24/01/2017 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

Today, by a majority of eight to three, the Supreme Court rules that

the Government cannot trigger Article 50 without an Act of

A government defeat in the Supreme Court as the judges

confirm that only parliament can approve the triggering of Article

50 which begins the process of our withdrawal from the EU -

but they rule that there's no role for the devolved

The Government accepts the Supreme Court's judgement.

MPs and peers will get a vote - but what will the legislation look

like and what obstacles might Labour and other opposition

Strikes have paralysed the Southern Rail network

for months, preventing hundreds of thousands of commuters

Should unions and workers be allowed to inflict such disruption

And we're leaving the EU - so when will the bonfire

of regulations that are supposed to cost the British economy

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

of the programme today is the former Culture Secretary and Leave

So - the Government has failed to get its way in the Supreme Court,

and MPs and peers will get a vote before Article 50 is triggered,

which begins the process of Britain's exit from the EU.

The judges ruled by a majority of eight to three

that the Government cannot begin the process for the UK's exit

from the European Union without the authorisation of Parliament.

Lord Neuberger, president of the Supreme Court,

said a further Act of Parliament was required as the EU

Referendum Act did not specify what would happen after the vote.

Another issue the 11 justices had to consider

was whether the devolved assemblies also need to be consulted.

But they ruled that ministers did not need the consent

of the legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

The Government is now expected to swiftly publish legislation

asking Parliament to invoke Article 50.

Any bill is expected to be very short in order to leave as little

Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn has said the party

will not frustrate the invoking of Article 50, but is demanding

that the Government is accountable to Parliament throughout the Brexit

negotiations - with a "meaningful vote" at the end.

Alex Salmond, the Scottish National Party's

International Affairs spokesperson, has said the SNP will table 50

"serious and substantive" amendments, including a call

for the Government to publish a White Paper before

But how big a problem will this pose to

The Prime Minister had pledged to trigger Article 50

But MPs did overwhelmingly back a motion before

Christmas supporting the Government's Brexit timetable -

suggesting there may be a clear majority in the House of Commons

Here's how the President of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger,

The referendum is of great political significance.

But the Act of Parliament which established it did not say

So any change in the law to give effect to the referendum must be

made in the only way permitted, by the UK constitution.

To proceed otherwise would be a breach of settled

constitutional principles, stretching back many centuries.

On the devolution issues, the court unanimously rules that UK

ministers are not legally compelled to consultant the devolved

legislatures before triggering Article 50.

The devolution statutes were enacted on the assumption that the UK

would be a member of the EU, but they do not require it.

Relations with the EU, are a matter for the UK Government.

The Attorney General, Jeremy Wright, had this reaction to the judgement.

It's a case that it was wholly appropriate for the highest court

Of course the Government is disappointed with the outcome.

But we have the good fortune to live in a country where everyone,

every individual, every organisation, everyone government,

So the Government will comply with the judgment of the court,

and do all that is necessary to implement it.

Gina Miller is the business woman who brought the case

Here's how she reacted to the judgement.

In Britain, we are lucky, we are fortunate to have the ability

to voice legitimate concerns and views as part

I have therefore been shocked by the levels of personal abuse that

I have received from many quarters, over the last seven months,

for simply bringing and asking a legitimate question.

Let's talk to our political editor, Laura Kuenssberg.

Laura, the Government respects the judgment, even though it lost, and

lawyers have described the ruling a as victory for democracy, what does

Theresa May do now? The first thing as one Government minister said was

to say phew, that might sound strange given the Government have

lost this case, they certainly have, and let us not forget they did not

want to be in this position. No question about that. However, they

had two clear fears about what the court might say this morning, one

they would give the devolved administrations a formal role and

say they had to have an official say over this process, the judges held

back from doing that, so that is one small victory for the Government.

Part two, the court did not say what kind of legislation, what kind of

act the Government would have to come forward with. And that was

another small victory for the Government, so phew on those two

accounts, the judges did not tell them they had to consultant the

other authorities and they did not spell out the kind of legislation

they had to put forward. Therefore, they can push ahead with what might

even only be a bill of two lines, that we might see as soon as

tomorrow, and I expect that the Government might try to tie this all

up within the next fortnight as far as Westminster is concerned. In

order to stick to the timetable of the end of March, but does that mean

then, that MPs will not be able to put down amendments? We have heard

from the SNP they will try and put down 50 substantive amendments. Yes

and there will be huge efforts from those on the Remain side to try to.

