president trump's nominee to the us supreme court amy coney barrett has refused to say whether she would vote to overturn laws on abortion, healthcare or gay marriage. the democrats vice presidential candidate kamala harris is among senators questioning judge barrett on day two of her confirmation hearings. mr trump is trying to shore up support ata is trying to shore up support at a rally in pennsylvania at his second campaign outing since his covid—19 diagnosis. it is an important state for mr trump who took pennsylvania in 2016 by less than one percentage point to get him to the white house. across europe, many countries are imposing more extreme measures to try to fight the second wave of the coronavirus pandemic. a state of emergency declared in the grid, police are patrolling the spanish capital trying to stop people leaving their neighbourhoods.

it's time for tuesday and parliament. hello there and welcome to tuesday in parliament. coming up: mps back a three tier system of coronavirus restrictions for england. and the health secretary, defends the government's handling of the pandemic. we make decisions that are guided by the science, taking into account all of the different considerations that we need to look to. in the lords, there's a plea for continued help for renters as covid measures continue to hit workers‘ incomes. can the minister say more about what he will do to encourage landlords to act with compassion in the coming month? and the education committee wants honest answers about why poor white youngsters do badly at school. often, people refuse

to discuss it. why is this the case? why is there this under attaining disadvantaged white working—class boys and girls compared to many other cohorts? but first, mps have approved the new regulations for the government's three tier system of anti coronavirus restrictions in england and approved the 10pm closing time for pubs and restaurants that has been in force since mid september. from wednesday, each part of england will be categorised as being medium high or very high risk, with different rules in each. in a debate on the proposals in the commons the health secretary painted a bleak picture of the current situation. our strategy is to suppress the virus, supporting the economy, education and the nhs until a vaccine makes us safe. i must report to the house that the number of cases of coronavirus has quadrupled in the last three weeks. there are now more people in hospital with coronavirus than there were on the 23rd of march.

will he acknowledge, a simple yes or no, that we wouldn't be in this position in the first place, and actually, the best exit strategy is by having an effective system of testing, tracing and isolating, which is locally led. and if that were working properly — even sage has admitted it isn't — we wouldn't be here. we have one of the biggest systems of tracking and tracing in the world, and the idea that i sometimes get from people in this house, that somehow it is not one of the biggest in the world or one of the most effective in the world, i get that in this house, we don't get it when i talk to my international colleagues. they ask the question, "how did you manage to build "this capacity so fast?" yesterday, in his call with merseyside mps, he was asked about a circuit breaker lockdown, and he did not say that sage had recommended this three weeks ago. so is that the case, and will he now publish the full scientific evidence for a circuit breaker lockdown?

the sage advice that ministers received is, of course, published. we have had great debates in this house about that, and it is published, and then we make decisions that are guided by the science, taking into account all of the different considerations that we need to look to. he set out the plans for the three different tiers in england and turned to the 10pm curfew for pubs and bars. a tory mp questioned the cut off time. there may be some undoubted positives on health, but we see some negatives with people amassing together on public transport and the streets. do the positives outweigh the negatives as far as the science is concerned? yes, i believe that they do, and i will give three reasons why i think that these measures are the right ones. the first is that we already now have evidence from axton emergency departments that we have seen a reduction in alcohol—related admissions late at night after the 10pm cu rfew. this is both important

in its own right, but it's also a proxy as a measure of how much people are drinking late at night, and therefore, is evidence that there is less mixing and less drinking late at night. the second is that whilst people may be coming out or mixing after 10pm, they are doing so largely outside, and they would otherwise be mixing inside the premises. it's just easier to photograph outside. the final point, though, and the appeal i make to the house on this is as follows... since in order to control this virus, we need to reduce the amount of social contact, sadly, that is necessary, and we are trying to protect as much as is possible — education, and protect as much as is possible — work. essentially, that leaves socialising as the other parts of life, of activity, where

people transmit the virus. i know members will point out to me, as they have done in the last few days, that the data shows household interaction is the biggest driver of transmission, and that is correct, but how does the virus get into the household in the first place? it doesn't come down the chimney like father christmas, madam deputy speaker, someone brings it into the house. but if we cannot close schools, we cannot close workplaces, if we cannot close shops, if we cannot shutdown public transport, then the only lever we have is hospitality. so the question is, will the measures announced yesterday reversed the rising tide of waiting times, possible admissions? will it reverse the rising tide of critical care admissions? i obviously hope so, but, i'm sorry, i fear not. and the rate of growth in the virus may at this stage be quicker in the northern regions, but the embers are burning brightly for everywhere else as well. i fear further action is going to be needed.

