31/01/2017 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

MPs are about to begin two days of debate over the bill that

will give the Government the authority to get the formal

So will it get through Parliament without any hiccups?

We speak to MPs from across the political spectrum.

Protestors gather outside Downing Street last night

to voice their anger at Donald Trump's immigration ban.

Overnight the President sacked his acting Attorney General

Unlike the eventual trains, the High Speed Two Bill has been

But it could soon get to its desired destination.

Conservative grandee Nicholas Soames is forced to apologise for making

what he calls a "friendly canine salute" to a fellow MP.

All that in the next hour and with us for the whole

of the programme today is Angela Smith, Labour's leader

So, in just over half an hour MPs will finally start debating

the Government's Article 50 Bill, with Labour warning of civil

disturbances and people taking to the streets if Parliament votes

against triggering the Brexit process.

If it is approved it will give the Government the authority to trigger

leaving that you use. -- leaving the EU. What lies ahead?

MPs will begin five days of debate on the European Union Notification

of Withdrawal Bill, which has its second reading today

and tomorrow before coming back before MPs next Monday

Despite being only 133 words long, MPs are queuing up

to modify the Bill - with Labour, the SNP,

the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party all looking

The SNP have promised to put down 50 amendments but so far have

only published four, including a reset clause that

would keep the UK in the EU if an exit deal can't be reached

Both the SNP and Labour will look to put down amendments calling

for EU nationals resident in the UK to be given a guarantee

Labour plan on putting down a further series of amendments,

including forcing the Government to protect workers' rights

The Liberal Democrats want to put down three amendments including

on having a second referendum where the options will be to accept

While the Green Party are going for an even more

extreme alternative - a so-called reasoned amendment that

would see the whole Article 50 process killed stone dead.

Few, if any, amendments are likely to pass in the Commons given Labour

support for the Bill - but opponents could have more

success in the Lords, which will begin its debate

Lords were told last night Ministers want them to have passed

the Bill by March 7th - in time for Theresa May to go

to the EU summit that weekend to trigger Article 50 and begin

As always at times like this, our political correspondent

Norman Smith is in the thick of things - he joins us

You can never criticise us for not being consistent! Norman, how big a

moment is this today? A big moment because it is something Theresa May

desperately wanted to avoid. She would not be here worried about the

Supreme Court saying you absolutely have to pass legislation -- were it

not for the Supreme Court saying. Hundreds amendments have been

tabled, there will be a bust up over the pace at which legislation is

being pushed. Maastricht was on the floor of the house for weeks, so

there will be an argument over why the Government still has not publish

this paper it first promised back in December. Still we have not got it.

There would be plenty of argy-bargy and aggro, but at the end of the day

the one thing pretty much everyone seems to agree on is that Theresa

May will in all probability ghetto legislation and in the time frame

she wants, namely by the end of March -- will in all probably get

her legislation. Her opponents are divided, Tory rebels believe now is

not the time to stand up to Mrs May, three, the House of Lords, partly

through self preservation do not want to stand up against the

referendum and for the most importantly, Jeremy Corbyn has

ordered his MPs to back the bill. At the end of the day, Labour MPs will

be expected to back the measure even though some will defy him and some

will provide -- resign from the backbench in order to not do that --

will resign from the front bench. As you repeated, the list of amendments

is long. Would it be whittled down to one of two macro by the end? It

will be hacked back to three or four. The key amendment as far as I

can see it suggests there should be a meaningful vote before Theresa May

strikes a deal on Brexit. She has promised a vote after she has done a

deal. I do not expect that amendment will be passed in the immediate

weeks in which MPs and peers debate this bill, but there is a body of

opinion that wants to see down the line, maybe as part of the Great

Repeal Bill or other Parliamentary vehicles, whether there can be a

mechanism whereby MPs are guaranteed a vote before Mrs May takes us out

of the EU. We don't get that clash, but I expect that in time those

opposed to Brexit will make their stand there. Thank you very much,

Norman Smith. I'm joined now by Conservative MP

and former minister John Penrose and the Liberal Democrat

former cabinet minister Alistair Carmichael who now sits

on the Brexit select committee. Welcome to you both. Alistair

Carmichael, as you will probably expect, Brexit Secretary David Davis

would accuse you today of abusing the trust of the British people, it

is hard to argue with that logic. I will not start losing sleep about

accusations from David Davies, it is pretty predictable. The argument

about trust from the referendum is important. I know lots of people

were told things would be possible in the event that they voted to

Leave, we're now told that these things will not happen and we hear

from Government ministers, Philip Hammond in particular, that they now

want to take the Government in a very particular direction. A small

Government, low regulation, low tax economy. That runs directly in the

opposite direction from the promises made up having extra money to spend

on public service. Remember the famous ?350 million a week? Where is

the respect for the result of the referendum? It all just shows how

you need to be careful when you come to bouncing around these

accusations, let's take it step-by-step and try to have the

most mature debate. Is that what the Government is doing, taking Britain

in the direction of a low tax, to use Jeremy Corbyn's phrase, bargain

basement economy? A bloke I think that is a fallback if it all goes

horribly wrong but I don't think that is what we are aiming for.