A mend this bill, no question about that. Some of them will be debated

and there are real questions too, for the Government, if somebody

manages to get an amendment down, about whether or not we should stay

in the single market, if they manage to get an amendment down about a

vote at the end of the process that would be binding. That could start

be sticky. There is a pretty widespread expectation now that the

amendments might be troublesome. It could be bumpy, particularly when

this hits the House of Lords, but there isn't widespread expectation

this will go through and with the two big headaches not having been

realised by stream court, the Government strange as it sounds they

have been defeated but they are relieved. This. Amendment that

Labour has talked about. A meaningful vote, that would be a

veto? It would, so there is going to be a real game of cat-and-mouse in

terms of which amendments a are selected by the Deputy Speaker

rather the than John Bercow who will select the amendments that go

forward. Even the selection will be a political act. But this is going

to be difficult, for anybody, Jeremy Corbyn or any one else trying to put

down amendments here, because where the government has a lot of people

would thinked its cards wisely, Theresa May got out last week ahead

of the Supreme Court verdict today and set out with clarity for the

first time, what her plan is. She has tried to pitch that very much as

this is what she believes people voted for and therefore, nobody can

try to disturb or disrupt that, so people who are trying to put forward

amendments will be doing so up against that context, and I think

when you talk to MPs of all political parties right now, there

is an acceptance that whatever they try to do, whether it is Jeremy

Corbyn's amendment or anything else, the time for being able to slam the

brakes on this is probably past. At least it seems that way for now, in

six or nine month whence once we are in negotiations this could feel a

very very different picture. Thank you.

Welcome both o you. Fist your reaction, are you disappointed by

the ruling? No, I think it was widely expected that this would be

the ruling, it is a ruling that the constitutional lawyers and the

academics will crawl over and it very important for basic issues line

the use of a Royal Prerogative, but in termles of Brexit, I don't think

it will make much difference now and as Laura rightly said, the fact that

Parliament can reach a quick decision and move on was the

important outcome. So do you also agree with Laura's assessment that a

very short bill will be presented to Parliament, rather than a

substantive piece of legislation? Yes, I mean, what the Supreme Court

has said is that Parliament needs to authorise the Government to trigger

Article 50. That is a couple of loins of legislation. I would expect

that bill to be published very quickly and for it to go through

Parliament quick. We expected the first part of the ruling and no

doubt you are disappointed by what the Supreme Court President said

that relations with the EU are a matter for the UK Government, he was

very clear, so do you accept now that the devolved assemblies leek

the Scottish Parliament will not have a veto? Well, one thing that

the judgment did say today was that it is a political decision. It is up

to Theresa May about whether or not the Scottish Parliament has a say,

now the UK Parliament has never legislated on an issue that is the

responsibility of the Scottish Parliament in the EU impacts on

fishing, farming energy. But it's a matter of Foreign Affairs. They have

never done so. Where there is a political decision,ing if it's a

political decision, is that union of equals, is it a respect agenda in

terms of devolution and will that settlement be respected. When will

you hold a independence referendum on the fact the Government isn't

going to legally be bound to ask for your say, in this decision, when

will you hold the referendum? We haven't triggered Article 50 yet.

Let us see what the minister has to say about what happens next. One

thing that has been hugely disappointing to is is the Scottish

Government put forward a compromise. We put forward compromise, that was

flatly rejected, and that was really disappointing that the UK Government

is not prepared to meet the Scottish Government and the other devolved

administrations half way. Once Article 50 is triggered and it looks

like that will happen by the end of March which is what Theresa May

would like to see, we know that the UK will be coming out of the single

market, is that when you will tell us when the independence referendum

will be? That is obviously something the Scottish Parliament will have to

debate. The the referendum comes highly likely, this is as a direct

result of the UK Government refusing to compromise, refusing to give any

ground. We did not vote to leave the insystem market. We were promised

that Scotland would get powers over immigration by vote leave, we are

not getting that, we have had a series of broken promises by the UK

Government and this puts Scotland and its relationship of equals into

a very difficult place. Right. Steven has a point. Even Theresa May

said the devolved assemblies were going to be fully engaged. Of course

they will be. They don't if they don't have that say. They will take

part in the debates in Parliament. They have initiated debates in

Parliament. At the end of the day, the Scottish Government is not an

equal of Westminster Government, certain matters are devolved to the

Scottish Government, one of those is not the matters concerning the

European Union, this is a decision for the Westminster Parliament.

Right. You do accept that which is what I said to you initially, that

when it comes to matters of the EU, when it comes to Foreign Affairs

these are not devolved issues. But things like fishing and farming are.

