welcome to bbc news, a convoy of trucks has been broadcasting to viewers evacuating civilians from baghuz, the last piece of syrian territory in north america still held by islamic state. and around the globe. the village on the border with iraq my name is mike embley. our top stories: is now surrounded by syrian on the brink. a convoy of trucks helps evacuate and kurdish forces, backed by the united states. civilians, from the last piece they say is is now close to defeat. of syrian territory still held by islamic state. kurdish forces say is is close to defeat. bangladesh has dismissed suggestions that shamema begum might be allowed bangladesh dismisses suggestions to enter the country, after britain that shamima begum might be allowed removes her uk citizenship. to enter the country. they say the teenager who fled after britain removed her uk citizenship, ms begum says london to join islamic state she expected more sympathy. in syria four years ago, is entirely a matter for the british government. the 19—year—old says she expected more sympathy. the british prime minister has held i thought they'd be a bit more sympathetic, more talks in brussels after three because of my situation. of her conservative mps resigned i did explain that i didn't know in protest at how she's handling fully what i was getting brexit. into and i made a mistake. at least 50 people have died in a fire in the bangladeshi capital, dhaka, several other injured people have been taken to hospital. the french president promises new measures to tackle anti—semitism, warning attacks onjewish targets are at the highest now on bbc news, wednesday in parliament.

hello and welcome to the programme. coming up: three conservatives quit their party over brexit, they join eight labour mps in a new independent group in the commons. the snp says westminster is broken. this place is at war with itself. the tories and the labour party are imploding. some of the labour mps who quit on monday left over anti semitism and a shadow minister apologises for his party's handling of the issue. i want on behalf of my party to publicly apologise to the jewish community, we have let you down. and the government's urged to extend the time women's eggs can be frozen and stored.

this is about extending women's rights to their fertility, women's right to work and women's right to plan their lives. but first: the day had begun with speculation mounting that a clutch of conservatives were about to follow the lead of eight labour members and quit their party. and with just over ten minutes to go until prime ministers questions, the news was finally confirmed. heidi allen, sarah wollaston, and anna soubry said they were crossing the floor and took their seats in the chamber on the opposition benches. the three criticised the government's "disastrous handling" of brexit and said it had undone "all the efforts to modernise" the conservatives. they willjoin an independent group of former labour mps set up on monday. it means, all told, there's a clutch of 11 newly independent members and that theresa may's fragile working majority in the commons is now down to nine. the conservative, kevin foster, was on his feet in the chamber as the former tories were settling in to their new seats... and he had some warm words for one of the three, his parliamentary neighbour,

the memberfor totnes, sarah wollaston. i must say, while my honourable friend no longer sits on this side of the house, she remains my honourable friend. but when pmqs got under way the snp's westminster leader reckoned those kinds of bonds had been blown apart by events over the last few days. westminster is broken. we are in the middle of a constitutional crisis on the brink of the brexit disaster. and yet, this place is at war with itself. the tories and the labour party are imploding. he turned to brexit... time is running out. will this house get to vote on the prime minister's brexit deal next week and if not, when? theresa may made no reference to the three mps who'd left her party or the eight who'd resigned from labour. instead she focused on brexit. obviously, we are in discussions with the eu and we will bring a vote to this house when it is possible to bring a deal back that deals

with the issue that the house of commons has raised. we have listened to the house of commons, we are working on the views of the house of commons with the european union and we will bring a vote back when it is the right time to do so. quite simply, that is not good enough. you are bringing the uk economy to its knees. how manyjobs, how many resignations will it take the prime minister to stop this madness? if you don't act, minister, scotland will. i will tell them what is not good enough. an snp that wants to take scotland out of the united kingdom knowing full well that being a member of the united kingdom is worth £1400 every year for each person in scotland. he talks about damaging the economy. the only people who are going to damage the economy in scotland are sitting on the snp benches. the prime minister is correct, history willjudge us all. history willjudge us all.

