Monique Hawkins, a Dutch woman who highlighted the plight of EU citizens when she revealed last December she had been asked to “prepare to leave” the country after 24 years, said she was “heartened” to hear so many moving and inspiring speeches.

She said she was concerned that the amendment however would not cover stay-at-home parents, carers, disabled and students who decided to continue their lives in Britain but did not take out health insurance when they arrived in the country.

Paddy Ashdown, the Lib Dem peer and former party leader, said there had been a “collective release of emotion” from peers tonight.

This House has sat cowering, with its hands behind it head, refusing to speak, shelled daily by the government and suddenly the House of Lords says ‘no!’. This is a matter of honour, of principle, and we will insist. At last this beast of parliament has found a voice.

Ashdown said he hoped it would send a signal to the EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens abroad that they were being heard. And he said that he believed the defeat would galvanise opposition to the government.

I hope every individual will now examine their conscience and realise that a parliament that allows a government to ride roughshod over it is in dereliction of its duty.

The government will seek to overturn the House of Lords defeat on the Brexit bill in the Commons, government sources said.

Jenny Jones, the Green peer, was among those who had backed leaving the EU but voted for the amendment. She said:

I was for Brexit but I want a good Brexit. I want to make sure we continue to have and improve social and environmental protections and grow our economy. Of course the government should guarantee the rights of EU citizens, so of course I’ve backed the amendment.

And the Labour MP Peter Kyle issued this statement on behalf of Open Britain, which is campaigning for a “soft” Brexit. He said:

I’m delighted that the House of Lords have stood up to the government and voted to guarantee the rights of EU citizens living in Britain. I proudly voted for the amendment a few weeks ago and I will do the same again.

I urge MPs of all parties to do the decent thing and support the amendment when it returns to the House of Commons. No matter what party you are in or whether you campaigned to leave or remain, there is both a practical and a moral imperative to protect the rights of three million people who now face crippling uncertainty about their future as British residents.

Gisela Stuart, chair of the pro-leave Change Britain group, issued this response to the vote on the group’s behalf. She said:

This bill is simply about giving the prime minister the authority to trigger article 50. Nothing more, nothing less.

There are of course issues which need to be resolved, such as the status of EU nationals, but these should be done separately to the bill. There will be plenty of opportunities to debate these issues in the coming months, and guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens will be a priority.

Harriet Harman, the Labour former deputy leader and chair of the joint committee on human rights, which tabled an amendment to the bill on the rights of EU nationals, welcomed the result of the vote. She said:

I welcome the House of Lords decision to protect the rights of EU citizens. This implements a recommendation made by JCHR in its recent report on Brexit and human rights.

I urge the PM not to seek to overturn this amendment and thereby prolong the distressing uncertainty for the 3m EU citizens who make such an important contribution to our country, including the NHS, agriculture, universities and many other sectors.

A coalition of 13 groups representing British nationals abroad and EU citizens in the UK said it was “delighted” describing the vote as “ positive step in the right direction”.

It said it was concerned that “the amendment makes no mention of UK citizens in the EEA” despite the efforts of the grass roots groups across Europe to get their message across.

They represent more than 25,000 UK citizens in the EU including British nationals in Spain, France and Germany. Jeremy Morgan QC, representing the coalition of residents in Europe, said:

They are also facing huge uncertainty about their futures, livelihoods and the security of their families – the same concerns facing EU and EEA citizens in the UK, whose campaign for a unilateral guarantee we fully support.

The majority of UK citizens in the EU are working people - many with families. Others are poorer, vulnerable retirees who only moved to southern Europe to make small pensions stretch further. All of these people are facing huge uncertainty - they are real people who can’t put their lives on hold while politicians try to hammer out other aspects of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.

This amendment, while a positive development, could have also have gone further to end the uncertainty for EU and EEA citizens in the UK than it does. In particular, the reference to “legal residence” could be interpreted by the Home Office in a way to limit the acquired rights of EU citizens already resident in the UK.

