the house of lords weighs into the arguments over brexit. a labour peer says colleagues must stand up for the interests of the young. this house should be urging a rethink on this whole project. this house should be saying, not in our name. but a conservative offers peers this reassurance on brexit — even if there's no deal. there is no greater nonsense than the claim that in the absence of a trade deal with the eu we shall be falling off a cliff edge. there is no cliff edge for the simple reason that there is no cliff. also on the programme: some powerful speeches and surprising revelations during a debate about donald trump. which one of us has not made some ridiculous sexual comment sometime in our past? well, in private, you know, let... let he who is without sin cast the first stone. all right? but first, the bill authorising the government to start the formal process for leaving the eu has been approved by the commons. now it's the turn of the house of lords to chew over the legislation. in a marathon debate over two days, there were 184 speakers. to add to the sense of occasion, there was a surprise visitor in the lords. in a very unusual move, the prime minister theresa may went to the upper chamber to listen to the start of the debate. it was the second reading of the eu notification of withdrawal bill. of the bill. but as the bill is short and narrow in scope, the debate ranged over wider territory — the pros and cons of brexit, possible amendments to the bill and the role of the house of lords. the government is determined to trigger article 50 by the 31st of march in order to deliver on the decision of the british people, the bill before us is a procedural part of that withdrawal process. i welcome the constructive tone we have heard from the opposition that they will not seek to frustrate this process while of course undertaking the scrutiny role we are here to perform. we will not be threatened into not fulfilling our normal constitutional role. and neither will we be goaded into acting irresponsibly. we have to have a serious and responsible debate. in doing so, if we ask the house of commons to look again at an issue, it is not a constitutional outrage but a constitutional responsibility. there is a world of difference between blocking the bill and seeking to amend it. so, my lords, if we clearly have the power were to amend the bill, should we positively seek to do so? my lords, i believe that we should. there is a respectable argument, which other noble and learned lords may say something about later in this debate, that only parliament by legislation has the constitutional authority to authorise the concluding of an agreement with the eu or the act of withdrawal if that is what the government decides that it has to do. as is well known, i was a remainer, not because of my pension rights but because i am a patriot. a patriot rather than a nationalist. there is no greater nonsense than the claim that in the absence of a trade agreement with the eu we shall be falling off a cliff edge. there is no cliff edge for the simple reason that there is no cliff. absent of trade agreement with the eu, we shall continue to trade with our former partners but on wto terms. some lords may be unaware that the uk already does far more trade with the rest of the world than it does with the rest of the eu. and the gap is widening with every year that passes. and the overwhelming bulk of our trade with the rest of the world is on the wto terms. that was day one of the lords debate on the brexit bill. to accommodate everyone who wanted to speak, the lords had an early start the following day. i made my maiden speech in the house of commons in 1972 in favour of our membership of the european union on the european communities third reading act. i little dreamt that 45 years later i would be standing up and actually advocating the reverse procedure, namely that we should withdraw from the organisation i advocated joining. but it's not me who changed but, i think, europe, as was symbolised in its change of name from the european economic community, to the european community, finally to the european union. it was only in 1965 that presidentjohnson gave the african americans the vote in america. in 50—100 years' time, when people come to look at this debate here they will be equally shocked and surprised that until 2016 this country, britain, was still contracting out its laws to be made by people we did not elect, we did not know and could not sack. my lords, the time for pay and obey is done. not before time. history will record what each of us does and our children and grandchildren will ask, what did you do when this was decided? what did you do at this crucial, crucial junction? were you shackled by convention, fearful you were going to be abolished ? did you dance to the tune of the daily mail? or did you stand up for principal and posterity and the values of tolerance and inclusion and for the interests of our young and, in fact, for the neglected communities in our midst? i will support vital amendments and if they're not accepted i'm going to vote against this bill. this house should be urging a rethink on this whole project. this house should be saying, not in our name. lord pannick