this is bbc news. i'm carrie gracey. the headlines at 11pm: the government has published details of its contingency plans forfood, medicines and other supplies in the event of a no no—deal brexit. anti—brexit mps demand that parliament be recalled after scotland's seniorjudges rule the five week suspension to be unlawful. the advice given by the government to her man steve according to prorogue parliament from the ninth of september to the 14th of october was unlawful, and therefore the prorogation itself is unlawful —— her man the queen. -- herman the queen. the case was brought by a group of opposition mps in protest against monday's 5—week

suspension of parliament. now for every moment the parliament remains prorogue, the british government is breaking the law so we, as politicians, are calling for parliament to be recalled so we can get on with scrutinising what this government is up to in relation to brexit. downing street said it was disappointed by the ruling, and insisted the prime minister's decision had been lawful. all chant: we want ashley out! shareholders at sports direct show their anger at founder mike ashley after a series of crises at the company. and could this planet, 111 light years away, be home to alien life? and at 11:30pm, we'll be taking an in—depth look at the papers with our reviewers tonight, the broadcaster and author john kampfner and the deputy political editor at the sunday times, caroline wheeler. stay with us for that.

good evening. possible food and medical shortages, fuel prices rises, disruption to petrol supplies, long delays for cross—channel traffic and people travelling to and from the uk, and a rise in public disorder and unrest — these are some of the warnings contained in government documents, released tonight, which set out what's called a reasonable worst—case scenario for a no—deal brexit. the documents contain the details of operation yellowhammer, the preparations that the government is making in case the uk leaves the preparations that the government is making in case the uk leaves the european union without a deal. they were published on the gov.uk website after mps voted last week to force the government to release them. well, contained with the documents were letters which michael gove sent to the labour chair

of the brexit committee hilary benn and the former conservative attorney general dominic grieve. michael gove is the cabinet minister responsible for brexit planning. talking a short time ago on newsnight, hilary benn gave his reaction to the publication. imean, it i mean, it is extraordinary that these are consequences that could flow from the government's own policy. normally when you're protecting against something like this, it's natural disaster, the action of others you don't control. its government policy if no agreement is reached with the eu to inflict a no—deal brexit, and this is what the government says could happen and it shows you know, emily, that parliament was absolutely right last week to legislate to prevent a no—deal brexit on the 31st of october because on that occasion, farfrom being set october because on that occasion, far from being set against the people, what parliament was doing was standing up for the people, jobs, communities, industries, businesses to prevent the government from inflicting these potential consequences on the people that we

represent, and we should be in parliament now continuing to hold the government to account because the government to account because the government to account because the government has lost a great deal of trust. hilary benn. tobias ellwood, conservative mp, responded saying it's not clear what mps can unite around. cani mps can unite around. can i react to hilary benn talking about no—deal. we don't want that, we can see the reasons behind that in the operation yellowhammer documents. he says what he doesn't wa nt documents. he says what he doesn't want but it's not clear what he does want. i want to parliament back in business and scrutinising legislation, i want to those important debates, but we haven't got a majority in this government so any legislation they put through on policing, infrastructure, health and education, it won't get anywhere because the numbers are there. we tried calling a general election and that was denied as well. absolutely i'm for parliament doing its job, but if you recall parliament, what

are parliamentarians then expected to do? because they will not actually admit that they are in denial about where they should all go. electrical reaction to the release of operation yellowhammer documents. —— political. our political correspondent chris mason is at westminster. light rather than heat, what's the extent of what's released in these documents? it is quite stark, the detail in this document. there's a i’ow detail in this document. there's a row about the extent to which this isa row about the extent to which this is a worst—case scenario, this document is badged, or it might be closer to a middle ground scenario on the worry—ometer about what no—deal might look like, because the league to the sunday times a couple of weeks ago was similar to this but it was described as a base scenario, a middle scenario, rather than this, a middle scenario, rather than this, a more worrying thing. at least the

