01/02/2017 Daily Politics

Hello, and welcome to the Daily Politics.

Donald Trump's whirlwind of activity continues,

as he announces his candidate for the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, here in London, the Home Secretary ramps up

the criticism of his ban on immigrants.

So is the policy really that extreme?

The Commons will vote tonight on whether to allow Theresa May

to trigger our departure from the EU.

But with a majority of Labour MPs set to back the Government,

Will Mrs May be put on the spot over Brexit, or Donald Trump's

We'll bring you all the action from Prime Minister's

And why is Truro joining the race to be crowned

the European Capital of Culture in 2023, long after Britain

What's the answer to that question? You'll find out later in the show! I

shall stay tuned. All that in the next hour

and a half, a tour of world events And we're joined for all of it by

the Conservative MP, Andrew Percy. We're told he's the Communities

Minister, responsible for parks, seaside towns, high streets and pubs

- it sounds like he might Let's begin today, as we often do

by talking about Donald Trump. The US President been busy

as we slept in the UK, revealing his nomination for the US

Supreme Court. If the man he's chosen,

a Federal Appeals Court judge called Neil Gorsuch,

is confirmed by the Senate, it will restore the Supreme Court's

conservative majority. This matters a lot in America,

because the court has the final legal word on many of the most

sensitive US issues, Meanwhile, the worldwide controversy

over Mr Trump's executive order banning mainly Muslim

immigrants, goes on. Theresa May can expect to be

questioned today over when she knew about the travel restrictions,

and the wisdom of inviting the President to the UK

for an early state visit. You can bet this one

is going to run and run. Mr Trump is still only

10 days into the job, but he's been busy with his fountain

pen, issuing a flurry Donald Trump has shown he's a big

fan of executive orders - instructions to the government

which don't need a new law - and he marked his first day

in office by signing one to restrict President Obama's

healthcare reforms. Other orders have fast-tracked

approval for two controversial oil pipelines and restricted

environmental reviews of big President Trump also instructed

the government to draw up plans for the construction of a wall along

the US-Mexico border - And with his choice of nominee

for the US Supreme Court, Mr Trump hopes to restore

the court's conservative majority. After Theresa May became

the first foreign leader to visit the new president,

he talked of rebuilding the special relationship,

and reaffirmed the US commitment But within hours of her departure,

he signed his most controversial order yet -

announcing "extreme vetting" for immigrants from seven

Muslim-majority countries He also suspended the US

refugee programme. Protests in cities around the world

followed, including here in the UK, where a petition opposing Mr Trump's

state visit has attracted more than 1.7 million

signatures, and will now be Yesterday, Home Secretary Amber Rudd

was asked what she thought of the changes to US immigration

policy. Isil and Daesh will use any

opportunity they can to make difficulties,

to create the environment that they want to radicalise people,

to bring them over to their side. So it is a propaganda opportunity

for them, potentially. The difficulties to the UK over

terrorism are not caused by people largely coming from the sort

of countries that the US has named, but from people

becoming radicalised here. So I would urge our efforts

to continue to be on addressing That was the Home Secretary. Andrew

Percy, why is a temporary travel ban on people coming from countries that

Ore haven of terrorist activity, why is that a propaganda opportunity for

Islamic State? I think you have seen from the reaction to the executive

order, it has served as a good propaganda tool. You are right to

point out, it is a temporary ban, and after three months, the

president said on Facebook they will start issuing visas again. I don't

think that has come across in some of the coverage. So why is it a

propaganda opportunity? Downing Street said it is clear that Islamic

State will twist any policy from any government to their own propaganda

purposes. I think that's absolutely true. The concern around this is it

is seen as pitching the West against Muslim communities and countries.

That is probably where that fear comes from. Since the Government has

said, almost any policy that any Western government comes out with,

and by the way many governments in the Middle East as well, Islamic

State will twist that to their purposes. Why pick on that from

policy? That's true, there are many policies for which that can be said.

From the reaction to it, it is seen as pitching Western democracies

against Muslim countries. I think that's what the fear is. That may be

because certain people are reporting it in ways that are inaccurate. It

can hardly be a ban on Muslim countries when the five most

populous Muslim countries in the world are not covered by any of the

bands, temporary or permanent? That's absolutely true. Some of the

reporting of it and the suggestion that it is a ban on Muslims is

clearly not true. Banning certain countries for a three-month period.

What I find annoying about this whole thing is the hypocrisy of it.

We have people on the streets against a ban for three months, but

last night the Mayor of London hosted 11th dignitaries from

countries that have permanent travel bans by countries such as Israel. Is

it not clear that number ten's statement saying that Islamic State

will twist any government policy of any statement to their own purposes,

is number ten distancing itself from the Home Secretary? I think that is

probably a statement of fact. I haven't actually seen the statement

in full, there is no doubt that a whole range of different policies

have been twisted by IS, Daesh. This could be another example of that. It

is exactly that, because this is seen, and the reason it is seen as a

policy that is targeting Muslims is that in those seven countries, there

is also talk of a special dispensation for those who may be

religious minorities in those countries. When one of our closest

allies targets Muslims in this way, bans refugees, and you have the

Foreign Secretary saying, look, it wouldn't be our policy. We have a

Prime Minister failing to back the Home Secretary when she is stating

the bleeding obvious. This is weak. You know, I have a general point

here, I think the reaction has been characterised as weak and

mealy-mouthed. That's your view, but let's look at the substance. The

seven countries on the temporary visas suspension list, they are all

either terrorist havens or state sponsors of terrorism in themselves.

