31/01/2017 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 31/01/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


Download Subtitles