the week in parliament. it wasn't the best of weeks for the government. first, peers give the brexit bill another kicking. we don't trust the government on this matter. this country's future should rest with parliament. and not with ministers. and i find it quite extraordinary that your lordships' house is spending several hours here on what is basically a defective amendment. next day, part of the budget unravels within hours, when the chancellor reveals a shock tax rise for the self—employed. the headlines are not good news. spite van man. tories break tax vow. phil picks a pocket or two. rob the builder. white van man gets battered by budget. and that's just to name a few. and...leave? or remain? no, not the european union. should mps make a discreet exit, to let the builders repair the crumbling houses of parliament? the danger is that if we go for the long option, costs can just spiral. so we believe that we need to get out. but first, it's showdown time at westminster. a second government defeat by peers on the bill that starts the uk's departure process from the eu has thrown the ball back in the court of mps. they'll decide on monday whether to accept or reject the now—two alterations made to the bill by their lordships. tuesday evening saw the highest number of peers ever to take part in a vote in the upper house. it turned out be a big defeat for the government on the proposal, from an independent peer, for the brexit bill to state clearly that parliament must get a meaningful vote in two years' time on the final eu exit deal. my lords, the essence of this amendment is very clear. it has been clear from the start. it simply seeks to ensure that parliament, and not ministers, have control over the terms of our withdrawal at the end of the negotiating process. we now face the most momentous peacetime decision of our time. and this amendment, as the noble lord has so clearly set out, secures in law the government's commitment already made to another place to ensure that parliament is the ultimate custodian of our national sovereignty. nothing should be done to undermine the negotiating position of the government. but this clause in this amendment, my lords, would dojust that. let me continue, please. by denying the prime minister's ability to walk away from the negotiating table, as clause four would do, this would only incentivise the european union to offer us a bad deal. this was the mistake that david cameron made. if david cameron had walked away, he might have been able to get a proper deal. who knows? but the fact is, he didn't walk away and they knew he wasn't going to walk away. that's why he got such a useless deal. and this actually ensures that ministers cannot walk away. we want to ensure that our sovereign parliament, so often championed by the leave campaigners has a clear and decisive role in scrutiny, scrutinising the final outcome of this process. then it must assert its rights in legislation. the reason is simple. we don't trust the government on this matter. the only assurance we are going to have is by putting this on the face of the bill. my lords, the government has not got good form over this. they have not got good form. a former tory leader said mps would have their say regardless. it didn't need to be in the brexit bill. they don't even need the authority of my right honourable friend the prime minister for that. and they certainly don't need this new clause for that. they don't need any authority of that. they will have their say. they will have their way. if you contemplate what might happen in two years' time, we will see, only too sadly, that sovereignty lies with europe. if this house or the other house were to reject the deal, we will end up as puppets in their hands. can one honestly imagine whether this house goes back to europe injust under two years' time and says we don't like the deal, that the other 27 will say, oh, dear, here is a much better one. i feel that during the referendum we did vote for taking back control. it seems to me taking back control does not mean giving such a momentous decision over the future of the uk to a tiny cohort of politicians. i find it extraordinary that your lordships' house is spending several hours on a defective amendment. that lord pannick is incapable of putting down an amendment that is in order. he is a capable lawyer, perhaps others can produce an order which is not defective. i asked the lordships on the long contested principle that this country's future should rest with parliament, and not with ministers, and it is in that spirit that i contend to make this new clause watertight. and at the end of the debate, peers voted decisively for the amendment to the brexit bill requiring a parliamentary vote on the exit deal. my lords, they have voted, contents 366, not contents 260, so the contents have it. so a big defeat for the government. and shortly after that vote, michael heseltine, who we saw taking part in that debate, was told he'd been sacked from hisjobs advising the government. well, monday sees the next chapter in the brexit bill story. and to find out how this drama might play out, we spoke to the constitutional expert, professor meg russell. she told me much now depends on the attitude and approach of mps. and the key question is, do backbenchers want to back down on this or do they privately support what the lords is asking for? and if it is the latter that puts the government under a lot of pressure and the government may need to either accept the amendments or perhaps more likely, make some very sort of clear promises on the rights of eu citizens and the vote at the end. maybe go further than you have before to assuage backbench critic so that they can get the bill through, not amended. if the commons flatly rejects the house of lords alterations to the bill, will appears begin on both issues? that is a very interesting question. my best guess would be that the peers would back down at that point. but it all depends on the dynamics in the commons. the lords listen to the commons all the time. and in the end, the commons decides. so the lords throws things back to the commons, asks mps if they are sure they want this thing, and if mps send a signal back, we're really sure, then generally, the lords will back down. so it all