is the lawyer who led the brexit case against the government in the supreme court. it's for us to scrutinise a bill enormous importance to the future of this country. and i think that this bill requires amendment and it requires amendment in particular to ensure parliamentary sovereignty as the process of withdrawal occurs over the next two years. one has to ask why those who base their arguments for brexit on the will of the people are now opposed to consulting the people on the outcome of the negotiations. one has to suspect that they fear that they will get a different answer. if so, we ought to know. the lords will now start debating amendments to the bill. they include proposals to give eu citizens in the uk the right to remain, a legal commitment to a parliamentary vote to approve any deal reached with the eu and a referendum on any final deal. i discussed these amendments — as well as the wider challenges facing the lords — with two former members of the european parliament. the liberal democrat baroness ludford and the conservative lord callanan. i asked lord callanan if he could support an amendment on rights for eu citizens. no, i wouldn't support an amendment on that. and the reason is that the government have already tried to get this agreed by the european council. of course we want to be concerned about eu nationals here but we also want to be concerned about the 2 million british nationals that are living in other eu member states. and there is a reciprocity here. the government already proposed this in the council, saying, look, you know, can we get this agreed? and a couple of member states, france and germany, said, no, we have to leave it for the start of the negotiations. so a unilateral move from the uk side to say, well, actually, we'lljust grant this, without any converse agreement for uk citizens, risks the whole thing being forgotten about and shoved away and uncertainty continuing for uk citizens. whereas if we say nothing about it, if we leave it for the start of the negotiations, then i very much suspect it will be the first thing agreed and everybody will be happy but a pre—emptive move on this could disadvantage those of our own uk citizens who are in other european countries. that's not what the groups representing brits in other eu countries believe. they believe it's important to kick—start the process, to have a catalyst by the uk government taking the first move. it's perfectly reasonable for the other eu countries to say that everything has to be actually negotiated under the same umbrella. of course it's unrealistic. the government is searching for a figleaf about why it won't offer this unilateral guarantee and it does not undermine brits abroad. partly because the really politically difficult argument is in this country. you don't hear the same sort of noises against brits exercising their free movement rights in other countries. well, i don't think we have consensus on that front. could we get consensus on whether there should be a parliamentary vote on any final deal? people like lord butler, lord pannick have suggested that might in fact be the legal route to go down, that that would protect the government from any legal challenge in future. lord callanan, could you support such an amendment on a parliamentary vote? well, the government have already said that there will be and indeed has to be a parliamentary vote on the final deal. the argument is about when that will take place, which will depend on the structure of negotiations and when everything is agreed. the commitment that the government have given is that they intend that there will be a final vote before the european parliament votes on it, once everything is agreed, and i think that should be good enough for other members. i've got a nasty suspicion that this is all part of the liberal democrats‘ attempt to refight the referendum, to delay the whole process, to stop it happening because they didn't agree with the result. well, this is true, isn't it? you didn't agree. i'm sure the crossbenchers who are among the leavers. lord pannick is no liberal democrat, as you know. lord pannick is a crossbencher. so are some of his other colleagues who are leading, lord hope for instance, i mean, there are distinguished lawyers on this. what the government is offering is a sort of take it or leave it between this deal and no deal. what i think people are looking for is a much more meaningful vote, something that is more dynamic which would assess any deal that the government came back with and if it wasn't adequate would send them back to have another go. is this a risky time for the lords? is this the way you handle this bill going to be crucial to your future, your reputation, to your existence even? there was a threat of abolition. i hope not. there have been a few noises off. the prime minister demonstrated how seriously she takes the house by coming for the opening speeches on monday and nobody officially has said there is any threat to the lords. the lords has a proper constitutional role to look, review, revise government legislation, to ask the house of commons to think again if necessary. i hope we won't do that in this case, given the importance of the bill and the background