Energy is a devolved issue. Will you have a say on that through the

committee? These are Members of Parliament. John's forgetting that

members of Parliament are not members of the Government, we are

members of the Westminster Parliament us juz as Conservative

MSPs are members of the Scottish Parliament. Democracy does not begin

and end at Westminster, and this is something the Conservative Party has

not really kept pace with, and thus is disastrous electoral showing in

Scotland. And you could pay the price for that, as the ballot box,

in future elections but in terms of being fully engaged, how do you see

the devolved assemblies being fully engaged, other than sitting on a

committee or two in Brexit? I'm sure the government will listen

to the views of the devolved governments. If they make sensible

suggestions, I'm sure they will be taken into account. When you say it

was promised, what was the wording given to you by Michael Gove in

terms of a promise that immigration would be devolved? He thought it

would be sensible for Scotland to have control over immigration

because we have particular needs. Freedom of movement is something

jobs rely on. I will read you what he said. He said, if in the course

of the negotiations the Scottish Parliament wants to play a role in

deciding how a Visa system could work, then that is something we

would look into. That's not quite the same as saying they would

devolve immigration. I raised this in the chamber. When I asked Michael

Gove if it would mean devolving immigration, he nodded. It was an

act of negligence that the UK government has carried on. If they

can keep this simple promise, what hope Howie for the rest of these

areas? -- can't. You behaved in a negligent manner. You make promises

you couldn't keep. The vote Leave campaign was not the government.

What Michael Gove said sounds very sensible to me. But sadly, in my

view, Michael Gove is not a member of the government now, nor am I. It

means it is a matter for the government to decide. Steven Cousins

HAAS to go. Thank you. Jenny Chapman, Jeremy Corbyn has said this

morning Labour will not frustrate the process of invoking article 50.

But he has said he will seek to amend the Bill and ensure there is a

meaningful vote. What is that? The reason it is meaningful is that it

needs to come before the deal is signed. There will be two votes. I

don't think people got their heads around it. The votes we are talking

about today is around the Article 50 agreement, the withdrawal agreement

from the EU, which will deal with things like pensions and

contributions, all of those sorts of issues. Also in that agreement is

likely to be a transitional deal, which we will be on. That will

inform our relationship as we leave so there is no cliff edge. What is

not in that withdrawal agreement is the free-trade deal, or whatever our

future agreement is going to be with the EU. That is another bowled

Parliament needs to have. Theresa May needs to give parliament a votes

on any trade deal she goes into in the future. Would you go along with

that? Parliament obviously needs a votes. That is very clear. The

problem is that once Article 50 is triggered, then we are set on a path

which will lead to Britain leaving. That is irrevocable. That is being

argued about at the moment. That is what Article 50 says. If we chuck

out the deal and say Parliament decides it doesn't like the deal,

then we leave anyway. We just don't have a deal. This is where the

argument lies. If there is a vote and Parliament does vote it down. We

don't like the deal, we don't think we are getting enough in terms of

what we wanted with regard to free-trade, do we stay in the EU at

that point, or do we go on to World Trade Organisation rules? One is the

transitional deal we could have. That takes away this, you either

take this deal or not. That was a stupid thing for the Prime Minister

to have said because it will not be the case. You can actually extend

the negotiating period should you need to. That has to get the

agreement of the other 27 states. The debate is taking place as if

that is not possible. It is possible. You agree it is a risk? Of

course. He could not get agreement, we would be on a cliff edge. Indeed.

I don't think it would be in the interest of the other 27 states. Why

shouldn't there be a deal to say that actually, just go back and

negotiate further in the interests of the UK? Parliament has the

ability to vote at any stage of the process. But at the end of the day

this is in negotiation the government has to conduct. I think

the Prime Minister is right to warn against any attempt to bind the

hands of the negotiating team. We don't want to set conditions on the

government. Europe will know that and will harden their stance

immediately if they know that the government has to achieve something.

Right. These are the arguments that have been set out before. We show

our hand completely, we won't get the deal that we want. You accept

that? Absolutely. You will not see an amendment from the Labour Party

which says we want to see your negotiating tactics. We will be

making probably five very reasonable amendments that I hope the House

will adopt. We want to see a plan. We have had a speech. Do you want to

see a White Paper? That would be great. If it is less than a White

Paper but still fulfils the function of a plan, we would settle for that.

We want certainty around EU citizens, certain principles around

maximising free-trade, the Customs Union, that the Prime Minister

outlined herself in her speech. We want parliamentary oversight and a

vote before the end. Most of those things the Prime Minister has

already said she accepts. I do not see why the government would want to

obstruct our amendments. You have been clearer about what Labour pots

position would be in terms of Article 50. Are you convinced by

your labour colleagues? You will not get every Labour MP to vote in

favour of triggering Article 50. Will there be a width? That is way

above my pay grade! There is the small matter of the party

leadership, the shadow Cabinet, the Chief whip. If you are quite firm as

part of the Brexit team on issues like freedom of movement, invoking

Article 50, should there be party management to whip Labour MPs? It is

not up to me. Whatever we do, whether it is a three line whip, it

is academic and away. There are MPs I know who, whatever working

arrangements you put in place, are not going to vote Article 50. One of

them was on the programme yesterday. You are split on this issue as we

used to say the Conservatives are. We are not, really. It's different.

It is nothing like what you have seen over decades in the Tory party.

