theresa may warns there is a risk of there being no brexit if mps vote down her withdrawal deal during a crucial vote on tuesday. it is expected that the prime minister will suffer a heavy defeat. donald trump has dismissed claims that he worked for russia as a big fat hoax. two separate investigations in the us media have posed new questions about his ties to moscow. violent protests have turned deadly in zimbabwe after the government more than doubled fuel prices to tackle widespread shortages. hundreds of people have been arrested. now on bbc news: monday in parliament. hello there and welcome

to monday in parliament. as tension mounts, theresa may herds mps to back her deal. i say to members on all sides of this house, whatever you may have already concluded over the next 2a hours, give this deal a second look. the prime minister has failed to deal with mps concerns about the brexit deal. the government is in disarray. it's clear, if the prime minister's deal is rejected tomorrow, it's time for a general election. it's time for a new government. a minister defends the latest u—turn on a controversial new benefit, universe of credit, and there is demand for immediate

introduction of proxy voting, as a pregnant mp faces having to vote on brexit from a wheelchair. she should not have to choose between going through the division lobby in a wheelchair, nine months pregnant, having postponed her cesarean, or losing her right to vote. but first: theresa may began her day in stoke—on—trent, a brexit—voting constituency, to make a final pitch for her brexit deal. back at westminster, backbench mps have been briefed on written assurances from the eu about the major sticking point of how to avoid a physical border returning to the island of ireland. mps were told that the contingency customs arrangements being proposed would be temporary, and if triggered, would last for the shortest possible period. there would also be concerted efforts to secure a future trade deal, again to stop a hard border being needed. so on monday afternoon it was time for theresa may to set

out her case ahead of tuesday night's vote. if his house approved the deal tomorrow, it would give us almost two years to complete the next phase of negotiations. and of course — and of course, we would have the option to extend the implementation period, is further time were needed, for either one or two years. it is my absolute conviction that we can turn the political declaration into legal text in that time, avoiding the need for the backstop altogether. the eu has now committed to a fast—track process to bring our future trade deal into force once it has been agreed. if there is any delay in ratification, the commission has now said they will recommend provisionally applying the relevant parts of the agreement, so that we would not need to enter the backstop. with just 7a days until 29 march, the consequences of voting against this deal tomorrow are becoming ever clearer. with no deal, we would have no implementation period, no security partnership, no guarantees for uk citizens

overseas, and no certainty for businesses and workers like those i met in stoke this morning. and we would see changes to everyday to northern ireland that would put the future of our union at risk. and if, leaving with no deal this house blocked brexit, that would be a subversion of our democracy, saying to the people — saying to the people we were elected to serve that we were unwilling to do what they have instructed. i say to members of this house, whatever you may have previously concluded, give this deal as second look. it's not perfect, and yes, it is a compromise. when the history books are written... jeering. people will look at the decision — people will look at the decision

of this house tomorrow and ask, did we deliver on the country's vote to leave the european union? did we safeguard our economy, our security and our union? or did we let the british people down? on receiving this letter today, the prime minister — to the prime minister from the president of the eu commission and council, it is now clear to all members across this house yet again that the prime minister has completely and utterly failed to do that. today's letter is nothing more than a repetition of exactly the same position that was pulled more than one month ago. it categorically does not give the legal assurances this house was promised, and contains nothing but warm words and aspirations. mr speaker, isn't it the case that absolutely nothing has changed from the attorney general's letter of advice to the cabinet? his advice, which the government tried to hide, explained with great clarity the reasons why the uk

could find itself locked into the northern ireland backstop protocol, with no legal escape route. today's letter means nothing. the truth remains that, by end of 2020, the uk will face a choice of either extending the transition period, which comes at an unknown financial cost, or we will fall into the backstop, which the attorney general has said endures indefinitely, until such time as an agreement supersedes it. no more playing for time, no more running down the clock to scare people into backing this damaging shambles of a deal. i'm sure members across the house will not be fooled by what has reproduced today. it's clear what we are voting on this week is exactly the same deal with should have voted on in december. the government is in disarray. it's clear, if the prime minister's deal is rejected tomorrow,

it's time or a general election. it's time for a new government! is that all you've got, prime minister? because nothing has fundamentally changed. it is a wish list. with little more than 24 hours until this house votes on the prime minister's deal, the prime minister comes back completely humiliated. the letters published between the uk government and the european union reveal that the prime minister has utterly failed to get the confessions she promised. the eu letter explicitly insists there cannot be any renegotiation of the backstop or the withdrawal agreement. mr speaker, the eu letter states we are not in a position to agree to anything that changes or is inconsistent with the withdrawal agreement. the prime minister has confirmed today that, under her deal, britain will remain between two