he went on to the minutes released from the scientific advisory group sage — which show that three weeks ago it recommended a "circuit break" lockdown — something the labour leader, sir keir starmer has now announced he wants to see in england. we have the highest deaths in europe, the worst recession in europe, and now not even pretending to follow the science. we will not divide the house against these restrictions because we believe, as far as they go, they are necessary. but i fear the government now need to go further. the sooner the prime minister is clear with the british public, the better. moore is going to have to be done to support local people in tier three areas and to prevent penury following on from the pandemic. i do think we need a plan b for the possibility there isn't an early unsuccessful vaccine. and we all hope the secretary of state is right, we all hope

that by the spring there is a vaccine that works, that can be produced at scale, enough people want to take it, and so then the problem goes away in the spring. but there may not be! unless the government is prepared to set up roadblocks across the m1, m6, and 62 and all other routes to and from the north, i'm afraid, just as it did in the first wave in italy, it will spread. follow the science and bring down transmission with a short national circuit breaker and a reform to test, track and trace and isolate. frankly, the pandemic strategy so far has been akin to throwing a glass of water on a chip pan fire, and the government needs to change course today. i fear these measures would, for wakefield, be a death by 1000 cuts. mr deputy speaker, i cannot look my constituents in the eye if i had voted for measures that break them. when it came to the vote, mps backed the latest restrictions bringing in the three tier level of restricitons in england from wednesday although more than a0 conservative mps rebelled.

earlier, ministers came under pressure to do more to help those affected by covid restrictions. labour said that design faults in the jobs support scheme introduced by the chancellor, rishi sunak, were already leading to "substa ntial and unnecessary" job losses. the chancellor told us to learn our new limits as we go. well, his handling of this economic crisis is testing paitence to its limits, especially the paitence of those whose jobs are threatened. she said it was indefensible that local areas would only get support if they were under the highest tier three restrictions. why are workers in closed businesses expected to face poverty as a result of the businesses they work for doing the right thing? the package of support that the chancellor and the prime minister announced did support local authorities, as i said in my opening remarks, it's an additional £1 billion to local authorities, plus a further £500 million to address the track and trace locally — which again, reflects the fact that this government is listening

to local leaders. but conservative mps queued up to question the government's approach. my right honourable friend and the chancellor have done a great deal to support the economy, but there has to be a careful balance struck between protecting against the virus and avoiding further economic destruction. with that in mind, what scientific evidence has the treasury received that closing pubs at 10pm gets that balance right? minister. we have to balance the evidence that the government receives from a range of quarters, and he will recall where that initial advice from sage was put forward. the government came forward with a range of measures, such as the rule of six, such as the curfew. mr speaker, mass unemployment is a terrible policy. so will the minister urge his boss to change course, even at this late stage, to extend for low to save jobs?

to use returned monies to help those who have been excluded and to listen to the snp demands for an £80 billion stimulus package? the minister said that was a slightly odd premise. we are currently supporting nearly half a million jobs in scotland. when 8.9 million people across the united kingdom have benefited from the furlough scheme, more than half of those are back in thierjobs, more than six he 5000 billion jobs in scotland have benefited from our landscape. but there was more criticism from conservatives too. we are going bankrupt as a nation. there won't be the money to pay for the nhs or pensions. so, i want to know from the chief secretary today, what is the treasurer doing to roll back in other parts of the government and insist that we must allow british business to operate? is there any specific evidence that swimming pools and gyms are centres for covid transmission? is there any research which has been done into rising obesity and unfitness levels, and is there any research that's been done on rising unemployment caused

by the closure of gyms and pools which is now happening in parts of the uk? the opinion of the chief medical officer and the chief scientifical officer is that those businesses do carry significantly more risk, and that is why in the guidance that has been issued, they have been harder hit. there was one note of consensus. my constituents are increasingly concerned about the practices of firing and then rehiring, whereby unscrupulous employers, are using the pandemic as a cover to sack their employees and then rehire them on inferior terms and conditions. would my right honourable friend consider an immediate guillotine on any employer who sacked 50% or more of their staff and then rehired some or all on reduced pay, disqualifying them from any further form of direct government support, including the furlough retention bonus? steve barclay agreed firing and re—hiring was not acceptable. how people conduct themselves through this pandemic is something that will be remembered, and i think those businesses that do act, then we will obviously need to look at that in due course.