The referendum has put Labour MPs in positions where they are on

different sides of this argument. But we respect one another pots 's

edition on this. We are very understanding. --'s position. We saw

IDS and Ken Clarke going at it hammer and tongs this morning on TV.

I was a Maastricht rebel, so I remember! When it comes to the vote,

I think what you will see is with probably the single exception of Ken

Clarke, all Conservative MPs will vote to trigger Article 50. The

Labour Party will probably go in three different directions. Thank

you. Donald Trump's had a busy few days,

and so far it's going well for him. His proposed Secretary of State has

been given the green light by the Senate, and he's formally

withdrawn from the Trans-Pacific But not everything is

going according to plan. So our question for today

is, what's gone wrong? At the end of the show John

will give us the correct answer. Over the last year or so, strikes

on Southern Trains have wreaked havoc on rail travellers

in the south east of England. The row over who should operate

the doors on new trains has re-opened the debate

about whether our strike laws need toughening, and today,

Conservative backbencher Chris Philp is introducing a bill to the Commons

to address the issue - and he joins us from

Parliament's Central Lobby. What does your bill asked for? It

asks for proportionality. It says the rights of the public to get to

work or get home to see their loved ones, should be balanced with the

right to strike. People do need to be able to get to work. A High Court

judge should adjudicate were strike action is taking place or is

proposed, to say that action must be reasonable and proportionate when

weighed against the impact on the public, against the issue of the

drivers. The action on Southern Railway has not been reasonable and

proportionate. There have been 40 days when 300,000 people have been

unable to get to work. The dispute centres on who opens or closes the

doors. Driver operated stores run perfectly safely on 1.5 million

trains in the last five years. The regulator says they are saved. They

run safely on London Underground. It is -- the strike is running people's

lives. The strike stayed past the required threshold. What

justification have you got to make it even harder? Taking the RMT

dispute with Southern as an example, something like 75% did vote for

strike action. You have 300,000 people simply complaining about who

opens or closes the door, preventing 300,000 people from getting to work

on 40 days. It is not reasonable or proportionate. I'm not saying strike

should be banned. I'm simply saying we should balance the right to

strike with the right of people to get to work and recognise those

rights as well as recognising the work of -- the rights of strike. Is

the government supporting new? I'm not here to support -- to speak for

the government. Begun and will speak for themselves. It is not currently

government policy. They are thinking about it. The more the unions behave

unreasonably, the more likely this kind of legislation becomes. We

can't sit back and watch constituents' lives being ruined by

this kind of action. If they behave unreasonably, it makes a case for

legislation stronger. Watson of turnout are you expecting from your

colleagues? After failing to predict the Brexit referendum and Donald

Trump's election, not in the prediction business. It does have a

lot of backbench support. Over 50 Conservative MPs signed a letter a

couple of weeks ago to the daily Telegraph, and there is widespread

support in parliament and more importantly in the country.

Yesterday a Paul was published saying 64% of Londoners supported

this. We're joined now by Mick Lynch

of the RMT union. Let's go back to that opinion poll

in yesterday's Evening Standard. 65% of Londoners want curbs on strikes

by train or tube drivers. It would be good if you lose the vote? 61% of

the country on a nationwide poll support the right of trained staff,

emergencies services start, doctors, Fire Brigade 's etc, to maintain

their right to strike. He is saying, if you strike on the way we like and

it's very ineffective, I will tolerate your right to strike. This

is a suppression of human rights. Long-standing human rights that

trade unions and working class people have had. People have rights.

