13/09/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 13/09/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.


David Cameron's leaving Parliament, and he may not be the only one.


Plans to redraw constituencies across the UK and cut the number


of MPs means high profile figures - including Jeremy Corbyn


and George Osborne - could face a battle to find


Nicky Morgan is still an MP but she wasn't asked to stay


on as Education Secretary - we'll be asking her if Theresa May's


plans for new grammar schools make the grade.


Brexit Secretary David Davis is back in Government and he says it's


the sexiest part of politics - but is he planning on telling


The bar is low, I suppose! Will MPs see the appeal?


And after David Cameron resigns after 15 years as an MP,


we'll look at his first new job outside Parliament.


All that in the next hour and with us for the whole


of the programme today is the Conservative MP Nicky Morgan.


She was Education Secretary until Theresa May formed her


She's now returned to the backbenches, and she may


have lost the big office and the ministerial car, but she's


free to give her own opinion again and even appear on shows


Welcome to the show, Nicky.


Let's begin today by talking about David Cameron.


You might remember him - he led Britain's first


coalition government since the Second World War,


and just last May he secured the first overall Conservative


But politics can be a cruel business, and he left Downing Street


in July after losing the EU referendum, something which may come


Despite saying that he would continue as the MP for Witney


in Oxfordshire after resigning from Number ten, yesterday he said


With modern politics, with the circumstances


of my resignation, it isn't really possible to be a proper backbench MP


I think everything you do will become a big distraction


and a big diversion from what the Government needs to do


And I support Theresa May, I think she's got off to a great start,


I think she can be a strong Prime Minister for our


country, and I don't want to be that distraction.


I want Witney to have a new MP who can play a full part


in Parliamentary and political life without being a distraction.


So he doesn't want to be a destruction. Are you sad to see him


go? Very sad. I think he has been a great leader of the Conservative


Party, he got us back into power, won the first majority fell over 20


years just last year. I think it is very sad, but I also understand why


he has made this decision at this time. As you said, he won that


overall majority, but Ken Clarke said yesterday that he will be


remembered as the Prime Minister but accidentally, in his words, took the


UK out of the EU. That will overshadow everything else. I hope


not. I know that is what we are talking about, and we will be


talking about it later in the context the new Government, but I


think David Cameron achieve more than that. He is the only person I


could have kept the coalition government on the road, working with


the Lib Dems for the crucial five years to rebuild the economy. Things


like education and welfare reforms, which he has championed, history is


often kinder to former party leader 's son years after they leave


office, rather immediately. His difficulty really arose when leading


a Tory majority government. He said he wanted to stay on as an MP until


2020, was it just too difficult for him watching Theresa May excel his


supporters, like yourself, from Cabinet, then changing key policies


like reversing the ban on grammar schools and changing the decision on


Hinkley Point? It was such a strange period in July, it was so difficult


to make decisions about any of our futures. I suspect that coming back


last week, being back in the House of Commons and realising that


everything he said would be pored over, every nuance, did he agree


with the new Prime Minister, was there a split? That is a huge


pressure for somebody who was only 49, wants to get on with their life,


wants to be able to say what they think. I suspect that the


realisation dawned, actually, I will have to make a different decision.


And the key thing being that he wants to say his own decision, --


and opinion, and he does not agree with these two key policies from


Theresa May? I'd have not spoken to him on these issues, but no doubt it


is a change from the party as he was leading it. I know he feels


passionately about the free schools movement. His last visit as Prime


Minister in July was to a free school set up in his time as brain


minister. He wants to speak up about free schools. Were you surprised


when he announced he would suddenly stand down? I think we were all


taken by surprise yesterday, that it happened yesterday. I don't think we


would have been surprised if it was in July, or perhaps in a couple of


months' time, but it coming back last week, for a lot of buzz, it was


the realisation that things would be really different. -- coming back


last week, for a lot of us. Gordon Brown did not really say


anything at all but he was therefore a number of years and had that


period of grace before leaving, shouldn't David Cameron have done


the same? People will decide based on personal circumstance and what


they feel. People have different ways. Ted Heath stayed and stayed


and stayed and probably slightly outstayed his welcome, Gordon Brown


did it a different way, John Major, Tony Blair did his last PMQs and


left Parliament. Everybody had to find their own way of doing these


things. David Cameron will have thought very long and hard and


clearly took the summer to think about what his next steps would be.