of the referendum. i suppose that's possible that one or two amendments might be passed, ask the house of commons to think again, if they do and we come back again, i think we'd be really pushing our luck to pursue it any further. you could agree with some of that, didn't you? absolutely. yes, he's made the case, really. there's been a lot of huffing and puffing, just as there was over the tax credits, which eventually absolutely collapsed. the governmentjust... the lords knows its constitutional limits, it also knows its constitutional duty and powers, which are to scrutinise, to call the government to account and, if amendments are passed, to ask the commons, hopefully with a rather persuasive voice, to look again, to think again. are you saying that if the commons reject any lords amendments then you will give in at that stage? i can't predict what is going to happen in the process. 0k. we are talking about reputation. next week, there will be a documentary, meet the lords, in which baroness d'souza is making fairly serious claims about allowances and how they claimed. i wonder if we can have a look at a clip. there is a core of peers who work incredibly hard who do that work, and there are, sad to say, many, many, many peers who do absolutely nothing but who claim the full allowance. i can remember one occasion when i was leaving the house quite late, and there was a peer, who shall be utterly nameless, who jumped out of taxi just outside the peers entrance, and left the engine running. and he ran in, presumably, to show that he had attended, and then ran out again while the taxi was still running. ok, you both are hard—working peers. are you aware of other peers turning up brieflyjust to claim £300 in allowance and then going home? "no," is the answer to your question. i think if that is the case, then baroness d'souza should name the person responsible. it's all very well to make allegations, but she said that person should be utterly nameless, it should be named, let's find out who it is, and find out if this is going on, because i think it is unacceptable. how do you feel, seeing that clip and hearing that allegation? well, obviously, i don't like anything that apparently brings the lords into disrepute, and i'm a little bit surprised because baroness d'souza was lord speaker, and on quite the prized if she felt that these things were happening that they weren't followed up with the right authorities or whatever. lord callanan and baroness ludford, thank you for your time. the ongoing debate on brexit. also high on the agenda this week — the prospective state visit to the uk by the american president donald trump. 1.8 million people signed a petition objecting to the visit — enough to trigger a debate in parliament. as mps launched into a feisty exchange of views, there was a protest outside in parliament square. protestors urged politicians to withdraw the invitation to donald trump. at times their chants could be heard inside westminster hall. the anti—trump petition wasn't the only one on the table. a counter petition supporting the visit mustered 300,000 signatures. and for three hours mps argued the issue. only two presidents of the united states have been granted a state visit since 1952. it is extraordinary that that is the situation but here we have a position where seven days into his presidency, he is invited to have the full pageantry of a state visit. extraordinary. completely unprecedented. the fact is that there was 61 million people who voted for donald trump, and when we stand up in this country and condemn him for being racist, and i have seen no evidence of that,... i have seen no evidence of him being racist, or that they attack him in an unseemly way. they are actually attacking the american people. the 61 million people who voted for donald trump. i want to remind the chamber that there are many african—americans in america sitting at home in fear. they are concerned about a president that has had the support of the ku klux klan. they are concerned about a president that has welcomed white supremacists. it is a term that we almost hoped would fall into history. mr trump is not my sort of conservative. i really have nothing in common with him. but i will say that let us look at one of his comments. the charge of misogyny. i mean, of course what he said, what he was reported to have said in a private conversation was absolutely horrible and ridiculous. and none of us would make it. but which one of us has not made some ridiculous sexual comment, sometime in our past. well, in private, you know... let he who is without sin cast the first stone. all right? listen carefully and you will hear the thousands of people outside gee}. gem gage; 935. has; ,. — 7— ,. to be coming in to this country on the royal state visit. we have a duty to listen to these people, to give them a voice, and if people from the trump administration are listening, this is not fake news. these people that are protesting outside, these are not alternative facts, these are real protests from british people who do not want to give him a royal visit. the commons speakerjohn bercow raised a few eyebrows when he announced that he would oppose any attempt to allow donald trump to address mps