goes back to what the dynamic looks like between the government and its backbenchers. if there are concerns expressed by backbenchers during the debate or in the media that they don't think the government is doing the right thing, peers could give it another go, but if the government and its backbenchers speak with one clear voice, i suspect that will be the end of the matter. given the size of the majorities in both cases, it would be quite a backdown by peers, it? members of the lords are very appreciative of their role which is to review, to invite second thought and to ask the commons whether it is sure about what it is doing. i think that was voiced very much in the debate. it has been voiced very much around the edges of the debate whilst this has been going on in the tv studios and so on. peers see it as their rightful role, and this has been reflected by comments by the conservative leader of the house of commons, it is perfectly right for them to ask the commons to think again. if the commons says no, a lot of peers at that point will think, we have done ourjob and the commons must decide. this is a classic confrontation between the commons and the lords. there have been plenty of notable stand—offs between the houses in the past. how does this confrontation compare with previous ones? there are two key differences between this and previous confrontations. the first is, this is not unique but it is fairly unusual, in being such a high profile issue. brexit is dominating british politics. all eyes are on it. everyone understands what this question is about whether we triggered article 50 and start to exit the eu. so it is top of the headlines. and confrontations which happen more routinely between the lords and commons do not even reach the headlines. so everybody is watching this. the other key thing is that this is a confrontation between a conservative government and the house of lords. although we are becoming slightly more used that, historically, this is very unusual this is the first majority conservative government that has not been able to get its business through. others have been the great reform act, the lloyd george budget of 1909. those were governments of the left facing a conservative dominated house of lords. now the lords is more party political balance. the blair and brown governments faced confrontation with the lords of anti—terrorism measures and things like that all the time. and the need to respond to defeat and to negotiate and sometimes back down was well understood on the labour side and fairly familiar. for conservatives this is quite new. so the coming together of those two things makes it feel very important to the government but in some respects it is actually fairly routine and i think, as i have said, the lords will probably be back down, so it is not going to be one of those historic confrontations. and that key question is, to backbenchers wanted back down on this, or do backbenchers privately support what the lords is asking for? meg russell. it was a special parliamentary day on wednesday. philip hammond presented his first budget. and, curiously, it was also his last budget, at least his last one in the spring. from now on, the annual budget reverts to the autumn. the chancellor hoped new money for social care in england would be the good news story to grab the headlines but things didn't go according to plan. and a measure to increase the national insurance paid by the self—employed produced far more reaction, reaction not exactly to mr hammond's liking. in the commons, spreadsheet phil found time to joke about his nickname. i turn now, to the obr forecast. this is the spreadsheet bit. but bear with me, because i have a reputation to defend. the obr forecast the level of gdp in 2021 to be broadly the same as at the autumn statement. then came the announcement on caring for the elderly. so, today, mr deputy speaker, i am committing additional grant funding of £2 billion to social care in england over the next three years. that is £2 billion over the next three years, with £1 billion available in 2017—18. this will allow local authorities to act now to commission new ca re packages. as for education... today i can announce funding for a further 110 new free schools on top of the current commitment to 500. this will include new specialist maths skills to build on the success of exeter mathematics school and king's college london mathematics school which my right honourable friend the prime minister visited earlier this week. we commit to this programme we understand that choice is the key to excellence in education. he said he'd listened to concerns about the new levels of business rates. i will provide local authorities with a £300 million fund to deliver discretionary relief to target individual hard cases in their local areas. this is how the chancellorjustified increasing national insurance for the self—employed. employed and self—employed alike use our public services in the same way. but they are not paying for them in the same way. the lower national insurance paid by the self—employed is forecast to cost our public finances over £5 billion this year alone. this is not fair to the 85% of workers who are employees. and he ended triumphantly. and we embark on this next chapter of our history confident in our strengths and clear in our determination to build a stronger, fairer, better britain. i commend this budget to the house. this was a budget of utter complacency about the state of our economy. utter complacency about the crisis facing our public services, and complacent about the reality of daily life for millions of people in this country. yesterday, mr deputy speaker, over 3,000 people in this country will have queued up at food banks to feed themselves and their families. last night, mr deputy speaker, over 4000 people will have slept rough on the streets of this country. and the chancellor made his boast about a stronger economy. but who is reaping the rewards of this economy? for millions, it is simply not working. we have had the self—effacing jokes about spreadsheets, we had the spun lines about being stronger together, and then it went downhill, and barely a mention of brexit, the most momentous challenge facing the uk, barely a mention of brexit. we've seen a