In an interview with the BBC’s Newsnight Margot James, who resigned as a culture minister today so that she could vote against the government for the anti-prorogation amendment, said “quite a number” of ministers would leave the government if Boris Johnson becomes PM and join the campaign to block a no-deal Brexit. She said

Over the course of the last few months I’ve been increasingly uncomfortable about the way the rhetoric is developing on Brexit. My constituents voted to leave in Stourbridge by 70 percent, so I’ve honoured that commitment, voted for the prime minister’s deal three times, but when that didn’t get through parliament I became more and more worried that there is the potential to crash out with no-deal at the end of October. The fact that Boris Johnson - and he hasn’t won yet by the way but obviously he may - is not ruling out proroguing parliament, I felt that this time that rather than just abstain I would vote for the amendments that will make it more difficult ...

I think a lot of people would be prepared to serve under Jeremy Hunt if he gets in. If we do end up with Boris as our prime minister, then I think quite a number of people who would have always been voting with the government will leave the government and will be doing everything they can with myself and others to make sure we leave with a deal, or we carry on negotiating or we look for another outcome.

You have to remember that democracy isn’t just about the majority wins and has everything its way – especially when the minority is as big as 48%, and also when a majority actually voted to remain in Scotland and Northern Ireland. So I think we have to treat the minority with more respect than proroguing parliament and clearing off without a deal – leaving us very exposed as an economy and a society and reliant on the United States at a very bad time.

The Tory leadership candidate Jeremy Hunt has apologised after revealing that he missed today’s vote by accident. He would have voted with the government, he says.

Votes in the House of Commons can have legislative consequences and political consequences, and sometimes it is not entirely obvious what either of them will be. This afternoon’s vote relating to a no-deal Brexit is important, but probably not decisive. Here are some thought on what it means.

1) Boris Johnson has suffered his first Commons defeat - before even becoming prime minister. Jeremy Hunt, his rival for the Tory leadership, has ruled out proroguing parliament to facilitate a no-deal Brexit, but Johnson pointedly hasn’t. Over the last two days peers and MPs have voted to tie his hands on this point. Coming after the resignation of Sir Kim Darroch as ambassador to Washington in response to comments from Johnson, this is fresh evidence that the Westminster machine already regards him as PM.

2) This vote probably means proroguing parliament in the autumn to stop MPs blocking a no-deal Brexit is now closed as an option for Johnson. The Benn amendment says, if parliament were prorogued or adjourned in this timescale, it would have to be recalled. But a tiny window of uncertainty remains because a) if the power-sharing executive in Northern Ireland were to revive, the Benn amendment would become redundant; and b) there is always the faint chance of a rogue PM trying to ignore this law.

3) Stopping parliament being prorogued is not the same as stopping a no-deal Brexit. It remains the case that, if Johnson were to opt for a no-deal Brexit, MPs sitting in the Commons in September or October would have no obvious means of stopping him. An Institute for Government report said, under the rules as they are now, it would be “almost impossible” for MPs to stop no-deal without using a no confidence vote to bring down the government. Even if Johnson did lose a no confidence, there is no guarantee he would pause Brexit to allow the electorate to have its say. But the IfG report also says the situation might be different if the Speaker were to be more “flexible” in his interpretation of Commons procedure, and John Bercow has repeatedly hinted that he would be willing to bend the rules to help MPs vote against no-deal (as he did here, referring to standing order 24).

4) But Tory opposition to no-deal is looking a bit more robust this afternoon than it was. As I mentioned this morning, in recent weeks MPs trying to use parliamentary process to block no-deal have suffered a series of defeats. (See 9.09am.) Today they won a handsome victory. Some 17 Conservative MPs voted against the government, and five ministers seem to have abstained deliberately; by this time next week those five will probably be on the back benches, making a “Gauke-ward squad” of 20-plus. If Johnson sacks more ministers in a reshuffle, that could get even bigger. Most of these MPs would probably not vote against the government on no confidence motion to stop a no-deal Brexit, but with the government’s working majority set to fall to just three after the Brecon and Radnorshire byelection, the rebels probably have enough muscle to bring Johnson down.

5) An early election looks ever more likely. Johnson would want to avoid an early election until he has delivered Brexit, but these numbers mean that he might not be left with any choice. Here is an assessment from Mujtaba Rahman, who does Brexit analysis for the Eurasia Group consultancy.

Downing Street has put out this statement about the vote. A spokesman said:

The prime minister is obviously disappointed that a number of ministers failed to vote in this afternoon’s division. No doubt her successor will take this into account when forming their government.

This is probably less aggressive than it sounds. If you look at the list of ministers who abstained (see 2.11pm) - Greg Clark, Sir Alan Duncan, David Gauke, Philip Hammond and Rory Stewart - they are all people who were never expected to serve in government with Boris Johnson anyway. Theresa May could have chosen to sack them now, but with only a week to go before the new PM forms a government, that would have been a bit pointless.