The Brexit department has said it is “disappointed” by the vote. A spokesman for the department said:

We are disappointed the Lords have chosen to amend a bill that the Commons passed without amendment. The bill has a straightforward purpose - to enact the referendum result and allow the government to get on with the negotiations.

Our position on EU nationals has repeatedly been made clear. We want to guarantee the rights of EU citizens who are already living in Britain, and the rights of British nationals living in other member states, as early as we can.

Angela Smith, the Labour leader in the Lords, tells BBC News that she hopes the government will think again when this bill returns to the Commons and accepts the amendment.

Nicolas Hatton, the chairman of the3million campaign group which has been lobbying for the rights of EU citizens, described the vote as “brilliant”

He said it was “a relief” that for the first time since the referendum, a majority has been found in parliament to support the rights of the 3m EU citizens “who came in good faith to live and work the UK”.

The3million said it would be contacting all Conservative MPs before next week to make its case “o stop the unfair treatment” of EU citizens before article 50 is triggered.

“We are not bargaining chips, we are people,” he said.

However he said he still he had concerns over the term “legally resident” in the amendment as the Home Office could decide that certain EU citizens who do not have private health insurance are not legal even though this was never made clear to them. It is also concerned about the cut-off dates.

Paddy Ashdown, the former Lib Dem leader, has just told BBC News that the government will have learnt a lesson in “humanity and principle and decency, and parliamentary power as well” from the vote.

Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, has issued this statement about the result.

This is a really welcome and important step forward. For months Labour has been urging the prime minister to end unnecessary uncertainty for EU citizens in the UK, and I am delighted our colleagues in the Lords have sent this clear message to the prime minister.

Labour believe that EU nationals should not be used as bargaining chips in Brexit negotiations. There is a growing consensus that this must be resolved before article 50 is triggered, and the prime minister is now increasingly isolated.

Labour will continue to support this simple but effective amendment when it returns to the Commons, and urge MPs on all sides of the House to do so.

Lady Hayter is summing up now for Labour.

She says it is wrong to suggest that peers on her side of the argument are not concerned about the interests of Britons on the continent.

She says she is getting messages all the time. She quotes from someone living in France, who says he backs her stance. We are not bargaining chips, she says.

She says there would be a problem putting this into the main Brexit negotiation. Some countries have only a small number of Britons living in them, she says. She says there would be a risk of one country holding up a deal on this because it wanted something for itself.

And that’s it. Peers are voting now.

Bridges says the government wants fairness.

If the government gives a unilateral guarantee to EU nationals living here, what will happen to Britons on the continent.

He says he does not for a moment question the motives of those who have tabled the amendments. But he asks peers to think of the consequences of backing them.

Bridges says there will be no legislation on immigration.

This will not be covered by the great repeal bill. It will be in a separate bill, he says.

But he says the government does not want EU nationals to have to rely on the ECHR to stay after Brexit.

Instead, it wants to rely on reciprocity.

The government wants EU nationals in the UK to have their rights guaranteed, and Britons living in other EU countries to have their rights guaranteed.

He says Theresa May pressed for an early agreement. But a “small number” of EU countries blocked this, he says.

He says messages from EU leaders, including to David Davis when he visited the Baltics recently, suggest this can be sorted out quickly.

Lord Strathclyde, the Conservative former leader of the Lords, says this amendment will create more uncertainty for Britons living abroad.

He says the amendments are at the wrong time on the wrong subject. Peers should support EU nationals living in Europe, he says.

Lord Woolf, the crossbencher and former lord chief justice, says he thinks this matter is best resolved by parliament, not the courts. He says he will vote for the amendment for the reasons given by Viscount Hailsham. This is a matter of moral principle, he says, as well as possible legal principle. And, on the moral issue, there is only one answer, he says.

Lord Blencathra, the former Conservative Home Office minister David Maclean, says originally he thought it would be best to make a unilateral declaration guaranteeing the rights of EU nationals living in the UK. He thought that might lead to the EU reciprocating. But that did not happen.

