the headlines: the us envoy to ukraine, kurt volker, has resigned. it comes after a whistleblower claimed donald trump put pressure on ukraine to investigate the former vice presidentjoe biden. it's claimed that mr volker tried to arrange meetings for mr trump's personal lawyer, rudy giuliani, in the country. in washington, the us secretary of state, mike pompeo, has been ordered to hand over documents to an impeachment inquiry looking into mr trump's dealings with the ukraine government. mr pompeo will have a week to comply with the subpoena. and 22 years on, walking in his mother's footsteps, prince harry has visited a partially—cleared minefield in angola. the landmines were planted during the 27—year civil war which left thousands displaced and disabled. the duke of sussex described the visit as "quite emotional". now it's time for a look back

at the week in parliament. hello again, and welcome to the week in parliament — a week the government tried, but failed, to ban. colleagues, welcome back to our place of work. borisjohnson delivered his own supreme court verdict. it is absolutely no disrespect to the judiciary to say i think the court was wrong. but his defiance and language created uproar among mps. i've had a death threat this week that literally quoted the prime minister and used the prime minister's name and words in a death threat that was delivered to my staff. more, lots more to come on a week when even the speaker described the atmosphere in the commons as "toxic". but first, cast your mind back

a couple of weeks or so. remember this? shame on you! and this ceremony involving much doffing of hats and a smattering of norman french. and this parliament is accordingly prorogued to monday the 14th day of october. well, don't worry if you can't remember the 9th of september in parliament. it never happened. the decision to advise her majesty to prorogue parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification. 2a hours later, the speaker explained what that meant to mps who'd returned to work.

colleagues, welcome back to our place of work. the uk supreme court ruled yesterday that parliament has not been prorogued. as you were, then. a defiant prime minister was forced to fly back early from the united nations in new york. he blamed opposition parties for blocking a general election. and despite the fact that i followed the exact same process as my predecessors in calling a queen's speech, the supreme court was asked to intervene in this process for the first time ever. and it is absolutely no disrespect to the judiciary to say i think the court was wrong to pronounce on what is essentially a political question. the judges concluded there was no reason, and i quote, "let alone a good reason" for the prime minister to have shutdown parliament. after yesterday's ruling, mr speaker, the prime minister should have done the honourable

thing and resigned! the prime minister returned fire. he can't control his own party, he can't decide whether he's for leave or remain, he's being held captive by his colleagues! the electorate are being held captive by this zombie parliament and this zombie opposition, and he wants the entire country to be held captive in the eu after october the 315t at a cost of more than £1 billion a month! we say no! i say no! let's get brexit done, and let's take this country forward! we must unstick this mess, and we must trust the people

to make their choice. we cannot trust this prime minister. his time must be up. his days of lying, of cheating and of undermining the rule of law must be numbered. even my five—year—old knows that if you do something wrong, you have to say sorry. if my son can apologise for kicking a football indoors, surely the prime minister can have the humility to say sorry for misleading the queen, misleading the country and illegally shutting down our democracy! i came here today notjust to represent my constituents, but hoping that this prime minister would show humility in the face of this condemnation in this judgement. will he now apologise, if not to this place, to the country and has he apologised to her majesty the queen? as she can imagine, i would not comment on my conversations with her majesty.

borisjohnson infuriated opposition mps by describing the law that could force him to ask for a delay to brexit as "the surrender act". one referred tojo cox, the labour mp murdered during the referendum campaign. we stand here, mr speaker, under the shield of our departed friend, with many of us in this place subject to death threats and abuse every single day, and let me tell the prime minister that they often quote his words, "surrender act, betrayal, traitor". and i, for one, am sick of it! we must moderate our language, and it has to come from the prime minister first! so, i would be interested in hearing his opinion. he should be absolutely ashamed of himself!

as the woman who has taken over a seat that was left by our dear friend jo cox, can i ask him in all honesty as a human being, please, please will he, going forward, moderate his language so that we will all feel secure when we're going about ourjobs? can i say that the surest fire way... well, no... mrspeaker, ithink... of course there will be an attempt to try to obfuscate the effect of this act, but it does... the capitulation act, or the surrender act, or whatever you want to call it, it does... i'm sorry, but it greatly enfeebles its government's ability to negotiate. but what i will say that the best way to honour the memory ofjo cox and indeed the best way to bring this country together would be, i think, to get brexit done. and i absolutely do. it was almost as if