Tony Lloyd, the shadow Northern Ireland secretary, rises to make a point of order. He says by the time a bill has got this far, it is the property of the house, not the government. He says there have been rumours that the government might drop the bill at this late stage to stop it becoming law. Can the Speaker rule that out?

The Speaker, John Bercow, says he has not heard that suggestion. But he says the chief whip, Julian Smith, and the Northern Ireland minister, John Penrose, are both on the front bench now indicating that that will not happen. Penrose rises himself and confirms this.

MPs have now voted to accept the Lords amendment as amended (see 1.48pm) by 315 votes to 273 - a majority of 42.

MPs have voted to stop Boris Johnson proroguing parliament in the autumn to facilitate a no-deal Brexit by 315 votes to 274 - a majority of 41.

Here is the full text of the Benn amendment.

Page 1, line 16, at end insert—

“(2C)

If, as a result of parliament standing prorogued or adjourned, a minister of the crown cannot comply with the obligations in subsection (2A) or (2B), a proclamation under the Meeting of Parliament Act 1797 (c. 127) shall require parliament to meet on a specified day within the period within which compliance with subsection (2B) is required and to meet on the five following days (other than Saturdays, Sundays or a day which is a bank holiday in the United Kingdom or in any part of the United Kingdom) to allow for compliance with subsection (2B).”

MPs are now debating the Northern Ireland (executive formation) bill.

The bill has already gone through the Commons and the Lords, and this debate is what’s known as “consideration of Lords amendments”.

Hilary Benn, the Labour chair of the Commons Brexit committee, goes first. He is moving his amendment 1. (See 11am.) He says his amendment would ensure that, if parliament is prorogued in the autumn, it would get recalled under the terms of this bill.

He says the amendment does not create a new constitutional principle. It just ensure that parliament would be sitting when it needs to be sitting, in line with existing legislation.

Jeremy Corbyn faces a new front in internal dissent over his handling of antisemitism in the party, with Labour peers set to hold a vote of no-confidence in the leader next week, it has emerged.

The plan is for Labour peers to hold an emergency meeting on Monday afternoon to consider the idea. If it is taken forward, the ballot would take place over Tuesday and Wednesday, with the result soon afterwards, it is understood.

If the no-confidence motion was passed it would have no formal effect, but would be a blow to the authority of Corbyn.

Earlier this week more than 60 took out an advertisement in the Guardian accusing Corbyn of having “failed the test of leadership” over his handling of antisemitism complaints within the party.

The latest move follows the decision by Corbyn’s office to sack Baroness Hayter as a Brexit minister in the Lords after she accused Corbyn of having a “bunker mentality” similar to the final days of Hitler.

The European commission has now itself debunked Boris Johnson’s claim about kipper food safety regulations, the Telegraph’s James Crisp reports.

Turning back to Brexit, Nick Robinson has written a very thorough summary of the revelations in his Panorama programme tonight here, under the title “10 things that stopped Brexit happening”.

In the programme Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiate, and Martin Selmayr, the European commission’s secretary general, both say Theresa May never explicitly threatened to leave without a deal in their private talks. Barnier told the programme:

I think that the UK side, which is well informed and competent and knows the way we work on the EU side, knew from the very beginning that we’ve never been impressed by such a threat. It’s not useful to use it.

May’s remaining time in No 10 might be so short that it can now safely be measured in hours, but it seems she is not above still getting furiously annoyed by political foes – and at this morning’s lobby briefing we got a clue as to how she feels about Barnier.

Asked about Barnier’s claim, May’s spokesman not only denied this, but gave a reply dripping with sarcasm.

Can I begin by saying how nice it was to hear from Michel Barnier again this morning, and how generous it was of the BBC to give him a platform to share his views with us all. On that specific point, the prime minister was clear, both in public and in private that the UK was prepared to leave without a deal.

No love lost, it would seem.

In the Commons David Lidington, the Cabinet Office minister, is making a statement now about covering rendition and the treatment of detainees.

He says the UK does not practice or condone torture.

There is already guidance for the security services setting out the rules for detainees who are interrogated overseas. He says that new guidance is being issued.

Theresa May has set out details in a written statement today, he says.

Lidington says, after 9/11, it took the British intelligence agencies too long to appreciate the extent to which other countries were using torture (or unacceptable practices, as Lidingon puts it).

He says lessons have been learnt. Three separate reports into this have been published, he says.

He says better guidance is now coupled with a world-leading oversight regime. The intelligence and security committee has new powers to oversee the intelligence services, he says.

He says the rules make it clear that ministers must be consulted if there is a real risk of detainees being mistreated by others.