He says Theresa May press for an early decision on this. Some 20 EU states agreed. But Angela Merkel and Donald Tusk opposed the idea, arguing that this should wait until the Brexit talks start.

He says it is the government’s duty to look after Britons living in Europe, more than EU nationals living here.

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, a crossbencher and former diplomat credited with drafting article 50, says this negotiation will be a “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” negotiation. So it could be the case that a deal for the reciprocal rights of Britons and EU nationals does not get agreed for another two years.

Given that is the case, it would be better to guarantee the rights of EU nationals living in the UK now, he says.

The Labour peer Lord Clark of Windermere says the NHS is under threat because of the shortage of labour. It depends on foreigner workers; 10% of doctors and 5% of nurses come from the EU.

We are not in a good negotiating position, because many of these workers would be more use back in their own countries.

Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, the former leader of Conservative MEPs and former immigration minister, says nothing in the bill will affect the rights of EU nationals living in the UK. There will be an immigration bill later, he says, that will address this issue.

He says other EU countries accept the case of reciprocity with regard to this issue.

So these amendments are unnecessary and illogical, he says.

Lord Green of Deddington, the crossbencher and MigrationWatch, is speaking now. He says EU nationals who have been in the UK for five years have the right to stay. And he says if the government guarantees their rights unilaterally, the interests of Britons living in other EU countries will slip down the list of priorities.

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, the former Lib Dem leader, says he agrees with Douglas Hogg’s speech. He says the impact of the UK losing EU workers would be “catastrophic”. He says asking EU relatives to leave would be unacceptable. What sort of stress would that put on families, he asks?

He says David Davis has said it will take “years and years” to train British workers to fill the jobs being done by EU workers.

He says Hogg is right to say parliament has been very reluctant to pass legislation with retrospective effect. The only recent example he can think of is the bill for the prosecution of Nazi war criminals.

Lady Symons, the Labour peer, says this is a simple matter of principle. The Lords should be able to do the right thing, because it is the right thing.

Lord Lawson, the Conservative former chancellor, says he lives in France. He would have liked to have seen the government give an unconditional guarantee that EU nationals living in the UK could stay, he says.

But he does not support the amendment, he says. Like John Sentamu, he does not think this is an appropriate addition to the bill.

He also says there is no need for the amendment, because there is no way that Britain would throw out EU nationals.

So the only purpose of this amendment is “virtue signalling”. And he says it would stir up fear amongst EU nationals.

Lord Kerslake, the crossbencher and former head of the civil service, is speaking now.

He says he has reflected on Amber Rudd’s letter. But he is backing the amendment.

The arguments in favour are both practical and principled, he says.

He says the principled arguments have already been well made.

He does not think peers want EU nationals living in the UK to leave.

So the argument is just about whether giving EU nationals the right to say now disadvantages the UK. But that does amount to using EU nationals as a bargaining chip, he says.

He says the government does not have the power to be able to say it will be able to strike a deal with the EU quickly, because it is not in the UK’s gift.

In the meantime EU nationals in the UK face uncertainty. And there are some sectors of the economy that would be damaged without EU workers, such as building new homes, having a functioning NHS and good quality care.

He says he does not think the risk is worth taking.

Sometimes the right thing in life is to do the right thing.

Lady Hamwee, a Lib Dem peer, says she is speaking in favour of amendment 25, which she tabled on behalf of the joint committee on human rights. It also proposes guaranteeing the rights of EU nationals.

This would not delay or frustrate leaving the EU, she says.

Amber Rudd, the home secretary, is in the Lords to listen to the debate. This is from the Press Association’s Jack Maidment.

Viscount Waverley, a hereditary peer and a crossbencher, says that he has thought about this deeply, including taking account of the views of Britons living on the continent.

He says he has concluded that the best step is to give the government a free run.

Lord Bowness, a Conservative peer, says he is backing the amendment. He says this debate goes to the heart of what country we are. No one would believe that Britain would remove EU nationals living here, he says. So it is pointless to pretend otherwise, he suggests.