They are on a list dating from President Obama in 2015, which he

identified as the countries that America were at most risk from

terrorist attack. What is wrong with issuing temporary bans on the use

countries until you have tested if your freezer system is robust

enough? I don't think the rationale stacks up. Obama did tighten up the

Wiese scheme. But simply to ban all refugees in a blanket ban, when

refugees. Might that's a different band. I'll come onto the refugee ban

in a minute. You started answering a different question, I'm going to

bring you back to the one that I asked, the ban on the seven

essentially failed states, these seven countries. What is wrong,

until you are sure that your entry system is robust enough, having a 90

day ban? It's not for me to try and explain or defend Trump's policy,

which I detest. But why the rationale is flawed is that the

terrorist attacks, and the title of this executive order was protection

against terrorist attacks in the US. The people who have committed the

terrorist attacks in the US have overwhelmingly been US citizens or

naturalised citizens. They haven't been from the seven countries. The

most objectionable part of this. Might I'm afraid that's not quite

true. There has been a terrorist... Ohio State have a terrorist attack

from Somalia. The attack in San Bernardino involves people who had

come in from outside the country. Now, what is the difference between

what Mr Trump has done, and what Mr Obama did, when the FBI discovered

that using the refugee process, a number of Iraqis had got in who were

terrorist threats of the country? He then tightened up that, but he took

six months to do it, and the number of Iraqi refugees coming did was

reduced to a trickle during that time. What's the difference? First

of all, the majority of those people perpetrating attacks in the US have

not been from those countries. Secondly, he tightened up the

process, he didn't impose a blanket ban. What is most objectionable

about this is the blanket ban for 120 days on all refugees. Now, why

this is internationally causing such trouble is that it breaks not just

fundamental values that we try and uphold alongside the US, but the

very conventions that have been in place to take refugees for more than

60 years. But hold on, if you are not sure that your vetting

procedures are robust enough, and if, as the case with Mr Obama had,

that Iraq is had been using the refugee process to in full trade

terrorists, and there were two arrested in Kentuckian -- in full

trade terrorists. If you found that it is not robust enough, why would

you not have a temporary ban? I agree that a lifetime ban is

different, but why not a temporary ban until a man that was elected

saying that he would introduce extreme vetting has a chance to

check the system? What's wrong with that? What's wrong is that it

breaches fundamental established decades-old conventions about how in

this world we treat refugees and we don't discriminate against those who

are some of the most vetted, validated, checked. Might it's

temporary. He was elected on a platform of improving the vetting

procedure. Why can he not take 120 days to do that? He could do it in a

different way, he could do it like Obama. I fundamentally object to it.

The reaction people have had, my real criticism is with team-mate...

-- Theresa May. He shares platforms with... I'm looking at the substance

of the ban. Hold on, hold on. I want to ask you this. What should Britain

be doing? What should our British Prime Minister by doing? I'm sorry,

Mr Healy, it is on the basis of the substance of the Trump policy that

you want the visit to be banned and not to take place. I want to ask you

this on the refugees. At the height of the barrel bombing of women and

children in Syria, and of chemical weapons being used against them in

Syria, how many Syrian refugees did President Obama allow in? Andrew, I

have no idea. Well, I'll tell you. In 2012, 30 one. In 2013, 30 six. At

the height of the obscenity... Non-Foss have a record to be proud

of an Syria over the last few years. -- none of us. This is a question

about what Britain and our Prime Minister should do. At least Jeremy

Corbyn had the guts to stand up, like more than 1 million people

signing this position, to say this is not acceptable. Let's come back

to what Britain should do. I understand it is on the basis of

what Mr Trump's policy is that you don't want the state visit to

proceed. What is the difference between a state visit from a Chinese

president, a totalitarian leader, and a state visit from the president

of the United States? The talk is about postponing, not banning. In a

media endorsement of an encouragement of the state visit for

President Trump, it is in effect an endorsement of this worldwide ban on

refugees, and a very selective ban on Muslim majority country migrants.

So it should be postponed. So it's just a matter of time? Even the

recent Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office has said, look, if

the state visit goes ahead on the circumstances, it's going to

embarrass the Queen. Of course we should be standing up to President

Trump on this. The question is, as Bowman and pressure, the proper way.

-- postponement. There is barely not a dictator the Queen has not had to

entertain at the bequest of the British Government. But she

shouldn't have two entertain the president of our most important

ally, a man who, unlike the Chinese president, was actually elected.

That's your position? The reality of being a country in

the modern world means we have to have good relationships. Our special

relationship with the United States brings a special responsibility to

be willing to speak out, which the Prime Minister hasn't done. On the

state visit, the question is wholehearted endorsement at this

stage is a wholehearted endorsement of what he has just announced. So

the debate is about postponement. The action needs to be pressure on

the president to rethink what he has just signed into law. Why the rush?

Mr Obama's first state visit wasn't until after two years? The same was

true of Mr Bush and Mr Reagan. Why not postponement? I find this

argument a bit bizarre. Are we saying that every time we don't like

the domestic policy of a particular president, we shouldn't invite them

to the United Kingdom? When you invite the head of state of the

United States, it is an honour to the entire country. It is about the

relationship between the UK and the US, our most important relationship.

Really important at the moment when we think about what the president

has said on trade. I think we get into dangerous territory if we start

saying because we don't like a particular domestic policy of a

democratically elected leader somewhere in the world, we want

invite in September but maybe he can come in November. It is ridiculous.

We have run out of time. No doubt this will come up at Prime

Minister's Questions. Later today, MPs will vote

on legislation to allow the Prime Minister to fire

the Brexit starting gun It's widely expected

that the Article 50 bill will survive this first

parliamentary test, with bigger challenges likely to occur later

on in the Brexit process. The debate on the bill began

yesterday, and it was notable that - for now at least -

splits in the Conservative Party on the issue have mostly melted

away, while Labour continues Here's Shadow Brexit

Secretary Kier Starmer. A decision was made on the 23rd of

June last year to leave the EU. Two thirds of Labour MPs represent

constituencies that voted to leave. One third represent constituencies

that voted to remain. This is obviously a difficult decision. I

wish the result had gone the other way. I campaigned passionately for

that. But as Democrats, our party has to accept the result.

That was Kier Starmer talking about the number of Labour seats

While the nationwide result in the referendum was fairly close,

with 48% Remain and 52% Leave, Remain voters tended to be clustered

in big cities and in Scotland and Northern Ireland -

Leave voters were more evenly spread.

This means that while a small majority of the country voted Leave,

a large majority of the country's 650 parliamentary constituencies did

so - that's according to work by Chris Hanratty

Well, before we talk about today's Commons vote,

we thought we'd test our guests knowledge of which

constituencies voted to leave and which were remain.

I know you have been looking forward to this. Have you got your paddles

at the ready? Yes! No expense spared. Leave on one side, Remain on

the other. It is like Strictly Come Dancing. Without the dancing. Or the

budget! Monmouth, Leave or remain? Right, you are split. Andrew, you

are right. It was 52% remain. Liverpool Walton. A Labour seat.

Both wrong. The MP, Steve Rotheram, supported Remain. Liverpool

Riverside was the charity Remain. Hastings and Rye. Very good. 56%

Leave. Newcastle upon Tyne East. You make it sound like you had distinct

knowledge. It actually is Remain. Andrew, you got that wrong. Banff

and Buchan. No. It was actually Leave. 54% Leave. You all look

surprised. We have picked seats that would test the knowledge. Carshalton

and Wallington, Leave or Remain? No. You are wrong again. Apart from

doing very badly, it was actually 56% Leave. It highlights the dilemma

between MPs who are voting one way and constituencies that voted

another. And particularly for your party, John Healey. It seems that

Labour is in a no-win situation. The vast majority of MPs voted Remain,

including yourself. The vast majority of Labour voters, two

thirds, voted Remain. Now MPs are being instructed to vote to trigger

Article 50 against many of their consciences. Do you have sympathy

for your colleagues who are not going to vote to trigger Article 50?

I do have sympathy, especially for those who are in strongly Remain

seats, particularly those who have a fight on their hands as they did at

the last election, to hold those seeds and sense it is their duty to

speak for the constituents who elected them. But in the end, Kier

Starmer said it, this is a democratic question. A national

referendum. And respecting and recognising the result of the

referendum and the will of the people in the referendum requires a

national party to back triggering of Article 50, which is what we are

doing. Even if you don't really believe it, which was clear from

Kier Starmer's tone? He was speaking in sorrow, really. Of course, but

this was about the result of the referendum. It is right to respect

the national vote. It is to start the process. Why are so many of your

colleagues not following the party line and then? If you add the

leadership have put out a clear instruction to vote to trigger

Article 50, why are so many of your labour colleagues voting against?