Addressing calls for a further public inquiry, Lidington says in 2013 the government said it would consider the case for a further judicial inquiry after other investigations were over.

Lidington says the government has ruled out a further judicial inquiry.

There is no policy need for one, he says.

And there is no judicial need for one. He says mistreatment allegations have been investigated by the police.

• Lidington rules out further judicial inquiry into British collusion with rendition and the torture of terrorist suspects.

Knife crime in England and Wales hit a record high in 2018/19, up 8% on the previous year, the Press Association reports. Police recorded 43,516 offences involving knives or sharp objects in the year to March 2019, the highest since comparable records began in 2011. The figures released this morning by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) do not include Greater Manchester Police, which records data differently. There was a rise of 3,301 knife crime offences from 2017/18, with the volume of offences up 42% since the year ending March 2011. The total number of homicides in 2018/19 increased slightly to 701 offences from 693 in the previous 12 months, excluding terror attacks. Mark Bangs, from the ONS Centre for Crime and Justice, said:

The picture of crime is a complex one. Overall levels of crime have remained steady, but this is not the case for all types of crime.

For example, overall levels of violence have remained steady but we have seen increases in violent crimes involving knives and sharp instruments.

We have seen increases in fraud and overall theft, but decreases in burglary following recent rises.

Here is my colleague Larry Elliott’s story about what the Office for Budget Responsiblity is saying about the impact of a no-deal Brexit.

As mentioned earlier (see 9.45am), the OBR say itself that it’s no-deal stress test is not based on a worst-case scenario.

And Philip Hammond, the chancellor, has just been making this point too. In a clip broadcast by Sky, Hammond said that a no-deal Brexit of the kind being considered by some prominent Brexiters (he meant Boris Johnson) would hit the economy much harder. He explained:

The report that the OBR have published this morning shows that even in the most benign version of a no-deal exit there would be a very significant hit to the UK economy, a very significant reduction in tax revenues and a big increase in our national debt - a recession caused by a no-deal Brexit.

But that most benign version is not the version that is being talked about by prominent Brexiters. They are talking about a much harder version, which would cause much more disruption to our economy. And the OBR is clear that in that less benign version of no-deal the hit would be much greater, the impact would be much harder, the recession would be bigger.

So I greatly fear the impact on our economy and our public finances of the kind of no deal Brexit that is realistically being discussed now.

In his press conference Robert Chote, the head of the OBR, explained the difference between the more benign no-deal that on which the OBR stress test was based, and a more disruptive no-deal. He said:

We’ve looked at the fiscal implications of the less severe of the two no-deal, no-transition scenarios set out by the International Monetary Fund in its World Economic Outlook. This scenario is not necessarily the most likely outcome, and it is relatively benign compared to some, for example, assuming no major short-term border disruptions. A more disruptive outcome, closer to the Bank of England scenario that we used for our stress test two years ago, would have more severe consequences.

As Stephen Barclay, the Brexit secretary, told MPs yesterday, the government’s no-deal planning does assume delays at the border.

Tonight the BBC is showing a Panorama programme made by Nick Robinson exploring why the Brexit talks failed. Among the people he interviewed was Frans Timmermans, the first vice president of the European commission.

As Politico Europe reports, Timmermans said that before the negotiations started the EU assumed that the British team would be “brilliant” because of the professionalism of their civil service. But the EU quickly realised this was not the case, Timmermans said. He went on:

And then the first time I saw public utterances by David Davis and I saw him not coming [to Brussels], not negotiating, grandstanding elsewhere I thought: ‘Oh my God, they haven’t got a plan, they haven’t got a plan’.

That was really shocking frankly, because the damage if you don’t have a plan — you know, we see it — time’s running out and you don’t have a plan, it’s like Lance Corporal Jones — you know, ‘Don’t panic, don’t panic’, running around like idiots.

Lord Callanan, a Brexit minister, has responded with his own Dad’s Army quote, my colleague Jennifer Rankin reports.

And here is an extract from what the OBR report says about a no-deal Brexit.

In Chapter 10 we carry out a fiscal ‘stress test’ that quantifies the impact on the public finances of a particular no-deal, no-transition Brexit scenario, namely the less disruptive of the two presented by the IMF in its April 2019 World Economic Outlook. While it is a scenario, rather than a forecast, it is nevertheless useful for exploring the channels through which the public finances might respond in the case of a no-deal Brexit.

Heightened uncertainty and declining confidence deter investment, while higher trade barriers with the EU weigh on exports. Together, these push the economy into recession, with asset prices and the pound falling sharply. Real GDP falls by 2% by the end of 2020 and is 4% below our March forecast by that point. Higher trade barriers also slow growth in potential productivity, while lower net inward migration reduces labour force growth, so potential output is lower than the baseline throughout the scenario (and beyond). The imposition of tariffs and the sterling depreciation raise inflation and squeeze real household incomes, but the monetary policy committee is able to cut bank rate to support demand, helping to bring output back towards potential and inflation back towards target.