scandalous attack on aspiration, on the self—employed. next day, more reaction to how the budget would impact on the self—employed. i do think that we need to look at this very, very carefully, however, because there was a solemn promise in the manifesto not to increase national insurance. and the reality is that i worry that the accusation that was made, it is a bit like signing a contract but failing to look at the fine print and the small print that exists. and i think that we need to the extremely mindful on this side that we don't just satisfy the letter of our manifesto commitments but also the spirit. immediately, i heard about what they were doing with the self—employed, my thoughts did not come to the city of glasgow and the city of london and how the labour markets operate there, i was thinking about my friend in skye, and some of my friends in the highlands, and knowing their reliance on the type of self—employed there who do not have a choice. they cannot choose to work for other corporations that do not exist. they are what might be called necessity entrepreneurs. and they don't work in one sector either. they have to job around and go travelling sometimes. it is fair to say that the headlines today haven't gone perhaps as the chancellor might have planned. tories bricked tax row, phil picks up pocket or two, rob the builder, white van man gets battered by budget. and that isjust to name a few. and the budget debate in the commons is, as they say, to be continued. now a look at some of the others stories around parliament in the last week. the government went down to another defeat in the house of lords on wednesday, this time over plans to introduce an olympic—style ranking in higher education, with uk universities listed as gold, silver and bronze. it is utterly ridiculous to suggest that you can assess arts teaching by this kind of approach of rankings. when we look at the top of the theatre review, we look at whether it has one star, two stars, three star, four stars, five stars, and that is, in most cases, all we look at. we don't then reached down and read the analysis of how good the play really was. university teachers, university lecturers, will want to teach at gold universities. human nature. it's human nature. they don't want to say, "well, i'm at a "bronze university." and i want to strongly reassure the noble lords we are working closely with the british council, universities uk international and others to ensure that a provider who attains a bronze is recognised globally for its achievement. uncertainty for car production in britain, as peugeot—citroen takes over vauxhall. mps ask if things will really stay the same. many of my constituents are really concerned about this because they work at vauxhall in ellesmere port. what can he say to reassure my constituents about the future ? particularly given that our employment laws make it easier to sack workers in the uk, compared to those who work in france and germany. the reason that we have a successful record in this country is that our car plants and their workforces are highly efficient, and we shouldn't forget that. i can't help but feel that the minister is being little bit complacent. 76% of ellesmere port production goes as export, much of that is left—hand drive for europe. would it really makes sense for peugeot to continue left—hand drive production outside the eu and not in poland or germany? high heels generating high feelings. the sending home of a female receptionist because she wore flat shoes to work prompts an online petition and then a debate in parliament. some women will choose to wear high heels of their own volition, and i will not criticise them for that. we should all be free to wear whatever we like. but what i cannot tolerate is employers trying to force women into an ideal of what constitutes professionalism. i don't know about anyone in this chamber today but the sight of a woman in flat shoes does not normally send me reaching for the smelling salts. personally, i'm five foot ten, so i've never really needed a few extra inches. but whether they wear high heels or not, it should be absolutely up to them, not to some outdated, dodgy 19705 workplace dictact. the government utterly condemns such dress requirements where their effect is discriminatory. caroline dinenage. a new report from westminster‘s spending watchdog warns that unless the programme of renovating parliament goes ahead as a matter of urgency, the building could suffer catastrophic failure. the extensive programme to restore crumbling masonry, and replace miles of ageing wiring and plumbing will cost an estimated £3.5 billion. the public accounts committee is backing a full decanting of the building for six years to enable the work to be done. the committee chair is the mp meg hillier, who's with us now. meg hillier, would it be fair to say that a summary of your report is: let's get out as soon as we can? certainly. we need to just get on with it now. we need to get on with it to get a full business case worked out so we really know what the real costings are and then get through the refurbishment. the danger is if you go for the long option, costs can spiral. to do it cost effectively, we need to get out. of course, some mps like edward leigh, who, curiously, used to be in yourjob, he believes the palaces big enough to accommodate mps sitting somewhere else while the work goes ahead. —— palace is. is that not the case? well, i mean, anything is possible, but whether it is feasible is another matter. we heard some very startling evidence about what could go wrong if you put everybody in the same building. the truth is that the victorians built it as one whole building. there are a lot of shared services. and, let's be clear, even if it were possible to stay, it would be very disruptive, you would still have years outside of each chamber to deal with. we just have to get on with the programme now, because if we don't choose an option to get it openly worked out, we willjust be shilly—shallying around and putting off the decision. we have to make the decision, the over it has to do it because it is a world heritage site and they have the responsibility for preserving that. it seems, though, even though on the quickest option, it is still quite a way because it