and those in positions of authority will be particularly harshlyjudged, people like the prime minister and the leader of the opposition for dividing the country and dividing their parties. so will the prime minister finally rule out no deal and stem the blood—letting in britishjobs, dismiss the nonsensical notion of a job first brexit and extend article 50 to enable the people finally to vote on what is the sole justification that she sees for backing brexit and that is the will of the people? the labour leader didn't mention the resignations of eight of his mps and three of theresa may's. instead he focused all his questions on the next steps for brexit. people's jobs and livelihoods are in the prime minister's hands. will she stop playing games withjobs and make it very clear that no deal is absolutely ruled out? people's jobs and futures

are in the hands of the every member of this house. there are only two ways to take no deal off of the table. one is to back a deal, the other is to revoke article 50 and stay in the eu. he has refused to back a deal, so the obvious conclusion is he must want to revoke article 50. so he can stand up now and tell us what his policy is. to back the deal, or stay in the eu? i did write a very nice letter to the prime minister telling her what our views were. i'm sure she received it and read it and i hope she is going to think on it. a little over a month ago, and this government has failed to put the country first. the crisis ofjobs going, industries under threat, and the prime minister indulges in what her own business minister

called fanciful nonsense. when is she going to put the interests of the people of this country before the interests of the conservative party? can i say to the gentleman there is... he has consistently put his party's political interest ahead of the national interest. he has... we can take no deal off at the table by agreeing a deal. yet in every stage, he has acted to frustrate a deal, he has acted to make no deal more likely. but that is not surprising from this labour party. what do we see from his labour party? hamas, his other friends? israel and the united states, enemies.

hatton, a hero. churchill, a villain. atley and bevan will be spinning in their graves. that is what the gentleman has done to a once proud labour party. we will never let him do it to our country! elsewhere in the session there was praise for the home secretary, sajid javid, from conservative mps over his decision to stip shamima begum of her british citizenship. the teenagerfled london to join islamic state in syria when she was 15. government sources said it was possible to revoke her uk nationality as she was eligible for citizenship elsewhere. her family have said they plan to challenge the government's decision. ms begum gave birth to a son at the weekend and now wants to return to the uk. the home secretary is to be congratulated for his swift and decisive action in removing british citizenship from shamima begum. but the fact remains that of the 900

british nationals who have gone to support daesh, fighting against british armed forces in iraq and syria, only forty have been prosecuted. with 400 of these individual set to return back to this country in the very near future, will the prime minister revisit the provisions of the treason act to make sure these appalling activities receive suitable and just punishment? any british citizen who returns from taking part in the conflict must know they will be questioned, investigated and potentially prosecuted. it is right that we follow that process but i'm sure my friend will also accept that one of the issues that looking at prosecution is ensuring there is evidence to enable prosecution to take place. theresa may. later the home secretary defended his use of powers to deprive individuals of their citizenship. reponding to an urgent question, sajid javid refused to comment directly on shamima begum's case. but he said it was right to act where individuals posed a threat and every decision was carefully looked at. to keep this country safe, we must be prepared to make tough decisions and as i told the house on monday, there must

be consequences for those who back terror. if someone who'd joined is posed a threat to the uk, he would use his powers to prevent them returning. it would not be right to comment on any individual case but i can say that each one is carefully considered on its own merits, regardless of gender, age or family status. children should not suffer, or if a parent... if a parent does lose their british citizenship, it does not affect the rights of their child. deprivation is a powerful tool that can only be used to keep the most dangerous individuals out of this country. and we do not use it lightly. in removing british citizenship, the home secretary is basically saying that she is somebody else's problem. in the words of the former chancellor of the exchequer, george osborne, which other country is supposed to look after her on our behalf? mr speaker, surelya british citizen, born in britain, is a british responsibility? and what of mizz begum's child?