It is balanced by, if you like, in an unfair whereby the current raft

of legislation which has just gone through Parliament. It is not even

fully enforced yet. We have a raft of balancing laws that will restrict

the right to strike coming in on March the 1st. They have been on a

process of voting in parliament. This is more about Chris Phipps's

ambition. He is getting a profile out of it. He has not done enough to

bring about a resolution and put pressure on Chris Kelly -- Chris

Grayling and Southern to bring a resolution. He is politicising the

dispute through his own ends and for the Tory party's agenda, which is

whenever the trade unions dared to put their heads above the parapet,

they want to make what we do illegal and crush resistance. He is not

wanting to make it illegal? All but. Yes, I support the bill. I will vote

for it if there is a vote today. How would you deem a strike to be

unreasonable on an essential service? Chris has set out that the

critically essential services should have additional requirements

before... What would there be? Primarily transport, rail, perhaps

the tubes. Things huge number of people depend on. Chris is speaking

up for his own constituents and travellers on Southern rail who have

been put through misery Day misery Day after day. Do you blame the

company? The company is certainly open to criticism. Shouldn't some of

the pressure be going on to the company? I know Chris Grayling is

talking to the company and the union. He has done nothing. He has

said his door is open. This is about strike action and whether there are

some services were there needs to be protection for the consumers. Chris

has come up with some suggestions. What you mean, paying conditions

that people have built up, you find that to be too much and you are

going to challenge it and get one of your friends to the judiciary to

make that strike illegal. At the moment they haven't done well with

their friends in the judiciary. There are people that are willing to

put the trade unions down. No-one wants to give us the freedom enjoyed

in other countries, we have the most repressive laws in the western

world. They are mirrors what is in place in other countries. Other

restrictive practises. Other countries... People are more tree to

take action. Australia, developed western economy, they recognise on

critical services you need protection. The DFT has put people

through misery, there is no need for this dispute in the first place, the

DFT has sponsored this dispute from the beginning to get rid of guards

on the trains it a political dispute in the sense your party and

Government is running I Do you accept both sides have politicised

it. You have on the one side, I have before quoted to you the RMT

President, you said it was quoted out of context but it was broadly

about taking down a Tory Government when it came to resisting strike

action and you blamed the Tory Government, for ideologically

opposing these strikes and not doing enough about the company, so

politics has dogged this strike on both sides. All strikes have a

political element. There is going to be something in there that is a

broader agenda. The Tory party and the DFT want to dehumanise the

railway. They will change the franchises, so that the companies

can make no profit and their ambition is to get rid of guards on

all trains in the UK. Is that that your ambition? We made clear this is

a dispute between the operating company, it is the case that across

the rest of the country there are large numbers of trains that are

driver only operated without any difficulty whatsoever. I suppose

what I could say in terms of the legislation itself, this trade union

legislation was brought in relatively recently, if you are

supportive of toughening up or going further with that legislation you

got it wrong the first time round. Chris is introducing a private

member bill. He is putting suggestions on the table, I think

they are interesting one, I think they are worth looking at,

particularly given the experience we have had in the last few weeks. Will

the Government move on it? That is a matter for the Government. Should

they? I would hope they would. You are revisiting a piece of

legislation you have only just brought in. I think what is driving

Chris fillip and a lot of other people is the fact 300,000 people

are being put through hell, over a arcane dispute between two trade

unions about who opens the doors. It is not arcane. We are passionate

about defending the standards of safety on the railway. You choose

not to believe that, but the guard has other roles besides opening and

closing door, that is what the dispute is about. Whenever we put

forward reasonable industrial accuse sun that is effective you seek to

make it illegal. The Tory party has never reported legislation that will

assist trade unions, this is another chapter in oppressing our rights and

another in suppressing people's freedom and the ability to resist

what this Government is doing and what the employers are doing. The

Government says it is about balancing rights between the people

who use the services and people like you who work in the service, but

could this strike action actually backfire for the unions, if it

results in the Government backing even tougher leg lacing you sigh as

anti-union. So you come out with your hands up. We are not prepared

to do that. What can you do? We have the right to industrial action and

we will continue to do so. We try do that within the law as we do with

everything else. Regulation about tax and returns and the rest of it.

We will continue to act within the law until the Tories make that

impossible. Wouldn't it be better to try and have a reconciliation,

rather than talking about tougher legislation that is is only going to

escalate this row because we have heard, they will continue the union,

which is within their right further strike action. One of the

suggestions in the bill is on essential services, where there is

an industrial dispute there should be a requirement to go to

arbitration, that is one possibility. Another is it should go

before perhaps a judge, not a friendly one, as we had seen today

but an independent judge who can rule as to whether or not the action

taken is proportionate. These are suggestions at this stage. This is

not going to become law, they are sensible and worth looking at. Thank

Now, Donald Trump promised yesterday to "cut business regulation

Could the UK government do the same here?

That's the hope of many of those who campaigned

They say red tape associated with our membership of the EU

is costing the UK economy billions of pounds every year.

One of the burning issues of the referendum campaign.

It is absurd that we are told you cannot sell bananas in bunches

If we take back control, we will lift the burden.

?600 million a week lifted off the backs of British industry.

Bananas claimed about wonky fruit aside, saving all that money

by getting rid of red tape is surely a persuasive argument.

In 2014, the think-tank Open Europe costed the impact of the 100 most

expensive EU regulations on the British economy

Take environmental legislation, such as the UK Renewable Energy Strategy.

Costing a yearly ?4.7 billion, it's one of the hottest

Or employment legislation, such as the Working Time Directive.

That was said to cost business ?4.2 billion a year.

There is an annual price tag of ?2.1 billion

for the Temporary Agency Workers Directive.

Lots and lots of regulations that are very much to do

with bureaucracy, rather than real benefit, and that bureaucracy

cost businesses money, especially when it's applied

The British Chambers, for example, stopped measuring it in 2010

because nobody was listening, and by that point they'd already

estimated that European regulations cost ?80 billion a year.

Big numbers, but the Government holds its hands up and says it likes

many of these regulations, and any way it realises it

could get its fingers burned by removing them.