they'd never been away. earlier, the attorney general, geoffrey cox, whose legal advice on prorogation was rejected by the supreme court, pronounced that this parliament is "dead". in a fiery question—and—answer session, he said opposition mps were scared of a general election. they, in turn, accused him of lacking any sense of shame after the government's actions were judged to be unlawful. the government accepts the judgement and accepts that it lost the case. and at all times, the government acted in good faith. and in the belief... and in the belief that its approach was both lawful and constitutional. he came under pressure to publish the legal advice he gave to the prime minister. i am bound by the long—standing convention that the views of the law officers are not disclosed outside the government without their consent. however, i will consider over the coming days whether the public

interest might require a greater disclosure of the advice given to the government on this subject. i am unable to give an undertaking or a promise to the honourable lady at this point, but the matter is under consideration. he was answering an urgent question from joanna cherry, a leading figure in the legal battle. let me start by assuring the attorney general that i'm not going to call for his resignation yet. mr speaker, yesterday... yesterday was a very special day for scots law and the scottish legal tradition going back to the declaration of arbroath that the government is not above the law. documents showing mr cox's advice to the government, stating that prorogation was legal, have been leaked to the media. many of us believe that the attorney general is being offered up as a fall guy

for the prime minister's botched plans. so, does he not agree with me that to release the advice in its entirety will help him avoid being the scapegoat for a plan that was dreamed up by the prime minister and his advisers? and will he give the undertaking that he has hinted that he's thinking of giving today? labour called for the advice to be published. this government stands in shame! tendering illegal advice to our monarch and not even able to uphold that most basic, the most important of principles — abiding by the rule of law. on this attorney general's watch, the government has been found in contempt of parliament. now it has been found in contempt of the law. doesn't he just accept he hasn't got a shred of credibility left? well, i don't know whether in his practice when he was at the bar, he felt thatjust because he'd given advice that might not have

been upheld by a court, he had no credibility. that is an absurd and ridiculous proposition. rather than being some newfangled, innovative decision, this was a profoundly conservative decision by the supreme court asserting the ancient sovereignty of parliament. and that fundamentally the principle at stake here is that, of course, neither that court nor any other court should determine whether brexit takes place. that decision has been made by the people. but it is for this house, the only directly elected representatives of the people, to determine the form in which that brexit happens. geoffrey cox replied that parliament had rejected both a brexit deal and no—deal. this parliament is a dead parliament! it should no longer sit. it has no moral right to sit on these green benches, and whatever. ..

mps shouted and jeered as the attorney general said there should be an election. they could agree to a motion to allow this house to dissolve, but they're too cowardly... this parliament should have the courage to face the electorate! but it won't! it won't! because so many of them are really all about preventing us leaving the european union! but the time is coming! the time is coming, mr speaker, when even these turkeys won't be able to prevent christmas! no shame today! no shame at all!

the fact that this government cynically manipulated the prorogation to shut down this house so that it couldn't work as a democratic assembly, he knows that that is the truth. and to come here with his barrister's bluster to obfuscate the truth, and for a man like him, a party like this and a leader like this — this prime minister — to talk about morals and morality is a disgrace! barry sheerman. as mps gathered the morning after those angry scenes, the speaker had his say. i think there is a widespread sense across the house and beyond that yesterday, the house did itself no credit. there was an atmosphere in the chamber worse than any i've known in my 22 years in the house. on both sides, passions were inflamed, angry words were uttered, the culture was toxic.

john bercow said it ought to be possible to disagree agreeably. two senior mps, kenneth clarke and harriet harman, had approached him about a review of westminster‘s political culture. it was not, he said, a matterfor partisan point—scoring. go so it is about something bigger than an individual or an individual party or an individual political or ideological viewpoint. let's treat a bit on that basis. and in the meantime, may ijust ask, and that's all i'm doing and all i can do as your representative in the chair, ask colleagues please to lower the decibel level and to try to treat each other

as opponents, not as enemies. a labour mp asked an urgent question prompted by boris johnson's comments. it was left to a junior minister to reply. british democracy has always been robust and vibrant. healthy, respectful debate is vital to our democracy. freedom of speech is a fundamental british liberty, but it is not an excuse to threaten or abuse anyone whose views you do not agree with. that liberty is compromised when a culture of intimidation forces people out of public life or discourages citizens from engaging in the political process. let me make clear and say with no equivocation such behaviour is wrong, unacceptable and must be addressed. i don't just want to probe into the idea that we all get abuse, and no doubt we're going to hear a lot of that today. cos we all get abuse,

and i've had a death threat this week that literally quoted the prime minister and used the prime minister's name and words in a death threat that was delivered far to my staff. when i hear of my friend's murder and the way that it has made me and my colleagues feel, and feel scared, described as "humbug", i actually don't feel anger towards the prime minister. i feel pity for those of you who still have to toe his line. jess phillips faced criticism for her own behaviour. she was the person i could hear screaming the loudest from her bench. so noticeable was it that she was actually having a conversation with one of the whips that was standing by the side of your chair, mr speaker. it was that which created a significant impression to people watching this debate of the hostility that the media reported. it was boris johnson who found himself most in the firing line.