There has been cross-party agreement and trying to preserve workers'

rights and so on. It is only if the EUG feels they have is over a barrel

and can push us towards a dreadful deal, it is to make sure people

understand that a bad deal is worse than no deal, as the Prime Minister

rightly said. That is further down the line, let's concentrate on the

debate today and tomorrow, Alistair Carmichael, you will not be putting

down in till the committee stage next week, so is it not incumbent on

you and your colleagues to at least vote through the bill on its second

reading? We have tabled the reasoned amendment today, which makes it

clear that we decline to give the bill a second reading because it

makes no provision for a referendum, because, as you said in your

introduction, the White Paper we have been promised has not yet been

published. And because the Government has used Parliamentary

procedure to avoid giving things like what are known as money

resolution some sort. The Government is still trying to do what the

Supreme Court has said they are not allowed to do by law, which is to

sideline parliament and keep control. How was Parliament is being

sidelined? The Government has only brought forward the bill, not the

other ancillary measures that normally go with it. That is why we

are putting down the amendment. There have been 69 Parliamentary

debates on the outcome of the EU referendum since the 23rd of June.

If anybody can really, hand on heart, say there has not been a

chance for Parliament to scrutinise this decision then, really, you are

being facetious. As you well know there is a world of difference

between Parliament having general debates that don't have votes, and

then a meaningful debate of the sort we have today which is a second

reading of a bill, that is... John Penrose, where is this white paper?

We were promised it, David Davis said it would not happen, Theresa

May pulled the rabbit out of the hat at PMQs and said it would happen,

you were a Remainer, presumably you would like to see what is being set

out by the Government when you said that you like the single market, you

said that on the eve of the referendum, it means jobs when local

firms export to Europe so relieving would cost jobs. You would like to

see a White Paper? Yes, I was delighted when it was announced. I

want to see before the start of the negotiations. Not before the

triggering of Article 50? Above that would mean it has to be out before

Article 50 is triggered, before the end of March or whatever.

On the basis of your support for the single market she would support a

Lib Dem amendment to keep us in the single market? No, I am a Remainer

but I was a Democrat first. We have taken a collective decision in the

referendum, I was on the losing side but I respect that, because we have

taken that decision it is up to is to deliver it in the best way

possible, I think most of the Labour Party is on the same page. Would you

put down an amendment on the lines of staying in the single market? We

would like to see a degree of Parliamentary scrutiny. Why you have

such a short time for debate is that the Government spent three months

fighting the courts not to come to Parliament, which is really

outrageous. Parliament should decide this. I don't believe whether

people's views were Remain or Leave that there is a single member of

Parliament or the House of Lords who does not want the best deal for the

UK. That means different things were different people, do you support a

second referendum? , It was for the people to decide. The Lib Dems lost

the referendum on voting systems, on the EU and now it is calling for

another one, ludicrous. The key thing is that must be Parliamentary

scrutiny. All these debates we have had have been about trying to get

information from the Government which never had a plan, has no

information. There needs to be built into this legislation reporting back

to Parliament and working and engaging with Parliament, that is

missing and is serious. I think it is a false choice to

start saying that some Parliamentary debates are more equal than others.

Oh, come on extra measure not of course they are wrecks formation not

there may be votes on bills and other measures, but nope Prime

Minister weathered salt will ignore a sizeable vote, however it is

framed. Even on the single market? These things matter because it tells

us how Parliament will.... That is ridiculous, all the debates and

questions have been trying to get information from the Government.

This Government agreed to put the referendum... David Cameron said I

will stay on and sing it through, disappeared, it is a Government

without a plan. -- stay on and see it through. Will labour Lords vote

to trigger Article 50? We will not block or delay the bill? Article 50

will be triggered. But this is not a blank check that the Government to

do what it wants. Woman Mark Roe -- Theresa May wants to invoke article

50. You say you will not block the bill and you know that timing is

crucial, you say you have legitimate concerns on a blank cheque, what

does that mean practice? We will listen to what happens in the House

of Commons, I would be optimistic that the House of Commons in its

wisdom would have an amendment that brings through Parliamentary

scrutiny chewing the process. -- during the process. To answer more

fully, if that does not happen, the only thing open to the House of

Lords is to as the House of Commons to look at it again. This is not

blocking or delaying, but say to the House of Commons, think about this

and have another look. I don't think that would be unreasonable if we get

about, but if the House of Commons is to say that it wants that

scrutiny, we would support them. So the Lords could bat it back to

the Commons and they think again before triggering Article 50, what

would that do to the timetable? Within the British people would be

enthusiastic about. If it is within the timetable... What we will no

doubt see is hysteria from some who think any questioning of the

Government is a constitutional outrage. It would be a

constitutional outrage not have questioning.