I don’t find the argument that we should only be prepared to confirm the rights of EU nationals living here as part of the negotiation about our own citizens acceptable. I think it is a misjudged position to adopt and wrong both politically and in terms of justice and fairness.

Lady Kennedy of the Shaws, the QC and Labour peer, said the honour of the Lords was at stake with this amendment. She said she was backing it.

I have beefed up some of the previous posts with direct quotes. To get them to show up, you may need to refresh the page.

Lord Tebbit, the Conservative former party chairman, is speaking now.

He says the first duty of parliament is to think of the interests of British citizens. So we should be thinking of the rights of Britons living abroad. But today we are thinking of foreigners, he says.

Some peers object to this.

It seems to me that the first duty of this parliament of the United Kingdom is to care for the interests of the citizens of this kingdom.

If we are to be concerned about anybody’s rights after Brexit, to live anywhere on this continent of Europe, it should be our concern for the rights of British people to live freely and peacefully in those other parts.

Somehow or other today we seem to be thinking of nothing but the rights of foreigners.

Responding to criticism of his comments, Tebbit said:

People of nationalities of other countries within the Union are foreigners. Why is everybody here today so excited about an amendment that looks after the foreigners and not the British?

Lord Oates, a Lib Dem peer, is backing amendment 9b, and also another on this topic in his name.

He says the government has failed to provide moral leadership or administrative clarity on this issue. He says the rule saying some EU nationals need comprehensive health insurance in order to be able to qualify for UK residency should be waived.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the Conservative former lord chancellor, says there are a large number of EU citizens born in one country but living in another under the protection of EU treaties.

He says the moral high ground is to treat these people equally. They are all humans, he says. He says he repudiates the idea that people should be treated as negotiating chips.

But he says the EU has set out a mechanism for resolving these matters. It is set out in article 50.

This bill will allow the government to trigger article 50, he says.

He says he agrees with the archbishop of York (see 4.22pm); he thinks the bill should be passed quickly, and the government should then challenge the EU to back a reciprocal deal.

Lady Royall, the Labour former leader of the Lords, says at the Tory conference Liam Fox, the international development secretary, said that EU nationals living in the UK were bargaining chips. That is why she doesn’t trust the government on this, she says.

Mackay says he does not regard himself as bound by what Liam Fox says on anything.

Dafydd Wigley, the former Plaid Cymru leader, says he is backing the amendment, as well as a similar one in his name. He says EU workers play a vital role in Wales.

Thousands of people are looking to this House to give a lead and I hope we don’t let them down.

Lord Hannay, the crossbencher and former ambassador to the UN, says he is backing the amendment. He says he does not accept the argument that passing this amendment will undermine the position of Britons living in other EU countries.

He says a group representing this group has put out a statement today saying peers should vote for the amendment.

The archbishop of York, John Sentamu, is speaking now. He says he came to the UK as a consequence of what happened in Uganda when the Ugandan Asians were kicked out.

So he understands the feelings of immigrants, he says.

He says this is a simple bill. He quotes from Magna Carta, and the provisions relating to Habeas Corpus.

He says EU citizens living in the UK are protected by these rights.

He suggests now is not the time to guarantee their rights. The time to consider this is when the great repeal bill comes to parliament, he suggests.

He says the government should call Angela Merkel’s bluff over this. That could ensure a guarantee for the EU nationals living in the EU soon, more quickly than the within the three months mentioned in the amendment. (See 3.17pm.)

We should leave this bill, he says. Passing this amendment would not amount to revising the bill. It would be adding to it, he says.

The Green peer, Jenny Jones, asks Sentamu if he understands the argument that giving EU nationals the right to stay would give the government the moral high ground.

Sentamu says he does not want to see anyone used as a bargaining chip.

As soon as this becomes law, campaigners will then find it easier to put pressure on the prime minister, because she won’t then be able to stress the need for article 50 to be passed first.