Under my leadership, not only will the Government protect

the rights of workers set out in European legislation,

Because under this Conservative Government,

we will make sure legal protection for workers keeps pace

The think-tank Open Europe reckon there is an annual ?13 billion

saving to be had from deregulation, but that would come

from amending EU rules, rather than dumping them completely.

The Government's plan is to take EU regulation

on to the UK statute book, and the first instance is to keep

that regulation the same, in terms of negotiation with the EU,

but clearly the Government is giving itself the tools to look

at regulations in the future, because it will be something that

I certainly think that as the relationship

develops, as we are outside of the European Union,

it is inevitable in some areas regulation is going to diverge

different attitudes to certain issues, and as the EU takes

different attitudes we might no longer sign up to.

Those hoping for a bonfire of EU regulations the day

after Brexit might want to dampen their expectations.

Changing the rules or getting rid of them completely,

even if you wanted to, could well be a slow burn.

You enjoyed that John. I suppose you would think one of the great add van

Tam of Brexit is we will be able to establish vast swathes of

regulation, which would you like to get rid of first? I think there is a

lot to choose from, what we have said to British business is you tell

us which are the most burden some, the most unnecessary, pieces of

regulation and we will look at whether they can be repealed. This

is going to take time. It is not part of the Brexit negotiations, but

because what we will do is introduce a bill that transfers all European

regulations into British law and then we will have the opportunity to

go through and decide which are appropriate and which are not.

Right. But what are the regulations that you would like to get rid of?

Boris Johnson said we can get rid of the pointless rules, what did he

have in mind? I think you have had a list put up on the screen of some.

Things like the Working Time Directive, not to remove entirely.

Part of the problem with European regulation is they agreed in

Brussels, as a single regulation across the whole of #y50u6r7. What

we will be able do is design it so it meets our needs, it might be that

certain sectors should be exempted for instance from Working Time

Directive, but we have the time to look at these things and craft them,

so they don't impose unnecessary costs and burdens. You would like to

restrict something like the Working Time Directive which is a cost of

4.2 billion. That season a area where we can say to the various

sectors for maybe the farming sector or the NHS or others who have

complained about the impact of Working Time Directive, you tell us

what is necessary, and which is unnecessary, and just adding to our

costs and then the British Government can draw up the

regulation, specifically designed for the needs of that particular

sector. That puts you at odds with the Prime Minister, because Theresa

May wants to enhance exactly that type of employment protection and

legislation, a fairer Britain she says is a country that protects an

enhances the rights people have at work, so she doesn't want to do

that. We don't want to sweep away all Rourkers -- workers' rights. You

have said business tells you we want to get some of the regulations and

rules that will know doubt, some will include employment protection,

the ones Theresa May says she wants to keep. They would say we would

like you to get rid of it. I can remember from my time in Government

there were measures which the Government oppose which we argued

against and loss in a vote, so we were still required to implement.

There are plenty of examples like that where we have side this is not

necessary. It is going to add to costs now we will have the ability

to get rid. Are you disappointed by what Theresa May said? No,some She

goes on to say that is why in order to have this fair ir-Britain, that

is why as we translate, which with you said the body of European law

into domestic regulation for we willen shoe shoe that workers'

rights are fully protected and maintained. She doesn't want to get

rid of any of it That is no what she is saying. He is saying workers'

rights are fully protected and maintained. Under my leadership, not

only will the Government protect the rights of workers, set out in

European legislation, like the temporary agency workers directive

and the working time directive, we will build on them. She wants to

increase it. One of the things about being outside the European Union is

we can reduce regulation in areas where we think it is unnecessary, if

there are air areas we would like to do more we have the chance to do so.

That will increase the talk. About this tall from you and Boris Johnson

and you and your leave colleagues we are going to wipe away billions, not

according to Theresa May, or what you have said is you might build.

There are one or two areas where we wanted to go further and the

European Union held us back. Animal welfare and legislation, we were

stopped from bringing in certain protections, but in the vast

majority of cases, Europe has added more and more regulation. Where? I

am trying to get to the bottom of it. If you have accepted that

Theresa May wants to not only keep workers' rights legislation, but

build on them, environmental legislation, such as the UK

renewable energy strategy comes in at 4.7 billion. Environmental

protections would you get rid of those to save money? We will draw

them up so they are appropriate for this country, there will be some

elements of European regulation which are sensible and which we will

say we have no intention of repealing those, but where there are

examples where we believe that they are unnecessary and costly, we can

get rid of them. Have you got any examples? Are we going to get to the

bottom of the list... As we talked about one or two, like Working Time

Directive, which we wouldn't necessarily get rid of. Theresa May

doesn't want to get rid of it. She hasn't said that, she said she will

protect workers right. Where there is a strong case, we will keep those

thing, when I was Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport we had

European regulation coming through, which we strongly opposed, and yes

we were forced to implement. We can look at it again and some we may

keep and other parts we have the freedom to repeal. Boris Johnson

said we can, when we take back control we can save ?600 million a

week, will be lifted off the backs of British industry, do you agree

with that? John Longworth you had earlier, he ran the British Chambers

of Commerce who used to keep the running total of the cost of

regulation, I don't think you can put a specific figure on it. Boris

Johnson did. There is a vast amount of regulation which adds to cost,

makes us less competitive and destroys jobs. You haven't been able

to give me a specific example We have been talking about specific

example, I have given you several. I think that it is for business to

tell us, those areas of regulation they found to be most costly and for

which there is little justification. As we come to debate the great

repeal bill, that will be consequence.

