Jo Coburn is joined by former Culture, Media and Sport secretary John Whittingdale. They look at the Supreme Court's decision on article 50.
Browse content similar to 24/01/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
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.
Jo Coburn is joined by former Culture, Media and Sport secretary John Whittingdale. They look at the Supreme Court's decision on whether the government must consult Parliament before triggering article 50 with Stephen Gethins from the SNP and Labour's Jenny Chapman. Also on the programme Conservative MP Chris Philp has a ten minute rule bill designed to toughen up the strike laws, Jo speaks to him and Mick Lynch from the RMT.