Most Labour MPs this evening will vote for the short piece of

legislation that triggers or allows the Prime Minister to trigger the

negotiation process, Article 50. Some will votes according to their

constituency voices. And some national parties will try and go

against the national result, the Lib Dems and the SNP. The real question

is, what happens beyond this short Bill? It is only the start of the

process. That is where the amendments that Labour will be

tabling, that is where the important process starts. What Britain we want

before Brett -- beyond Brexit. That is where a number of key Tory

Remainers will join possibly Labour in voting for a vote that Parliament

could have before the very end of the negotiating process. What is

wrong with that? The people who have absolutely no right to set the terms

of our exit our Remainers have not accepted the result. People like

Anna Soubry have respected the result. I think she's very

principle. She has long held beliefs on this issue. But there are others

who will try to thwart this bill or future legislation. But my question

was about having an amendment where people have said they accepted it,

even though they remove -- they voted Remain, who said they would

like a vote that was meaningful for Parliament. If Parliament is to have

a proper say, surely they need to scrutinise the deal put before them

at a point at which they could send it back to the government to say,

you need to improve it? We have debated Brexit every single day in

some form since the referendum. The Prime Minister has made it clear the

final proposal will go before Parliament. It is a take it or leave

it. So it should be. The decision taken by the people was to leave the

European Union. It wasn't to leave bits of it and stay in some of it,

and it wasn't to give Parliament the final say. At no point was ever

anywhere in the question that Parliament would decide the final

deal. To be fair, there wasn't anything other than exiting the EU.

What we get to a situation where Parliament rejects a deal? Are we

then going into second referendum territory? Labour are divided. Over

the next couple of years that division will be constantly reminded

to Labour MPs who don't have a collective voice on this. It want,

actually. This is a short Bill. We won't frustrate the process. But you

can't describe proper public and parliamentary challenge to a Prime

Minister's aims for negotiation, her achievements, or a sense of how we

want the country to be, as somehow trying to thought the process. To

answer your question, this is where the clearer division will come

between the Conservatives and Labour. This is where you will find

Labour MPs and labour voters pulling together to try to do our proper job

as the official opposition. We have to leave it there. Audience after

Prime Minister's Questions. Now, it looks like Number 10

and Buckingham Palace will have more than a few things to worry about,

as they plan Donald Trump's state There will probably be protests

on the streets on a major scale. Prince Charles might buttonhole

Mr Trump about climate change. The 45th president might

hold Her Majesty's hand if he encounters any steps

at Windsor Castle. And, possibly most damagingly

of all, Lib Dem leader Tim Farron has said he won't attend

if he is invited. They speak of nothing else in

Washington, DC this morning as they wake up to that shock news!

But if anyone from Buck House is watching, don't worry -

we have the perfect way to impress Mr Trump at the big banquet.

Yes, you just need to put the royal Asti Spumante

Is that how you usually drink sparkling wine, in a mug?!

I'm interested that you think I would drink sparkling wine!

Any awkward moments will soon be forgotten, as you raise the toast

with this desirable alternative to boring old crystal glassware.

Other sparkling wines are available. Mr Trump will not drink any of them

because he doesn't drink. Never mind the banned, he doesn't drink! Are

you saying there is something wrong with that?

Yes, the only problem is you'll have to win lots of them -

so you'd better start entering our guess

All you need to do is tell us when all of this happened.

And we should warn you, there are some flashing in the film.

MUSIC: Is There Something I Should Know by Duran Duran.

I just became a victim of the political impact

Can I ask you why you're not wearing a seat belt?

MMUSIC: Every Breath You Take by The Police.

I don't intend, as I said in my statement, to make

MUSIC: (Keep Feeling) Fascination by The Human League.

To be in with a chance of winning a Daily Politics mug,

send your answer to our special quiz email address -

Entries must arrive by 12.30 today, and you can see the full terms

and conditions for Guess The Year on our website.

It's coming up to midday, and there's Big Ben -

which means Prime Minister's Questions is on its way.

Laura Kuenssberg, who managed to escape the United States, after

doing her best to destroy the special relationship! Great

question. I tweeted how proud I was of you. Thank you. I've learned from

the master, of course. Trump, the refugee banned and related issues we

have been discussing, the state visit. Mr Corbyn cannot avoid some

kind of mixture of that? He could, of course. But I think today Jeremy

Corbyn will go on this issue. Not the workers directive, your personal

favourite. I am 99.99% sure Jeremy Corbyn will indeed go on the Trump

travel banned. Theresa May's delayed response to that. And whether or not

there should be a state visit with the full bells and whistles, the red

carpet, the gold carriage, the shoulders -- soldiers in their

shining breastplates. Not least because it is an issue Jeremy Corbyn

feels strongly about, but also because many of his backbenchers

sitting behind him feel strongly about it, and also plenty of people

on the opposite benches have some sense of disquiet about it. Not

necessarily that there are serious calls the man should be led into the

country, but there is disquiet about whether or not Theresa May has been

seen to be cosying up to him too fast. What is Jeremy Corbyn's

official position? John Healey said earlier it was a matter of timing.

Is it a matter of timing, or are they against a visit outright? Or is

it, all right he can come but he doesn't get the joint session in

Parliament? There are a variety of different initiatives going on.

People have been organising about this. There is a motion put down by

MPs to say that he shouldn't be allowed to do the joint address in

the Palace of Westminster. That is one specific issue. There is then,

as I understand it, the official position that until something

changes about the travel banned, the full state visit should not be

extended to the president until there is some kind of move. One of

the really interesting things about the last couple of days is that MPs,

lots of different MPs, have put forward ways about protesting.

He was an outstanding parliamentarian, I'm sure that our

thoughts are with his friends and family. I had meetings with

ministerial colleagues and others, and I shall have further such

meetings later today. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I associate myself with the

tribute paid to the victims in Canada and to the family of Tam

Dalyell. Mr Speaker, North Devon is quite rightly concerned that the

current review of health services across the county may result in the

loss of some acute services at our hospital in Barnstable. For some

residents, the nearest alternative could be three hours away. Will my

honourable friend assure me that she will listen carefully to those

concerns, because I want to be able to say to North Devon that we are

the party of the LHS? -- the NHS. I thank my honourable friend for his

question. I can reassure him that this Government is absolutely

committed to ensuring the best possible health care for patients

right across the country. I recognise that there are concerns

that have been expressed locally about the North Devon District

Hospital. I'd understand that there are no specific proposals at the

moment, but I know that the input of local communities will remain

crucial Robin Briars says. And I can assure him that of course it is this

party in Government that is putting in the extra funding into the NHS

and showing how we evaluate. Jeremy Corbyn. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I

