this is bbc news, the headlines: the north—west united states continues to freeze as polar air brings record low temperatures. at least 7 people have died in several states as a result of the polar vortex. many businesses are closed and in chicago schools are closed for two days. the european union insists it won't renegotiate britain's brexit deal, despite the vote in parliament seeking changes to the so—called irish border backstop. the eu wants the backstop in place to ensure there's no return to a hard irish border. there are more street protests in venezuela as president maduro continues to refuse new elections but he says he's willing to sit down to talk to the opposition. president trump has offered his personal support to the opposition leader, juan guaido, in a phone call. he has declared himself interim

president. now on bbc news, wednesday in parliament. hello and welcome to the programme: coming up in the next half hour: after tuesdays brexit votes jeremy corbyn and theresa may clash in the commons ahead of talks about our exit from the eu. i look forward to meeting the prime minister to discuss a solution that could, and my view, unite the country, changes to the backstop alone will not be sufficient. so far, he has opposed to everything the government has put forward in relation to a deal and he said previously, he will reject any deal the government puts on the table. a minister warns that labour moves to change the latest crime bill could have disasterous consequences. blocking data that will mean child abusers it will be free to continue abusing children for longer. and the government's accused

of putting its relationship with the dup ahead of the welfare of women in northern ireland. if there is no likelihood of convening very shortly, that this government needs to take responsibility to protect and support the domestic abuse victims of northern ireland. but first: theresa may and jeremy corbyn finally met in person on wednesday afternoon to talk about brexit. the face to face chat came hot on the heels of the commons votes on tuesday night. mps had backed two amendments, one ruling out no deal and one instructing theresa may to go back to brussels and try to get changes to the irish backstop the fallback position to stop a physical border reappearing on the island of ireland. but before they sat down together there was the weekly round of prime ministers questions which set out the battle lines. following the belt and the house last night against no deal the prime minister is again going to attempt to renegotiate on the backstop to find alternative arrangements because she sent out

today what these arrangements might be? absolutely, last night the house voted as a clear direction on the way that they could agree on a deal and that is why about dealing, as he says with the issue of backstop as i said yesterday that there are a number of proposals on how that could be done. and theresa may said a number of her conservative colleagues had put forward alternative plans. and the political declaration already references these alternative arrangements a numbers and issues and proposals that could be addressed such as mutual recognition of trust and trade x schemes. —— trader schemes. i don't know about anyone else but none of that was clear to me. the eu said over the weekend they are

into renegotiate at the government's if red lights could change. the minister today set out which of the redlines will change. what has been absolutely clear as my contents of the european union readers is that they want a deal with this house voted for last night is to leave the eu with a deal, but it also crucially showed what it will take to see a support in this house for a deal in the future, i think the plants set out last night shows that we can obtain a substantial and sustainable majority in this house. theresa may moved onto the talks she and jeremy corbyn were due to have later in the afternoon. i'm very pleased he's not going to meet with me, and there a number of issues i want to discuss with him for example he talks about a strong single market relationship with the eu in the future, but he also, i want to know whether that means if he wants to accept all their state aid rules for example because in the past he has objected to those and he cannot have it both ways. so we need to know with a greater clarity, what does the right honourable gentleman believes in.

mr speaker the last time i looked at the order paper it's a prime minister question time and the prime minister has herself, and i quote, the only possible deal that was within her redlines, so it's perfectly reasonable to ask which of the redlines has changed. last night the house voted to reject no deal, but that cannot be the end of the story. the only way, the right honourable gentleman says of course not, i think that's the first time he's actually accepted that you cannot just vote to reject no deal, you have to vote for a deal otherwise you leave it with a no deal, so far, he has opposed everything this government has put forward in relation to a deal. and he said previously, he will reject any deal that the government puts on the table, will he, he says it's private to questions by people like to know his position as well, where he is sure that if this government comes back

with a revised deal that ensures we don't leave it no deal, he will actually supported ? i look forward to meeting the prime minister to discuss a solution that could in my view, unite the country. changes to the backstop alone will not be sufficient. businesses and trade unions are very clear, any solution must involve a customs union and the strongest possible deal with a single market. the prime minister may have succeeded, it may have succeeded in a temporarily uniting her very divided party, but mr speaker, is she willing to make compromises necessary that are more important, and that is to unite the country going forward to secure jobs

and living standards right across the uk? can i say to the right honourable gentleman, he wants to talk about coming together when it was last night he agreed to meet you, to talk about these issues, he put forward a proposal last night which referenced a customs union and single market, and his proposal was rejected by this house. the snp westminster leader said theresa may had told mps no alternative deal existed but now had promised to go back and seek an alternative arrangment. has the prime minister inadvertently misled the house, or has this government incompetence reached a whole new level? a simple fact that the right honourable gentleman appears to have admitted in what he's saying is that the house of commons rejected the deal.