government is entertaining the prospect of this kind of reaction or consequence of a no—deal brexit. a couple more details you referred to a minute ago, the suggestion that on day one after a no—deal brexit, up to 85% of lorries travelling between dover and calais, either underground on the eurotunnel or on ferries, might not be ready for french customs on the other side, reducing the flow rate of lorries by up to 60% within one day. even after three months, the improvement might still mean traffic is only at half the level it is at the day before a no—deal brexit. they talk about the consequences for cues no—deal brexit. they talk about the consequences for cues in kent, delays at st pancras in london, passenger terminal for the and also at dover. talk about potential loss of some medical supplies. all of this tends to boil down to the extent to which they can keep the dover calais crossing, the channel

straits, flowing as much as possible but there could be rain significant drop—off. on food supplies, there will be significant food, but there could be rain available and choice around certain products and price, and that could be made worse by the time of year, helped over. the uk growing season has ended and we are in the countdown to christmas, where demand increases. supply down and demand increases. supply down and demand up magnifies the problem. a few bits of more positive news. the document says there wouldn't be a problem around energy supply, no disruption to electricity or gas but what's quite striking is there some centres you might not think would be particularly vulnerable to a no—deal scenario which this document says there could be. the adult social ca re there could be. the adult social care market, which this document describes as already fragile because of declining financial viability of

some providers, and it says an increase in inflation could push up staff and supply costs and increase the risk of supplier failure, provide a failure, in other words ca re provide a failure, in other words care homes and the like going bust, with small providers impacted within two to three months, and larger ones, four to six months. overall a pretty bleak picture. what's striking, as hilary benn reflected in that clip you played a couple of minutes ago, the political ramification of this would be critics saying to the government, look, this isn't you responding to a natural disaster, an act of god and doing your best in difficult circumstances you didn't bring on, this is a scenario you volunteered to get the country into verses an alternative outcome that might be politically difficult but perhaps economically a lot more benign. obviously we've heard the comments from critics that the government's position on threatening a no—deal is like someone standing on one side of

the best saying i'll throw myself into the best if you don't deal with me. this is i suppose, to those critics, vindication of their point. it is, and in reality it makes it much harderfor boris it is, and in reality it makes it much harder for boris johnson, it is, and in reality it makes it much harderfor borisjohnson, the prime minister, in the coming days to continue to make the argument he has long made, the central plank of his premiership, that it is leave on october the 31st deal or no deal. the question is your willing to live with these consequences, and even if they're not as bad as this, they look pretty bleak rather than something else that might be awkward, not just something else that might be awkward, notjust because of a broken promise, but might not be as grim as this. the timing of the publication of these documents, even though we got a sense of them in the league to the sunday times a few weeks ago... borisjohnson said to leo varadkar, the irish prime

minister, he was keen on getting a deal. there's been emphasis from downing street on getting a deal rather than being comfortable without one in the last few days, but we know how difficult getting a deal is, especially those who are not too keen, including mrjohnson, on one of the solutions to the backstop issue, the security policy on island of ireland to keep the border open under any circumstances, packaging up ireland with a closer relationship with the eu and the rest of the island of ireland versus great britain. by mrjohnson said he doesn't want to do that, doesn't wa nt to doesn't want to do that, doesn't want to start pulling the uk apart. is there a middle ground between what he's ruled out and something the eu might be willing to live with? it looks like a small middleground if it's there, and the possibility of getting that signed off and before parliament before the end of october looks pretty tight as well. the politics and the legal consequences of going for no—deal area big consequences of going for no—deal are a big obstacle for the prime minister now given the law on the

statute book and the publication of this document. getting a deal looks pretty tricky as well in the timeframe. but he doesn't want to entertain the idea of a brexit delay, an extension. how on earth he finds himself out of this mess he is m, finds himself out of this mess he is in, political awkwardness he's in, and more importantly the consequences for the country, will u nfold consequences for the country, will unfold in the next few weeks stop the and frankly, everyone's guessing! 0k, thank you, chris! we can speak to dominic grieve, former attorney general, one of the tory rebels who recently whip, and it was his motion that has led to the release of these documents. thank you for talking to us. good evening. what is your response as you get a chance to read through the documents you demanded and get the motion through parliament to get hold of? i share the view that's just been expressed. it's a very