this child is an innocent british citizen and we have a clear responsibility to ensure his well— being. what steps is he taking to uphold that important responsibility? i would have to be absolutely in every case, absolutely confident that it is not only conducive to the public good but it is legally, proper, correct and compliant with international and any relevant domestic law. sir ed davey, he said, had voted to extend the powers to remove citizenship. and now he stands here, pretending that he knows nothing of this and trying to play politics with such an important issue and he should reflect on that. but a senior conservative said the uk should accept the return of citizens who'd gone to syria. a threat to future security of somehow leaving them to disperse from syria seems to be quite serious and we can use the full force of the criminal law, we must and we can use the full

resources of the intelligence services once they have gotten back here, that is how he is going to be able to protect the british public. let me remind the home secretary of article 15 of the universal declaration of human rights, one, everyone has the right to a nationality. two, no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of their nationality. can the home secretary explain how his actions are not in breach of the articles of the declaration? no one should ever be made stateless, that is not something we would ever do and we would never take a deprivation decision if someone only has one nationality, being british nationality, we would not leave anyone stateless. she also suggests somehow that these kinds of decisions are arbitrary, but as i shared with the right honourable gentleman each one of these decisions is taken incredibly seriously and the facts are weighed up on a case—by—case basis and anything but arbitrary.

the young woman we are talking about is british and was radicalised in britain, daesh is a worldwide phenomenon, but she is our problem. why isn't the home secretary bringing her home to put her on trial here to be judged by a jury of her peers? do his actions dojustice to britain or to his own political ambitions? mr speaker, the honourable lady and i have had some dealings with her in the past and she is an wonderful women and i think she is a lot better than that question. a shadow minister has made an emotional apology to jewish people on behalf of his party. the shadow international trade secretary, barry gardiner, was speaking during a debate on anti—semitism. it came days after luciana berger became one of the mps to quit labour she said her decision was due in part to its failure

to tackle the issue. how can it be that we are struggling so badly to eradicate anti—semitism from our own membership? i want on behalf of my party to publicly apologise to the jewish community that we have let you down. we know it. we are trying to do better. we are trying to become the party that we have always aspired to be. we will not stop working until we once again become a safe and welcoming political home for people from the jewish community, as from every other. he was asked about the readmission of veteran leftwinger derek hatton to the labour party. what message does he think it sends to the jewish community

to have the labour party readmit derek hatton, who tweeted on social media would seem to imply that everyjew, wherever they live in the world, are responsible for the actions of the israeli government? and does he share my view that he has no part to play in our labour party? this morning... i saw the reports that i'm sure my honourable friend saw, about notjust the readmission of derek but the tweets he mentioned. i wrote to the general secretary of our party. i lodged a formal complaint... good luck. mr hatton was later suspended from the party. it pains me hugely to have heard the powerful testimony of colleagues in this house, of the abuse they suffered for either being jewish or standing up against anti—semitism. even the assertion by some that part of our politics are in some way poisoned by anti—semitism and an institutional way. this does not reflect the country who we are or the politics for which we stand.

and our debate today gives us the chance to say we reject this. we oppose this and we stand together against anyone seeking to advance a narrative of bigotry, hatred and division. a few weeks ago on the front page of the sunday herald, the scottishjewish council had a story on the front page of that national newspaper, highlighting the deep problem of anti—semitism that does too often plague elements of scottish society. too many responded to that story, mister speaker, with conspiracy theories, an idea that somehow it could not happen in scotland or that really the jews were complaining about nothing. rubbish. isn't it also our problem,

all of our problems that sometimes we just say oh, these sort of things exist but we do not stand up and out and we do not say it loudly enough that each time this is totally unacceptable. one of the mps who'd left labour over its handling of anti semitism spoke about the hatred she'd faced. i have just in the past year alone seen a further two people convicted, one from the far right, in prison after he threatened to kill me, convicted under counterterrorism legislation and another just before christmas, a former member of the labour party, convicted of harassment. that takes my tally to six, or seven, depending on how you interpret it, convicted of anti—semitic inspired hate crimes and threats. and it was my political home for nearly 20 years, until i resigned from the labour party on monday, where i had seen obfuscation, smeers, inaction, denial, every step of the way.