She suggests Theresa May sets up a truth and listening commission in all countries of the UK to listen to what people are saying about Brexit.

Melvyn Bragg, the Labour peer, says 3m people in a population of 60m are a minority. Minorities have benefited this country enormously, he says.

Minorities have helped us become the best of what we are.

He says he can speak strongly for minorities, because he is a member of one - a bullied minority. Like the prime minister, he is one of the 48% who voted to remain, he says.

He says Theresa May should have decided to fight on, as other minorities do.

He thinks it is wrong for a single issue vote to change the country so dramatically.

He says Brexit will be a “disaster”.

We should tell EU nationals here that we want them to stay here, and that they are welcome, he says.

Michael Howard, the former Conservative leader and former home secretary, is speaking now. He says that he wants to help EU nationals living in the UK, but that the best way to do that is to pass the article 50 bill as quickly as possible.

The question which we have to ask ourselves today is this - how can we best help the EU nationals who are resident in this country?

The best way in which we can help them is to bring the uncertainty of their position to an end as quickly as possible.

The best way of bringing that uncertainty to an end as quickly as possible is to pass this bill as quickly as possible and to activate article 50 as quickly as possible.

Lady Ludford, the Lib Dem Brexit spokewoman, told peers that giving EU nationals the right to stay in the UK was the right thing to do morally.

It is disingenuous to inflame the fears of British people settled elsewhere in Europe that their place will be undermined by a unilateral move by the British government.

Here is a quote from Viscount Hailsham’s speech.

It is probable that if we seek to deny European citizens now resident in the United Kingdom the right to continue to stay here, we would be challenged in the courts and that challenge might well succeed.

Moreover, my lords, as a matter of general principle legislation and policies which are retrospective in their operation should be avoided. Individuals are entitled to regulate their affairs in accordance with the law that applies at the time that they make their decisions.

To depart from that principle exposes all of us [to a risk] to our freedoms and to the ability to make safe choices.

I will post more from his speech soon.

Hailsham says many peers have relatives who were born abroad. His grandmother was born in Tennessee.

He says peers like himself would find in unacceptable if their relatives were forced to leave.

And he recalls speaking a woman working in the Commons dining room, from France, who wanted to know what would happen to EU nationals like her after Brexit.

On Monday I was lunching in the dining room in the House of Commons where I was meeting staff whom I have known for very many years. And one of the waitresses came up to me - I’ve know her for year - and she said: “What is going to happen to me when Brexit takes place.” She was born in France but has worked in the United Kingdom, has been in the House of Commons, for very many years.

I gave her my personal opinion, which was that there would be no problem for her, but I was not able to give her the guarantee that I think she was entitled to deserve.

In the end this is matter of principle. This House can in fact make a unilateral decision and give a unilateral guarantee and, my lords, that is what we should do.

Let us all remember how shocked we were when Idi Amin expelled the Asians from Uganda, so shocked that we offered them refuge in this country.

And, for those who are historians, I say keep in mind how shocked Europe was when Louis XIV revoked the edict of Nantes, causing thousand of Hugenots to flee France, often to the United Kingdom, to the great impoverishment of France.

I don’t say that we are going to do this. I don’t think it is likely that we will. But I do say that we have not put it outside our power for that to happen, and that is wrong.

I do ask your lordships to take the high moral ground and give reassurance to the millions who have made their home here in the expectation that they will continue to live and work here.

And, addressing the minister, Lord Bridges, he says:

The moral high ground is often the best ground on which to fight a campaign.

Hayter says 1985 Lord Kinnock had to say to his own party “you can’t play politics with people’s jobs”. Now she has to so you cannot do negotiations with people’s livelihoods, she says.

Hayter says EU nationals have come to the UK in good faith expecting certain rights.

In addition to their moral obligation towards these people, peers should also consider the need for these workers in the labour market, she says.

She says the food and drinks industry is reliant on EU workers.