Time for him to write his memoirs! Now let's stick with David Cameron


for a moment, because he's also He'd no sooner stepped down as an MP


yesterday than it was announced B, new panellist on This


Week with Andrew Neil? Or D, Bailiff of the


Manor of Northstead? At the end of the show Nicky


will give us the correct answer. MPs and staff were pictured


queuing up in the Houses But they weren't all waiting to sign


David Cameron's leaving card - no, they were hoping to find out


details of a plan to redraw the boundaries of parliamentary


constituencies in England and Wales. It's all part of a Government plan


to equalise the number of people in each constituency,


and to cut the overall Constituency boundaries are reviewed


periodically to ensure every MP represents roughly


the same number of people. Legislation passed in 2011 means


that the number of MPs must be With a few exceptions


like the Isle of Wight, every seat will now have to have


around 74,000 voters. The independent Boundary Commissions


- one for each part of the UK - Their draft plans will see 32


fewer constituencies Northern Ireland is


already due to lose one. Scotland is expected


to lose six constituencies. But redrawing the political map


is always controversial. According to one estimate,


if the 2015 votes had been cast under the proposed boundaries,


Labour would lose around 25 seats And the changes could see the seats


of some high profile MPs broken up and divided between


neighbouring constituencies. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn,


former Chancellor George Osborne and Brexit Secretary David Davis


could all join MPs in a scramble They can argue their case


in the consultation that's now underway, with the final proposals


due in September 2018.The Government says this is a matter of fairness -


here's the Cabinet Office Minister The review being introduced


was voted on by the previous parliament and enacts for the first


time the historic principle of having equal sized


constituencies, which is a principle first called for by the chartists


in 1833, it's called for by the Standards and Committee


on Public Life. As I said, it was legislated before


by the previous parliament. It comes to determine that every


seat should be equal. Currently, we have seats


which are three times the size of another,


which means that one elector's vote is worth three times


that of another. That's simply not fair,


which is why we are determined to ensure we have equal


size constituencies, which is why this


review's been enacted. We're joined now by Sam Hartley,


he's secretary to the Boundary Welcome to the programme. It's


clearly a complex process, so how do you actually go about doing it? It


is very complex, we don't hide or shirk from that. Today we launch our


initial proposals, it is the first time the public can see what the new


map of parliamentary constituencies might look like. As you have


outlined, to eat -- we have to reduce the number of constituencies


across the country as a whole, I am in the English commission, we had to


reduce from 533 to 501. We have to make the number of electors more


equal. We do that with the help of the public. We look at data, we have


three rounds of consultation. Today is the first day of the first round


of consultation. We want people to look at the proposal on the website


and tell us what they think. Do you think you will get a big response? I


am very confident that we will. Looking at the last review that the


Boundary Commission conducted, we got over 50,000 public comments. We


know it means a lot to people. We have made it easier than ever to


comment, the address is bce2018.org.uk. It is easy to look


at the proposals and give us feedback. You will get thousands


more now you had said that! It stands now to impossible that you


cannot take politics into consideration when you are redrawing


constituencies. Many people, not least Labour politicians who stand


to lose most, argue it is unfair and undemocratic. It is our job to make


independent recommendations to Parliament, which is what we will


do. We really rely on public comments for this process. We want


people to tell us about their communities, whether the boundaries


really reflect them or not. Bearing in mind the tough constraints we


have about the introduction and equalisation. We are trying to take


politics out of it, we leave that to the politicians. Why is it not based


on the most recent poll, the EU referendum, where 2 million people


signed up to take part in that? They will not be part of this. The law


tells us to take account of the December 2015 electoral register, it


would be wrong others to do anything different. Why does the law do that?


If 2 million more people could be part of this, it sounds unfair not


to include them? That is a question for Parliament or the Government to


take. The existing elections on the current constituency boundaries are


based on a lecture at from the year 2000, this is already a significant


improvement on the current state of affairs. The question about when the


snapshot is, that is one for Parliament and the Government to


take, not the Boundary Commissions. You accept it is out of date, even


though it is much more up to date than 2000? I accept that there has


to be a point in time where we take baseline data, that is December


2015, it would be wrong to take any other information. Let's take


12-macro of the quirks in the proposal, Slough town hall would no


longer be in the slow constituency, which might strike people in Slough


as slightly odd. Is that the type of thing you would change? That is the


sort of evidence we require at the type of thing we would change. It is


a tough job, difficult for us to get constituencies that reflect people


on the first go. We are very open to hear what people say, using that


sort of evidence. Nearly two thirds of our initial proposals last time


changed before we got to a revised hearing. We are very open to


people's comments and we want people to use the website to do that.


As we said earlier, not everyone's happy about these plans -


not least Labour, which is expected to be hardest hit by the changes.


We're joined now by the Shadow Minister Without Portfolio Jonathan


Ashworth, he's at the TUC conference in Brighton.