therefore, we look to say what can be changed and taken back to brussels and what we fight for to ensure that the deal can get the support of this house. but she wanted to pick up on soemthing ian blackford had said after the brexit votes on tuesday accusing the government of effectively ripping apart the good friday agreement. i want to confirm absolutely, confirm absolutely the commitment of this government to the belfast good friday agreement. and the remarks the right honourable gentleman made last night in relation to that were frankly irresponsible. mr speaker, the only thing that's irresponsible are the actions of this prime minister. order, order, the right honourable gentleman has a right to be heard, the public would expect them to be heard and he will be heard. thanking mr speaker that was a graceless response from the prime minister

who is acting irresponsibly, what she demonstrated here is if you don't like my principles you can add some more. prime minister, scotland wants to stay in the eu. we are angered by the government ignoring scotland. prime minister, do you accept that you scotland everything and deliberate mapping? —— nothing. can i say to the right honourable gentleman, scotland is part of the united kingdom and voted to stay part of the united kingdom. the uk will be leaving the eu, and that's it. later, mps backed a bill allowing uk law enforcement agencies to get hold of electronic data stored outside the united kingdom to help them tackle crimes such as child abuse. the new law would pave the way to get material from tech giants such as facebook and google. but it would require an international treaty with the united states for data to be exchanged. labour put down an amendment arguing that data held in the uk shouldn't

be shared with countries where it might be used to sentence a criminal to death. the minister set out why the government wanted the bill. there have been many days as security minister i remember being woken up a number security issues. on the night of the manchester arena or indeed the chilling news nerve agent had been used on our streets of salisbury. but the day above all i remember the last two and half years, was a visitor regional and organised crime unit where i had to listen to a paedophile plot, via an online chat room to kidnap rape and kill a seven—year—old girl. about the same age as my daughter. if that wasn't sickening enough, i could sense the frustration of detectives who needed data from overseas and to stop the abuse being committed. because in case after case, timing is everything in these investigations. he said 99% of data needed for child

abuse investigations was overseas. he turned to labour's amendment. firstly, and bearing in mind how little data we hold here, having looked back at the 20 years we have not been able to find a single case whatsoever where only the data that that bill it deals with would have led to a death penalty overseas. secondly, this is about data, not people. extradition from the uk is dealt with by separate legislation and her majesties government is already prevented from handing over so without that polity assurances. —— someone. third, this is a bell about our data request overseas in order to bring data back here for investigation. and when i last looked, we did not have the death penalty in this country. blocking data will need child abusers will be free to continue abusing children from longer because we simply will not be able to get the data that we wish.

the issue of this debate, is whether or not we can achieve goals that we agree on, but also find a way to implement existing government policy about death penalty assurances. it's notjust our responsibility, but it's all about opposing that as a matter of principle. my view of this is that the assault of data we are seeking to access for the purpose of fighting crime, the issue is whether that that death penalty might or might not result from man criminal proceeding which is speculative, it is entirely irrelevant. he is mentally says he's happy to be mandated to secure debt penalty assurances i thought that in the event that they are sought but not obtained, it

shall not be handed over, he was a very tiny amount of cases, nobody however is disputing that need to speed up that process to obtain data, that's exactly what the differences. now, at the front bench has been saying that if they don't get what they want, they should block the treaty. as a children's doctor i've looked after a number of children who have been sexually abused and they had sometimes very horrific physical and mental scars in particular the mental and last forever, we are all united in wanting to prevent that. am i misunderstanding the right honourable gentleman when he says, that seeking assurances is not at a quote and it faced with a real situation where a child is in imminent danger and those assurances cannot be got, then that child should remain

in danger and in the situation where he or she is being abused to avoid a theoretical risk is something that hasn't happened in 20 years? the point i'm making is in the event that assurances are not secured by the way, i totally agree that the united states looms interview because of this treaty, but this is a framework for other treaties all around the world. the opposition is simply saying we should be embedding into it, in the event that those assurances are not forthcoming from whichever country it is, he could be any country, around the world. with which this treaty could be put in place. but in the circumstances, rare though they are, the data should not be handed over. but at the end of that debate mps backed the government sending the bill back to the lords. the government's been accused of putting its relationship with the dup ahead of the welfare of women in northern ireland. the accusation came from the labour mp stella creasy during an urgent statement on the domestic abuse bill. ms creasy had been hoping to use the legislation to change the abortion laws in northern ireland. but she won't be able to do