The timetable is entirely of Theresa May's on making. She chose to waste

month in the courts. Deed think it was a waste of time, John Penrose?

No, it was not. It was perfectly arguable. Particularly and

constitutionally it was a disgrace to try and sideline parliament. But

in the end the Supreme court... They have said the Labour Party will not

block the attempt but they are split. Jeremy Corbyn says there will

be a whip for MPs. What was the mood last night like at the PLP? There

was great support for Keir Starmer and the amendments he has put

through. The main focus of last night's meeting was the amendments

we are putting down which unites the Parliamentary Labour Party. But you

have 50 or 60 MPs who will defy the party? When we get into committee

and we are discussing the amendments, there is a really broad,

strong agreement around the amendments needing parliamentary

scrutiny. It is about trying to get Parliament to have a say. But there

is a split in the Labour Party. But the main issue is the amendments.

There are split in the Liberal Democrats. How many will vote? I'm

delighted to say you are not the Chief Whip. You have Norman Lamb

talking about voting against articles 50. Other MPs are thinking

about their constituencies. There are there are divisions in the

Liberal Democrats. There are divisions in all parties.

Incidentally, it is so important that we don't just say that the

referendum on the 23rd of June was the last word on this, it was the

start of a process, it is an evolving process and at the end of

it, the people having started the process, it should be the people

through a referendum that should be allowed to give their judgment and

end it. Why is the government so frightened of amendments being put

to the House and being voted through? There is nothing wrong with

them being put to the House. But not voted through! As long as we talk

about it! The question is, are they good amendments and is this the

right bill for them as well? This is a very simple bill saying began to

press the button to start the process. There is an enormous amount

of further detail as the deal is negotiated, as the details come out.

But this is the key point. We have to make sure that Parliament is kept

informed as things come out. All of which is why we should have had the

white Paper before the bill. That is how it works. You do your

consultation first. When you have heard the views of people, you come

forward with legislation. Gentlemen, thank you very much.

The question for today is what did a member of the Treasury's Wellbeing

work stream suggest could be a hazard to their colleagues' health?

Was it: The Chancellor's fiscal statements?

At the end of the show Baroness Smith will give us

Now, to events on the other side of the Atlantic.

And overnight Donald Trump fired his acting Attorney General

after she questioned the legality of his immigration measures.

Yesterday Ms Yates ordered justice department lawyers not to enforce

Sally Yates was appointed by Barack Obama only 11 days ago

on the day of Donald Trump's inauguration.

She was an acting Attorney General and was due to be replaced

by Donald Trump's choice for the role, Jeff Sessions,

who was awaiting approval from the US Senate.

Yesterday Ms Yates ordered justice department lawyers not to enforce

In a letter, she said: "As long as I am the acting attorney general,

the department of justice will not present arguments in defence

Well, that act of defiance meant she didn't remain in the job very

long: within hours the White House said she had been "relieved

of her duties" and said she had "betrayed the department of justice

by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens

On this side of the Atlantic, President Trump's executive order

has been causing some embarrassment for the British government which has

since said it does not agree with the policy.

Yesterday the Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, was summoned

to the Commons to respond to questions from MPs.

Let me begin by saying that this is not UK policy,

it is not our policy, nor is it a measure that this

I've already made clear our anxiety about measures that discriminate

on grounds of nationality in ways that are divisive and wrong.

All he can say is that, well, it would not be our policy.

Has he urged the US administration to lift this order, to help refugees

This order was signed on Holocaust Memorial Day.

For the sake of history, for heaven's sake,

I have made my views absolutely clear.

I've said that it's divisive, I said that it's wrong and I've said

that it stigmatises people on grounds of their nationality.

But what I will not do, what I will not do,

which is what I think the party opposite would do, is disengage

from conversations with our American friends and partners in such a way

as to do material damage to the interests of UK citizens.

And would my right honourable friend agree in paraphrasing

a far wiser president, John F Kennedy, that those

that ride on the back of a tiger end up inside it?

Does my right honourable friend accept there is a universal threat

from jihadists and that Europol itself, as an example,

have estimated there are upto 5000 jihadists that have come over

from several of these countries about on the furthermore,

we should also remember the victims of 9/11 in New York,

7/7 in London, Paris, Brussels and Berlin,

Try to recall, along with me, as I hid underneath the stairs

when two fascist dictators, Mussolini and Hitler,

were raining bombs on towns and cities in Britain.