steve barclay. why are white children from poor backgrounds the least likely to stay in education and move up the income ladder? the education committee is trying to find answers in a sometimes controversial area. they heard that those children had been overtaken academically by most other ethnicities on low incomes, with only traveller children doing worse. the statistics for children who went on to higher education were stark. the figure for white british kids is, for boys, 13%,forgirls,19%, and is eclipsed by, for example, chinese kids on free school meals, 66%, for black african boys on free school meals, 51%, pakistani boys

on free school meals, 42%, and so the differences are enormous. i'd really like you to be as open as possible on this because, often, people refuse to discuss it. why is this the case? why is there this under attainment by disadvantaged white working—class boys and girls compared to many other cohorts? i think in our elitist, exclusive curriculum does not work, as i say, well in enabling working—class children to succeed through the system. that doesn't explain why some groups are doing better under that. so, you have working—class people from ethnic groups that are doing much better. i think when we look at... we also need to look at their histories and their histories of migration, because i think that some ethnic groups have come from countries where their families... they have generations of educational success in their countries of origin and they have social and cultural capital in their countries of origin, even though they may be economically impoverished by the move here.

i think other countries come because they are desperate to make a new start and enable their children to succeed in a new system. i still think we are recovering from the demise of the manufacturing industry postwar and we haven't actually had a proper plan, whether it's in terms of addressing job opportunities in those areas of the country or, as diane says, about the curriculum in the offering in the school place, i still think that these are issues that go back decades in terms of the particular issues for white working—class. .. ok, but other cohorts live in those communities too with the lack of manufacturing. it isn'tjust white working—class. yes, but you're having here multi—generational issues for these families, where successive parents, grandparents will have had poor experiences in education, as well as the children, and i think that has profound impact on the attitudes towards schooling.

we'll probably get into this more, but i think that if you don't tackle that fundamental issue... i know, but you're still not answering the why. and ijust feelyou're being... both of you are being political in not answering. we need to... in order to ensure that this inquiry works... because everything you've just said applies to every other cohort. it doesn't specifically apply to why white working—class, there is underattainment in white working—class groups, and i think we deserve an answer, a specific answer, to that question. i'm sorry, i don't think it does apply to all the groups at all. i don't think multi—generational poor experience of schooling does apply to all groups. as diane was saying, these are different experiences. as a black child growing up in one of the most deprived wards in liverpool, i was always told by my parents that i had to work twice as hard as my white counterparts. and lee hasjust mentioned that education, some parents don't

see education as a vehicle for moving on in life, but a lot of black parents do see education as a route out of poverty, so ijust wanted to know whether the panel thought that this idea of white privilege has anything to do with this level of underachievement. if we are now going to start teaching them in school that not only do they have to overcome the various economic and social barriers within their community, but they also need to now start apologising for simply belonging to a wider group — which also strips away their individual agency — that i think we're just going to compound many of these problems. i mean, when you look at the statistical evidence — as i have over the last two weeks — on this problem and you go into these communities and then try and tell them that they're suffering from white privilege, i mean, it seems to me a completely nonsensical response to this problem. you're watching tuesday in parliament, with me, alicia mccarthy.

