the headlines: the british prime minister, theresa may, says that president trump was wrong to re—tweet material from a british far—right group. but she stressed the "special relationship" between britain and the us was "in both our nations' interests" and should continue. the white house has insisted that rex tillerson remains the us secretary of state, despite rumours that he was being replaced. media reports suggested president trump was considering appointing the current cia director, mike pompeo, in his place. and the argentine navy has given up attempts to save the 44 crew members of a submarine that went missing in the south atlantic two weeks ago. a navy spokesman said an international rescue operation, involving 4,000 people, had now officially ended but a smaller—scale search for the wreck of the sanjuan would continue. now on bbc news, thursday in parliament. hello and welcome to

thursday in parliament. coming up: there's universal condemnation of the president trump tweets. president donald trump was wrong to retweet videos posted by far—right group britain first. some called for the president's state visit to be cancelled. no matter what diplomatic route we find to do it, we cannot simply roll out a red carpet and give a platform for the president of the united states to also sow discord in our communities. and a little bit of history is made. this debate is being interpreted into sign language, which i believe is a parliamentary first. so we may be making history in this debate, which is great. but first, the row over donald trump's retweeting of anti—muslim videos has raised passions across parliament. the home secretary was called to the commons to answer an urgent

question about the matter. condemnation of the president came from all sides of the house. this is the president of the united states sharing with millions inflammatory and devisive content, deliberately posted to sow hatred and division by, as the home secretary says, a convicted criminal who is facing further charges, who represents a vile, fascist organisation, seeking to spread hatred and violence in person and online. by sharing it, he is either a racist, incompetent or unthinking, or all three. president donald trump was wrong to retweet videos posted by far—right group britain first. when we look at the wider picture, the relationship between the uk and america, i know how valuable the friendship is between our two nations. and, as home secretary, i can tell the house

that the importance of the relationship between our countries, the unparalleled sharing of intelligence between our countries, is vital. it has undoubtedly saved british lives. that is the bigger picture here and i would urge people to remember that. whilst on this side of the house, we appreciate the importance of realpolitik, we would also call on the government to make clear that in no way and at no time does it give any support whatsoever to the distasteful views of the 45th president on race and migration and muslim communities internationally. because to do anything else would be an affront to voters in this country, whichever side of the house they support. and one of the advantages of having

such a special relationship with the united states is when a friend tells you you've done something wrong, you tend to listen. and wouldn't the world be a better place if the prime minister could persuade the president of the united states to delete his twitter account? several mps felt strongly that the president's state visit should not go ahead. isn't one of the key dangers in a state visit is that we have absolutely no idea what the president will say or tweet next and before he visits? so what does he actually have to say or tweet before the idea of a state visit is ditched once and for all? mr speaker, an invitation for the visit has been extended and accepted, but the dates and precise arrangements have yet to be agreed. no matter what diplomatic route we find to do it, we cannot simply roll out a red carpet and give a platform for the president of

the united states to also sow discord in our communities. we know that he and they will keep doing this and keep spreading extremism, and we also know, from the plaque behind us and from our own history, where the spread of extremism leads unless enough of us are prepared to stand up now and say no. putting aside the question of a state visit, should he even be allowed to enter our country, because unprecedented actions require unprecedented responses. i would just point out to the honourable lady, the prime minister has robustly replied to the president and made her views absolutely clear. in terms of what the honourable lady is also proposing, i would say, we do not routinely comment on individual exclusion cases. thank you, mr speaker. is the home secretary satisfied that president trump's behaviour, which is not an isolated incident, does not undermine the important security and cooperation

relationship we have with the united states? and can ijust say, just because somebody stops using twitter, does not mean they cease to be a twit. my honourable friend put his finger on the matter, if i may say, in the first half of this comments, which is how important that close relationship is. and however strongly honourable members may feel about the president himself, we must protect that particular relationship. around a month ago, the most popular man in the world was a last—day employee of twitter who unplugged the account of the president of the united states. was he not right? and if twitter is genuine in its commitment to fight hate crime online, it should have no hesitance in taking down the twitter account of the first citizen of the us, as it would with any other citizen in the world which peddles such hate crime? the prime minister, when she was home secretary, said homophobes and racists and those who stir up hatred in this

country will not be allowed in this country, and if they come to this country, they will be arrested. that's what should happen in this case, and the home secretary knows it, just say it! mr speaker, i would say to the honourable gentleman, there is no pretence here. we're absolutely clear in the actions we will take against people who propagate hate. and he should not underestimate the prime minister's views on this and the prime minister's absolute clarity on criticising the president and showing that to the public in her comment to him. the home secretary. now, mps have accused the government of sending mixed messages on the environment after ministers scrapped a planned rise in fuel duty last week. appearing before a committee of mps who have been investigating air quality, ministers defended the announcement in the budget that the tax rise wouldn't go ahead. are we sending a mixed message? no, i don't think we are. because we have allocated, since 2010, 5.5 billion on air quality and cleaner transport initiatives. as against £46 billion on a fuel duty freeze? well, if it's the labour policy