in parliament. that intervention sparked a mini—campaign to oust the speaker. a conservative, james duddridge, has tabled a no confidence motion. so far, five mps have put their names to it. undaunted, mr duddridge raised it with the speaker. point of order, mrjames duddridge. thank you, mr speaker, for seeing me, and granting a point of order. and notwithstanding, mr speaker, the underwhelming support for my vote of no—confidence in you, has the government or indeed the backbench business committee contacted you in any way to allocate time for this unresolved matter to be debated and indeed voted on? the short answer is no, and there is absolutely no reason why they should have done, a point which i can say from my own head and heart, fortified in the knowledge that it is also the sound advice of the experienced clerk of the house who has been working in the service of the house for 40 years. now, for a quick round—up of a few other stories in westminster. the home affairs committee is investigating the government's decision to close a scheme giving sanctuary to lone child refugees from europe. we are very disappointed that the dubbs scheme has closed. we would like the dubbs scheme to remain open and to remain safe and legal route for unaccompanied child refugees who are in europe to seek sanctuary in the uk. i think the impact we have seen of the closure and some of the confusion around what has been going on is quite severe. the local government secretary sajid javid said he understood how it felt to face higher business rate bills. he promised more support for businesses in next month's budget. now, growing up above the family shop, i saw myself the impact an increase in rates can have on small businesses. a rise in cost lowered the mood of the whole family. even as a child, i knew that it wasn't good when i found a stack and, calls to limit investigations into claims against british veterans who served in northern ireland. mps say cases should only proceed if new evidence is uncovered. it is wrong that our veterans are sitting at home, wondering if perhaps a third orfourth investigation is now going to take place into their case simply because some hot, fast—thinking, make—a—quick—buck human rights lawyer in belfast thinks it is a good idea to reopen this case. a fortnight ago, the labour leader jeremy corbyn sprang a surprise on theresa may at prime minister's questions. he read out leaked text messages which — he said — indicated the government had offered surrey county council a special deal to fund social care. his remarks were widely reported and the department for local government spent that day rejecting the assertions. at the latest session of pmqs, mr corbyn returned to the same territory. two weeks ago, we found out about the sweetheart deal with tory surrey. when will the other 151 social services departments in england get the same as the surrey deal? speaker: prime minister. the right honourable gentleman refers to the questions he asked me about surrey county council two weeks ago. those claims were utterly destroyed the same afternoon. so, rather than asking the same question, he should stand up and apologise. her government has put the nhs and social care in a state of emergency. nine out of ten nhs trusts are unsafe. 18,000 patients a week are waiting. mr speaker, i repeat the figure. 18,000 patients a week are waiting on trolleys in our hospital corridors. we need a government that puts the nhs first and will invest in our nhs. first of all, i have to say to the right honourable gentleman that he should consider correcting the record because 54% of hospital trusts are considered good or outstanding. quite different from the figure he has shown. secondly, i will take no lessons on the nhs from the party... from the party... oh, the deputy leader of the labour party says we should take lessons for the nhs. i won't take any lessons from the party that presided over mid staffs hospital. jamal al—harith — a british citizen — was held as a terror suspect in guantanamo bay in 2002 after the us forces seized him in pakistan. he was released in 200a. the daily mail has claimed that the british government gave him £1 million in compensation. his family has denied the claim. jamal al—harith subsequently joined the so—called islamic state group and last week he carried out a suicide attack at an army base in iraq. the home office was called to the commons to make a statement. but the minister couldn't say very much about the case. everyone understands that there will be information that cannot be revealed because of intelligence reasons. however, he has provided far too little information about such a serious case. can he confirm whether mr al—harith was made any payment? and also notwithstanding subsequent welcome legislation which had cross—party support to tighten the law, would he agree that people across the country will feel sickened at the idea of large payments being made to someone who may have been involved in serious terrorist activity? like her and my constituents, we will be outraged and disappointed by the sums of money that have been paid. but the sums of money that have been paid and been reported to have been paid, i can't comment on the individual