won't be in this parliament, so it won't happen before 2020? well, that is right. we've got to make sure that lots of work is done before then. we are looking at the real wins. we could make this building far more accessible to the public, when the house is not sitting. at the moment, there is a real demand for the rooms from people other than mps, and when they are available, it should be easy for the public access. at the moment, it is not. there is a lot of potential win for the public, and we need to make sure that once the project is worked out, there was better communication with everybody involved, that is mp5, of course, but also members of the public, about what the real wins could be sorting this building out. now, shutting down for six years, it seems a bit drastic, there are some mps saying this is sending out completely the wrong message, this is the wrong image, particular this time, when we are going through this brexit negotiations, we've got a parliament that is closed down. well, no, the parliament is more than just a building. it is iconic, it is very important, but the business it is done by members of parliament, working with the public, and actually, that is what will continue to happen. i'm a shoreditch mp, i don't have an office in my patch, i have to work in a cafe with a laptop, i'm not saying all mps will be doing that for the six years, but we can find other ways of working, and work around that. and that is why we need to get on with it, so we can plan for where mps go, as well as what the costs will truly be. now, plenty of speculation about where mps could go. give me your thoughts on the way you think would be a good building. well, we heard clear evidence about the work going on the northern estate, in richmond, that is where the department of health is currently. there is plans to decant mps to that part of the world while work goes on. so, various discussion going on. of course, all these things have to be worked out as part of the plan to take mps out of the building. so, let's be clear that staying is a really tricky option because of the asbestos, because of the upheaval. we do have to work up the option of moving out, where mps will go, where peers will go, and how that will be funded. meg hillier, thanks forjoining us on the week in parliament. and a vote‘s been promised in the next few weeks on whether or not to go for a full decanting of parliament. then again, a vote‘s been promised before, and it's not happened. time now for this week's report from the wider world of politics. here's patrick cowling with our countdown. as mps consider the renovation of their grand old home, eu leaders met for the first time this week in the swanky new europa building in brussels. the european council's new home boasts oak sourced from all over the continent. no politician likes being called a doormat. apart from conservative mp steve baker, apparently. it was revealed this week that the mp for wycombe boasts a doormat, replete with an image of his face. so, you be careful where you brush those feet. a touch of stardust fell on tuesday. actors tobyjones and rhys ifans failed to persuade mps to revise the so—called dubs amendment on accepting receiving unaccompanied child refugees to the uk. international women's day did not go unnoticed in the house of lords on wednesday, as tory peer baroness boots pointed out that the three clerks on duty were all men. minister baroness williams sought to reassure peers. my lords, they are very good men. theresa may's laughter in pmqs turned a few heads this week. the snp mp peter wishart group comparisons with previous conservative prime minister. what do you think? see anything familiar? patrick cowling with all the chuckles from the commons. all eyes in the next few days on the progress of the brexit bill. could we be in for a spot of parliamentary ping—pong between the two houses? do join alicia mccarthy for the next week in parliament. until then, from me, keith macdougall, goodbye. hello there. choose a fairly cloudy for many of us. choose a fairly cloudy for many of us. more sunshine across the northern half of the country. also some heavy showers and the winter real feature. we could see gusts of 70 mph kruezi zero part of scotland. the weather could be a bit disruptive, due to the strength of the wind in the far north of scotland. elsewhere, the clash of breakup at little bit. some sunshine for central and eastern parts of england, for instance. the temperatures around 15 or 16 degrees. as we in the down tuesday, some light patchy rain shifting south across england and wales, there are skies returning across the north of the country. so a fresh start to wednesday coming here. through the galen weston, high pressure in charge. mostly dragon. personally sunshine to the north and east. still some showers to the far north to scotland. dabiq radio times in the south—west, but we could see 15 and i6 in the south—west, but we could see 15 and 16 degrees. but this is a disorder being laughed at. if we want nuclear power, it is expensive and the government needs to start putting money into it. expensive and the government needs to start putting money into itm isa to start putting money into itm is a classic case of market failure. if the private sector won't pay for it, does that mean it is not economically viable? they have pulled down on its head a huge debate about its own systems. a very warm welcome to bbc news, broadcasting to our viewers in north america and around the globe. my name is mike embley. our top stories: brexit comes a step closer for the uk, but scotland's leader drops a political bombshell and demands a second independence referendum. i believe that it would be wrong for scotland to be taken down a path that it has no control over, regardless of the consequences for our economy, for our society, for our place in the world, for our very sense of who we are as a country. turkey announces a series of sanctions against the netherlands, as the diplomatic row between the two nations appears to reach breaking point. the largest humanitarian crisis in over half a century. we report from somalia, as 20 million people face a deadly famine. thousands of flights are cancelled as americans on the eastern seaboard face the worst snowstorms of the season.