to increase fuel duty, we're very keen that it would represent a greater value for taxpayers... i'm not making the point for a political point, i'm asking you about the government's policies in relation to mixed messages? i don't think it is a mixed message. we have allocated a significant amount of money to promote air quality and the move to electric vehicles, but we're doing this at the same time as recognising the challenges that households and businesses are facing with inflation, and are working therefore to keep the two things together. the minister was also challenged over whether the treasury had analysed how well pollution—reducing measures were working. you're the treasury minister and you don't know if there is a cost—benefit analysis within the government on the benefits of taking measures to tackle air pollution on public health? you're suggesting we would only want to take action on the basis of cost— benefits.

that's not the case. we recognise the public health challenge, that's why we're working on it. the department is revising its figures, we are seeing a downward projection in the medical statistics of the avoidable deaths, but, nevertheless, we are very keen to work on air quality, as we know poor air quality effects... the question was to the treasury minister, thank you. later, the communities minister was asked what his department does with councils that break air quality rules? where we have concerns about a particular council, we ask the lga to quite often look into those concerns and assist our department in terms of making sure that some of the functions of local government are being carried through properly. do you have a file, minister? because you want to file your teeth so that you can bite a bit more. i'm sorry, you know, we are not getting any clear answer here about what you're doing about it. well... mr chairman, i share this issue

in several directions. with my pals. i'll bring in dr coffey in a moment. but i would say, mr parish, that we have a clear line of communication in terms of improving local authorities through the lga. that is notjust as a general programme, that's also where we've got specific issues. the committee then turned its attention to the emissions rigging scandal. just going back to germany, i understand their car industry has contributed about 250 million euros to help with the clean air agenda within germany. itjust seems that in america, there's a huge legal payment, the german car industry has come up with 250 million euros to help, and we're not in the fortunate position of having either of those two things? believe me, i have been having these thoughts myself on many occasions. the situation in the uk is that we have a very different kind of car industry, and very different levels of exposure to diesel. in germany, they have a relatively compact car industry, very large, but realtively compact and focused on diesel. and that has created a congruity

of incentives with them. why is it that germany, when they've got their massive car industry, held to account by their massive car industry, can still get money out of them and we just sit there wringing our hands saying, we don't know what sort of laws we've got that we can make it stick? why can't you find something to make it stick? what a splendid intervention from the chair in the corner, thank you very much. you're asking exactly the same question, of course... i know, but you haven't answered it, have you? you're just not doing anything about it. au contraire, i've answered it precisely and to the question asked. the situation is very much not wringing our hands, we are doing what we can within the proper obedience to the rule of law and a degree of deference to the german prosecuting authorities. jesse norman. you're watching thursday in parliament with me, mandy baker.

at the last election, the conservatives promised to get one million more disabled people into work over the next ten years. now they've unveiled a plan to do it. but 0pposition mps said ministers had abandoned more ambition targets, and disabled people were bearing the brunt of government cuts. 0ur labour market is in its strongest position for years, with the employment rate in the uk at a near historic high of 75%, and around 600,000 more disabled people in work than four years ago. despite this, only around half of disabled people are in work, but many disabled people and people with health conditions can and want to work. this means too many people are missing the opportunity to develop their talents and connect with the world of work, and the range of positive impacts that come with doing so. including good health and social outcomes, which is why it's important that we act now. he said advances in technology offered new opportunities.

the change needed is not one that government can deliver on its own. across the country, there are striking examples of what can be achieved when employers, charities and health care professionals work together locally. but government can help create the conditions for success. but labour said the government had watered down its ambitions. we should not be surprised by this disappointment, as throughout the government's seven wasted years of austerity, time and time again, it is disabled people who have borne the brunt of their cuts. the work and health programme is no different in this regard, with only 130 million a year set aside for its funding. a fraction of the billions spent on its predecessor, the work programme. the announcement today offers very little in the way of commitment. it is sadly an attempt to kick the issue back into the long grass, with vague statements on pilots, a commitment from government

to carry on doing what it's currently doing. and some minuscule sums of investment in training. this does not go nearly far enough, madame deputy speaker. the snp are extremely disappointed in the statement and the command paper produced today. we believe that the uk government as a priority needs to reverse the cuts it has made to these benefits and need to scrap the freeze on benefits as well, because they are harming people. mencap have released a statement that says, we're alarmed that the needs of hundreds of thousands of people with mild or moderate learning disabilities has been overlooked. it is the case that the government seems to have abandoned its pledge to have the disability employment gap, and this gap is even worse for those people who've got learning disabilities. some mps thought the government should get to the grips with the work capability assessments. are we in danger of setting a very dangerous precedent, where constituents are in possession of a sick note from a health professional, whether that be a consultant, doctor or perhaps a psychiatrist, and that is then overridden by the work assessors who therefore declare