joined the Prime Minister in offering condolences to all those

who died in the horrific attack, fuelled by hate, in Quebec. We

should send our solidarity to everybody in Canada in this sad

occasion. I also associate myself to the tribute for the former member

for West Lothian, can DL. Former father of the House, he probably

thought to expose official wrongdoing and cover-ups from the

miners strike to a ruck. I'm sure that the Prime Minister would agree

with me that his scrutiny and contributions made this House a

better place. And can I recommend to all members his autobiography, The

Importance Of Being Awkward. LAUGHTER

And I'm quite happy, Mr Speaker, to offer my copy to the Secretary of

State for Brexit to have a good read of it. I'm sure he's probably

already read it. Mr Speaker, at last week's Prime Minister is questions,

the Prime Minister told the House, I'm not afraid to speak frankly to

the president of the United States. What happened? Well, first of all,

can I say to the right honourable gentleman that I wasn't aware of the

book that he referred to, but I suspect, given the number of

resignations he's had from his front bench, that some of his colleagues

have indeed read that book! I'm happy to say to the right honourable

gentleman that when I visited the United States, I'm pleased to say

that I was able to build on the relationship that we have with our

most important ally. And to get some very significant commitments from

President Trump. And crucial among those was a 100% commitment to Nato.

Nato, which keeps us safe and Europe safe too. Mr Speaker, Downing Street

has not denied that the Prime Minister was told by the White House

that the executive order on travel to the US was imminent. So let's be

clear, was the Prime Minister told about the ban during her visit, and

did she tried to persuade President Trump otherwise? First of all, on

the policy that President Trump has introduced, this Government is clear

that that policy is wrong. We wouldn't do it. In six years as Home

Secretary, I never introduced such a policy. We believe it is divisive

and wrong. If he's asking me whether I had advanced notice of the ban on

refugees, the answer is no. If he's asking me if I had advanced notice

that the executive order could affect British citizens, the answer

is no. If he's asking if I had advanced notice of the travel

restrictions, the answer is, we all did, because President Trump said he

was going to do this in his election campaign. The question, the question

is how you respond. The job of Government, the job of Government is

not to chase the headlines. The job of Government... The job of

Government is not a trait to the streets in protest. The job of

Government is to protect the interests of British citizens, and

that's exactly what we did -- not to take to the streets. Mr Speaker, on

the day after the executive order was made to ban refugees and

visitors from seven predominantly Muslim countries, why did she three

times refused to condemn the ban then? I've made very clear, very

clear, that we believe this policy is divisive and wrong. It's not a

policy that we would introduce. I've also made very clear when asked

about this that this Government has a very different approach to these

issues. On refugees, this Government has a proud record of the support

that we have given to refugees, and long may it continue. Mr Speaker,

the Prime Minister said the United States is responsible for United

States policy on refugees. But surely it is the responsibility of

all of us to defend the 1951 refugee Convention, which commits this

country, the United States, and 142 other states to accept refugees

without regard to their race, religion or country of origin.

President Trump has breached that convention. Why didn't she speak

out? First of all, I've made absolutely clear what the

Goverment's view on this policy is. Secondly, as I've just said, this

Government has a proud record, and this country has a proud record, of

how it welcomes refugees. We have over the last recent years, we've

introduced the very particular scheme to ensure that particularly

vulnerable refugees in Syria can be brought to this country, and

something like 10,000 Syrian refugees have come to this country

since the conflict began. We are also the second biggest bilateral

donor, helping and supporting refugees in the region. That is what

we are doing. I have said that the policy is wrong. We will take a

different view on we will continue to welcome refugees of this country.

Mr Speaker, I also wrote to the Prime Minister on this issue, and I

received a reply this morning. I hold in my hand her piece of paper.

She makes no mention of the refugee Convention, nor condemns the US

actions in this respect. Mr Speaker, last week I also asked the Prime

Minister to assure the House that any United States trade deal, she

would not offer up our National Health Service as a bargaining chip.

She gave no answer when asked in the US she also refused to rule it out,

so let's might ask her a third time, will she will out opening up our

National Health Service to Private US health care companies? Yes or no?

Mr Speaker, I could give a detailed answer to the right honourable

gentleman's question, but I think a simple and straightforward reply is

what is required. The NHS is not for sale, and it never will be. I hope,

Mr Speaker, that includes not having US health care companies coming in

to run any part of our National Health Service. Mr Speaker,

President Trump has torn up international agreements on

refugees. He has threatened to dump international agreements on climate

change. He has praised the use of torture. He has incited hatred

against Muslims, he is directly attacked women's rights. Just what

more does the President Trump have to do before the Prime Minister will

listen to the 1.8 million people who have already called for his state

visit invitation to be withdrawn the right honourable gentleman's

foreign policy is to object to and insult the democratically elected

head of state of our most important ally. Let's just see what he would

have achieved in the last week. Would he have been able to protect

richest citizens from the impact of the executive order? No. -- British

citizens. Would he have been able to lay the foundations of a trade deal?

No. Would he have got a 100% commitment to Nato? No. That's what

Labour has two of this country. Less protection for British citizens,

less prosperous, let's save -- what Labour has to offer. -- less safe.

He can lead a protest, I'm leading a country.

Order, order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today, it is inconceivable that

somebody would be prosecuted because of who and what they are. Would my

right honourable friend drawing me and welcoming the posthumous pardon

of some 49,000 men thanks to the Goverment's Bill that was enacted

yesterday, and encourage those who are still alive to come forward so

that there are injustices can be overturned. I'm very happy to join

my honourable friend in welcoming what I believe is an extremely

important change to the law. We made a manifesto commitment to it and we

have now delivered on it. Passing this law has been a long-standing

commitment for the Government. It is momentous, it does take action to

right the wrongs of the past, and like my right honourable friend, I

would certainly encourage those still alive to applied the Home

Office to have their references disregarded. We on these benches

associate ourselves with all the comments thus far on the tragic

deaths in Quebec and on the passing of time DL. The respect for him was

held across the political parties. He served with great distinction for

more than 40 years. The Prime Minister had a very successful

international visit in this last week. To Ireland. And there she

spoke publicly about her commitment, it's very important I think, the

commitment not to have a hard border on these islands. That there should

continue to be free movement of peoples on these islands, and trade

should be protected and enhanced. Given that people will be watching

this not just in Britain but also in Ireland, would she take the

opportunity to explain how she will deliver these sensible and important

outcomes? These are absolutely the outcomes that we want to see. I was

very pleased to meet with the Taoiseach and discuss with him the

joint intent that of his government and mine have two ensure that we

don't see a return to the borders of the past in Northern Ireland. And to

say that of course we focus on the land border that is between Northern

Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, of course the issue of movements