and four years, possibly longer, in a customs union. the leader of the opposition is supporting brexit with a somewhat longer period in a customs union. with that relatively small difference, aren't they are essentially two peas in a pod? no, definitely not. five weeks since the prime minister pulled the vote, saying that there had to be a legally binding assurance, would she admit that nothing has fundamentally changed? and that is a reality, let's not kid ourselves about that. and will she not recognise that in pulling the vote, she must have realised that there needed to be legally binding changes to the withdrawal agreement in order for it to have any chance of getting through this house? and even at this late stage, will she not accept that the problem with the backstop is that it

effectively defines the future relationship in northern ireland, because the whole of the uk is not aligned to the high degree for single—market purposes, and we're in a customs union, northern ireland will be. the prime minister comes hot—footed form stoke and commanded us to honour the results of the referendum. yet in 1997 she voted against legislation to establish the national assembly of wales, and in 2005 stood on a manifesto calling for another referendum, with the option to overturn the results. how does the prime minister square her personal track record on referendums with such command? prime minister. the conservative party of course went into opposition in 1997, we accepted the vote, the result of the referendum vote in wales, yes. we accepted — we accepted, we respected, and made clear

at the time that we respected that referendum in wales. and i think anybody who sees the welsh assembly today and what has been doing over weeks and years will see that was the right decision. immediately after that statement, mps resumed their debate on the brexit divorce agreement and the uk's future relationship with the eu. the theme for the day was trade, and international trade secretary painted a potentially rosy future for the economy. at the same time as the proportion of britain's exports to the eu has fallen, we are trading more with other partners around the world. we export a huge variety of commodities. for example, we sold £22 billion worth of food, feed and drink abroad in 2017. in the year to november 2018, we sold {33.7 billion worth of cars, £25.2 billion of medicinal and pharmaceutical products and £24.6 billion worth of mechanical

power generator products, from aircraft engines, gas turbines, steam generators, to nuclear reactors. and so much for britain not producing anything anymore. we are actually experiencing a renaissance in manufacturing in this country. but labour's shadow trade secretary argued the government and theresa may had made all the wrong choices. she could have, she should have recognised that when our fellow citizens are divided 52—48%, this is not the time to go back in the political bunker. it's the time to reach out. she should have reached out and tried to build a consensus across parliament that would have united our country. that would have been leadership. instead, she doubled down. she put her party interests before the country, and tried to appease the erg. i don't deny that the prime minister has shown steel and determination. but there is a point at which steel and determination becomes obstinacy and recklessness,

and she has gone far beyond it. in the labour party, we consistently argued that parliament must be properly consulted, fully involved. a former conservative leader worried about what the uk would get for the £39 billion it had agreed to pay as part of the divorce bill. when you have given them the most important negotiating position, you have, that leaves you with very little to drive them into the next element, which is what we really want, which is trade. and i don't resile from the point that we want to have a trade deal with our nearest trading partner. of course we do. we don't want to end up in some kind of spitting war with them. we want to have a decent arrangement. we also want other arrangements around the world. the problem we have got is right now as it stands this £39 billion is hinged on nothing at all, other than they get it regardless.

that is not much of an incentive for them to produce any sort of trade arrangement that we would want, and that's what worries me. the snp's economic spokesperson painted a bleak impact of brexit. the brexit has already cost families £900 each. £900 per family. given that we have had so many years of austerity, this is £900 that very few can afford easily. the chancellor himself said, clearly, remaining in the european union would be a better outcome for the economy, and that is absolutely the case. remaining in the european union would be a better outcome for the economy. therefore, we will be poorer as a result of the uk choosing to leave the eu. this is why organisations like the cbi, who say they are watching in horror, this is why they are watching in horror, because of forseeable economic catastrophe that the uk is choosing to bring upon itself. you are watching monday in parliament.