that the person is fit for work? i had a constituent visit me just two weeks ago, she is clearly disabled, it is clear for all to see. she was asked how she does her shopping, and she said she does it online every couple of weeks. was told she was therefore fit to work in an office for 37 hours a week. i think one point i would make in terms of assessments and whether we're looking at esa or pip, is that the percentage of those assessments which are overturned is running at about 4%. i would rather it was lower, but let's put it in context that only 4% of assessments are overturned. wendy morton. today's command paper, madam deputy speaker, is a huge step forward and should be welcomed. when it comes to attitudes, though, does my right honourable friend agree that we need to tackle a culture, in some quarters,

which fails to really harness the potential of disabled people in the workplace? david gauke agreed, saying there should be a culture shift. now, the transport secretary has faced further questions over claims that the treasury will miss out on billions of pounds following a change to the franchise for the east coast mainline. in a statement on wednesday, chris grayling told mps that, from 2020, a new east coast partnership would be responsible for both trains and tracks on the route from london to the north—east of england and scotland. the existing operator, virgin trains east coast, is a partnership between stagecoach and sir richard branson‘s virgin. it had agreed to pay the government just over £3 billion to run the service until 2023. we learned yesterday that the east coast rail franchise will be terminated in 2020, three years early, potentially forfeiting billions of pounds in premiums due to the treasury, yet the secretary of state told

the house that stagecoach will meet in full the commitments it made to the government as part of this contract. so, can he confirm that the full £3.3 billion due from stagecoach—virgin will be paid to the treasury in accordance with the terms of the original contract? mr speaker, every time a franchisee takes up a new contract it makes a parent company commitment to the government. that commitment will be kept in full. andy mcdonald. so, can we get to the heart of this? will the premiums due under that contract... under that contract covering the years 2022—2023 of some £2 billion be paid? will they be paid, yes or no? well, mr speaker, self—evidently, given my announcement yesterday that we would have the east coast

partnership in place in 2020, there will be new arrangements in place in 2020. but what i have said to him, mr speaker, what i have said to him is that every franchisee makes a parent company commitment before taking out the contract and we will hold that that commitment be met in full. since 2010, railfares have risen by 27%, twice the rate of wages, with the steepest fare hikes in five years due in january, while passenger numbers are now in decline. with more and more of my constituents being priced out of rail travel altogether, when will this government accept that the whole system of rail franchising and private profiteering from our railways is utterly, utterly broken. well, i'm afraid members opposite really shouldn't try and draw conclusions from one quarter's statistics to try and underpin theirown ideological agenda. the simple fact is that we are seeing far more passengers using our network than ever before. i believe that the privatised railways have been a success and the alternative that he proposes ensures that passengers are always at the back of the queue in every

decision undertaken by any ghastly future labour government. a liberal democrat mp raised an entirely different form of transport and an entirely different problem. injuly, a three—year—old boy experienced a life—threatening allergic reaction on a plane when fellow passengers started eating nuts that they had been served. thankfully, he survived, but i know from personal experience how terrifying it is to go into anaphylactic shock and the last place you would want that to happen is 30,000 feet in the air when you are hours from formal medical attention. will the secretary of state agree to meet with me and a group of campaigners to explore solutions that would enable the 2% of the population who have a nut allergy to fly with confidence? mr speaker, i absolutely understand why this is such a serious issue and i would be delighted to extend an invitation to her to come into the department to meet ministers and officials to talk about what is clearly a very important matter. the transport secretary.

there was a parliamentary first in westminster hall on thursday afternoon. the chair of the all—party group on deafness and hearing loss reckoned a bit of history was being made. 0ur debate is being interpreted into sign language, which i believe is a parliamentary first, so we may be making history in this debate, which is great for all of us who are here to participate in this event. jim fitzpatrick said he wanted to focus on three issues — the implementation of the national plan on hearing loss, access to work, and the legal recognition of british sign language. legal recognition, he said, would have benefits for deaf people and wider society. deaf children are 42% less likely to achieve five or more gcses at grade c or above than their hearing peers. there is no reason that a deaf child should do any worse than a hearing child. in health, 70% of deaf people who haven't been to a gp recently wanted to go, but didn't, mainly because there

was no interpreter. a lib dem said he had been deaf for 50 years. he believes 70% of profoundly deaf people were unemployed. that is ridiculous. that is just ridiculous. how can you possibly take out whatever it is, 100,000 people if not more, of adult working age and have the barriers as such that 70% is unemployed. it's a bloomin‘ outrage. a conservative told how her mother had gone deaf overnight following a virus. she hadn't been ill, she's never had any hearing problems, but she went from being a hearing person one day to the next day having nothing. my father took my mum to the hospital and, at that time, we had a really good ear, nose and throat hospital in maidstone. it was about a week later, so about a week after she had lost her hearing, that she was taken there. it was confirmed that she had no hearing. they put her on steroids, they told her it was due to a virus and that the hairs in her ears had