you're watching wednesday in parliament, with me, alicia mccarthy. don't forget, you can find the programme on the bbc iplayer and you can follow me on twitter @bbcalicia. now, after prime minister's questions, theresa may headed for brussels for more talks about her brexit deal. the snp's westminster leader, ian blackford, accused her government of failing to do any analysis of its economic impact. but answering an urgent question, a treasury minister said the government had looked at several possible brexit outcomes and the government's deal was better than no deal. he set out what he saw as its benefits. we will have an implementation period, a new close relationship with the eu, and crucially, the ability to strike trade deals around the world, bringing back control over our money,

borders and laws, to mould a prosperous and ambitious new path for our country and on our terms. no matter what approach we take, the uk economy will continue to be strong and grow into the future. but ian blackford said the government's deal would be an unmitigated disaster. and it's quite clear from the answer that the minister hasjust given, that the government has done no analysis on this deal, in the most important matter that arguably this house has voted on since the second world war, we don't have an economic impact statement from this government. mr speaker, that is once again, this conservative government treating this house, treating the united kingdom with contempt! and it's a disgrace that the government has continued to duck and dive its responsibilities! as the treasury's forecasts before the referendum were woefully inaccurate, and the obr was set up specifically to stop politicised reports coming

out, would it not be better to consult a newspaper horoscope than treasury forecasts? well, i hate to disappoint my honourable friend and genius, amusing though his question is, but i should point outjust one fallicy in the minister's question, which is that these are not forecasts. sthe treasury minister, mel stride. staying with brexit, the uk's former ambassador to the eu says there's a view in european capitals that the risk of a no—deal brexit is above 50%. sir ivan rogers resigned in 2017 after it was revealed he had privately told ministers a uk eu trade deal might take ten years to finalise. appearing before a lords committee, he stuck by that prediction. in my experience, this will be a tortuous, difficult, conflictual, sometimes unpleasant negotiation, covering multiple different sectors, complex issues, and will take years

rather than months to conclude, and when confronted with ministers, as i understand, politically saying but this must be the easiest trade deal in history because we're an ex member and they know us intimately, so what is the problem? that is not my perception at all, i am afraid. this is one of the most difficult trade negotiations in history now, not because there is not an awful lot of common understanding and common ground, and i hope there is still a substantial amount of goodwill, but because it's the first trade negotiation in history between partners who are seeking to get further apart. there is a widespread view in european capitals that the risk of a no deal brexit is now above 50%, and it is all very well for the commons to be saying they don't want a no deal brexit but unless they can come up with a serious proposition, which is something other than hers and bring that into the political declaration, given the withdrawal agreement for the 27 is closed, the risk is rising all the time

and you can hear and feel that anxiety across the uk. and he said this was only phase one. i think the subsequent phases are going to be worse or more difficult and i hope the executive and the legislature manage to get their act together for the next stage, rather than, it seems to me, they have for the article 50 stage. but if you think this element with the irish border, the backstop question, the money question, this question is being difficult, wait till you get into a trade deal when you're negotiating against the 27 in the european union, because that's real fun and that's going to cover everything from financial services to fish, to employment to competition, to you name it. we have only, we have not scratched the surface to that because all we have as an overarching political declaration which describes the terms, which broadly means all things to all people and deliberately ambiguous language, some basic shared conception of the potential end. sir ivan rogers. the government's been urged to end

the ten year time limit on storing women's eggs. the current law allows them to be frozen for a decade — after which they're destroyed. a former head of the human fertilisation and embryology authority reckoned that rule was now out of date and the regulations should be changed. the storage period of ten years for frozen eggs was set when little was known about the science. so women either exercise that option when they are at the best age, say 25 and have to have them destroyed when they're 35, when they really need it, or have to wait until the less optimal age and still have to have them destroyed when they're not needed. the entire exercise having cost thousands of pounds. will the government not enact a simple regulatory change, costing nothing, which will help end this interference with private and family life under human rights law and the indirect discrimination, and give hope to thousands of women? i do acknowledge that there have been societal changes which have