bleak picture about this country's. .. bleak picture about this country's... our bleak picture about this country's. .. our country's future bleak picture about this country's... our country's future in the immediate aftermath of a no—deal brexit. a very high level of disruption endangering people's well—being, and of unpredictable length. i find it well—being, and of unpredictable length. ifind it extraordinary well—being, and of unpredictable length. i find it extraordinary a government in peacetime... and i agree with what hilary benn said... should inflict it on its own population as being the cost that need to be paid in what appears to be in any event a highly speculative and dangerous adventure. remember, it's not taking us to a certain future. even if we get through the disruption, what will follow is several years disruption, what will follow is several yea rs of disruption, what will follow is several years of negotiation with our eu partners to try and achieve a trade deal, which will be the principal aim of the government, dominating everything in hours, for several years to come, and very divisive in nature. cani divisive in nature. can ijust

divisive in nature. can i just press divisive in nature. can ijust press you on one aspect? imean, you can ijust press you on one aspect? i mean, you talk about the bleak pick, but the government would say this is the worst—case scenario. can you clarify your understanding of how this worst—case scenario language and the original base scenario that the sunday times talked about in august...” understand the difference between those two or when the change was made ——i those two or when the change was made —— i don't. it will be a legitimate question to government about why the partially leaked document set out the base case and now it's been turned into a worst—case. who did that and when? something else on the timing. of course, one thing the government will also say in its defence is we've put a lot of work, they will say, into preparing for no deal since the dates on these documents show things might look a whole better now. i have my doubts about

that, but the information that comes to us as mps suggest most sectors remain profoundly unprepared. i expect preparation will improve each day, but the truth is the 31st of october is very close. in any case some of these things are not able to be prepared for because they will happen or not. you can put the emergency services in place and you can ask the army to help, but it won't make a difference because life will be disrupted. why should we inflict this on ourselves? what is the purpose behind it. —— what is the purpose behind it. —— what is the purpose behind it? it goes back to the original issue, i understand people voted leave in 2016 because it was going to take us to a better future but it won't do that in the short—term. it will take us to a highly disturbed future and the highly disturbed future and the

highly disturbed future never mentioned by the leave campaign when we we re mentioned by the leave campaign when we were in the referendum in 2016. then the question arises, what is the better future that will follow afterwards ? the better future that will follow afterwards? it may follow at some point. i don't know what will happen ten or 20 years hence, but it seems to me it's notjust this disruption but it's also followed by the fact that our politics and daily lives for several years to come will be dominated by getting a trade deal with our european union partners to replace the extraordinary power might advantages we have with participation in the single market, which we enjoy at present. let's turn to a different aspect, you asked for communications with key advisers of the government around the decision to suspend parliament. now, michael gove, cabinet minister responsible for decisions on that rejected that and said it wouldn't be proper. do you accept his response?

i agree with them that this was a draconian motion and i explained when i tabled it. excepting it was quite draconian in its scope, and one of the reasons it was tabled in that way was because the government was proroguing us and we had no other means of asking questions. you've got to look at it from both angles. michael gove says this is an infusion into the privacy of the named special advisers concerned. now, i accept that, although it should be understood that i wasn't suggesting members of parliament should be rifling through their private e—mails, what i was saying was about seeing that there was, i believe, a serious suggestion they had been using private e—mails to do their official work, and doing it, deliberately in order to avoid it being admitted what they were doing, but in those circumstances the government should follow its normal practices for such matters that it

would do in a leak enquiry, for example, which would require private communication means to be handed over to ensure themselves there are not official communications on them that ought to be disclosed for the public and also probably in the court cases which are taking place. and the risk out of this is that the government don't emit and it may well be that the public is going to be misled —— commit, as to the nature of what the government was doing. we've already seen in this episode, which is a very shabby one, that the government did not tell the truth in late august, the prime minister said he had no intention of proroguing, he said i'm not going to suspend parliament. in fact, we now know that they were saying that in late august. they had been preparing for at least a week and probably longer to do exactly that. and, they we re longer to do exactly that. and, they were not frank about it, they misled

the public as to what they were doing. and the evidence from the little bits that have emerged from the court case strongly suggest that there was an orchestrated plan to marginalise the house of commons, prevented scrutinising the government's work in the immediate run—up to no—deal brexit. it's a very serious matter. cannot interject a moment? parliament is currently prorogued intel a decision from the supreme court. —— until. so are you with any means to act against that or are you just leaving that to the courts now? you are right. as long as parliament is sitting, there is nothing we can do about it. michael gove to me reminds me personally that something should happen, nothing should be further