Now this Government's hand-in-hand with another fascist Trump,

and what I say to him, do the decent thing

This man is not fit to walk in the footsteps of Nelson Mandela.

Well, I hesitate to say that the honourable gentleman's

memory must be at fault if he thinks Mussolini rained bombs

I'm joined now from Brussels by the Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan.

Welcome to the Daily Politics. First of all, an Sally Yates, the former

acting Attorney General, was she right when she said she was not

convinced that the executive order was legal, and if she was right,

wasn't she also crept when she said they should not follow the executive

order through -- was she also correct? My own view is the

executive order was an abuse of power. I think decisions of this

kind should be referred to the legislature and I don't see any

reasons why Donald Trump could not have presented his proposals to the

two chambers. So in that view she is right. It is worth pointing out as

Trump advocates are doing, that are very different standard was applied

when Barack Obama used executive orders to change policy, but the

fact that it has been abused before does not make it correct now. When

you say it is an abuse of power, the fact that Donald Trump got rid of

her and also his acting immigration chief, does that not smack of an

autocrat? Yes, I would not have voted for Donald Trump precisely

because I thought he had his character flaws and so far I have

been vindicated. And so people are totally justified to protest what

they see as a dangerous road towards autocracy and they hope that

pressure in the States and here will lead to him changing his executive

order or sending it or relaxing it in some way in terms of the ban

which you say is an abuse of power. And if that is effective, you need

to have a laser light concentration on what is actually wrong. This was

a hasty ban which through the immigration immigration service into

chaos. No US national has been killed on US soil by a national of

any of those country since people started looking at this in 1975, and

a measure of this kind should not be taken by executive order. An abuse

of power does not make it any better when it happens this time. If people

had restricted their concerns to those lines, rather than just

shouting fascist Nazi, they would be more effective at uniting a broad

coalition against him but of course people like to indulge themselves by

shouting racist, fascist Nazi and that is what floats their boat. Is

that the problem that you are in danger of losing the debate of

criticising Donald Trump that if you resort to lazy analogies, the Nazis,

the Holocaust, Donald Trump being compared to those dictators? I think

there are very clear reasons why this should worry us. It gives an

indication of the presidency of Donald Trump. It is spontaneous like

the demonstrations planned last night, they were not organised or

planned. People want to make a spontaneous protest, we have to

understand that, but what we saw yesterday was a decision that was

not evidence -based. It was made hastily without legal back-up. It

was random in its application. We don't know why some countries and

not others. There is no evidence base for it. And there was not a

debate or discussion which could have gone through Congress, and that

is what worries me. We need to have a presidency that is rooted in fact,

rooted in reason and it worries me also our relationship with Donald

Trump and the presidency of the USA. What did Theresa May no following

the meeting? They walked out hand-in-hand like two good friends

on their first date, almost. Then this very serious issue emerged that

British citizens were being affected and we took so long to respond to

it. Let's put that to Daniel. Was she to slow, Theresa May, about what

she might have known about what he would sign off in his executive

order. Was she to slow to react to criticise which in the end hampered

the chances of British citizens to clarify what their situation would

be? And think it is really important to distinguish between disapproving

of Donald Trump's actions and wanting good relations between the

US and United Kingdom. In almost every country in the world we will

find something to objective. I did not particularly agree with France's

burqa band that I would never suggest for a moment we should stop

the French leader from coming here or Angela Merkel having a federal

Europe. I should not suggest not having close relations with Germany.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that. There are two things. One is

that of course Theresa May will meet with Donald Trump and will meet with

other leaders across the world. I think the concern is that just a few

days into his presidency, when we have not got the measure or

understood what that President will be like, a state visit is being

arranged, and I think it is a bit unseemly to draw the Queen into this

kind of controversy when it took two years for Barack Obama, three years

for George W Bush. I think the Prime Minister is in danger of falling

into the David Cameron mould of government way you look at quick

decisions, and don't deal with the consequences in the long term.

Daniel Hannan what is your view of that we did not have to use this

state visit type of diplomacy? My guess is that they are deciding

right from the beginning they want to emphasise the closeness of the

relationship between us and the world's largest economy and chief

military power which is no bad thing. The US alliance has been the

cornerstone of our foreign policy since at least 1942. The US is the

biggest investor in Britain, we are the biggest investor in the US. A

million Americans turn up to work for British companies and a million

Brits turn up to work for American companies. This is an

extraordinarily important relationship and it goes beyond

anyone mad or any president. Can I say to Angela Smith, the key is he

was elected and he did promise to do these things. He did say he would

have a complete and utter shutdown in terms of Muslims coming into the

country. I know they have since denied this is a ban on a particular

religion, he is enacting what he said he would do.

Nobody should be surprised that he has acted in this way, which is more

surprising that Theresa May did not raise these issues in the meeting.