died and that it was probably very unlikely she would ever get her hearing back. this was absolutely devastating for my mother and for all of us — my sister, myself and my dad. it changed her life and our life fundamentally. we couldn't communicate with her. everything had to be written down. my mum couldn't sign, my mum couldn't lip—read, so she was flung into isolation and into, to be honest with you, a state of depression. it was a really, really tough time with two teenage girls at that particular time who were very much into their singing, and all of a sudden my mum had to admit that she would never be able to hear her daughters sing again. deafness is the invisible disability. my mum didn't look like she had a disability. her voice sounded like it always did, as she had been a hearing person for a0 years, but i saw and experienced first—hand

the major barriers that people who are deaf have to experience. while a labour mp told mps she was the eldest child of two deaf parents. i have to tell you that i was tempted to sign my whole speech and i was going to do that and have the interpreters voice—over my comments for my colleagues, to give everybody a feel for how it is not to be able to communicate directly, not for a minute, not for a sentence, but for five minutes or however long it takes me to finish this. not to be able to communicate directly to the person you are talking to is really, really strange and difficult and deaf people feel that, experience that every single minute of their lives. the public health minister turned to calls for british sign language to be legally recognised. it is not entirely clear to me which department would lead on legal

recognition of british sign language, which is kind of the problem that so many people have referred to today. personally, i am sympathetic to the calls for strengthening the role of british sign language and we certainly want to see as many people trained and providing support as possible. the message that i can only bring today is that, at this time, her majesty's government is not yet, anyway, convinced that the way to achieve this is through legislation. now, we have protections of the legal rights of people who are deaf in the equality act, of course, and in the duties of the nhs and the mandate that i'm responsible for giving to nhs england and, of course, publicly—funded social care organisations to conform to what we call the accessible information standard. i'm very happy to take this point away. it's come across really clearly from so many members during the debate today and all i would say is that the private members ballot is a wonderful thing. the public health minister with a hint that keeping up the pressure for the legal

recognition of british sign language might bearfruit. finally, it wasn't just mps who were up in arms about donald trump and his tweets. in the lords, peers were equally exercised. i assume that president trump only tweets messages he has thought carefully about and agrees with because, if so, he has endorsed a nazi group with a vicious record of attacks, racism, islamophobia and anti—semitism. surely there can be no question of a state visit until at least he has expressed some remorse about this. i would gently suggest to the president of our greatest ally, that if he would make the white house a tweet—and—twitter—free zone, he would make an immeasurable contribution to the peace of the world. hear hear. well, i do actually recall the words of the former prime minister about too many tweets and i shan‘t

repeat what he said, but, yes, we must all be careful about what we tweet and the effect that it can have on the wider community. so, yes, we should tweet with care, my lords. and lady williams brings us to the end of the programme. i'll be back at the same time tomorrow with the week in parliament, when i'll be talking to an mp who hopes to break the boundaries — of constituencies, that is. until then, from me, mandy baker, goodbye. frosty in places, icy start to friday. wintry showers and eastern parts of the uk, snow in places. less cold air moving on quite

quickly on friday, so a lot of the showers turning back to sleep and indeed rain, mostly rain shower scattered about three stone paths will england as we go through the day. elsewhere in england and wales, fine and sunny weather. increasing cloud in scotland and northern ireland. a few showers following on behind the temperatures are recovering in the western isles. it is not quite as chilly, just about to cross the border. the wind isn't as strong as well. cloud increasing on friday night so much less frost around. maybe a touch of that through southern parts as temperatures here begin to rise again later in the night as the cloud again later in the night as the clou d m oves again later in the night as the cloud moves in. into the weekend, then, a lot of cloud around. milder atla ntic then, a lot of cloud around. milder atlantic air. from the cloud, patchy rain ina atlantic air. from the cloud, patchy rain in a few spots. sunny spells we re rain in a few spots. sunny spells were eastern parts of england. 0n saturday some outbreaks of rain pushing into scotland and northern ireland. still quite chilly in the south—east on saturday, and temperatures will come up on sunday. welcome to bbc news, broadcasting to viewers in north america and around the globe. my name is duncan golestani. our top stories: the british prime

minister criticises president trump saying he was wrong to re—tweet material from a far—right group. is he losing hisjob? the white house refuses to confirm whether donald trump still has confidence in his secretary of state, rex tillerson. the argentine navy abandons efforts to rescue the crew of a submarine that disappeared two weeks ago. a large iceberg breaks off a glacier in southern chile. scientists say it's because of climate change.