-- he is in the studio. Do you accept that Parliamentary


constituencies should rapidly the same size? Of course I do. Isn't


that what this is about? No, it is reducing MPs from 650 to 600, there


is the strong suspicion that 50 MPs have been taken out because that


will head the Labour Party most, once you go beyond 50 you tend to


bite further into Conservative MPs. There are 2 million people missing


from this register, that is the other issue, fair. It is a fairly


powerful all humans to say that it is in the law. Because the


conservative coalition government at the time had the votes to pass that.


We always said that to use the register based on a different way of


getting on the register, you might remember the arguments about


individual voter registration, where getting on the register became more


burdensome, we always said don't go for the register in November or


December, wait longer, we all advise the Government to look at the


register this year, they have ignored that. Do you accept that


Labour under the current drawing of the boundaries has an unfair


advantage? No, they don't. This is a Tory argument about how the votes is


distributed across the country. In a lot of safe Conservative seats, lots


of Tory votes pile-up, the Labour voter tends to be more evenly


distributed across the country. You are stealing this process, the


Labour Party will be the biggest loser? No. It has to happen. The


figures currently used 16 years out of date, an awful lot has changed in


terms of house-building, people moving and everything. It is not a


political process. It needs to be done. It is right to reduce the


numbers of MPs. Partly it is about saving money in terms of the cost of


politics. We are the largest legislature in the Western world.


What about the House of Lords? That is also on the Government agenda. We


have the ability for peers to resign, we have 50 fewer peers than


before. Two wrongs don't make a right. The house of Lords is stuffed


to the gills and has been stuffed even more by David Cameron in recent


months. Surely the unelected House of Lords would be a better place to


start? I think you need to do both. It must


be right that MPs are representing roughly the same number of people.


We get the same resource, the same demands. Jeremy Corbyn seems to be


saying if you were in an urban area you should represent fewer people.


That doesn't work or stack up. The Labour Party has always complained


about this. The 1970 general election was fought on 1953 data.


The Labour Party have history on this. It is time the register was


updated. I wasn't born in 1970, so I don't know. But there are 260 extra


unelected peers in the House of Lords under this Government costing


?32 million a year. We will lose our MEPs. So we as MPs will have a


greater legislative responsibility. Why cut down to 600? Why not do it


at 650, but equalise the constituencies. Parliament have


voted to cut the number of MPs. It is right. We are the largest


legislature in the western world. It doesn't make sense any more and I


think we should look at the number of peers. Peers have been created


from all parties. We now have the thing where peers can retire at a


certain age and 50 have taken advantage of that. Why is it fair a


Labour seat has around 5,000 fewer voters in it and therefore you have


an unfair advantage in terms of being elected than Conservative


seats with around 71,000 voters. My seat has about 73,000. But broadly


and you accept that there are Labour seats that are elected on fewer


votes? That is why we have said the principle of equalising the


constituencies is the correct approach. What we have now is a very


tight numerical number that the commission have to work to, with


limited flexibility. There used to be more flexibility and you could


make more allowance for local factors like there is a seat with a


mountain range through them and it has been suggested on them. That is


why we are looking at the proposals and members of public and we can


sends in revisions to point out practical things. We have another


two years before this is finally voted on and accepted. But you have


got to hit 75,000 with 5% either way. That is a tighter range than


was the previous. If you accepted the principle of equalisation, that


is what it means, having a number and flexibility. You're keen to


produce the cost of politics so why not reduce the number of ministers.


That is something to be looked at... Will you support 2345. We will talk


about Brexit and this will be a busy Government doing more legislation


and not leaving things to the EU. I don't think I would support, having


been a minister and seeing how hard they work. Although you have asked


for the House of Lords to be looked at, I won't be looked at at the


moment and there is no sign of the cost there being reduced or reduce


the number of ministers, you're keen on reducing MPs, people may say it


is because of party political reasons. People would be wrong.


People will say it is party political if they don't like it.


Others say it is fairer. The point is it is over due and now we are


working on figures from 16 years ago. In my area there has been a


massive amount of house building and we get the same resources as MPs,


the amount we get for staff doesn't reflect the members we have. The


Government are not going to reduce the size of the ministerial payroll


and they will be a bigger part of chamber. There is an issue about


holding ministers to account. There will be less backbenchers to hold


them to account. Hang on, if you were serious about holding ministers


to account, you would get yourself sort and be an effective opposition.