When he said to her there would be some sort of plan a refugee she did

not probe further to ensure it would not impact UK citizens, which it

did. On the subject of Britain 's nation Chibok Donald Trump, what to

the great British public thing? -- Well, on the subject

of Britain's relationship with Donald Trump, what do

the Great British public think? Our Ellie has been out

with the mighty moodbox. Welcome to wonderful Watford. Lovers

in the. Special relationships are a question for today, what should the

relationship be with Donald Trump, keep close all keep our distance?

# Why do birds suddenly appear every time you are near?

# Just like birds... Me, they long to be, close to you.

I would like a close relationship, but not with Trump. We get close to

him politically as much as we can, it would be good for the UK.

Distance relationship. Why? I think he is an idiot. Distant, to

be quite honest. All the laws he is trying to bring in and the human

rights, we are human beings at the end of the day. Who are you speaking

to? My mum, what do you think about Donald Trump, mum? I don't think we

have ever done this by telephone before! Hard to say. She can stay on

the phone. It is a bit of a thing and Watford. We should have a close

relationship, keep an eye on what he is doing. Keep your friends close

that your enemies closer, right? Do I detect an accent? West Brom?

Watford. I don't think Theresa May knows what she is getting involved

with, he is not right. We have to accent for people vote four, Trump

was voted in. I think a lot of what he wants to do is for the good of

the people. I don't think he is a good man for

the world. Don't we need him for trade deals and stuff? No. We love

him. Why do you love him? This was a mood

box about the special relationship, although some want a close

relationship, the overwhelming majority favour distance. Would be

needing this, then! -- we won't be needing this.

Obviously that is totally unscientific, as wonderful as it is.

To go back to the discussion we had before, he won on a very clear

campaign when it came to immigration, Angela, according to

some polls, more Americans support the ban on refugees, Syrian

refugees, and a ban on people coming from this designated countries. He

is entitled to do what he has done. Yes, but he has to understand there

will be criticism. Part of the problem is process as well as the

decision. To say no refugees, to make people think he is somehow

making them safer when there is no evidence, it is conning the public

in the US. There was huge outpouring in the US as well. This is a sign of

the presidency he will have, our relationship with Donald Trump, and

I do not suggest that we do not have one, state visits are formal and

very special and I am not sure he has earned the right yet. We had to

look out for British interests and Theresa May fail to do that in their

meeting last week. I would like to know more about what was discussed,

and at all time she has to maintain British interests and maintain

British values in meetings with him. Dan Hannan, did she hugged him to

close? I think she got it right, it was not just a meeting with him, she

established relationships with Mitch McConnell, Paul Aiton, other

Republican leaders, the US has a divided and balanced constitution

not just about one man. She was focused on British interests, she

steered him in a direction much closer to what we wanted on torture,

Nato, sanctions against Putin. It was not subordinate, it was an

alliance between two old, serious democracies. She put her stamp on

what the relationship should be. Her job is not to be a finger wagging

nanny, it is to look after our interests and by implication the

wider Western alliance, she has done that to the latter. That is about

holding your enemies even closer, she was the first in the queue, the

state visit might have been a weapon of diplomacy, she can to ferret, a

date has not been put on it. It is not like the Queen has not

entertained other controversial figures in the past. Theresa May

went over there, it was a bit of a coup being first but I am not sure

there was much of the queue with the European leaders. The relationship

with Trump will be delicate. He is rather McCue real, not likely to

stick to things he says one day and then changes the next. Did you want

to criticise openly at the press conference? Before she had even

landed in the UK he was taking decisions affecting UK national

switch he had to clarify and change. Based in law it seems to be dubious,

she did not say anything for too long. Being in the special

relationship means being a critical friend, she has shied away from

taking the action we would expect a British prime ministers to take.

Thank you, Dan Hannan. Now, plans for the first phase

of HS2, a new high speed rail line linking London and the north

of England, are almost at the point After three years of shuttling

between the Lords and the Commons, yesterday the High Speed Rail Bill

survived a final It faces its third reading in the

Lords today and could receive Royal assent later this month.

The bill authorises the construction of the first section of track

between London and Birmingham and sets certain precedents for how

The first section is due to be completed in 2026.

However, building the next section of the line will

Critics call it a white elephant, saying the money could be better

spent elsewhere and the project is already over-time

But the Government maintains the scheme will provide vital

capacity on already congested trains.