so because the bill only applies to england and wales. the minister said the issues covered by the bill were devolved to scotland and northern ireland. domestic abuse affects communities in every nation in the uk, yet last week, after two and half years of waiting, the government published a draft bill that only will take action in england and wales, mr speaker and asking this question not to debate the nature of evolution but to ask why the bill has been restricted when from the outset what was promised was very different, why benefit to a nap years with the government do this? to find a times this weekend provided the answer would confirmation that the bill had been batted by the cabinet office, but the government feared making this uk wide because of the dup, why? because it's also about implementing un convention on violence against women, a convention that they say we are preaching right now because citizens and northern ireland are denied rights to choose not to continue an unwanted pregnancy. she said the bill showed the human consequences of the government's

agreement with the dup. minister, the pipe is fair and square on abortion rights, not through backroom deals on bargaining, i like it take the rape victim to come to court to make the government of the right thing and not block this change, put the v not dup first. the underlying offences which would support prosecution that domestic abuse are devolved, section 18, coercive controlling behaviour, and the wrath of the offences that can help support prosecutions, but we have not rested on our laurels, i've written to the scottish government and northern irish department to ask whether they will legislate in their own territories to replicate this across the country. the devolved institutions in northern ireland have been suspended. labour said people were suffering because of the political hiatus. decisions on the provision of public

services legislation and support for the northern ireland need to be reached urgently and there is no likelihood this is convening shortly, then this government needs to take responsibility to protect and support the domestic abuse victims northern ireland. let's call it out for what it is as part of an orchestrated campaign to alter abortion laws in northern ireland and here, and to replace those laws with extreme proposals for which there is no public appetite whatsoever. does the minister agree that it is highly inappropriate for such campaigner is to hijack the domestic abuse bill in this way — undermining a bill to support victims of domestic abuse and their families and that it is equally appropriate to interfere and a devolved matter and that it has been developed for almost a hundred years. we have this strange arrangement

that at one moment some members in parliament talk about protecting the absolute integrity of the belfast agreement when it comes to that as we discussed mainly europe, but then when we would to domestic arrangements that are specifically devolved under the terms times the belfast agreement, we suddenly cast those arrangements totally aside and my confusion has to go, we either accept evolution and accept and implement it or we do the labour front bench seems to say and that's introduced direct role. the minister replied that when it came to devolved matters, it wasn't possible to "pick and choose". you're watching wednesday in parliament with me, alicia mccarthy, and don't forget you can follow me on twitter @bbcalicia. newspaper reports have suggested that the international development secretary, penny mourdant, believes that the government's commitment to spend 0.7% of the uk's national income on overseas aid is "unsustainable". ms mourdant reportedly told a cabinet meeting

that her department should move "from being a spending department to a fundraising department". those reports prompted an urgent question in the lords, where one of her deputies, lord bates, tried to reassure peers. the uk commitment to spend 0.7% of gni on aid is enshrined in law. and has been reaffirmed by the secretary of state for international development and the place by the chancellor of the exchequer and his most recent budget and by the prime minister on her recent visit to africa. the aid budget is fully funded and we have permanent plans in place to continue to meet that important commitment. the key to eradicating poverty globally is building public services that deliver health and education accessible to all. and that will encourage greater economic activity and greater investment. the noble lord the minister has a proud record on overseas development as both a gifted

and treasury minister, i hope he will confirm that next month's spending review, there will be no attempt to renege on the uk's commitment enshrined and laws he said to spend 0.7% of the uk gdp on overseas aid. i'm very proud to give that commitment and reassurance to the noble lord that he seeks. this commitment was made by the international union way back in 1970. it wasn't until 2013, and i'm proud to say under this government led by the partnership at the coalition, that it was actually introduced and i'm immensely proud of that. that is something we remain committed to. priti patel has been quoted regularly as wanting to undermine our international development programme. she also has got very close links to the newspapers, so i would ask the minister, how did those reports get into those papers today, and will he make

it absolutely clear that they are completely wrong and that the government is sticking to 0.7%. priti patel sadly resigned as secretary of state for development a couple of years ago, but the current one is absolutely committed to 0.7 and absolutely committed to the 0.7%, which is of crucial importance. we are the only country in the developed world to meet this target and enshrin it in law, so we'll continue to do so, so any language such as unsustainable raises questions to other developed economies that we should seek to also meet their obligations. british leadership in this area can be critical, so can the minister be categorical, language such as unsustainable to meet our obligations will not be heard from the british cabinet minister. we need to remember that there is a huge and need out there and we need to build