what should've happened yesterday is the prime minister should've have come in front of this house and apologised for acting unlawfully. he should've held his hands up, agreed he'd acted wrongly and pledged not to do it again. instead, he chose to brazen it out. the lib dem leader wanted an assurance. . . that there will be no deliberate campaign to use that kind of language to inflame. but i fear he cannot because the repeated use of those inflammatory words by the prime minister yesterday was, it seemed, very obviously deliberate. but the prime minister's supporters said his critics also had a plan. there is a strategy. the prime minister is the last thing standing between ending the brexit

enterprise entirely. he can expect no quarter. absolutely everything is going to be thrown at him, isn't it? minister. well, thank you, mr speaker. i think it's safe to say — as you yourself, mr speaker, reflected — that the brexit process has caused passions and arguments and debate. but i think where the prime minister's very clear is that his view is the way to deal with this and the government's view is to ensure that we deliver brexit on the 315t of october 2019. kevin foster. there has been more to the westminster week than angry people shouting angrily at each other about how angry they are. the collapse of the travel company thomas cook prompted calls for the government to do more to help its stranded passengers and investigate the payments made to its executives. the transport secretary told mps it would require 1000 flights to bring home 150,000 holiday—makers in 50 countries. we've never had the collapse of an airline or a holiday company on this scale before.

we've responded swiftly and decisively. right now, our efforts are rightly focused on getting those passengers home and looking after those employees who have lost theirjobs. but we also need to understand whether any individuals have failed in their duties of stewardship within the company. then our efforts will turn to working through the reforms necessary to ensure that passengers do not find themselves in this ridiculous situation again. thomas cook's directors and their auditors have serious questions to answer. in the last five years, £20 million of bonuses have been paid to those directors, and the company has now gone under with more than £3 billion worth of debts. my constituents have worries about theirjob and worry about their pensions. should we not be seizing the assets of the directors who plundered this company and took it to ruin? the international trade secretary made an unreserved apology to the commons for two breaches of a court order banning the sale

of weapons to saudi arabia that could be used in the yemen conflict. liz truss explained to mps what she thought had happened. without seeking to prejudice the independent investigation, it appears that information pertaining to the conflict had not been fully shared across government. as soon as the issue was brought to my attention on the 12th of september, i took immediate action. action which included launching a full internal review. as a result of the internal review so far, we have identified one further licence that has been granted in breach of the undertaking given to the court of appeal. this licence has not been used and has now been revoked. my officials are also carrying out an urgent review of the composition of the coalition. this has identified a further

licence which is in breach of the parliamentary statement. we have reassessed the licence in light of the latest information and subsequently revoked it insofar as it applies tojordan. i think the response given by the secretary of state and the shocking revelation that two further extra licenses would be breaking the law and that further may yet to be discovered, but i welcome, however, her unreserved apologies for the errors, as they've been called so far. borisjohnson continues to be at the heart of commons debates, even when he's not there. a minister told mps that mrjohnson had "no role whatsoever" in awarding a grant to a firm led by a us entrepreneur, jennifer arcuri. matt warman said the government has launched a review of the £100,000 award made in february this year to her training company hacker house. it follows newspaper reports about boris johnson's friendship with ms arcuri when the pm was london mayor. asking an urgent question, a liberal democrat wanted to know if there was a conflict of interest.

mr speaker, the fact that we are back in the commons today is because the prime minister has been shown to ride roughshod over the laws of this land. it would indeed be disappointing if we were to find that the prime minister has form in bending the rules for personal or political gain. minister. thank you, mr speaker. i want to start by saying that the prime minister and his staff have had absolutely no role in the award of this grant. and i suspect i will be saying that a number of times, but it will remain the case. this is a company that is based in britain as far as company's house is concerned. it is a company with a british phone number. we will review that, but we have no reason to think...