Now, Theresa May refused to say on Sunday whether she was aware that

a Trident missile had veered off course towards Florida in a test

Yesterday it was revealed that the Prime Minister was made

aware of the incident when she took office in July, and the Defence

Secretary, Michael Fallon, was summoned to the House of Commons

As the matters we are about to discuss are of the utmost

confidentiality and may give succour to Her Majesty's enemies,

I beg to move - I beg to move that the House sit in private.

Under Standing Order Number 163, I am obliged to this this question

The question is that the House do sit in private.

As many as are of that opinion say aye.

We do not comment on the detail of submarine operations.

I can, however, assure the House that during any test firing

the safety of the crew and public is paramount, and is

I can assure the House that the capability and effectiveness

of the United Kingdom's independent nuclear deterrent is not in doubt.

The Government has absolute confidence in our deterrent,

and in the Royal Navy crews who protect us and our Nato allies,

Can I ask the Secretary of State a simple question.

Why was this information deliberately kept from Parliament

Who made the decision to keep this incident quiet?

Was it his department or was it Number Ten?

And while respecting the limits of what he can disclose,

can he at least set out what investigation his

department has carried out into what happened in June?

And what assurances he can give that there will be no future cover

Mr Speaker, at the heart of this issue is a worrying lack

of transparency and a Prime Minister who's chosen to cover

up a serious incident, rather than coming clean

This House, and more importantly the British public, deserves better.

While accepting that the nuclear deterrent needs to be

shrouded in secrecy, it also needs to deter,

and once stories get out there, that a missile may have failed,

isn't it better to be quite frank about it,

especially if it has no strategic significance, as in this case

John Whittingdale, has this been handled well by Number 10? I think

it is faintly absurd to have a 40 minute session of MPs asking

questions and having the Secretary of State refused to answer them,

basically. But he is quite right. Matters of nuclear deterrent are

concerned with security and we never comment on these. There have been

successful tests publicised in the past. Press releases have been sent

out. And the Prime Minister was briefed a rout -- about this test

misfiring. Should they have come clean when they were asked? What the

Secretary of State has told us, the submarine is now back doing its job

and we have come out the other side. Eukaryote test to see if there are

problems and then correct them. -- eukaryote test. I don't think you

can put out a press release to tell everybody that Britain's nuclear

deterrent has a problem. Because it undermines deterrence Ubud Julian

Lewis says there have been umpteen other tests that have been

successful. Should Number 10 have come clean? I don't think it would

have affected the vote on Trident. You don't talk publicly on matters

affecting public security. When it was all over the press, should a

Theresa May have answered differently on the Andrew Marshall?

If the Prime Minister had just said, I regret the fact that this was on

the front page of the Sunday Times, but I'm still not prepared to talk

about matters of national security, which is essentially what the

Secretary of State then said later, that would have been fine. Is that

what you have -- would have advised her to do? A long time ago I used to

advise the Prime Minister before interviews and that is probably what

I would have said. To some extent the Prime Minister could have

stopped the debate on this in its tracks on Sunday by saying something

more definitive, couldn't she? She clearly was on willing to answer the

question. She might have been more explicit in just saying, I'm not

going to answer that question. Our guest of the day,

John Whittingdale, has to rush off now, but before he goes,

let's find out the What hasn't gone

well for Donald Trump John Whittingdale, what do you think

is the right answer? The one I suspect he would probably be most

sore about is Arnold Schwarzenegger. It's probably not the right answer!

It is not. His new Washington, DC Hotel is losing money. I don't

suppose people will shed any tears because he has got a few Bob. Thank

you for being on the programme. Thank you.

Back to our main story - the Supreme Court's judgement

on whether Article 50 can be triggered.

In the last hour, the Brexit Secretary, David Davis,

I can announce today that we will shortly introduce legislation

allowing the government to move ahead with invoking article 50,

which starts the formal process of withdrawing from the European Union.

We received the lengthy judgment a few hours ago and government lawyers

are assessing it carefully. But this would be a straightforward bill.

It's not about whether or not the UK should leave the European Union.

That decision has already been made by the people of the United Kingdom.