from Ireland does in effect other places as well, such as port in

Wales. It is an important issue for us, and we have agreed the work we

are going to do together to deliver what I believe will be as

frictionless as possible a border, and also one of the objectives that

I set out in my plan for our negotiating objectives is to retain

the Common travel area. We welcome what the Prime Minister

has had to say on these issues and we welcome the intensifying of

negotiations between the UK government and the devolved

administrations ahead of triggering Article 50. So the Prime Minister is

very helpfully explained that it is perfectly possible for parts of

these islands to be in the single market, without Borders, with free

movement of people and at the same time protect and enhance trade with

one another. This is very, very welcome, Mr Speaker. Will the Prime

Minister give a commitment to work with the Irish government and a

commitment to work with the Scottish government to deliver all of these

things? Or will we just have to get on with it ourselves? First of all,

the Right Honourable gentleman is right, that following the meeting of

the plenary session on Monday morning we did agree to an

intensification of discussion on issues related to the bringing back

of powers from Brussels, and as to where those powers should lie within

the United Kingdom, and to intensify that in the run-up to the triggering

of Article 50 and beyond. On the other question, I'm afraid he really

should listen to the answer that are given because he's trying to imply

something that isn't there. Yes. We are very clear that we want to see a

frictionless border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

I'm also clear that one of the objectives of our negotiation is to

see us frictionless a border as possible between the United Kingdom

and the rest of the European Union. If he is so worried about having a

frictionless border between Scotland and the European Union, he shouldn't

want to see Scotland independent and take it out of the European Union.

Order! We shouldn't have to allow for the reaction to every answer

from the SMB benches before we proceed to the next question. Mrs

Maria Miller. -- SNP. EU nationals provide a vital and expert service

in my hospital in Basingstoke. Along with thousands of others they face

an uncertain future. I know this is something the Prime Minister wants

to give priority to in sorting out, will we be hearing more about it in

the forthcoming White Paper? My right honourable friend makes an

important point. I would like to confirm my intention and expectation

that we will be able to offer that reassurance. I do also want to see

reassurance offered to UK nationals in the EU. I will be working to

ensure this is an issue we can deal with at an early stage in the

negotiations. It was one of the objectives I set out in the plan. It

will be referenced in the White Paper. I can inform my right

honourable friend and the House that that White Paper will be published

tomorrow. Prime Minister, your responses today

have been deeply unsatisfactory. The president of the United States had

-- has advocated torture, misogyny, racial discrimination, sexual

assault, isolationism. The leaders of Canada and Germany responded

robustly but your response was to jump on a plane as soon as possible

to hold his hand. Mr Speaker, doesn't this country deserve our

leader willing to stand up for British values?

Order! I have issued no response and the honourable gentleman not only

shouldn't breach Parliamentary protocol, but he shouldn't tempt me.

The Prime Minister. I will tell you what standing up for British values

is. I had this government introduced the first modern slavery act in this

country. I have ensured that stop and search is reduced because I

don't believe that anybody on the streets of this country should be

stopped and searched because of the colour of their skin. And I ensured

justice for the families of Hillsborough. Despite the fact most

of the country -- countries covered by the Trump ban have total

exclusion of Israeli visitors, shouldn't the protestors be calling

for that banned to be lifted? I thank my right honourable friend for

pointing this out. It is absolutely right that this House should be

aware of the discrimination and the band that exists around the world,

particularly for those who are is really sad isn't -- citizens. We

don't agree with that approach. And it is not an approach we shall be

taking. I wait for the day when the right honourable gentleman opposite

stance up and condemns it, too. Mr Speaker, a constituent of mine

suffered a bleed on the brain in 2012. She has struggled to work

since but was due to disk -- to retire in December. Due to changes

to state pension retirement age, she will not retire until 2022. This has

short-changed 2.2 million women and brought shame to this government.

Will the Prime Minister look again and support Diana and the millions

of women who deserve fairness in retirement?

The issue of those who are known... To refer the honourable gentleman to

the fact we did commit over ?1 billion to lessen the impact on

those affected, so no one will see their pension age changed by more

than 18 months. But we do have to be realistic and looking at pension

ages, but the fact that people are living longer. If we want a

sustainable pension system, we need to equalise the state pension age

faster and bring forward the rise. I welcome the ?450 million announced

in the Autumn Statement to fund a trial for the pilot of the digital

railway. Given the new fleet of trains on the border and the

economic growth opportunity that exists for our region, does the

Prime Minister agree that the main line represents the most compelling

case for that pilot? My honourable friend is right about what he says

about transport links. I understand digital signalling could increase

capacity by up to 40%. Hence the investment he refers to. I know that

the Department for Transport is looking currently at where those

trials should take place. But we certainly recognise that the great

Eastern and mainline is one of the areas that could benefit. A few

moments ago the Prime Minister tried to claim credit for passing

Stonewall's Alan Turing bill. She didn't. The bill pardons all gay men

found guilty of crimes no longer on the statute book. So when will the

Prime Minister follow the Scottish government and pardon automatically

the living as well as the dead? When I was home Secretary the legislation

was introduced that gives the opportunity for those who are alive

to apply to the Home Office to have those events is no longer on the

statute book expunged from their record. The honourable gentleman

says they are not doing it. My honourable friend and I have both,

in this chamber today, encouraged people to come forward and make that

application. That is a message we should all give. At the White House

my right honourable friend gain some assurances from President Trump

about his commitment to Nato, an achievement welcomed by the

governments the Czech Republic, Latvia and Lithuania. Does my right

honourable friend agree with me that the way to engage with President

Trump and win such agreements is by not insulting our close ally, but by

bringing him close, and not doing as the leader of the is it and demands,

that we reject our closest ally? Would this not leave Britain and our

European partners less safe and less secure? My honourable friend is

absolutely right in the points he makes. We should never forget that

America is our most important ally. It is a long-standing relationship.

American men and women served alongside and died alongside UK men

and women in two world Wars to protect our security and the

security of Europe. If we were not able to have that relationship and

see that commitment to Nato particularly, we would see this

country and Europe less safe. Many were surprised that immediately

after those cosy images with Donald Trump, the Prime Minister chose to

meet with the Turkish president, who has been running an increasingly

repressive regime since last summer. Could the Prime Minister confirm

whether she raised any human rights concerns with President Cardigan?

Will it be the policy of post-Brexit Britain to put arms deals before

human rights abuses? First of all, I think the honourable lady should

recognise that Turkey is an important country in relation to

both our security and the issue of migration into Turkey and

potentially into Europe. Turkey has, and continues to host, 3 million

refugees from Syria. I commended the Turkish government on the welcome

they have given those refugees. And yes, I did raise and I suggest to

the honourable lady she should just have looked at the press conference

I gave after my discussions with President erred again, in which I

made it clear that we had condemned the coup but we also expected the

Turkish government to support its democratic institutions, to support

international human rights and the rule of law. I wholeheartedly

congratulate my right honourable friend in securing 100% for Nato

from the US administration. Cucchietti climb what she is to

persuade our other allies the importance of press -- their

obligations? Can I thank my honourable friend for the work he

does on the Nato Parliamentary assembly. I know he is fully engaged

with that. There are commitments that have been made. At the Nato

Summit in 2014 Oliver Nato allies committed to spending 2% on defence

within a decade. We have seen progress but I agree with President

Trump that many allies need to go further. I can assure my honourable

friend that I and other ministers across government raise our -- the

issue regularly. Last week's London air pollution was

worse than that of Beijing. So will the Prime Minister assure me and my

constituents in Osterley, Brentford and Chiswick, that the hugely

expensive proposal to double the capacity of the M4 as it arrives in

London will be shelled forthwith? -- shelved. The issue of air quality is

one this government takes seriously. Quite a lot of work has been done

since 2011. Over ?2 billion has been committed to enable, for example,

bus operators to upgrade their fleets. But we do recognise that

more needs to be done. We have seen a reduction in nitrous oxide fumes

in recent years but we will be bringing forward proposals to ensure

we can maintain the air quality that we all want to see. As a fellow

Bartra member of Parliament, will my right honourable friend the show her

support for brighter Bircher, the campaign that is part of the 2017

Europe mental health, and give her continued -- commitments to ensure

we have parity between mental health and physical health in this country?