from the case. as an individual mp, i have no power to do anything. the house of commons collectively can ta ke house of commons collectively can take action, to ask for these documents if it feels the government hasn't responded appropriately, but thatis hasn't responded appropriately, but that is going to be a matter for the housing can only happen when the house is sitting. one last question on the front page of the daily telegraph suggesting the prime minister is about to extend an olive branch to rebels like you who voted against last week, got expelled from the parliamentary party, basically you are being instructed on how to appeal to return to the fold. will you be taking advantage of that?” have received a letter from the chairman of the 1922 committee saying there is an appeal mechanism to have the web restored. but i have to have the web restored. but i have to say you only have to look at —— whip, ithink to say you only have to look at —— whip, i think it is only meant to cover m ps whip, i think it is only meant to cover mps who have had the whip withdrawn because they have some way

committed some misdemeanour or miss behaviour. the reality, and i have to say, is that the prime minister's current actions, particularly in the way he is treating the house of commons, make it to my mind quite impossible for me to support him in these endeavours and in these circumstances. i think it's most unlikely he would wish to restore the prorogued to me. i would very much like the conservative party to heal its divisions, i would very much like to be in amity and in division and concord, but it's one of us has to stand up and be counted. the government's pursuing a policy that is in my view, deeply reckless. and it is doing it in the moment in a way which on top of that is creating a constitutional and political crisis. very considerable dimensions quite unnecessarily. the sensible course of action for the prime minister, is for me to come in me him and talk to him about this and we did work with him, trying to

find a sensible way to mend this crisis which brexit has engendered. i don't think simply ratcheting up the aggression to try to force us out on october 31 is an acceptable solution and it's not going to work. dominic reeve, former attorney general, thank you forjoining us. the publication of the operation yellowhammer documents wasn't the only unexpected development in the brexit saga today. earlier, scotland's highest civil court said that the prime minister's decision to suspend parliament for five weeks was unlawful. in a unanimous ruling, the court said borisjohnson had been motivated by what it called the "improper purpose of stymying parliament". the case now goes to the uk supreme court next week but opposition mps have demanded that parliament be immediately recalled. downing street said it was disappointed by the ruling and that the prorogation of parliament had been "legal and necessary". our political editor laura kuenssberg reports.

judgment day. in scotland's court of session, a clear verdict on borisjohnson. each opinion expresses the view that the advice given by the government to her majesty the queen to prorogue parliament from 9th september to 14th october was unlawful and that therefore, the prorogation itself is unlawful. in plain language, thejudges concluded number 10 broke the law by telling the queen they wanted to suspend parliament for a break before unveiling their plans for government. cheering. when opposition mps, jubilant at the ruling, suspected, in fact, they wanted to close down parliament to avoid difficult questions on brexit. for every moment parliament remains prorogued, the british government are breaking the law. so we, as politicians, are calling for parliament to be recalled, so that we can get on with scrutinising what this government is up

to in relation to brexit. the court did not specifically order the government to open up the commons. but some mps who had packed upjust yesterday rushed back to demand it gets going again, taking their places in protest on the green benches in the empty chamber, with an impromptu rally at the doors. we have shown in the last ten days that we are prepared to work together across parties in the national interest, and our resolve remains absolutely firm that we will do that. what do you actually propose to do now? are you all going to stay here in the palace of westminster? are you going to go and sit in the chamber? we're going to go back into the building. we all have jobs to be doing, meetings to be taking place, constituents to be representing, and ultimately we will find other ways of holding this government to account. labour, too, is pressing the prime ministerfor a return. whatever happens next week, we will continue to press for parliament to be recalled, so that we can question the prime minister. hang on, though.