we have no reason to think that there is anything untoward in this particular matter. matt warman. and one of the reasons mps were sceptical about that last answer was because the british phone number is apparently answered in california. now, mps had only been back for a day and a half when the government tried to send them away again for another three days. this was so the commons wouldn't sit during the conservative party conference in manchester. it's a convention for the uk party conferences. the snag for ministers was that for that to happen, they had to win a vote in the house of commons, and with no government majority, we all know what that means. the ayes to the right, 289. the noes to the left, 306. boris johnson's seventh commons defeat since becoming prime minister. the conservative conference is going ahead, but many mps will be back at westminster, where goodwill is still in limited supply. mr speaker, this is no way to run a parliament, and earlier today,

we heard how we have to start as we mean to go on and to respect each other in the way we speak to each other. so, i do want to ask the leader of the house if he could ask the attorney general to come to the house to apologise. calling us a "dead parliament" and calling us "turkeys" is not appropriate language. mr speaker, the right honourable lady says quite correctly this is no way to run a parliament, which is why we should have a general election as soon as possible. and if only they would vote for it and would have the courage of their convictions, we would have one. she then complains that the attorney general has called this a "turkey pa rliament" , i think it's more of a chicken parliament because it is trying to flap away from the general election that we need and that would clear the air. and, yes, we get gesticulation and murmurations coming forth from the bench opposite, saying that we are going to get one, but when, mr speaker, when? the country wants one as soon as possible. and this parliament,

i think rather than "dead", i would use the word "addled" like the parliament of 1614, which was known as the "addled parliament". this, i think, may also come to be known in such a way. well, who knew? those who used to call jacob rees—mogg the "member for the 18th century" were out by 100 years. there was little sympathy from the snp for the government's position. my heart does bleed for the poor conservative ministers and backbenchers who will have to come to the house now during their conference. successive snp chief whips have used the usual channels to communicate the dates of our conferences over the years, and at no point have we been afforded with a recess despite our status as the third party in this place. now, if you've been paying attention, you'll have seen that applause, something that's rather frowned on under parliamentary conventions, is becoming more and more common in the commons. even some conservative mps joined in when borisjohnson appeared before mps on wednesday.

the speaker's stopped trying to stop it. but one of the candidates to succeed john bercow isn't impressed. wouldn't it improve the atmosphere in all of our debates in the house if we returned to an older tradition and took a self—denying ordinance and all of us refused to clap? yes, yes and yes. jacob rees—mogg offering support for one policy in chris bryant's manifesto to be the next speaker. thank you for watching the week in parliament. there's no need to clap, but i do hope you canjoin mandy baker on bbc parliament at 11pm on monday evening for the latest from westminster. you bye for now.

hello there. if you do get some clear skies in the next few hours, you may be treated in the north to the northern lights. but the story really is one of cloudy skies for the majority. we have had some really intense showers during the course of friday, we have saturday some low pressure building up and we have rain anyway as well through the rest of the night. so it is very unsettled picture, we are due another 50—100mm on already saturated ground with high river levels, the concerns really are there for flooding. one band made its way swiftly eastwards and deteriorates to showers, as it gradually gets drier, the showers diminish in the north and some early morning mist and fog that clears away, i think on the whole the afternoon today looks a little bit drier, brighter and it'll feel warmer than the morning. but looming large towards the south—west, the next band

of intense rain. now, there's some tropical air mixed in amongst this area of low pressure, so as we saw earlier in the week the potential is there for torrential, persistent rain to move its way in across england and wales, possibly parts of northern ireland and scotland. as well as the rain this time, it's a batch of strong winds again, gale—force winds, but because we have a new moon, a full moon during the evening and overnight, that will allow high tides, so we could see some coastal flooding as well. and it's a similar problem as we go through sunday, the rain only slowly easing away, those strong winds buffeting many areas, and northerly winds set in for scotland and northern ireland, so perhaps here escaping the west of the rain, but it starts to feel colder and then as those north or north—westerly winds set in, it looks as if they will have a sting in their tail and we could potentially have a spell of gales then later on sunday across wales and england, and if they hit the east coast at the same time as the high tide, that could also cause some coastal inundation because it does look as if it'll be a very strong and gusty north—westerly

as well, north—north—westerly. some very inclement weather due over the weekend. there are warnings out, those are on the website, but the heavy rain could lead to further flooding, flash flooding and potential river flooding, gale—force winds as well as high tides. as for the new week, well, it gets colder and remains and remains unsettled. there may be a brief respite from the rain but it is basically an unsettled picture. bye— bye.

welcome to bbc news — i'm maryam moshiri. our top story: democrats in the us house of representatives have stepped up their impeachment inquiry into president trump. the us secretary of state, mike pompeo, has been ordered to hand over documents to an oversight committee in congress. the panel has also summoned five state department officials including the us special envoy to ukraine, kurt volker, who has now resigned. our north america editor, jon sopel reports on how president trump has reacted as the inquiry gathers steam. there is support and defiance but also there is anger. in a twitter fusillade this morning, he took aim at the democratic house