I am very happy to endorse the campaign that my friend has referred

to. I think it is important that we continue to raise awareness of the

issues around mental health. And the fact the government has committed to

this parity of esteem between mental health and physical health is

important. There is more to do a mental health. I have set out some

steps we need to take. But I commend all those working to raise awareness

of mental health and provide support to those with mental health

problems. The Association of directors of adult social services

have said that 4.6 billion has been cut from social care budgets since

2010. Does the Prime Minister take any responsibility for the pain and

the distress that the Tories have inflicted on poor vulnerable older

people being denied their rightful care? Yes, horror no? This

government has taken a number of steps to increase the funding from

local authorities to provide for social care. I also believe it is

important that we do ensure best practice is being developed and put

into place across the country. There are some parts of the country where

the record on social care, the interaction between hospitals, is

better than others. There is a longer term issue to ensure that we

have a sustainable system for delivering social care for people in

this country. The Labour Party ducked that issue for 13 years.

We're addressing it. Will my right honourable friend join me in

congratulating the academy on the recently received world-class

schools quality mark award, and indicate how awards such as this

drive people excellence? I am happy to join my friend in congratulating

the whole team at Morley Academy. I think it shows the work the trust is

doing in driving up excellence and improving outcomes for pupils. We

are determined to drive up standards in schools to ensure broad children

have good school places, a good school place for every child, so

they can all be at the level we see in the Morley Academy. How will the

thousands of people who've lost their jobs at BHS feel that it may

take years before the case of Philip Green, the disgraced and discredited

businessperson, will have his knighthood possibly withdrawn, taken

away or otherwise? Isn't it remarkable? People lose their jobs,

they suffer all the consequences and this man keeps his billions and his

knighthood. The honourable gentleman has raised

an important issue. This has been raised by many members of this house

in terms of their concern about what happened at BHS and the attitude and

approach Philip Green talk. The issue of whether a knighthood should

be taken away from somebody is a matter for the relevant committee.

They will be looking at this. I understand they have said they are

waiting for the investigations to complete, but this is an issue for

an independent committee. Tonight there will be an historic vote in

this place. A vote that I never thought I would see in my political

lifetime. The British Parliament voted to withdraw from the European

Union under the excellent leadership of the Prime Minister. Would the

Prime Minister be surprised that people on the opposite bench or

demand time to discuss this and debated, namely the Liberal

Democrats, didn't even bother to turn up last night? These benches or

pack, both benches were packed, the DV -- the DUP were here and there

were some Labour members. Isn't that surprising?

Throughout my political career I have fought -- nothing the Liberal

Democrats do ever surprises me. But I will join my honourable friend in

commending the bill that is before the House. This House has a simple

decision. We gave the right of judgment to the British people. They

made their choice, they want to leave the EU. The question every

member must ask themselves as they go through the lobbies tonight is,

do they trust the people? The right honourable gentleman is

here now. Let's here the fellow. Tim Farron.

-- let's hear the fellow. Who'd have guessed it, Mr Speaker?

We are here now... LAUGHTER.

Asking the questions about the future of our country on Brexit that

a strong Leader of the Opposition should be asking.

Order! Order, Mr Knight! I'm very worried about you. You recently

suffered from a bad leg. With all that shedding you will be suffering

from a bad head. Calm yourself, man! The Prime Minister will return...

The Prime Minister will return at some point with a deal with Europe

that our people will have to live with for decades to come. Especially

our young people. 73% of whom voted to remain. Nobody knows what that

deal will look like. But someone, someone will get to agree at. Should

it be her government? Should it be this parliament? Or should it be, as

I believe, the British people? I've already said they will be a

vote on the deal in this Parliament. Calm yourself. You are in a state of

excessive excitement, even by your standards. Nigel Adams. Quite

difficult to follow that! Back in the real world...

LAUGHTER. In December 2015, my constituency

suffered some terrible flooding, particularly the town of Tadcaster.

The damage was made worse when the bridge collapsed. Thankfully the

Briton -- bridge will be reopened this week. Willie Prime Minister

thank all those involved in the restoration of the bridge? Would you

join me in thanking the residents of Tadcaster who have had a terrible

year? 5-macro I am very happy to join my honourable friend both in

commending and in thanking all those who have worked so hard to see the

restoration of the bridge at Tadcaster, but also the people of

Tadcaster who have had to put up with this disruption and

inconvenience for such a long period of time. I'm sure they will all

welcome the return of the bridge. We commend all those involved.

The News revealed yesterday that Toshiba is reviewing its investment

in the Moorside nuclear-power plant. Not only does it put a cloud over

jobs in Cumbria, but also over the future of our energy and security.

What does he do personally to make sure the deal stays on track? I can

assure the honourable gentleman that in relation to a number of deals and

potential deals around the nuclear industry, both I and the Business

Secretary are involved in these and are very keen to ensure that these

jobs are brought to the United Kingdom, and we do see these deals

keeping on track. So I can assure him that the government's commitment

is there. This week, the Danish drug firm

invested 115 million in the UK, in order to further research into type

two diabetes. With the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the

investment, welcoming those academics and scientists, many from

the EU and around the world, who will appreciate that the surety she

spoke of earlier? But also work with me to ensure that new treatments get

to patients as quickly as possible? This is an issue that I do recognise

particularly, personally, although I am a type one diabetic rather than

Type II. Any investment in research for diabetes is to be welcomed. We

do need to ensure that where there are new solution is found, where

there is support for diabetics found, that we see that getting to

people as quickly as possible. There is a significant number of people

who suffer from type two diabetes in this country, and the figures show

there is a great risk that number will increase significantly in

coming years. We need to do all we can to prevent people becoming Type

II diabetics in the first place, but also to support those who are, so

that we see that people suffer from fewer complications in future and

are able to manage their lives. Today's is world hijab day. I wonder

if the Prime Minister would join me in recognising the right of Muslim

Women's Network the hijab without fear, if they wish? And the right of

all women everywhere to wear what they want, when they want. Willie

Prime Minister also commit to standing up for the right to refuge

for men, women and children wherever they may be, regardless of their

religion? First of all, on the second point of the honourable lady

races, it is absolutely the case that this country welcomes refugees

to the United Kingdom. And we do so regardless of their religion. There

is no question of discriminating on the religion. On the issue that she

raises about the wearing of the hijab, I am absolutely in line with

her. What a woman wears is a woman's choice.