You can't make that point. So aren't the changes going to Triggs --


trigger another power struggle in the Labour Party. A number of your


colleagues, people who have been critical of Jeremy Corbyn in the


past, well, their seats could be up for grabs and there could be fights


and they may well be reselected or deselected. There is no question it


will be an uncertain time for colleagues, the same with the


Tories. 17 Tory MPs will lose their seats. The same size as their


majority. They're not in the midst of a civil war. There is


unhappiness. Do you think your colleagues will be safe? No I think


Labour Party MPs will have to convince members in an area that


they're the right person. What Jeremy Corbyn's seat is disappearing


and he is letting it be known. If the arrangements go ahead he will be


fighting the new Finsbury Park seat. What do you say to Darren Williams


who joined the Labour ruling Executive and said the process of


choosing candidates would provide an opportunity to select vipds in tune


with -- individuals in tune with party members. I sit on the


Executive. Just about. I have been there for three years. But I sit on


that Executive and I don't think Darren's comments will have found


much favour among Jeremy Corbyn. He has done him a disservice in making


those comments. He shouldn't be embarrassing Jeremy Corbyn. That is


not what Jeremy Corbyn wants to do. You don't think Jeremy Corbyn


peoples that if he is re-elected as leader that, there should be MPs who


are nor in tune with him and party members? Jeremy Corbyn has asked


Rosie Winston to lead on the boundary change processes. We have a


standard procedure that is used in the last round of boundary changes


in 2010 and MPs with fight or put themselves forward for a seat if


they have a proportion of the seat in the new constituency. So Jeremy


Corbyn has got something like 50% going into the new Finsbury Park


seat, he can hut himself forward. It would be an opportunity to deselect


MPs that members don't like. Any MP have to go through reselection. Our


bravenlgs meet -- branches meet to decide that. The good members of


Leicester South reselected me and I'm hoping they do it again in this


Parliament. That is not new. Do you think they will reselect people like


Tristram Hunt and Yvette Cooper? I hope so. They're excellent MPs and


work hard for their constituencies and they're always taking up issues


for them. I expect them to be reselected. Thank you.


Education Secretary Justine Greening was at the despatch box yesterday


outlining the Government's plans to extend grammar


She said the proposals would create a truly meritocratic system.


But it's a subject that gets plenty of people hot under the collar,


and the minister faced criticism from the opposition


We need to radically expand the number of good school places


available to all families, not just those who can afford


to move into the catchment areas of the best state schools or those


who can afford to pay for private education, or those


We need to give all schools with a strong track record -


with the experience and the valuable expertise - the incentives


to expand their offer to enable even more pupils to go there,


driving up standards, giving parents greater


Mr Speaker, if I may, I'd like to start by offering some


Well, Mr Speaker, that reaction is very interesting.


Because that wasn't my advice, it was the advice of the last


Prime Minister who is still in post, as I think, today, as I believe.


The right honourable member, currently, for Witney.


When asked about Tory MPs wanting to return to grammar schools,


he went on to say, "I think it is delusional to think that


a policy of expanding a number of grammar schools is either a good


idea, a sellable idea or even the right idea."


Is it not the case that the example of the Harris Westminster Free


School, supported by a great independent school,


and King's Maths School, supported by a great university,


shows that you can of institutions that select at the age of 16 that


can ensure that children from disadvantaged backgrounds do


more, and will she reassure this House that in the face


of the opposition to all reform and all debate from the dogmatists


on the left side of the House, she will be driven entirely


by data and what works, and that she will press ahead


She is right to say that we have great schools and great teachers,


So could she explain now, or perhaps in the course


of the consultation, how the green paper proposals


on selective education will benefit those pupils in areas


where expectations are still too low, where results are too poor,


and can she tell us when she's going to announce the first


And Nicky Morgan, who you saw there, is of course still with us.


You said yesterday that the new policy is a strange first battle for


team radio to have picked -- Theresa May to have picked. Do you accept


there is public support for the policy? I accept that there is


public support in areas where there is selective education. But I have


had e-mails and calls from people who are not supporters. It is mixed.


Everybody wants all children to get the best possible education, to do


well for the able to be stretched. But when you think about it, the


worry is well what happens to those who don't? We heard yesterday tales


from MPs who said I didn't pass the 11-plus. But my concern is about the


parts of the country where educational performance is too low


and children aren't achieving the results and the focus needs to be


making sure that the reforms bed in in all schools across the country.


Rather than having another battle front opened up. What is driving


this for Theresa May? I don't know. Because I haven't spoken to her


about it. But you're in Government with her. You must know her a bit.