Borrowing is around £30bn a year higher than our March forecast from 2020-21 onwards. Lower receipts – in particular income tax and NICs (due to the recession) and capital taxes (due to weaker asset prices) – explain most of the deterioration. These are partly offset by lower debt interest spending (thanks to lower interest rates and RPI inflation) and the revenue raised customs duties (which are treated as EU rather than UK taxes in the baseline). Higher borrowing and the assumed rollover of Term Funding Scheme loans leave public sector net debt around 12% of GDP higher than our March forecast by 2023-24.

The OBR also says this stress test is “by no means a worst-case scenario under a no-deal, no-transition Brexit”.

My colleague Graeme Wearden is covering the publication of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s Fiscal Risks Report on his business live blog here.

The blog also has a link to a live feed from the OBR’s press conference.

This is from Sky’s Ed Conway.

MPs trying to use parliamentary votes to stop a no-deal Brexit have not had much luck recently. Last month the government comfortably defeated a Labour attempt to allow backbenchers to take control of the Commons timetable which, if passed, might have allowed a bill opposing no-deal to be passed. Last week the Speaker refused to call a Dominic Grieve amendment that would definitely prevented the next prime minister proroguing parliament in the autumn to facilitate a no-deal Brexit. Grieve also lost votes on two other related amendments. But he did win a vote on a move saying the government would have to publish fortnightly reports in the autumn on progress towards restoring the power-sharing executive in Northern Ireland. He acknowledged that this on its own would not necessarily stop an autumn prorogation, but he said he hoped peers would beef it up in the Lords. But even this relatively anaemic amendment only passed by one vote, and that was just because a government whip, Jo Churchill, forgot to cast her vote.

Last night the House of Lords did beef up the original Grieve proposal, by passing an amendment saying there would have to be debates on those fortnightly reports mandated by Grieve. Whether this would stop a new PM proroguing parliament is a matter of debate, but at the very least it would provide stronger legal grounds for a court challenge against a decision to prorogue.

Today the government will try to reverse that decision in the Commons. At one level it is just a dispute about a narrow procedural amendment, but of course this has become a contest about whether or not parliament should be willing to contemplate a no-deal Brexit.

Based on how MPs voted last week, the government should have a decent chance of winning. But last night Newsnight’s Nicholas Watt reported that some pro-European cabinet ministers were considering resigning so that they could vote against the government.

And this morning David Gauke, the justice secretary, refused to rule out rebelling over this issue. He did not say he definitely would resign (and on many occasions pro-Europeans ministers have threatened to quit over Brexit only to back down at the last minute). But instead of just saying that he would support the government, he told the Today programme that he had not yet made up his mind. This is what he said when asked how he would vote:

I will have to see what the precise amendments are and we’re hearing what the whipping will be and the arguments for that so I’m not in a position to necessarily say.

But what I would say is the idea that parliament should be suspended in October - a period where it always sits, parliament has always in recent years sat at that time of year - at a crucial point in this country’s history, if you like, that parliament should not be able to sit, should not be able to express its opinion and its will, I think would be outrageous.

I very much doubt that any prime minister would in fact suspend parliament in these circumstances but I can understand the concerns that a lot of my colleagues have.

Gauke, of course, expects to be sacked by the new prime minister (almost certainly Boris Johnson) next week. So he does not really have much to lose.

I will be covering the debate in full.

Here is the agenda for the day.

9.30am: David Gauke, the justice secretary, gives a speech on sentencing.

9.30am: Crime figures for England and Wales are published.

9.30am: The Office for Budget Responsibility publishes is Fiscal Risks Report.

10am: The Alternative Arrangements Commission, an independent body set up to look for alternatives to the Northern Ireland backstop, publishes its final report.

Around 12pm: MPs debate the Northern Ireland (executive formation) bill. As Jessica Elgot reports, the government will seek to overturn a vote in the Lords adding an amendment to the bill intended to make it harder for the next PM to prorogue parliament in the autumn to facilitate a no-deal Brexit.

As usual, I will be covering breaking political news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web. I plan to publish a summary when I wrap up.

You can read all the latest Guardian politics articles here. Here is the Politico Europe roundup of this morning’s political news. And here is the PoliticsHome list of today’s top 10 must-reads.

If you want to follow me or contact me on Twitter, I’m on @AndrewSparrow.

I try to monitor the comments below the line (BTL) but it is impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer questions, and if they are of general interest, I will post the question and reply above the line (ATL), although I can’t promise to do this for everyone.

If you want to attract my attention quickly, it is probably better to use Twitter.