The Russian armed forces regularly carry out large-scale exercises,

including with nuclear capable equipments, on the borders of

eastern Europe. Would my right honourable friend I agree with me

that the American commitment to Nato is absolutely pivotal in protecting

the countries of eastern Europe from going the same way as already has

happened to eastern Ukraine? I absolutely agree with my honourable

friend. I think the commitment that President Trump has given, 100%

commitment to Nato, is crucial in ensuring we can provide for the

security of this country and others in Europe, and particularly for

those in eastern Europe on the borders with Russia. I know that my

honourable friend earlier referred to the fact that the Czech republic,

the Latvian government, the little winning government, had welcomed

that 100% commitment. -- Lithuanian government. We have played our part.

300 troops will be going to Lithuania and Estonia later this

year. In 2015, my constituent was lured to

her death to Pakistan where she was brutally raped and murdered. Willie

Prime Minister join me in reiterating the commitment of this

House and this country, that we will not tolerate violence against women,

and to encourage the Pakistani government to continue in its

efforts for justice for our British girl? Yes, can I say to the

honourable lady that obviously she has raised a very tragic case that

has taken place. Our deepest sympathies are with Samir's husband

following her tragic death last year. We don't interfere in the

legal processes of another country. But the Foreign Office, I understand

from the Foreign Office the Pakistani police have charged two

people with murder. The Foreign Office are provided assistance to

Samir's husband and will continue to do so. I understand the Home

Secretary will be meeting the honourable lady soon to discuss this

issue. Prime Minister's Questions comes to

an end. It has ended earlier this week. It is meant to finish at

12:30pm but it normally finishes at 12:45pm, so there we are! As

everybody thought, Mr Corbyn decided to go on the whole business of Mr

Trump and the ban on certain Muslim majority countries and the refugee

banned for 120 days and so on. And he asked the Prime Minister several

questions. The Prime Minister did tell us some things that we hadn't

known for sure yet. Clearly she thought the policy was wrong and

divisive. But she said she had no advance notice. There had been

stories doing the rounds that the president had tipped her off while

in Washington, but she said she had no advance notice of the policy that

he was going to come out with. He may have mentioned something in

general terms, but she had no advance notice of Howard would

affect the British, what it was going to be and so on. And she said

that she was proud of this country's attitude to refugees, and under no

circumstances would Britain adopt policies that Mr Trump has adopted

for the united states. Then Jeremy Corbyn moved onto another issue, the

possibility that we may do a bilateral trade deal. The

transatlantic trade deal which involved the EU and the US is now

dead in the water. But there is now a possibility that Britain could do

a bilateral deal with the United States. Jeremy Corbyn wanted to know

if the NHS could be at risk and become a bargaining chip, so that

big American companies can become again and getting involved. The

Prime Minister said there was no way the NHS would become such a

bargaining chip in any sort of trade deal. Mr Corbyn finished by asking

why she not called off the state visit of Mr Trump and cited the 1.7,

I think it is 1.7 but perhaps it has risen since, by 1.7 million people

who have signed the Parliamentary petition. There is another

Parliamentary petition to say that he is welcome here, that is growing

as well but it hasn't got 1.7 billion. We'll look at some of these

things. What are our viewers saying? They are saying it was a strong

performance by Theresa May, less so by Jeremy Corbyn. A viewer says,

when will we stop trying to hit headlines rather than sensible

debate? Helen Manning says that for the second week running Jeremy

Corbyn hits the canvas and Theresa May looks like a towering figure.

Ian White we said that Mrs May seemed to be ready by Jeremy

Corbyn's questions, easy questions to respond to. Joseph Riley pledge

inches x-rays, in my opinion the Prime Minister was right when people

voted for him, don't keep labelling Donald Trump. Just like the UK voted

for Brexit Comey you have got to go with the vote and you can't change

it. We have a statement from Buckingham Palace to the Daily

Politics. We know the Queen watches this programme! In fact, it has gone

12:30pm, perhaps she has just bought herself a gym, probably to see

herself through the second half of the programme! -- poured herself a

Jin. So appalled with what she saw in the first bit! Buckingham Palace

said only two US presidents have made state visits to the UK. Obama

in 2011 and Bush, which would be Bush the second, in 2003. They say

that at least since 1954, but they think ever. Probably because before

then American presidents didn't come here. FDR never came to Britain. I

think Woodrow Wilson might have done. Mr Reagan's visited the UK in

1982 had many of the features of the state visit, like addressing

Parliament and a banquet at Windsor Castle, but was a state visit. I

think Buckingham Palace have a very narrow and particular view of what a

state visit is. Obviously this is the Queen's view, we know that. That

is what she thinks. She has only ever given... I'm pretty sure Mr

Reagan thought it was a state visit. There is a debate about exactly what

it is. I remember about the time of the Chinese premier coming here,

there was a lot of chat behind-the-scenes. The thing he

wanted above all else for the pictures of himself with Kate

Middleton. That's what he wanted for the audience at home, said the chap

behind-the-scenes. However, a debate about what exactly constitutes a

state visit. I'm pretty sure that all of these presidents thought it

was a state visit. I think they went back to the White House and said,

wow, that was a great state visit! The Queen has slapped them down!

Exactly, like Theresa May exactly slapped down... Who is the Queen,

you could say? Didn't want that point of beer with David Cameron in

the Cotswolds Pub! They wanted the images of him with Kate Middleton

and at the doctor who sat with the Daleks -- the Doctor Who sat. When

Mr Reagan came here with Nancy. I'm not a name-dropper, but Princess

Diana told me that all Nancy wanted was pictures with the two boys.

Those were her eggs act words as we lunched in Kensington Palace. He

wanted the dance with Diana, presumably -- her exact words. She

said, they wanted pictures with the two boys, but she said, it's not

going to happen. What constitutes a state visit? What about addressing

the joint session of Parliament? Would you like to see that? I think

that's in the gift of Parliament. I'm not sure it is in the gift of

the Government. It is something that Parliament has extended to other

leaders. In my time here we have had the Pope and President Obama, the

Canadian Prime Minister. I think we go the point again, this is the man

who is the democratically elected leader of one of our closest

friends. If Parliament has extended that the crust previously... It is a

matter for Parliament. It is not automatic for a visiting president

to do it -- extended that request. Many people think it should not be

automatic. I think people felt Mr Obama, the first black president,

hugely hissed significant historically -- hugely significant.