She says the Food and Drink Federation, the3million group and the British Chambers of Commerce are among those groups saying EU nationals should be given the right to stay now.

Since we’re on the subject of Brexit, this is intriguing.

Here is the full text of the speech Sir John Major gave on Monday, Britain and Europe - A Reality Check (pdf). It is likely that David Cameron agreed with every word of it.

According to the latest Guardian ICM opinion poll, the public is split down the middle on the issue of the rights of EU nationals. In our latest survey we asked whether the government should guarantee EU nationals living in the UK now that they will be allowed to stay, as Labour and other opposition parties are demanding; or whether it should wait until Britons living in other EU countries should also get their rights guaranteed, as Theresa May is proposing. Here are the results.

The government should not give EU nationals living in the UK the right to stay until Britons living in other EU countries get the same right: 42%

The government should guarantee the rights of EU nationals now, because it is the right thing to do and may get negotiations off to a good start: 41%

Don’t know: 17%

For the record, here are the current state of the parties figures for the Lords.

Conservatives: 252

Labour: 202

Crossbench: 177

Lib Dems: 102

Bishops: 26

These figures help to explain why, when Labour and the Lib Dems unite against them, the Conservatives find it almost impossible to win a Lords vote.

Yesterday Amber Rudd, the home secretary, wrote to peers saying they should reject the 9b amendment because, if it were passed, Britons living in other EU countries would face two years of uncertainty because EU countries would be in no hurry to guarantee their rights.

In response the Labour leader in the Lords, Angela Smith, said:

To continue to use people as bargaining chips in this way is not only shameful but could have a dire impact on the UK’s economy and essential services.

Confirming the rights of those EU citizens living in the UK can only be of benefit to our citizens worried about their future in EU countries but the government’s approach seems to be to sit back and wait for others to blink first.

The home secretary’s letter is deeply disappointing and illustrates clearly why we will need a vote in the Lords tomorrow to allow the government and MPs to think this issue through and reconsider.

At PMQs Theresa May said that Damian Green, the work and pensions secretary, called his Labour opposite number, Debbie Abrahams, to tell her about the proposed changes to the personal independence payment but that there was no answer and no response for four days.

On Twitter Abrahams has challenged this.

Responding to this tweet,

she said:

At PMQs Theresa May argued that Jeremy Corbyn was in a weak position to criticise her over the move to restrict eligibility to PIP because Jonathan Ashworth, the shadow health secretary, refused to say when interviewed about this how Labour would fund £3.7bn cost of not restricting eligbility.

On the Daily Politics Ashworth responded, saying it was unreasonable to expect Labour to be able to answer that now. He said:

I hardly think it was a zinger to say the Labour party can’t write a budget for 2022, 2023 in 2017. I think it’s entirely reasonable not to expect the Labour party to write its budget in 2017 for six years down the line. As we go into the next election we will put forward our detailed plans for all our spending commitments ...

And [May] knows that. She used to make these type of arguments when she was the shadow work and pensions secretary when we were in government.

As usual, I missed the questions from Angus Robertson, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, because I was writing up the snap verdict. So here they are.

He asked if all decisions about agriculture and fisheries in Scotland would be devolved to Edinburgh after Brexit. Theresa May replied:

The right honourable gentleman knows very well that we are discussing with the devolved administrations the whole question of the UK framework and devolution of issues as they come back from Brussels. The overriding aim is making sure we don’t damage the very important single market of the United Kingdom.

Robertson then tried again.

Will the prime minister confirm today that it is her intention to ensure that it is UK ministers that will negotiate and regulate over large areas that impact on Scottish fisheries and agriculture post-Brexit?

May replied:

He seems not to have quite understood this point, that we are in the process of discussing which of those powers that currently reside in Brussels will return and remain at a UK level and which will be devolved. It will be the UK government negotiating with the EU, taking full account of the interests and concerns of the devolved administrations and, indeed of all the other regions of England.

I’ve taken the quotes from PoliticsHome.

PMQs is over. Trudy Harrison, the new Conservative MP for Copeland, is taking her seat now.