I'm joined now by Antoinette Sandbach,

the Conservative MP for Eddisbury - a constituency where part

of the new high speed line will be built, and the Labour peer

Andrew Adonis, a former Transport Secretary and one

He now sits on the board. Welcome to you both. We are in the final phase

of three and a half years of pretty painstaking Parliamentary work, the

end for this first section of track is in sight, did you expect it to

take this long? In terms of massive infrastructure, this is the largest

infrastructure project in your, it has not taken that long. It was hard

to get planning decisions through in less than three years. Looking at

international high-speed rail schemes, only the Chinese have moved

faster on a scheme of this scale, which is not necessarily a good

president. It has been a very thorough Parliamentary process, all

of those affected have put their case to the House of Commons and

House of Lords, but it has moved with deliberate speed. If you look

at other decisions like Heathrow, which we spent 40 years now, this is

just a piece of tarmac, building another runway, high speed to... Not

everybody would agree with that analysis. Berigaud high-speed two

was 100 miles in the first phase and then another 200... People would say

it is a long time for 100 miles of railway which will not be completed

until 2026. This covers phase one between London and Birmingham, your

constituency will not be affected by phase one but would be by the light

extending north of that. What are your objections? They have not

learned the lessons from phase one, they are making decisions without

looking at the actual ground conditions that apply, and an

independent expert report has indicated that there will be

additional ?750 million worth of cost just in relation to 22

plummeted as of track near my constituency. Because? -- 22

kilometres of track. It is in an area at high risk of subs --

subsidence. Has this been looked into, that the truck could think

about point? I am not an engineer, this is a debate that needs to

continue. Even just getting the first phase of HS2 up to Birmingham,

it will be more years before it goes further north. It is about early

engagement. HS2 were aware of the problems and heard from geologists

early on and did not listen. This decision has taken over two years,

and for a relatively small amount of money they could have used up to

date data to look at subsidence issues, they could have had the

information before making a decision. What is the point now,

what is your campaign doing now? We are almost at the end of discussion

on phase one. My campaign is to say that there is an alternative route

Ludger Beerbaum shorter, it could be cheaper and has less construction

issues. It is about HS2 listening and learning lessons that they did

not learn on phase one which has led to the ballooning cost in this

project we have gone from ?30 billion to estimates of over 55, on

a conservative estimate, some estimating 82. So are you not

listening to concerns? There is engagement on the issues to do with

the detailed geological conditions. Would it be worth having a shorter

route? The decision to change the route on the eastern lines was

partly because it would lead to significant savings, these

discussions need to continue. It is three years until beef than

decisions are taken on the route north of Birmingham when legislation

is produced, these are precisely the issues that need to be gone through.

Issues like tenants who are not being compensated, there are real

issues in relation to phase one of the route which will affect those on

phase two. It is very important that those lessons are learned, that does

not seem to be the case, which is white residents' Commissioner has

been appointed. -- which is why a residence' commissioner. Residents

in my area were not notified of local engagement. That has been

rectified but it is a simple error. On geological conditions, my

understanding is that HS2 is looking at these and there is time to get

this right. It sounds like some concerns have been met and

rectified, the Conservative MP Graham Evans in one constituency may

bring yours has said it is worrying when a very small group of people

from the tiniest sliver of one of the wealthiest areas in the country

seek to threaten an infrastructure project which would benefit many in

the country, that is your position? This is an independent risk --

independent report which says there are geological issues which will

affect it. Should you hold the whole project on the basis of that? I

suggest that HS2 needs to go back to the original Wright assessment and

look back at those original decisions in relation to the cost

information that they now have. This is exactly the discussion which

should take place at the moment. They have not been taking place.

They are and they need to continue. In terms of the robustness, when

people say we can't build big infrastructure and it is always

mired in controversy and endless planning, the first phase of HS2

shows that is not the case. Where there is a resolve to act and it is

possible to get cross-party consensus when I launched it in the

last Labour Government to the Royal assent, you can move. At what cost.

Big adjustments have been made. What is the cost running to? The

Institute of Economic Affairs estimate it at over 100 billion, the

Department for Transport themselves estimate it at 55 billion. I should

say that IEA is not an independent observer. A big issue we need to

look at is the Treasury, when these projects come to fruition, puts in a

very big buffer for what they call contingency, which pushes up the

cost by more than a third from the original costs through to the end

costs. My own view is that putting in such big allowances for

contingency simply encourages inflation. We should not ignore the

fact that the biggest infrastructure project in Europe is on track, about

to become more and there will be diggers on the ground next year.

You heard it here first, are you a fan? It was a Labour project in the

first place, I am very enthusiastic, and it disappoints me that a

Conservative peer was trying to stop it added very last hurdle, which is

ironic given from what we heard from the Conservative Party. Are

different subject. The Parliamentary processes have gone through on the

engagement of this bill for three years, it is a huge bill. I

understand there are constituency issues, the engagement we have next,

that process continues, if we sat back all the time we would never get

these things done at all and I pay enormous tribute to Andrew, who from

the very beginning has wanted this project and been involved.