cases, and unlike former home secretarys, the government is bound by its legal obligation that it has made, and we cannot break those legal commitments. but i can say that some of the vulnerability that led us to have to pay those damages occurred when she was a member of the labour government, and when those individuals brought claims against us. let's take a look at what's been happening in the wider world of politics this week. with our countdown, here's julia butler. labour's deputy leader tom watson appeared to perform a dab at pmqs this week to congratulate jeremy corbyn after his exchanges with the prime minister. the dance craze originates on the us hip—hop scene. former employment secretary lord tebbit was given a taste of his own medicine as he lambasted cycle lanes in london. labour peer lord hunt gave the former cabinet minister a piece of his mind. you can't even watch the brit awards to escape from politics. us singer katy perry's performance featured dancing white houses and two puppets trust to look like donald trump and theresa may. foreign secretary borisjohnson confessed he was the victim of mistaken identity during a recent visit to newcastle. i was mistaken for mr trump in, i think, newcastle. a very humbling experience it was, as you can imagine. and, next week, will have two new mps in a double by—election bill as labour hold stoke—on—trent central while the tories snatched copeland. julia butler reporting. and that's it from me for now, but do join alicia mccarthy on monday night at 11pm for a roundup of the day here at westminster. but from me, kristina cooper, goodbye. hello, good morning. the weekend brought us some wet and windy weather, but at least it was on the mild side. some of the wettest weather was around glasgow area, so we had scenes like this sent in by one of our weather watchers, and most of that rain came due to storm ewan. the came due to storm ewan. fifth of the year. it was r by the fifth of the year. it was named by the irish met service with big impacts expected here. that area of low pressure is running to the north of scotland, but it could return on tuesday as a much weaker feature. in its wake, though, we are drawing down some cold air. that brings with it the risk of some frost, ice and some snow as well. and the risk is greatest by the morning across the northern half of the uk, some snow over the hills. to the south, we have got stronger winds, with the bands of heavy showers moving in, and some heavy rain to clear away from the south—east early in the morning. the ice risk is there, and through the day we will see bands of showers, particularly running across england and wales. don't be surprised, even here, to find some hail, sleet and even some snow. a little bit drier further north. the best of the weather, actually, across the northern half of scotland, where it should be less windy and there will be more sunshine. but it will feel cold pretty much everywhere, especially where we have got the stronger winds and the showers rattling in, and those will continue across england and wales during the evening and overnight for a while. then we have got some clearer skies. things calm down a bit, and there may be some more ice around overnight into tuesday morning, because it may be just that little bit colder, pretty much wherever you are. and then this area of low pressure, this is what is left of storm ewan. as promised, it is coming back in from the north—west. it will bring some stronger winds, but nothing out of the ordinary. it will bring some rain, maybe some snow over the hills, most particularly in scotland. those stronger winds will push some showers into england and wales, and temperatures at best eight or nine degrees. that area of low pressure, the ex—storm, is going to pull away, taking the wet and windy weather away with it overnight, and by the time you get to wednesday morning, things much quieter. but cold again, cold enough for some frost and some icy patches. many places starting off dry and bright, with some sunshine, but into the south—west we will see the winds picking up, and some rain pushing in from off the atlantic, perhaps just lifting the temperature a little. but we are opening the door to the milder air coming in from the atlantic, particularly across the southern half of the uk. but there will be some stronger winds as well, quite unsettled, really, through the week ahead. to begin with, it is going to feel really cold after the mild weekend. there will be some wintry showers around as well, and the temperatures recover a bit later on this week. but some rain around, especially in the south. welcome to bbc news, broadcasting to viewers in north america and around the globe. my name is lebo diseko. our top stories: mahershala ali wins best supporting actorfor his role in moonlight as the oscars begin in hollywood. and with the politics of america under the spotlight, we'll have the latest from los angeles on hollywoods biggest night of the year. i'm peter bowes live in los angeles. we are 90 minutes into the oscars ceremony. there have beenjokes and judge the donald trump. two black actors have won awards, but so far, nothing for la la land. in other news: claims that british child migrants to australia