to the senedd now, where the welsh first minister has threatened to make it illegal for people to travel from highly infected parts of the uk to wales. mark drakeford has said he'll act within days if boris johnson continues to refuse to impose a travel ban in england. the issue dominated first minister's questions. what we have seen is the welsh government push for a travel ban, despite providing no evidence that one is actually needed. and, first minister, before you push ahead with a travel ban, you should publish the evidence that you have that proves the case for one. his government in england allows people of liverpool, where 800 cases per 100,000, to travel from liverpool to the west of wales to stay. now, that is unacceptable to people in that locality, and it's unacceptable to me too. i put these points to the prime minister again yesterday. once again, he refused to do

the simple and the right thing. clearly, the uk government should act to close this travel loophole, but waiting for bojo is proving a pretty futile exercise, so rather than writing another unanswered letter or waiting for a four— nation cobra, why not act independently now in the interest of the people of wales? if you need extra parliamentary time this week, first minister, to get this legislation through, then we as an opposition party will support you. can we really afford to wait another day, let alone another week? he uses the language all the time of "people from england coming into wales", as though this were some sort of contest between wales and england, and i've been absolutely clear that is never the point that i have made to the prime minister. the point i make to him is that people from high prevalence areas should not be allowed to travel to low prevalence areas — wherever the high prevalence areas are in the united kingdom, wherever the low prevalence areas are in the united kingdom.

there's been no difference between how you and adam price are speaking about this issue. indeed, there now seems to be little difference between your government and plaid cymru. many fear we are sleepwalking towards independence. yesterday, you sought to lay down an ultimatum to the prime minister of the united kingdom. today, you're across nearly every news outlet saying you want to enforce a border between wales and england. i have done my very best throughout the discussion about travel to make it clear that, for me, it is not a matter of the border. it is the prime minister who is forcing it to become a border matter by his refusal to act to prevent people inside england travelling from high incidence to low incidence areas and travelling beyond england, so my position is, i believe in the united kingdom, i believe in a successful united kingdom.

i regret bitterly that the prime minister acts in ways that casts a doubt on that in the minds of others. meanwhile at stormont, northern ireland's first minister admitted the level of coronavirus infections there was "hugely disappointing". arlene foster said part of northern ireland had the highest rate of transmission in the whole of the uk. people are not complying in the way that we need them to comply, in order to stop the transmission of this terrible virus, and i would ask them to go back to basics and, please, to adhere to all of the things that we talk about on a daily basis. that is washing your hands, keeping your distance, making sure that you wear masks in the appropriate places, having good respiratory hygiene. all of those things need to be repeated by all of us on an ongoing basis, because, at the moment, we do have covid transmission at a very high level. we have the unenviable position that part of northern ireland has the highest rate

of transmission in the whole of the united kingdom. that is a hugely disappointing place to be, mr speaker, given our very good record during the first wave of covid—19. and, really, people need to get back to basics around this. can i ask the first minister just how concerned she is by the alarming increase in covid cases in northern ireland, which has seen seven deaths recorded since yesterday, 23 icu admissions, 15 people on ventilators, the overwhelming of our contact tracing system and regrettably, now, it appears, cancellation of elective surgery in belfast? arlene foster said the executive was collectively very concerned about the rise in infections. we do have to be very clear, mr speaker, that, whilst we of course have to halt the rights of covid—19 — and that, of course, is something that we are all very concerned about — it is important that we take a proportionate and balanced approach. some people have said it is about health versus wealth. i think that's a completely false analysis, mr speaker. and indeed, our own

chief medical officer — back in may of this year — made the point that poverty kills and unemployment kills as well. obviously, big decisions to be made. what support are you going to outline for the economy? arlene foster told him she'd been to a meeting with the chancellor, rishi sunak, who'd set out his jobs support package. whatever assistance and support we can put in place, it will not be as good as people running their business in a normal run of things, and we recognise that. and we can only mitigate damage, and we will try and do our best with the funding that we have available to us and the funding, of course, which comes from hmg. back at westminster, peers have been told that some renters will "potentially have to seek other places to live" following the ending of a government ban on evictions. a temporary ban in england and wales initially introduced in march to help those financially hit by the coronavirus lockdown was extended twice and finally ended last month. bailiffs have been told not to enforce possession orders

over christmas, other than in "the most serious circumstances", such as cases involving domestic abuse or anti—social behaviour. what protects tenants in tiers one and two? tenants like michelle in nottingham, who says, "rent alone each month is £575. i lost myjob in march due to the virus, and i'm now trying to survive on universal credit, but i'm getting into debt with bills and barely have anything left for food." how do we now keep her safe? there's been an unprecedented level of measures to support renters, and we will continue to do what is needed to keep as many as possible safe, but it's fair to say that there will be cases where renters will have to potentially seek other places to live. can the minister say more about what he will do to encourage landlords to act with compassion