She has her own constituency experiences and her personal


experiences of being at grammar school when she was at school. But


also I think it is something she feels strongly about. There are


people of course in my party who feel very strongly and have wanted a


return too grammar schools, who will be supportive of this. But they're


wrong in your view? I think that having spent 24 months as Education


Secretary, it became clear to me and we captured this in the White Paper


there are parts of country where performance is not good enough and I


don't see how selection will help those parts improve. I don't see


those are areas where they will invite in selective schools to open


or to expands into the areas. Why did you allow an existing grammar


school in Sevenoaks to expand? We have the -- We have the view we want


good schools to expands. But it is miles from the existing site. We


were clear. As a former solicitor, I was clear on the legal ramifications


that it the was an integrated way. But you're not against grammar


schools per se, you were proud you allowed to it expand. Why such


opposition to parts that would like to open new ones? As I say, in the


green paper, it talks about the impact of having a selective school


on those non-selective schools locally. The challenge we face in


education at the moment is that patchiness and that we have great


schools and teacherses but we don't have them every where. While one


expansion is one thing, inviting this... It is a distraction from the


reforms that are working. The Chief Inspector of schools, who is not


afraid of challenges he couldn't be clearer, that the system is getting


better and it is not something that is needed now.


What do you say to your former colleague, the Schools Minister Nick


Gibb, who said that an increase in selective places would, by


definition, allow more children from poorer backgrounds to get an


outstanding education? He is right in the sense that obviously... That


is one of the things they will have to look at, how do you ensure that


children from more disadvantaged backgrounds get the new places


created in selective schools? There is a need for more school places, no


question, because there are more pupils in Nick would understand that


the need to build a strong education system across the country, one of


the questions asked yesterday is how this would work with the academies


and free schools programme, all of those things still to be answered?


Quite a few of you was cut -- your colleagues voiced concerns, around


50%. How big could be the rebellion be if there is one? I think we are


way off any kind of vote or anything like that, but I thought it was


interesting that there were a number of colleagues, some of whom I would


not have expected, voicing concerns. Like? People like Keith Simpson, Ken


Clarke, Michelle Donlon, Ken Clarke raised concerns about the fate


schools aspect. Clearly there is a lot more explanation and debate to


be had. Were you surprised about Michael Gove sounding like he could


support this policy? I think Michael started off, and the clip did not


show this, talking about the clear moral purpose. Anybody who has been


Education Secretary, you are driven, in the end, by wanting the best for


the children in the system. Michael talked about being led by the data,


that is one of the things raised both in the statement yesterday and


also outside, what is the data that shows that more selection builds a


strong school system that works for everybody? You were disappointed to


lose a job that you loved, what would you say was your biggest


achievement? Putting things like this focus on areas of the country,


that is what is in the White Paper. But it free schools didn't really do


that either, they were not opening in parts of the country that needed


them, like the one near me they were often opening in quite affluent


areas. You are right. Obviously in parts of the country that our


existing schools or existing groups of parents to open it, but we were


moving to a place where the area approach of looking at the areas of


the corrupt -- country where the results were poor, that is what I


was talking about in achieving excellence areas. My other passion


with mental health and character education, I put that on the map of


the department, I am glad that it will continue. What about your


biggest setback? Obviously the whole issue around the academisation and


the fact that... Again, as a minister you have the opportunity to


visit schools every week, see what is working, the transformation


across the country, but communicating that is quite hard to


people who are either perhaps looking at their own constituencies,


their own areas, or only have experience of certain types of


schools. I think that was obviously... Forced academisation.


In the last six months of being Education Secretary, it was taken up


with the EU vote, so many things were being made to wait until after


the 23rd of June. Many of your conservative colleagues


saw it as forced academisation. As we went through Brexit and there was


referendum, were you surprised that you did not continue as Education


Secretary? Know, with everything that unfolded in the weeks after the


Brexit votes, the Prime Minister will want her own team around her.