Labour’s Madeleine Moon says families in Bridgend are frightened by the threat posed to the Ford plant.

May says the automative sector is one of the most productive sectors in the world. Ford is an important investor, she says. The government will continue to have a dialogue with Ford, she says.

Rebecca Pow, a Conservative, says that if the speaker, John Bercow, took a shower this morning, there would have been microbeads in his shower gel. Does May welcome the government’s plan to ban these?

May says she does not know if Bercow took a shower this morning. But the government does want to ban microbeads by October.

Nigel Dodds, the DUP MP, mentions the speeches by Tony Blair and John Major on Brexit. “Very helpful they were,” he says, sarcastically. We know what is meant by a hard Brexit and a soft Brexit. But we don’t know what a soft coup is, he says. He asks May to confirm that, whatever Blair and Major says, she will trigger article 50.

May says she intends to trigger by the end of March. And she means triggering article 50, not triggering a soft coup.

Labour’s Sir Kevin Barron asks if the government will reform pharmacy funding.

May says funding for pharmacies has increased. She says the system was changed last summer to help pharmacies in rural areas.

Andrew Selous, a Conservative, asks May if she will end the practice of developers buying freehold land and selling it on a leasehold basis.

May says the housing white paper says developers should build homes for people to live in. The government will tackle abuses of leasehold, she says. She says she does not see why homes should not be sold freehold, except in exceptional circumstances.

Victoria Prentis, a Conservative, says the debate in Copeland about maternity services echoed what is happening in Banbury. She asks May if she agrees that maternity servics should be local.

May says she looks forward to welcoming the new MP for Copeland to the Commons soon. Trudy Harrison, the new MP, has proposed a review of maternity services in Copeland. May says the health minister is looking at this.

Judith Cummins, the Labour MP, asks the government to commit to HS3 and infrastructure spending in West Yorkshire.

May says the government is committed to investment in the north.

Glyn Davies, a Welsh Conservative MP, asks May if she agrees that Welsh interests must remain at the heart of the UK.

May agrees. She says she is committed to getting a deal that works for the whole of the UK in Brexit. She will be hosting a St David’s day reception at Downing Street tonight. And she says something in Welsh - happy St David’s day, I presume.

Corbyn says it was a Labour amendement that introduced parity of esteem. He says parity of esteem means funding mental health properly, and not overriding court decisions that help people with mental health conditions.

May says the government is spending more than before on mental health. But there is more to do, she says. More people are being provided with mental health treatment every week. But if you want to provide that help, you need a strong economy to be able to pay for it. The one thing we know about Labour is that it will bankrupt Britain.

Corbyn says that is rich coming from a government that has borrowed more than all Labour government’s put together. He says we are judged by how we treat the most vulnerable. Mind has condemned this, he says. Can’t May withdraw this “nasty” decision? That is how we will be judged.

May says the agreement of this parliament is being honoured. Corbyn talks about accepting the court’s decision and paying for it. But today Labour’s health spokesman, when asked how Labour would pay for implementing this court decision, said the party had not decided that yet. A Labour MP said the Copeland result was “incredible” for Labour. That sums up Corbyn’s leadership. “Incredible”, she says (dropping her voice, in that faux Thatcher style she deployed in her first PMQs.)

Corbyn says calling the chairs of two committees does not add up to scrutiny. And, as far as he understands it, there was no call to the shadow secretary of state. He asks May to look at the effects of her decision and think again.

May says the factors Corbyn has raised are taken into account. May says the court said the rules were unclear. That is why the government will clarify them. She says this government is spending more than every on support for people with disabilities, and on people with mental health conditions.

Corbyn says the government has overriden an independent court decision on this. He quotes a Tory MP saying the government should give mental and physical health the same priority. He quotes from May’s “nasty party” speech to her party when it was in opposition. Don’t George Freeman’s quotes show the nasty party is still around?

May says Freeman has apologised for what he said. This government has introduced parity between mental and physical health. Labour did not do that when it was in government.