Antoinette, as the plan stand would you vote against the Government when

a bill for phase two comes to Parliament? As they stand, yes. The

Public Accounts Committee, the National Audit Office, they have all

questioned the delivery of this project, it is marked at Amber to

read in terms of its benefit delivery, I don't understand why the

Labour Party as an opposition party are not doing much deeper drilling

down into the cost overruns that there clearly are and looking at

whether or not this can deliver value for money. This is approved by

the Conservative Party in opposition Government thank you.

As we heard earlier, it's not just Labour

and the Liberal Democrats looking to put down amendments

With the five days of debate just beginning in the chamber,

what about the other parties looking to get involved?

And will they stand any more chance of success?

We're joined now from Central Lobby by Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh,

the SNP's trade spokesperson in Westminster, and

Welcome to both of you. The SNP are putting down 50 amendments to this

bill. There are only 50 SNP MPs. Is this a publicity stunt? How many of

these amendments have been written? All of these have been written and

not as a publicity stunt. The Scottish Parliament are the first to

publish a plan for Theresa May. This is a very serious set of

circumstances and we are going into this debate with the full name and

ambition to get the best deal for Scotland and the whole of the United

Kingdom, because it would appear to us and everybody watching, that the

Prime Minister wants to escape any opportunity to debate these

important issues. Is she running scared in your mind as well, Douglas

Carswell, of these amendments which the Tories do not want to discuss?

It is 4032 days since I was elected by my constituents on a promise of

getting us out of the European Union and that process begins today. I

believe we should get on with it. There is plenty of opportunity for

us to debate the deal and have a vote on the deal. Today is not for

us to frustrate the will of the people. I respect that Tasmina and

others are against the verdict of the voters, but really, they should

come clean and say that. They should not trying to hide behind

parliamentary procedures. Douglas, we are not voting on a deal. We do

not have a deal. We are voting on whether to invoke Article 50 in the

absence of a deal. Because there is no white paper of course everyone

has found reason to table a multitude of and amendments for

questions which remain unanswered. Today is not the day for detail

about the deal which may or may may not be negotiated. Today is about

who we begin the process, do we honour and respect the verdict of

the voters? To pretend that somehow there is an opportunity to discuss

some of the wider issues, I would personally like to see a liberal

Brexit and I have plenty to say on that, but I do think now we need to

get on with it and begin that process in triggering Article 50 and

making good on the referendum outcome. Let's have a look at one of

the amendments with the SNP. One is that if no deal can be reached then

the EU should stay -- the UK should stay in the EU on the same terms,

that is hardly what was voted on? The Prime Minister said parliament

can vote at the end of the process on the final deal. But what if we

don't agree the final deal, then what happens? We are still going to

have to come out of the EU because the two-year process will be at an

end so effectively it is a fate company. What we are saying is we

want agreement from the European Union should

we not reach an agreement, at the very least we should be able to get

back to where we were at the start? Is that realistic that that would

happen, Douglas Carswell? It is probably not a great strategy to say

if you don't offer us better terms we will take the terms that we have

got. The SNP said they would publish its 50 amendments before the bill

had been published. I suspect it sounded like a good idea when they

decided what to do about this but ultimately, the majority of people,

just as the majority of people in Scotland voted to remain, though

majority of people in the UK voted to leave the EU and I don't think

politicians should frustrate that. Guy Verhofstadt, the chief

negotiator on behalf of the European Parliament said he wants the UK to

remain in the single market and that is the SNP and liberal policy as

well, but if this bill is passed and Theresa May Texas out of the single

market, when will your second independence referendum be?

Regarding Theresa May's single market statement, it took six months

to reach that position so I think is fair to say she was not sure if that

was the best position for the whole of the UK. Nicola Sturgeon and the

Scottish Government have presented a compromise position, which is the

whole of the UK does not remain in the single market, then at the very

least Scotland should be able to do so. We wait to hear from Theresa May

about whether she is prepared to take that deal to the table and

whether she wants to be Prime Minister for the whole of the United

Kingdom. But it remains in Nicola Sturgeon's remit to decide whether

the next stage is for Scotland have an independence referendum and that

has been at the forefront since the day the European Union result was

declared. She is the First Minister of Scotland and it is her duty to

make sure what the people of Scotland said and make it a reality.

Theresa May has been clear that we would come out of the single market.

She has said she would listen to the voices of the other devolved

parliaments but even after said they would not allow Scotland to remain

unless it was an independent country. There are many people who

have made comments but negotiations have not begun. I think it is fair

to say at the very least the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

should give the Scottish Government and the other devolved parliaments

and tell them this is what she is going to do. Douglas Carswell, have

you got any amendments you would like to put down? No, I think we

should just get on with it. There are lots of things we need to

oversee and scrutinised but we can do that when we have more detail.

The truth is, we will not see a lot of detail until after the German

elections. Then we have a ten month window that we can scrutinise. I

want us to have a liberal Brexit and have a good relationship with the

EU. I think we can do that and Parliament can scrutinise that.