in the coming months? and does he accept that, with a record 8 million people in england in housing need, the best way to protect renters in the longer term from unavoidable housing costs is to build homes for social rent? 89% of tenants are paying their rent in full, according to the latest data, and only 7% are in rent arrears and 4% of tenants have arrangements in place with their landlords, so the vast majority of landlords seem to be acting in a sensible way, according to the data that we have. can the minister go to mr borisjohnson and say, "can he save our children?" and can we save our children's children from homelessness and from degradation? this government has the responsibility, if only to follow what the g7 countries are doing, which is carrying on with their support way and beyond the period that the government's on.

what measures are proposed to protect landlords, many of whom have mortgages and ongoing repair costs, from the hardship imposed upon them by those tenants who are financially able but have decided they are not willing to pay their rents, in the knowledge that they can shelter under the new government umbrella from any immediate consequences? that is precisely the point why the evictions moratorium had to end. we had to protect landlords from egregious rent arrears but also from cases of abandonment and fraud, anti—social behaviour and, in the social sector, domestic abuse. lord greenhalgh. and that's it from me for now, but do join me tomorrow for, among other things, the highlights from prime minister's questions. but for now, from me, alicia mccarthy, goodbye.

hello. some sunshine on the way for the majority of us today, albeit with some showers coming in from the east, as the day pans out. there will be quite a chilly breeze as well, again, coming in from the north—east and that is what will drive the showers a little bit further westwards through the course of the day. but overall, what we're looking at in terms of our weather pattern for the next few days is high pressure coming to dominate. though it will become increasingly quieter through the end of the week and into the weekend. first thing wednesday, a little bit more in the way of persistent rain and some stubborn cloud across southern scotland. it should get brighter here for the afternoon. but you can see the showers here, pushing into eastern england on the north—easterly breeze, even through the morning, and then they will get driven afar away westwards come the afternoon.

that north—easterly breeze a notable feature to the weather. this is the sustained wind speed — gusts could reach up to 30mph at times in some more exposed spots. best of the shelter in the west will give us the best of the temperatures — 15 or 16 degrees. in the east, 13 or 1a just about covers it. we tend to see those showers clearing though as we head overnight wednesday into the small hours of thursday. could be a few still lingering across east anglia and the south—east of england. some more general cloud speeding towards the north of scotland. overnight lows, 6—8 degrees. perhaps a little bit closer to freezing towards the far north of scotland. and then for thursday daytime, we're talking about an essentially dry day, as that high pressure establishes itself. i can't promise you though wall—to—wall sunshine. it looks like we will pull in quite a bit of cloud from the north sea, into some eastern and eventually central areas. temperatures, 12—13 degrees. stuck under the thicker cloud, it will feel chillier though with the effect of the breeze. and towards the end of the week, some of the nights will start to get colder. that could leave us with some chilly starts and some stubborn fog by day. so, our temperatures widely on friday, 11—12 degrees, but in a few spots, if we do get lingering fog, they could struggle at the low—end single figures. and then that ridge of high pressure is going to stay

with us all the way through the weekend. so, a very similar story for saturday and sunday to that of thursday and friday. it will take until the beginning of next week, i think, for us to see something a little bit wetter and more windy moving its way in from the atlantic. so, a lot of fine weather to come for the weekend, some on the chilly side for the time of year, and some rather stubborn cloud.

welcome to bbc news — i'm mike embley. our top stories: president trump's nominee to the us supreme court evades questions from senators, including vice—presidential candidate kamala harris, refusing to discuss laws on abortion or gay marriage. were you aware of president trump's statements committing to nominate judges who will strike down the affordable care act? as i am sitting here, i don't recall seeing those statements. president trump tries to shore up support in pennsylvania for his second campaign rally since his covid—19 diagnosis. europe scrambles to stop a second wave of coronavirus infections, with new restrictions announced in several countries. and the story behind this award—winning image from eastern russia that

took months to capture.