We will work with colleagues in both houses to ensure this bill is passed

in good time and we will invoke article 50 by the end of March this

year, as the Prime Minister has set out. We will introduce legislation

to give the government legal power to trickle Article 50 and begin the

formal process of withdrawal. It will be separate to the great repeal

Bill to repeal the European Communities Act 1972, introduced

later this year. This will be the most straightforward bill possible

to effect the decision of the people and respect the decision of the

Supreme Court. That was David Davis. We're joined now by the leader

of the Liberal Democrats in the Lords, Lord Newby,

and the former Ukip Welcome to both of you. Dick Newby,

you are the leader of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords,

which has a large contingent of more than 100 unelected peers. Are you

going to block Article 50? We will try to amend the Bill. We will be

trying to insert in the Bill a provision that the people should

have the final say on the outcome of the Brexit negotiations. Do you want

a second referendum? We want a first referendum. With the first

referendum people voted for a raft of incompatible things. We want to

give them the chance to vote on what will be a very specific negotiated

outcome. I think it is quite likely we will oppose it. It will be

perfectly available for people to vote in favour of Brexit at that

point if they agree with the terms. Do you not feel uncomfortable that

you would be leading 100 or so unelected peers in frustrating the

well of more than 17 million voters in the referendum who called for the

EU to live? We're not frustrating the will of the people. Giving

people a vote is not frustrating the will of the people. It's

implementing the will of the people or allowing them to implement their

own will. Said that the fair enough? The House of Lords is there to

scrutinise legislation and amendments will be laid down in good

faith. It is there to scrutinise legislation but the government

couldn't have been clearer when it spent ?9 million on that pamphlet it

shoved through every letterbox in the land, in which it said clearly

that you, the people, will decide this. It didn't actually put it into

the legislation, technically, but there is no doubt about it that that

is what was intended, that is what the British people thought they were

doing when they voted for Brexit. I would be very surprised if, led by

the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords, the House of Lords did

anything to frustrate that process. I think it would be madness. And,

you know, they will be erecting the guillotine in Parliament Square

pretty soon. That sounds pretty painful? We tried to amend the House

of Lords so we were popularly elected. The Labour Party and the

Tories wouldn't agree. According to Malcolm Pearson, it would be

madness? We don't believe it would be madness. Giving people a vote

could never be madness. We still believe the House of Lords as a role

to play but it should be elected. The Supreme Court has upheld that.

The government lost its case in the Supreme Court. They have said it is

up are parliament to trigger the process of leaving the EU. Do you

think those judges are enemies of the people, as described by the

Daily Mail? No. I understand they said that Parliament had to be

consulted about the triggering of Article 50, which is rather

different. They said it had to be an act of Parliament. Yes. I gather

that is going to be done soon. That's fine. There can be an act of

Parliament to trigger Article 50 and the process will take place. The

Prime Minister has said the result of the negotiations will be put

again to Parliament. So again, it comes back to Parliament. But you

must remember, the House of Lords is a very Europhile place. It's stuffed

full of former EU Commissioner 's and assorted mischief who have

actually brought this country into the bog with the European Union

where we are. So the House of Lords will be very grudging about this.

What do you think about the second referendum idea, or the first

referendum idea as Dick Newby says? I don't think people will want it.

It is pretty clear we will be able to do a very good deal with the EU.

If you look at jobs, they have got 3 million more jobs selling things to

us than we have to them. We held every card in the pack. On mutual

residence, they have got 3 million people living here, we have 1.2

million living there. Why is this going to be so difficult? It's not.

It is in our interests to give us a painless exit from this ill-fated

venture. We don't know what the negotiations are going to be. But

divorce negotiations tend not to be happy, jolly events. Unless

everybody would like to get something positive out of it?

Everybody would like to get something out of it. Frankfurt would

like to get City jobs, so would Paris, so would Dublin. Berlin would

like to get our high-tech jobs. The negotiations will bear those jobs

are very much in mind. Suzanne Evans, Ukip's Deputy chair, says

judges should be subjected to some sort of democratic control. Do you

agree? No, I don't think I do. It is very important for the separation of

powers that Parliament and the executive and the judiciary, and

indeed the church, remain... So you think today was a good day in terms

of democracy? Think of is proper that it should happen. I regret the

decision of the majority of the judges. But one wouldn't be

surprised about that because on the whole are judges are pretty

politically correct. You think they are Europhiles? I didn't say that!

Are the Lib Dems moving away from the centre of the -- politics? Only

a quarter of the support your call for a second referendum? I think

that we saw erichment, and we are seeing weekly in by-elections, that

many people support exactly what we are standing for. We look forward to

this being chewed over in Parliament.

That's all for today. Thanks to our guests.

The One O'Clock News is starting over on BBC One now.

I'll be back at 11:30 tomorrow with Andrew, for live coverage

Do join us then. Bye bye.