on our commitments, which we have already given and had pledge, but also as he rightly points out, encourage others to step up to the plate. but increasingly to see that governments can't do this alone, we need to leverage and trade and in private investment in order to bridge that gap if we are to deliver to the people under poverty. the head of the bbc has defended plans to rebuild the outside set of the soap, eastenders, after the financial watchdog, the national audit office, reported that the scheme was set to cost £27 million more than originally intended. the new set was due to open in 2018, but won't be ready until 2023. the new albert square will be near the existing set at the bbc‘s elstree studios in hertfordshire. it will have actual brick buildings unlike the current one, which only uses facades. lord hall was appearing in front of the public accounts committee. the external eastenders set dates back to the soap's birth in 1984. 0n bbc‘s flagship soap 0pera east enders, you have managed to go over budget by 45% and delay 31 months.

what went wrong? you're dealing with a site where on any one day, three multi—camera shoots will be going on, whilst east enders is being done. you've got a residential area. make it quite clear, that we are right to develop on this site. it's our own site, we moved to other sites, but we came down to this. we had issues around the nature of the contract putting it all in one sort of dollop as opposed to breaking it down as we have done since then and we came across problems to do at the site of asbestos that we could not foresee. is this an important investment for the bbc? yes, it is. 34 years of broadcasting east enders, a set design for two years were still being run, when they are high winds or rains, you have to move the shooting staff because it thinks might fall off. forvive me, i know it's long before your time,

by 1986 eastenders was the most watched something reaching about 27 million people, could you explain why the decision has taken somewhere in the region of 30—odd years to upgrade the set when i would have though when it was quite clear at the long—term future after 1986 bbc would've done something then? i hate to agree with you, and a sense, but i do. i don't want to seem like... i'm delighted to agree with you in that case then. we are both, since coming back to bbc have been trying to deal with some of the long—term building issues that bbc has faced and bluntly avoided to a certain point, it struck as both of that investment was long overdue at something which was at the heart of this, great for reaching 9 million people each week producing

hundreds of hours about that a year, young people watch a lot and by the way it's another important way of us not only giving people a great drama they can latch onto but also important social messages to get out there, so we felt investment in this was a priority for us. you recently cancelled a reboot, which was somewhere in the region of the same amount of viewers, can you confidently justify investing £7 million in a tv programme you may be making a decision about five years' time? you mean can ijustify eastenders? yeah. yes. because, what has in that period, all know this, has been that viewing for linear terrestrial television has gone down, apart from bodyguard, at times when 20 million, and this one was disproved by the way, generally people watching around christmas and other times is gone down but if you watch the abc or itv schedules,

the core of the schedules broadly are on those with us, and if you look at the christmas day and christmas eve episodes, they really picked a lot, there are also programs which are driving young audiences so the world as shifted but the programme is nonetheless important. and that's it from me for now but do join me at the same time tomorrow for a round up of thursday in parliament. but for now from me, alicia mccarthy, goodbye. hello there. we've got a potentially disruptive snowy spell of weather on the way.

we've got very cold air locked in place and an area of low pressure developing over the atlantic. the met office have issued a number of the met office have issued a number 0f warnings to this. stay tuned to bbc local radio. a cold start to the morning. well below freezing in many areas. extremely cold across some of the scottish clans. watch out for ice and freezing fog. 0n the plus side, plenty of chris sutton. conditions go downhill. rain, sleet, and so becomes more widespread and this they will become heavy late in the day. it will be a cold day pretty much where ever you are. as we head through thursday evening and overnight, the sleet and snow across the south—west of wales starts to spread northwards and eastwards. there will be accumulations of snow, 103 centimetres at lower levels, more of that the hills, across the south the midlands, and across eastern wales, which could potentially be very disruptive. welcome to bbc news,

a warm welcome to bbc news, broadcasting to viewers in north america and around the globe. my name is mike embley. our top stories: the big freeze hits parts of the us. arctic conditions are sending temperatures down below —30 celsius. the european union insists it won't renegotiate britain's brexit deal, despite the vote in parliament seeking changes to the so—called irish border "backstop". more street protests in venezuela as president maduro refuses new elections but says he will talk to the opposition. tensions remain high in zimbabwe where the army continues its crackdown against protestors. and millions of migrants are making their way in record numbers, from north america to mexico.