now, the former chancellor ken clarke has said the architects of universal credit were well—intentioned but to paternalistic. he was speaking during the debate on the government's latest change of tack on universal credit, a new benefit which is slowly being rolled out across the uk. amber rudd announced last week that she was dropping plans to cap benefits for some families with more than two children. she said people with children born before the two—child policy would be exempt. first, congratulations on the progress of eliminating some of the obvious defects. does he agree that the details

were designed with people who were well—intentioned but tpo paternalistic in their attempts to introduce people to the disciplines and normal way of life of people in work when they were dealing with people off and who were very vulnerable and relying day—to—day on cash? so where this is affordable, after we have really recovered from the consequences of the financial disaster, will he addressed the five—week delay in the first payment which just caused hardship and i hope it's gone by the time that the so—called migration comes to my constituency? in terms of the five—week period, we of course have ensured that people can get support from day one of the requirements of day one advances. the housing benefits are available as well and as part of the package, we have announced an additional run on support that will come in from 2024 stop of course he is right, we need to make sure that throughout the process, we support the most vulnerable and that's exactly what the changes that have been announced are all about. we in the fnb agree that

what faith groups have been saying —— set snp. none of us will be satisfied until the two child limit applies. it must be scrapped now. any improvements of this hideous programme are welcome but there will still be thousands of claimants that i moved onto universal credit this year set as a result of natural migration with no transitional protections. how many people will be pushed into poverty as a result of this move and of the lack of compassion by this government in un— freezing the benefits system? speaker, as i've said previously in this house and i said it earlier this afternoon, we have put more money into the system to support the most vulnerable and that's absolutely

right and that is why we have done it and as far as the pilot phase is concerned, of course we will work very carefully with stakeholders to make sure we get this right. today the resolution foundation have pointed out to the fact that it's those people at the income spectrum, getting back into work, this is a truly progressive benefit and it's great to see the reforms. my honourable friend highlights an important point. the meeting this morning highlighted the point she has raised. i would encourage all colleagues obviously on the government side but also the opposition side, to ashley go to the jobcentres and talk. —— actually. i have seen, speaker, if they would talk directly to the people responsible for providing the advice, i think they would find

that the system is working. mr speaker, the minister should not patronise the opposition by pretending that somehow we don't all do our constituency duty and we haven't been to visit our localjobcentres. i can assure him that we have and the problem with this benefit is that it was introduced to save money, large cuts in welfare systems and payments were made. he has put a bit back which has got to be welcome but he has not put back what was taken away and what was taken away is leaving my constituents relying on foodbank with not enough to eat and he needs to recognise that reality! mr speaker, could i suggest that perhaps the speaker is she has time, she and i talked directly with the colleagues in the jobcentre in her area and let's have a discussion with them and see how we can support her constituents even better. consecutive former minister has said rerunning brexit i produce disorder on the streets —— conservative.

it came as lord hammered's peers have their final debate on theresa may's withdrawal agreement. we are more across the pluses and minuses on this issue. i urge them to reject it. i quote doctor fox, international trade secretary, that a second referendum would put us in unprecedented territory with unknown consequences. my lords, we have been wondering in the wilderness since mrs may lost her majority in the election. i suspect we will be much more divided is actually a second referendum was held and what would happen is that actually the decision would be reserved and then a very

large number of people who voted to leave the eu would then feel that parliament had betrayed them. they would be given no option but to take to the streets because they couldn't look to parliament to look after their interests any more. my noble friend lord patten, when i mentioned this earlier said that i was reprimanding disorder. i'm not recommending it. we need to lead, not leave, we must stop once and for all being half in and half hours and fulfilled the vision of our country's greatest leader winston churchill who saved europe and inspired the european union, a free union of free peoples which has successfully promoted the peace and prosperity of europe for two generations and which we are taking the granted as our peril. i have seen many examples of mis—selling in our lifetime

and that never, my lords, have seen the scale of deliberate deception that has come to light in connection with the 2016 referendum. if you make a decision to buy a pension on the basis of a false prospectus, you would have the right to change our mind or to be compensated. yet those who have been shown to have been wrong on all the claims they made about brexit so far are still being allowed to peddle more mixed today such as that leaving with no deal is perfectly 0k. my lords, problems one prepares for really happen as we discovered with the millennium bug. the government is now being rather coy about how advanced its own preparations are for leaving on wto terms because it wants to frighten

mps into voting for its deal. that i am confident that if we leave on the 29th of march on wto terms, events will be far closer to it a damp squid. that may affect the remainder is, but they will get over it. the old people who voted to leave don't have their future before them. my view and i have the view of most parents and grandparents, the young people have a greater right to express their views on this issue! in fact, i would have not given a vote to and i would declare myself as over 65, we are grandparents and that's it. 80% of our environment law stems from the eu and no deal brexit would sweep away the current effective systems and the rights of the public to environmental information and access to justice. with no deal brexit there is a real risk that the uk as part of the desperate scramble to sign trade deals, would be pressurised into a post brexit bonfire of environmental standards.