You were Remainers. My face did not fit. They were two jobs either


doing, but I was not surprised. I think Justine will be a very good


Education Secretary, she always talked very passionately about


social mobility, she did a lot of that as International Development


Secretary. Will it be difficult for her as a state school pupils from


Rotherham trying to push through selective education? She will work


with the Prime Minister on this. We will have to see. I think she has


lots of other things to announce, one of the other things is the fair


funding formula. And it was about your support, and I'm talking about


losing your job, of Michael Gove's leadership campaign, that pushed you


out? I suspect it did not win me any favours. Michael is a great social


reformer. The referendum results demonstrated that. We will be


talking about Brexit for months, if not years, but I think there are


deep divisions in this country and parts of the public services that


still need reform, prisons, welfare, education. Michael and I are on


different sides of the EU debate, but he is a great social reformer


who would have led that. But did not happen, we have a new Prime Minister


and we have to see how things unfold. Do you regret backing him? A


life or anything else, looking backwards is not worth it. I don't


think there is any point in having regrets. I will take this


opportunity now, being on the backbenches, the first time in thaw


years I have the opportunity to say what I think, still my diary with


meetings that I want to go to and explore other areas. In the Times


today it was said that Michael Gove's campaign was a terrible car


crash in which he was a leading passenger. By definition it was not,


ultimately, successful, and I was a lead person in that. At the end of


the day... It was an extraordinary period where decisions were made


very quickly and it was an exciting period to be involved in. But now I


have the opportunity to do other things. Nicky Morgan, thank you. But


you are staying. Now, when Britain leaves the EU,


one of the biggest challenges facing the Government will be how


to untangle more than 40 years' worth of entwined


British and European law. Sorting it all into the desirable


and the undesirable could take Well, some MPs have proposed


speeding the process up by accepting all EU laws now before sorting


through them all later on. Ever wondered what 64,000 individual


Acts of Parliament look like? Pretty much all of the UK's laws,


written down on sheep or goat skin and stored


here in the archive in Parliament. The biggest scrolls, I'm told,


relate to issues of taxation. Aha, this is arguably the most


important thing in here, the European Communities Act


of 1972. Essentially it enshrines a principle


that British law had It's like this is the boss


of everything else in here. Of course, all that's


about to change. Brexit means British law


will once again be supreme. There's just the little issue


of working out how. When you leave the European Union,


you repeal the European Communities Act, but you also bring


all the European law Then you change it after you've


left if you want to, You don't have to change


anything as you are leaving. There are two types of EU law,


regulations which apply automatically in all member states


and EU directives, which set out aims that parliaments


must then legislate for, Acts of Parliament like these


and statutory instruments Yeah, and that's why this


constitutional expert says it's a job that could take up


to a decade to sort out. The law, after all, is constantly


evolving and tested You can't simply cut and paste


without an awful lot of care. One example of what happened


when the Supreme Court was created was I think the


Government thought... Tony Blair thought, "Tremendously


easy, we'll just repeal the office We now have a Lord


Chancellor. When you looked at the thousands of


Acts of Parliament with references to the Lord Chancellor,


he couldn't get rid of it. And there will be an awful lot


of that kind of difficulty when you try to get


rid of some EU law. Because of the way that laws


are recommended, it's really hard to nail down the scale of just how


far EU law is entrenched -- the way that laws are


implemented. During the referendum campaign,


estimates varied from 16% to 13%. And there's no doubt we'd


like to keep some of them. Over the years, we've come to accept


quite a lot of the EU employment rights, the equality laws,


the things like that. Equal pay for men and women,


non-discrimination. But some of the more ridiculous


regulations in agriculture, for example, or in regulating


competition, for example, No one seems to be disputing


that this legal separation can be But whatever happens,


as soon as Britain leaves, the Communities Act will be


effectively ripped up. And, no, of course


that's not the real one! Yes, there was a slight gasp in the


studio! We're joined now by the Ukip


MP Douglas Carswell. Welcome. Clear this up, what


proportion of EU law is statute, ie made by Parliament, and what


proportion as common law? About 60% of law made last year originated


from the EU. There is a huge amount of regulation, statute and law that


emanates and was created under the auspices of the European Communities


Act. When we leave, we would vote to make all of that law, all of that


regulation, British law. It can subsequently be amended or not


amended, but the act of converting it into British law and leaving its


router be straightforward. But we have just heard the exact opposite,


you can't just take everything that was EU law, or originated in the EU


Parliament, and put it... I am only taking it from him, that you can't


cut and paste. You can't just say, I will rub out EU law and write a


British court. When Britain and other countries to colonise to in


the 40s, 50s and 60 's, the pattern was that law that had supposedly


been imposed by Britain on those countries became domestic law of


those countries until subsequently amended. The process of them


changing will be unending, because self-governing democracy, every new


Government will want to modify and change the law. The process of


making every piece of legislation brought in under the auspices of the


European Communities Act British law is relatively straightforward. How


many laws will we need to repatriate? The entire body of


legislation brought in under the European Communities Act 1972 will


become British law. How many laws are they, how many numbers?


Hundreds, thousands? Tens of thousands, and since we joined the


European Communities Act there has been exponential growth in so-called


statutory legislation, because the European Communities Act allows


technocrats to create law without our consent. Does it sound simple to


you? Know, and it was warned about before the vote on the 23rd of June,


it would take an inordinate amount of time. Some people just think he


will repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and that is it. It will


take a lot longer. Another point is the legislations, which have direct


effect. We need to decide which of those we want or don't want. The


other thing is that the rulings of the European port -- European Court


of Justice in terms of precedent, because lawyers in court will often


argue about precedent and look at what was meant when a statute or


directive was introduced. That will still apply for some years to come


until we have our own. It will be British court adjudicating after we


have left. But will it be? The lawyer said that


if you get rid of the certain number of laws, employment and workers'


writes, it takes time to incorporate or rewrite them into British law,


then the workers will not be protected? All existing laws and


rights would remain and be brought in as British law. Except he says


you can't do that as simply as cutting and pasting. There are about


200 countries around the world, they are almost all self-governing.