Today is not the data do that. You are hardly holding the government to

as Ukip are supposed to be doing, you sound like you are the totally

signed up to Theresa May and what she's doing? I think I helped write

her script so I will make sure she reads it faithfully and accurately.

This is what people voted for. I think I was on your show in the

run-up to the referendum and either you or Andrew Neil asked if this

meant coming out of the single market and I said it did. Again and

again and again we are seeing politicians trying to use procedure

to frustrate the will of the people. That has been no consistency over

the single market argument at all. We are heading for a hard Brexit.

That is not what the whole of the UK voted for. That is a direction that

Theresa May will take us fast and furious, and we will make sure we

get the best deal for the whole of the UK. Tasmina you are going to

stay with us. Douglas Carswell, I am slightly worried that you cannot

tell the difference between me and Andrew Neil! Was that Douglas

Carswell wanting to join the Conservative Party? We will leave

that there. Now, MPs are often accused

of being a rowdy lot, with the Speaker urging members

to calm themselves so the person But yesterday - in the midst

of a heated debate on new US immigration rules -

the noises were more bizarre than usual, and a point

of order was raised. Let's have a listen

to what was said. I find myself in the unfortunate

position of having to make this point of order,

to which I've given you prior notice and, indeed, I've given the right

honourable member from Mid Sussex During my response from the SNP

benches to the Foreign Secretary's statement, I understand

that the right honourable member from Mid Sussex,

who has always afforded me courtesy and respect, was making

"woof-woof" sounding noises to what I was saying,

which I find, of course, This is an opportunity, Mr Speaker,

for yourself as chair, if that's not the case,

for the right honourable member And if it is, in fact, the case,

perhaps for you, Mr Speaker, to rule whether that is,

indeed, in order. I thank the honourable lady

for her point of order and for giving me the courtesy

advance notice of it. The right honourable gentleman

is in his place and, of course, I would want to hear

from the right honourable gentleman. Mr Speaker, I, like you,

thank the honourable lady for her kindness in warning

that she was going I thought that in her question

to the Foreign Secretary she snapped at him a bit at the end,

so I offered her a friendly No offence was intended,

and I apologise to the honourable And Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh

is still with us. We asked Nicholas Soames for an

interview that he was unavailable. Probably not a surprise. I suppose,

Tasmina, in the House as you know, when it does get heated, there is a

lot of noise and sometimes abusive comments and rude remarks were

thrown around. Was this worse than you had experienced before? This is

our place of work. I am a woman MP and it is not acceptable but abusive

remarks are thrown around the chamber. We should be able to

represent our constituents without having to face this. This has been

going on for too long and last night was the last straw. It is disgusting

for someone to make woof-woof noises and quite frankly I have had enough

of it. Were you pleased that the speaker took it up and it was

discussed in the House. First of all Nicholas Soames said if I was

offended, of course I was offended! I wish the speaker had gone further

and reminded the House and that how people are expected to behave and we

should afford courtesy. We have many young people who come and visit the

house of parliament. What on earth must they think about the kind of

place this is if they think it is possible and people can conduct

themselves in such a way? Women always find themselves at the

receiving end of increased noise when they are speaking. It is about

time people have listened to what we have to say and give us the respect

we give others. That has been a lot of criticism about the unruly

behaviour and the rudeness and particularly some of the remarks

that are directed at women MPs. There was one such remark from Alex

Salmond, your close colleague. He is obviously the former leader of the

SNP who told Anna Soubry, a Tory MP to behave, woman, when she was in a

debate. Is that also acceptable? It is fair to say in that respect that

was a friendly exchange. Alex Salmond is 100% feminist. But is it

right to talk in what could be seen as a condescending way. He said it

couple of times, behave woman, and she took offence at the time. In

general terms we should all conduct ourselves properly in the chamber

and there is no cause for remarks which make that work place an

uncomfortable place to be. We are talking specifically about an issue

yesterday which is really the icing on the cake of so many things that

women MPs have to face and quite frankly, it has to come to an end.

Tasmina, thank you for joining us today.

There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.

The question was what did a member of the Treasury's wellbeing work

stream think could be a hazard to their colleagues health?

Was it the Chancellor's fiscal statements?

I personally think the first one is the most dangerous one, the

Chancellor's Autumn Statement, but I think it is cake. It is! We have

decided to break with any edict to ban cake and have our own well-being

work stream for the Daily Politics. I will offer you a piece in a

moment. I am not even trusted with a proper knife! I only have this

problem on. I am very partial to cake. We make them in our office and

share them around. Thank you for being the guest of the day. I will

be back tomorrow at 11:30am with Andrew when there will be no cake

left but we will cover prime ministers questions. Bye-bye.

To be in the Lords, you have to be punctual...

Sometimes you really do literally have to slam the door