a row over whether mps should be allowed to vote by proxy has been reignited in the commons with the news that a labour mp plans to delay the birth of her second child to vote against theresa may's brexit deal. she has postponed the caesarean by two days and wants to be taken through in a wheelchair. agreeing that neither will take part in the vote. but there was a furious row last year when it emerged that a conservative had broken his arrangement with a pregnant liberal democratic and pay. that increased demands for mps to be able to vote by proxy and the longest continuously serving female mp took up tulip‘s case.

she should not have to choose whether going through the lobby, nine months pregnant in a wheelchair, having postponed her caesarean or having the right to vote. it be possible for you to facilitate to have a proxy vote so she can have her baby and have a vote? is this some in the house agreed to in february last year in principle. in the circumstances of this important vote tomorrow and my honourable friend ‘s's prolific, would this be possible for it to be arranged? the speaker said that tulip siddiq should be allowed to vote and the idea she should be wheeled through the division lobby will be seen as many people as completely uncivilised.

it is extremely regrettable that almost a year after the first debate and over four months after the second debate, this change has not been made. this is frankly lamentable. lamentable! lamentable and very disadvantageous and injurious to the reputation of this house is a whiff there is an agreement that can be reached between the usual channels today. i am chairing in the chamber. i am very happy to form a vote tomorrow. ensuring she could be nodded through, at the very least. it is time. in the express will of this house, reactionary forces are overcome, that is important. if people want to express their opposition, let them not

to virtually behind the scenes, let them have the character to say upfront that they oppose progressive change and i hope that we can get progressive change and what better opportunity to do so than before are historic vote tomorrow? i hope i have made my own view is clear! that's it from me for now but tomorrow will be at truly historic day and bbc parliament will have special light commentary programme at the drama unfolds from around 7pm on tuesday evening. i'm back with you next week so from me, goodbye. hello.

by the end of this forecast we will be talking about something much colder, but in the short—term it's relatively mild. west or south—westerly winds across the uk. the cold air is behind this cold front and that'll be sinking its way south and eastwards as we go through wednesday and into thursday. but on tuesday, the front is draped across the north of scotland, the heaviest and most persistent of the rain here pulling its way slowly northwards through the day. further south, mainly dry, a lot cloud, there may be drizzle particularly for western hills. a few breaks in the cloud mainly east of high ground, and it's quite a breezy day for tuesday. this is an idea of wind speeds, average wind speeds through the afternoon. but it will mild, temperatures between nine and 11 celsius. the cloud will be fairly stubborn across much of the uk through tuesday evening, and will start to thicken. outbreaks of rain soon arriving into south—west scotland, northern ireland, sinking its way down into parts of northern england, maybe the far north of wales and parts of south—west england by dawn on wednesday.

further south, mainly dry, still a lot of cloud, still mild. temperatures not much lower than five or six celsius. but as we go through wednesday, this cold front continues to slide its way south and eastwards. as its name suggests, behind it is some colder air. some rain on the front itself, and behind it some showers, which will be wintry over scotland, mainly over higher ground but some of that snow could get down to lower levels as we head down towards the central belt. outbreaks of rain across central and south—east england through the afternoon. behind it, some spells of sunshine. much colder feel across scotland, four or five celsius, just about hanging onto milder conditions across southern south—east england, nine or 10 here. but that front finally clears away as we go through into thursday morning. we pick up a brisk north or north—westerly wind, that's going to feed further wintry showers across, and that's going to lead to some icy stretches first thing on thursday morning, particularly across scotland and northern

england. further south, a lot of cloud, and for a time some milder conditions. but not for long. thursday, that cold air digs in across the uk. it will feed some wintry showers down across eastern coasts, but for most some crisp sunshine, but a much colder feel on thursday. temperatures not much higher than 6 or 7 celsius. now, as we go into friday, under clear skies, a widespread frost across the uk, a really cold start to the day on friday, but for many crisp with some sunshine. however, there is a front to the west, could be just sliding its way eastwards, bringing more cloud, some outbreaks of rain for western fringes. a chance, as it bumps into the cold air, you could see a little bit of snow. but for many, dry with sunshine on friday but feeling much colder. bye— bye. welcome to bbc news, broadcasting to viewers

in north america and around the globe. our top stories: britain's parliament prepares for an historic vote on the proposed brexit deal. the prime minister urges her critics to give it a second look. donald trump calls claims he worked for russia a big fat hoax, after two separate media investigations raise new questions about his links to moscow. not only did i never work for russia, it's a disgrace you even asked that question, because it's a whole big fat hoax. protests over soaring fuel prices turn deadly, as zimbabwe grapples with its worst shortages in a decade. going on hunger strike, a british—iranian woman detained in tehran is protesting to get the care she says she needs.