Self-government is not such a ridiculously complex process that we


can't manage it, we can manage it in a straightforward way. You think the


lawyer is wrong? It is generous of him to concede that self-government


as possible! But the transition will take a long time. The amount of


Government, civil service and Parliamentary time... Parliament


making public policy, there's a thought! It will keep us busy. A


good democratic principle would be that until the general election,


when Parliament published manifestos specifying what they want to change,


the default should be not to change. Jeremy Corbyn can by all means


nationalise the railways, currently illegal in the EU, but we should not


change these laws until we have an election and there is a mandate in


the manifested to change existing rules. So you accept it will tie up


the UK Parliament for years, maybe a decade? Self-government is quite a


busy process. We have been doing it for several centuries and it takes


up the time. You have always liked smaller government, fewer ministers,


less time spent on these things, now you advocate the opposite? Being in


the EU has meant an explosion in regulations and rules. If Parliament


has to take responsibility, I think we would get fewer laws, better


framed. And the people that the laws most impact would have recourse to


change them if they did not like it. You think Parliament will be best


served recreating 40 years worth of EU laws, however long it takes? As I


tried to explain, we do not need to recreate things, all existing laws


will be transposed and become UK law. You will have to recreate some


of them, some of them must have originated from the EU, and then


decide which to get rid of. Businesses who are going to work


with and EU member states, they benefit from those mutual


regulations. If we want to carry on with the relationships we have to


think it is not just about us. Mutual recognition is compatible


within the EU. By being outside the EU it would be easier to have this


than in the single market, which imposes a single standard on


everyone. Things like passports... That makes passporting in the City


redundant. You need the arrangement that Switzerland has. If you want to


refight the referendum, making these arguments too late. The realisation


is that this is going to be complicated and take a lot of civil


service time and cost. And it is not just Parliament, it affects


businesses, people in the country and public services, the NHS.


Self-Government does take up the time of politicians. It is what


people wanted. They wanted to take back control of laws and in a way


Parliament has to do this. They did want to take back control. But


people, I have had e-mails from people saying it is simple. That is


just the starting point. That won't happen... Maybe your party and my


party could publish a manifesto with chapters saying what we intend to


change. I would like higher animal standards and we can do that and not


blame Brussels. It will be good for democracy. You have thought a lot


about this over the years, what role doo you see yourself playing? I hope


I play a constructive role. I think David Davis is off to a flying


start. There is a commission to shadow the Brexit department, I


would love to play a part and ensure we leave the EU but co-operate with


our friends as neighbours. Wouldn't you rather be on the government


bench? Good heavens no, I have never been comfortable being part of


Government ever! David Davis has been the busy man.


-- has been a busy man. It will take many months to see the effects of


several options and the analysis on the negotiating balance, where our


allies might be and where they might not be. This is likely to be the


most complicated negotiation of modern times and maybe the most


complicated of all time. Even with and you mention this inure report as


well -- in your report, with private hearings, I have to say I may not be


able to tell you everything even in private hearings. Because this is


really the sexiest area of politics at the moment. Everybody writes to


us and we get vast amounts. My department is tiny. If it is


quadrupled in one month, it is eight weeks, but everybody around here


know what is Whitehall and Brussels are like in August.


Mr Davis is a busy man, because this afternoon he's also due


to appear in front of MPs on the Foreign Affairs Committee.