Jeremy Corbyn also wishes people a happy St David’s day. And he hopes the workers at the Ford plant at Bridgend get the assurances they need.

He pays tribute to Sir Gerald Kaufman. It was his funeral yesterday, he says. He spoke to Kaufman’s nephews. They described him as an “awesome uncle”.

He says that Iain Duncan Smith resigned after the last budget over PIP cuts. But last week the government sneaked out proposals to cut it again. Will the government change her mind?

May says this is not a policy change. This is not a cut in the amount that will be spent on these benefits. No one will see a reduction in their benefits from the DWP. What the government is doing is restoring the system to what was agreed by the last government and by parliament.

Corbyn says the social security advisory committee was not consulted on this. He says the court made this announcement to help people suffering overwhelming distress. He quotes an MP saying the courts are there for a reason.

May says the PIP is better for people with mental health conditions. Two thirds of them get the higher daily living allowance, compared to less than a quarter under the previous DLA system.

She says the change was not sneaked out. It was in a written ministerial statement to parliament.

She says the social security advisory committee can look at this. She says the work and pensions secretary called the committee when this was introduced and told them about it.

Andrew Bridgen, a Conservative, asks about Copeland. Was that an endorsement of May’s plans to have a strong economy and leave the EU?

May says the historic result in Copeland was an endorsement her plans to keep the economy strong and to help places like Copeland that have suffered from years of neglect under Labour. And it was an endorsement of her strong leadership, in contrast to Labour’s chaos.

Theresa May starts by wishing people a happy St David’s day.

And she also pays tribute to Sir Gerald Kaufman, who died at the weekend. He was an outstanding parliamentarian, she says.

A Labour source has been briefing on the economic equality bill proposed by Sarah Champion today. (See 11.10am.) She says it would not stipulate that economic spending had to be divided 50/50 between men and women. Instead it would introduce transparency measures that highlighted who was benefiting from tax and spending measures, so as to push policy making towards equality. But the source stressed that the details had yet to be finalised, and that the party would consult on this over the next 12 months. She also stressed that this was not just about gender equality, and that it would look at the impact of economic inequality on LGBT people, BME people and people with disabilities too.

Nigel Farage, the former Ukip leader, was on the Today programme this morning renewing his call for Douglas Carswell, the party’s only MP, to be expelled from the party. My colleague Matthew Weaver has the details. Here is his story.

And here is how it starts.

Ukip’s former leader Nigel Farage, has accused the party’s only MP of preventing it from becoming a radical anti-immigration party.

In an increasingly hostile war of words with Douglas Carswell, Farage said the Clacton MP who defected from the Conservatives to Ukip in 2014, had undermined his attempts to equate EU membership with increased levels of immigration.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme amid reports that Carswell is in talks with the Tories about switching back, Farage said: “The time has now come to have a clean break. To make sure we don’t have influences like Carswell taking us away from the key arguments like immigration.”

“There have been some in Ukip who want to turn us into a mainstream political party with very bland messages and I would say Ukip is a radical party or it is nothing.”

The Daily Telegraph says this morning that Carswell has been speaking to Conservative MPs about the possibility of returning to the party which he belonged to when first elected as an MP and until he defected to Ukip in 2014. Carswell has responded this morning by telling the Press Association: “I’m 100% Ukip.”

In an article in the Telegraph Daniel Hannan, the Conservative MEP and a close friend of Carswell’s, says Farage should stop worrying about Carswell because they both got what they wanted; the leave side won. Hannan says:

For Douglas, all that mattered was recovering our national independence. He saw Nigel’s sallies into breast-feeding mothers, HIV-infected immigrants and the like as distractions. He came to the view that Nigel was more interested in hogging the limelight than in winning the referendum. He therefore worked, successfully, to ensure that Vote Leave, the mainstream campaign, prevailed.

Yesterday, Nigel again attacked him for doing so - even though Douglas’s choice was surely vindicated by the result.