At the time of Mr Reagan, there was a feeling that the special

relationship was very special, so they did that. But it doesn't happen

automatically. It shouldn't be automatic, should it? I don't think

these things should be automatic, but it is a matter for Parliament. I

support the state visit, that's all of our interests. If Parliament

wishes to, I can't say I have a particularly strong view either way

whether he comes and addresses Parliament or not. It is important

that we recognise he is a democratically elected leader and he

should be afforded the same visit as his predecessor had been. If he is

coming here, is no doubt he will sometimes whether the state visit

goes ahead or not, it may be in his interests that he doesn't address a

joint session of Parliament. I think if he is here, he should do it. Both

houses earlier this week, on also writes, act the special motion -- on

all sides, backed the special motion calling his policies discriminatory,

divisive and counter-productive. To be honest, the detail of the state

visit is getting away from what is really important and really at

stake, which is aspect of what he has announced, and the way that they

contravene so many deeply held values. We had a robust discussion

about that in the first half of this programme.

Are we going to place those value judgments on every leader that comes

here? There are plenty of leaders who have come here over the years

whose domestic policies none of's support. We have to be very careful.

Let's not get carried away with the detail. A lot of what Mr Corbyn

Broad up, we already had quite a -- quite an extended discussion about.

We didn't do much on the state visit. Mr Corbyn citing the 1.7

million said they should cancel the state visit. Is that Labour policy

to cancel the state visit? I'm not a totally sure either. Jeremy Corbyn

has decided to take a strong line on this. As he brandished the F Theresa

May that he received in reply from her, in a fairly clear attempt to

make the comparison about Chamberlain waving a letter around,

he has chosen to push our instead on the question of policy. Will she

condemn what in his view is a violation of the Geneva Convention?

I am not precisely clear what they are trying to achieve. It's

interesting that John has just said he thinks Trump should...

It wasn't clear in the interviews I've heard with Jeremy Corbyn. We

are trying to clarify that with the party today. In the world of real

politic, you could take the view that Mrs May rushed to quickly into

a state visit. We know that state visit our limited, and I can't think

of any time when it happened in the first year. You can take that view.

But it is not -- is it not just in the world of real politic the die is

cast, and we can't withdraw an invitation that has been given and

accepted? Corbyn actually used the words, withdraw the invitation, in

his question. These are all different ways of raising the same

questions as a way of trying to highlight what is really important,

which is as Laura Kuenssberg has said, the policy and the criticisms

of what he is trying to sign into law through the executive order. For

my money, that is the most important concern at stake. And that's where

are really the Prime Minister has been slow. She has been weak. She

has said it's divisive and wrong, finally. And both Houses have been

stronger than the Prime Minister. Usain that the fact you didn't as an

opposition complain about the Chinese President's visit, for

example, are you saying you're comfortable with every Chinese

policy then? No. Why wasn't there a petition, why weren't there marches

in the streets and why wasn't Jeremy Corbyn demanding that his invitation

be withdrawn? I don't understand why the one person who has a

democratically elected mandate and shares our values, that we pull this

particular instance output we were completely silent when it came to

others whose domestic policies none bus would ever have any truck with.

I find this whole thing bizarre and hypocritical.

Just before you go, Woodrow Wilson was the first-ever US president to

visit Europe, including the UK, in 1918. Andy was over for the Treaty

of Versailles as well. The Senate in the end didn't sign. Buckingham

Palace was not able to give us a formal definition of the state

visit. I think we can make it up! Definitely there is a call for a

Friday film on the daily politics. I have just checked Jeremy Corbyn's

letter to Theresa May. It does say that he has written to Theresa May

to the man she withdraw the invitation of a state visit. The

Labour Party stands unequivocally with those demonstrating and calling

for that. The policy is very clear. Sure we leave it there? We could

talk for hours. Now, the European Capital of Culture

is a title bestowed by the EU on one lucky city for a year,

during which time it has to organise cultural events

with a strong European dimension, and in return hopes for a boost

in status and visitors. It's credited with making a big

difference in Glasgow, The UK government has

just asked cities to bid for the title in 2023 -

which, the observant among you will notice,

is after we will have left the EU. But undeterred, Truro is among those

throwing its hat into the ring. Before we ask whether that's wise,

what does Cornwall's Well, it's the UK's most

southerly city, and in fact, It's home to a rather splendid

gothic revival cathedral, one of only three in the country

boasting three spires. There are some famous names related

to Truro, including William Golding and Professor John Curtis. We are

joined by Julian German, Cornwall county council's Cabinet member for

culture. Assuming the UK leads the EU, what do you think the realistic

possibility of true being made European city of culture in 2023?

Good afternoon. I think there is a really good chance. The government

have said they want to be continued -- continue to be outward looking

that they want to work with EU partners and continue to play a role

in some programmes. The CMS have opened bidding. That signals a level

of confidence from government this will happen. Other places are

looking at bidding. The government guidance says the UK is currently

still a full member of the EU, therefore the application process

will run as normal. There are a lot of good reasons we would want to be

involved. I'm going to give you the advice the culture Department has

given to bidding cities like true. We are committed for the UK to host

the title in 2023, however bidding cities should be aware that the

European capital... It goes on, the UK government bears no

responsibility for the Finance and investment made by the cities and

councils. In other words, it could be money down the drain. They have

basically written a disclaimer. We recognise there is a risk but we

recognise it is good value for money in any case. It brings a focus to

Truro and count -- Cornwall. The wider region is involved, as with

Marseille province last year. And what we want to do is get across

what is happening in Cornwall and Truro, and the fact we are on the

daily politics today talking about Truro and Cornwall shows that that

is working. It may kill off your bid altogether! You are spending just

more than ?500,000. I use sure people in Truro would agree it is a

good way of spending that money? -- are you sure? We go through the

process. The ?500,000 is for a full bid. What we have signed off is the

full budget that will come back tuck Cornwall Council Cabinet before

October, when the bid is put forward. That will take considerably

less. That will take a son to the short list. We have spent investment

in culture in Cornwall. The cultivator project, St Ives, Rob

Ford creative business growth. That is extent -- expensively that is

part of our strategy. It ties very much with that. And indeed with the

government strategy around the culture White Paper and the

industrial strategy. John Healey, can you imagine

Jean-Claude Juncker commented cut the ribbon when it is announced it

is going to be Truro as the European city of Culture once we have left,

bearing in mind if you look at the website of the European commission

it says eligible cities have to come from member states, candidate

countries? We won't be any those. I can imagine it, actually. Istanbul

has been City of Culture. They are a country that wants to join the EU. I

think Jean-Claude Juncker will will be interested in those three spires.

I say, go Truro. I think Theresa May hast to add a 13th point to plan for

negotiating Brexit. Very timely as we have just announced more funding

for Cornwall. I am from Hull, UK City of Culture. It has been a huge

value. Thank you and goodbye. In guess the year, the answer was 1983.

If you can press that Red Button... Well done. That is a great

name. The One O'Clock News is starting

over on BBC One now. Jo and I will be here at noon

tomorrow, with all the big To be in the Lords,

you have to be punctual... Sometimes you really do literally

have to slam the door What right do they have to tell

me about my fashion sense? Can you now control

your bad language? Yes, I will. Otherwise you'll be,

you know, drummed out.