led to women having children later and i also acknowledge that there have been technological advances in fertility treatments and in freezing. however, i think that the strength of this regulation is it had clinical, parliamentary and public support behind it, which in such a sensitive piece of legislation is something i hope we could continue going forward, which is why i do believe and the government believes that continuing with primary legislation is appropriate. as far as we know, the longest surviving embryo that went on to give birth is 26 years, but nobody knows how long the longest has been, we only know of the ones that are reported. as far as how long the embryo might survive, a study done on mice, of measuring cumulative index of background radiation in mice, suggested that when these mice embryos were subjected to increasing levels of cumulative radiation, they survive up to the equivalent of 2000 years. so there is no reason why ten year

limit has any scientific basis, would the minister agree? well, iwould never argue with lord patel on any scientific matters and any information i had was there was no scientific or biological basis for the ten year limit, it was based on debate and discussion on societal, ethical and cultural discussions and also based on questions around the concern that without a maximum limit, there would be questions around storage banks. isn't this just a case of discrimination? practically every man in this room could still father a child, but none of the women could. this is very similar to when the pill was brought into our lives. laughter this is about extending women's rights to their fertility, women's right to work, and women's right to plan their lives, as we've heard from many noble lords, the science is with us,

it is only the culture and the politics that are against us. i have a great deal of sympathy with the position that the noble lady has just represented. as i say, the question around the ten year limit remains under review as we discuss it, but i do not think that replacing under the regulation in a simple way that the noble baroness has presented would be an appropriate way to do it. it would need to be brought forward under primary legislation and in order to do that, we would need to be able to make time for that in the house, which at the moment is not a realistic perspective. lady blackwood. and that's it from me for now, but do join me at the same time tomorrow for another roundup of the day here at westminster. but for now from me, alicia mccarthy, goodbye.

hello. as advertised for several days, temperatures are now on the up and there will be sunnier days to come, but we're not there yet. for thursday, expect a good deal of cloud around. it's reallyjust later in the day it starts to brighten up. regardless of cloud or sunshine though, it will be milder. it's all about where the air is coming from. that's a bit of caribbean air coming our way on through thursday. by the end of the week, the start of the weekend, looking to north—west africa, the canaries, for the source of our milderair. but temperatures will be several degrees above normal for the time of year. nowhere particularly cold as thursday begins, but this chart gives you an indication ofjust how much cloud there's going to be, damp and drizzly as well in places to begin the day, could still see a bit of patchy rain into western scotland and north—west england into the first part of the afternoon, before it eases away. now, you canjust pick out more of the land appearing among the cloud into the afternoon, these are gradually some sunny spells developing. now, we've established this is a feed of mild air coming

from the south. it's fairly breezy. these are average speeds, there'll be a few stronger gusts the further west you are, you're closer to the low pressure, as in the atlantic. but again, it's a feed of mild air, temperatures are above normal, and with some decent sunshine in north—east scotland, 16, 17, maybe 18 degrees is possible, but widely temperatures in the midteens. clear spells around on thursday night, although this weather front just edges closer to northern ireland and western scotland, with a strengthening wind. so you could start to see a few spots of rain out of that, and this is fog developing across parts of east anglia, the midlands, southern, especially south—eastern england. as ever, it'll be patchy in nature, but some of it could well be quite dense as we start the day on friday. there isn't much wind here because you're closer to this area of high pressure. still though this weather front close to northern ireland and western scotland, so here more cloud around at times on friday, maybe a few showers, more breeze in the west

compared with elsewhere. some of the fog towards the south—east may linger into the first half of the afternoon in some spots, but for many on friday, for more places, it's blue sky and sunshine, and of course, when you've got the sunshine, it willjust contribute to that very mild feel to the weather. some snow affecting parts of south—east europe, with low pressure close by. elsewhere, for many, it's dry, with high pressure notjust here but elsewhere in europe, and there's your feed of air coming from the canaries, from north—west africa into the uk over the weekend. and whilst most will be fine and dry, could be some rain affecting parts of northern ireland and western scotland at times, and still some dense fog patches across parts of england to start the day.