year.

lord sterling, the chair of the motability charity, also gave evidence. if i take a case in my constituency where a young woman was refused by you, despite my protests, an adapted car, which required a fairly simple adaptations, for a first everjob living in a rural area requiring transport to get her first everjob, she was refused by you. but i'm looking at the amounts of money that you had in reserve, and i'm looking at the even bigger amounts of money you've been paying yourselves than you told us before, and i'm asking myself, what's going wrong with this monopoly? so what is going wrong? from my constituents. well, first of all, you're talking

to a charity at the moment. and i can only say this — that i couldn't find a better human being in this country... i'm not asking about that. i'm asking about real people here. what the leader's respect i'm saying that the empathy looking into every single case. until one was able to know the case and what the problem was, if there is a problem that and stop being handled well, and that it should be well handled and it should be looked into, but there has to be some reason. if we had data on the number of people applied and refused, and what was the size of your reserves at that period of time? frank field of the work and pensions commitee. the chair of the treasury committee of asked about finding motability scheme was making high levels

of unplanned profit. i asked them about undervalued and customer cars and is a deliberate policy? how is it resent? could this game be done cheaply? mike betts defended the company, and explained that customers receive a good condition bonus, when they return their cars: in september this year, we made a decision to increase and good condition but as of £250 the £500, so everyone who is today a customer when they return the car will potentially get £500. that initiative is actually cost us £305 million. it was just happening as the report came out. so it is true that we start off with this estimate, it's going to be wrong one way or the other, but it's also true that we can make up for it. we absolutely would not say that customers have been overcharged, and i think they made it quite clear that they were other

variables. british women forced into marriages abroad will no longer have to pay for their own rescue. the announcement came after it emerged that victims were being made to take out emergency loans to cover the cost of their repatriation. the government had previously said it had an obligation to recover public money but in the lords a minister signalled a change of heart. today, my right honourable friend the foreign secretary has announced that victims of forced marriage who are told to return to the united kingdom by the forced marriage unit will no longer be asked to take out a loan for their repatriation costs. my lords, furthermore, no individual who would have been previously offered a loan will have to cover the cost of their repatriation. my lords, i'm extremely grateful for that answer, and i'm glad that i don't have to berate the noble lord. i'm glad to understand that the debt that is still around the net of some

of these are very vulnerable women who have been repatratiated will be wiped out. the government has promised to review the costs and benefits of its ambitious project to offer smart meters to all households in the uk by the end of 2020. smart meters send readings direct to energy firms and help consumers track the cost of their energy use prompting them to switch a few lights off or take shorter showers. the national audit office has said the 2020 deadline will not be met and the scheme is costing consumers more than planned. the business and energy committee started by questioning energy uk, which represents the gas and electricity firms who're implementing the installation programme. it's a hugely complex undertaking, it's the first time it's ever

been done. the technology didn't exist anywhere in the world, we're the only country that wants to do this. if you look at, and i think this is said quite clearly in the report, if you look at the whole ecosystem, about all of the different devices that have to speak to one another, it was a complex process, the timelines haven't been met because during testing, problems were identified. you can argue that we were too ambitious or the government was too ambitious in the timeframe, given the complexity of the undertaking. consumers aren't obliged to have smart meters installed but find some suppliers too pushy. with your assessment of the way consumers have been affected by the roll—out? most people do like them, but from context with us we have the figures for the full yearfor 2017, so we had around 3000 smart metre context in 2017, and there is quite a range of issues that people told us about.

some of the ones most frequently reported to us were there are aggressive sales practises to get smart metres and stored, and reported installation issues. mps took these issues up with the minister. is the programme going to deliver the benefits as it's supposed to? one of the things we have committed to is to review those consumer benefits this year which i believe is the suggestion, and of course became of what that data and past members, and as you rightly point out the last of the benefits were processed with 2016, and to take your point entirely, there's also evidence from the installation, particularly from some large clients do consumers are saving more on their tariffs, twice as much in cases, but i think it's really important that we take that benefit analysis

this year and give it to do so, and obviously because results public. as part of the cost benefit analysis we also be reassessing the 2020 deadline? yes, and it is linked i think to their second recommendation, which is that we should clarify what our post—2020 landscape looks like, because on their own analysis, of course we can't mandate installation. they're assuming we will get 75% installation by the end of 2020. and that brings us to the end of wednesday in parliament. thank you for watching. i do hope you canjoin me again at the same time tomorrow. bye for now. hello there. after a chilly couple

of days, something a little milder as we move towards the weekend. from the airfrom the as we move towards the weekend. from the air from the north, how does that work, though? northerly airstream normally means a cold arctic blast for us. it's all to do with the area of high pressure and the fact that we are on the eastern flank of it, and the air that will eventually topple in for us will come in from the north or north—west. but it has been across the atlantic, so it has been modified. so even as it arrives first thing on thursday evening, the story across scotland and northern ireland, albeit quite a cloudy one. you saw blue on the map there to the south first thing. there will be a chilly start across england and wales, but the cloud in the warm weather front in association with it and the milderair weather front in association with it and the milder air will slowly sink its way south through the day on thursday. going to struggle to six or seven and the likes of london and cardiff, back to double figures for belfast. you can pick up that north—westerly or northerly breeze as we go overnight thursday into

friday. it is quite light, but bear in mind we have switched into the milder air. there is quite a bit of cloud around. it will be a green map for first cloud around. it will be a green map forfirst thing on friday. we should essentially be frost free. it will be cold first thing, temperatures down in ingall figures and a little lower in a few rural spots but generally we have a milder story for friday. quite a cloudy is tory friday. quite a cloudy is tory friday stop right there is quite limited, perhaps sheltered eastern spots are seeing some of the best in the sunshine. temperatures starting to push back up into double figures quite widely. and then, come the weekend, as we really start to pick up weekend, as we really start to pick upa weekend, as we really start to pick up a north—westerly, more westerly breeze, we get a properly atlantic field to our weather, if you like. definitely a milder picture, quite windy picture at times, those isobars coming in quite close together, but the high end the south will take up most of the rain the england and wales. there could be quite a bit of cloud around, i think will be scotland and northern ireland that the weather spells during the course of the day on friday. hopefully there will be a bit of brightness to be found across eastern areas. as for sunday, it is

a pretty similar picture. the area of high pressure stays to the south—west of us. another set of fronts try to topple in from the north—west. tightly packed isobars, still quite windy story, some rain coming in from the north and east. southern areas mainly dry, seeing some cloud at some stage, i think, but hopefully a bit more in the way of sunshine across the uk as a whole and sunday. certainly milder, temperatures of 11 or 12. welcome to bbc news, broadcasting to viewers in north america and around the globe. my name is mike embley. our top stories: president trump calls a meeting with democrats to end the government shutdown "a total waste of time" as both sides dig in. again, we saw a temper tantrum because he couldn't get his way and hejust walked out of the meeting. i think the president made his position very clear today — that there will be no deal without a wall. in australia, police investigating dozens of suspicious

packages sent to foreign embassies arrest a 48—year—old man. provisional results show the opposition leader felix tshisekedi's won the presidential election in the democratic republic of congo. look at me!