scottish law is different to english law, and the high court in london reached the opposite conclusion in a similar case brought by the businesswoman gina millerjust days ago, deciding the prime minister's decision to close the commons was actually none of the court's business. number 10 will appeal. a final verdict will be given by the uk supreme court next tuesday. but this is as extraordinary as it is serious. the prime minister's actions are found to have been against the law, downing street ruled to have misled the queen. less than two months into office, borisjohnson has hurtled into a genuine constitutional clash. number 10 denied they'd suggested the scottish judges had been somehow biased and, for now, cabinet ministers are reluctant to be drawn into the tangle. i'm not going to comment on an ongoing legislative process. it's a judicial issue and no doubt it will be appealed at the supreme court. government insiders are curiously relaxed about the ruling and some mps and ministers reckon

they'll still have many of the public on their side. the government have acted legally, constitutionally and in normality. farcical. absolutely and completely, not for the government, for the whole place, you know. the fact of the matter is the people said, "we want to leave the european union" and this place says, "we don't." that frustration is what downing street's banking on. a serious and important defeat in court for them today, but it seems lining up to take on parliament is almost part of their ruthless approach. laura kuenssberg, bbc news, westminster. a baby boy was pulled out of the river irwell today, but did not

survive. a22—year—old has been arrested for murder. researchers warn the uk sits at the bottom of a major leak table for cancer survival rates. that's compared to other high—income countries with similar healthcare systems. cancer research uk says that although survival rates are improving, britain still performs worst for key cancers including those of the bowel, lungs and pancreas. university leaders have welcomed government plans to allow international students to stay in britain for up to two years after graduating, to find work. a four—month limit was introduced in 2012, amid concerns that the system was being abused. the government says today's decision will help talented students build successful careers here and that it demonstrates the uk's global outlook. shareholders in the company sports direct have made clear their unhappiness with its founder mike ashley by voting in large numbers against him being re—elected as director. mr ashley owns just over 60% of the company, so he was ultimately

backed to continue in the role, but without the support of a third of independent shareholders who voted. more from our business correspondent, emma simpson. all chant: we want ashley out! we want ashley out! the sports direct agm, it's never dull. shareholders had a long list of complaints, including last months's huge, unexpected tax bill from the belgian authorities. the boss later told me he's not happy, either. if i were a shareholder, i would be very frustrated by those events. so let's be crystal clear, it is not acceptable, yeah? when i heard the night before the results about a belgian tax investigation, it was over $600 million, i think i had to ask three times and i even had to question the currency, "what are you talking about?" and questions, too, about his spending spree, from evans cycles to jack wills and house of fraser. so why is he expanding on the high street while others are in retreat? i don't think you see

next piling out. i don't think you see primark piling out. i don't think you see tk maxx piling out. i think you will see it's a lot, lot smaller pool, a lot smaller pond but the fish are going to be enormous and i want to be one of those enormous fish. a lot of people think you've bitten off more than you can chew, the business has too much on its plate. correct. i agree with all of the above but it is like buses, sometimes, they all come at once. it does not come in a perfect flow. life isn't perfect. trouble is, house of fraser is still losing millions of pounds a week. the jury's out. the jury's definitely out but i'm a definite believer. and before anybody thinks anything, my wealth is in that strategy. not a fraction of it, 60% of that sd share price is one individual, who, by the way, does not get a dividend and does not get paid, and he's bet the farm on this and he's not going to back down until he wins. his message? "bear with me", but mike ashley is under pressure.

tonight, sports direct doesn't have an auditor for its accounts. it's a legal requirement, and he is now in a race to find one. emma simpson, bbc news. a planet that is 650 million million miles away could tell us if there's life out there somewhere else in the universe. uk scientists announced a breakthrough today about this planet, saying it has both water and the right temperature to potentially sustain life. pallab ghosh has the story. the night sky is littered with stars. around them are planets. could some of them be like the earth? scientists think that this one, which is 650 million million miles away, has the potential to support life. astronomers have discovered more than 4,000 planets orbiting distant stars. the new one is about the right distance from its sun to be able to support life. its temperature is

between 0—40 celsius. it's around twice the size of our own earth and it has an atmosphere that we now know contains water. so, the big question is whether there really are living organisms on this world. light from the planet's sun filters through its atmosphere, before it reaches the earth. that light contains a faint imprint of the chemicals in it. in this case, up to half of it is made up of water. detailed analysis of the starlight, published in the journal nature astronomy, shows this peak, where the light has been absorbed by water vapour. all of a sudden, we have the possibility in the next decade to understand what is the nature of this world, how they formed, how they evolved and, in some cases, whether they can support life. i think it's just mind—blowing. telescopes are becoming increasingly powerful. soon, they'll be able to detect gases in the atmospheres of distant