Nadhim Zahawi will be one of those putting the questions,


Is this the sexiest place to be in Whitehall? I think it is the most


exciting place to be if you're in Whitehall in terms of being able to


work out what are position is going to be. So that when we do trigger


article 50 we are able to once we know what that position is


articulate it and negotiate a settlement. That works for the


United Kingdom as Theresa May has said, she wants it to work for


business, so business can continue to trade with Europe. As well as


taking control of our borders. What are you going to ask him. I won't


pre-empt that, my colleagues would be upset. You have got them written


down. I have many written down, some will come through the interrogation


or the... Ability to enquire of our new Secretary of State. We want to


look at the structure of his department. To look at how he


intends to report back to Parliament. He rightly said, look,


we can't give a running commentary. Theresa May repeated that in the


chamber. I think it would be wrong of the Government to give a running


commentary as to what their thinking is and the position papers, but once


those position papers have become more solid, he would have to have


scrutiny of a select committee. It sounds fascinating this thing this


afternoon. It is. Is it. He is not going to tell you anything. He said


in this committee, we will have to keep a lot of negotiations secret


and we won't brief Parliamentarians, the rung commentary you -- running


commentary, you are not going to learn anything? Our job is to push


government. That is what committees do and why they have worked so well,


because now we have chairmen elected by the House and Thierry Henry have


the -- and therefore have the accountability of House and they


have the structure of departments and budget and the direction of


travel. You have got to be realistic. You can't have the detail


before the Government has had the negotiation. But then we want to


make sure there are commitments that they will come and in the spirit of


transparency be able to come before the committee and deliver that to


the House. Do you have sympathy with David Davis being asked questions he


can't answer? I think we have all been through it as ministers. I


think it is, we are all finding our way. This will be complicated. We


have heard how complex the legal changes. Not according to Douglas


Carswell. But I think they will be. I have to say I think, David Davis


said last week that he would keep Parliament informed and engaged.


There is a point, a balance between no running commentary and nothing at


all. And I think we are two months after the vote we need a plan as to


when we are going to start the negotiations and I would like to is


no what -- know where the Government would like to end up. Things like


free movement and single market and it is important I think, because


otherwise other people will put in their view and this is for the


government. Whether it is today or between now and the end of the term,


we need more detail. I think the principle, the guiding principle is


what the Prime Minister said, what she will want is a deal that works


for British business to export with Europe and control our borders. She


is the boss. She is the Prime Minister. Before you interrupted me,


free trade for businesses across Europe and controlling our


borderses. That were her guiding principles. You have to take the


guide from the DNA from any organisation comes from the top and


from Theresa May. Reaching a settlement was still possible said


David Davis within goo years, but -- two years but will be difficult. Do


you think it will slip? We will have to see. Our job on the committee is


to question the government as to what their targets are, what


structures they're putting in place, the resources they have available,


to meet the targets. You have to take them at their word. We have got


to take that at face value. But we make sure that that target is real


is tick and can be met. Ewith ill be watching. Thank you.


Time now to find out the answer to our quiz.


The question was about David Cameron.


He'd no sooner stepped down as an MP yesterday


B, new panellist on This Week with Andrew Neil?


Or D, Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead?


So, Nicky, what's the correct answer?


It is bailiff of the manor of Northstead. Do you know anything


about it? No. Yes, the correct answer is that


David Cameron has been appointed to be Crown Steward and Bailiff


of the Manor of Northstead, That's one of the ancient ceremonial


titles that's been kept to allow MPs And that means the previous Steward


and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead is out


of a ceremonial job. And we're joined by him now,


he's the former Labour MP Huw Irranca-Davies and he stood down


as an MP earlier this year in order It is a non-job isn't it? Yes, it is


a bit of fun and the only stewardship I have ever had. It is


supposed to be a paid office, but I didn't receive anything. Have you


written to the Chancellor? I think I should to say, where is my pay. But


it is strange. It is apt here in the Senedd, the first person to use the


device in 1742, was a Watkins Williams Wyn, who who inherited a


paid position and was forced to resign. You could not be a place man


and scrutinyise the king. You haven't a manor that you're handing


to David Cameron. No, I don't. I did have a bit of a look to see what the


manor looked like. Even when it was used in the fashion, it was a


derelict, run down building. Now, I understand it is under an industrial


estate. Sorry, David, there is not much to look at with this new role.


We have got a slight sound problem, but we will continue. There is no


process is there for actually standing down as an MP. Hence this


strange mechanism. Yes, we should be able to look this and there have


been suggestions to allow a MP either thus ill health or -- through


ill health, or like me I decided to do something, to put in a letter of


resignation. But I have to write, or David Cameron will have writen to


the Chancellor to get their permission to take on one of these


crown stewardships and that would disbar them from being an MP. So


they can't resign, but they're disqualified by having a paid


position under the crown. It is bizarre and it is a bit of fun, it


is nice to be one on a list that I notice includes people such as Enoch


Powell and Boris Johnson, Gerry Adams. And now David Cameron. I hope


he looks after it and doesn't upset the neighbours. You haven't upset


anyone. No there is a Twitter feed from the manor and they have sent me


good wishes for leaving it in good shape and invited me back. You look


as if you have enjoyed it. Thank you. You're a free man now. I am


free. Enjoy it. The One O'Clock News is starting


over on BBC One now. I'll be back at 11:30am tomorrow


with Andrew for live coverage


Download Subtitles