22/06/2017 Daily Politics

Afternoon, folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics.

Theresa May has told MPs that tests on tower blocks have found that more

buildings are covered with combustible cladding,

thought to be a factor in the blaze at Grenfell Tower in London.

The Queen's Speech was dominated by new laws to open the way

for Brexit, but will they survive months or even years

of parliamentary warfare in the Commons and the Lords?

The Liberal Democrats have a few more MPs but they are still

Is Vince Cable the man to help them win?

And as thousands get ready to head to Glastonbury this weekend, they'll

need to watch out for sunburn, rain and the risk of bumping

We'll bring you our political guide to festival season.

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

of the programme today, two peers who've put their ermine

back into the cupboard until the next Queen's Speech,

which could be in a couple of weeks, at the rate we're going!

It's Labour's leader in the Lords Angela Smith

and the former Conservative cabinet minister Michael Forsyth.

First let's turn to last week's tragedy at Grenfell Tower in London.

This morning the chief executive of the local authority,

Kensington and Chelsea Council has resigned, he said at the insistence

of the Local Government Secretary Sajid Javid.

Also this morning, the Prime Minister Theresa May has

been telling MPs what the government knows about the causes of the fire,

and said tests on other high-rise flats have discovered some

are covered in "combustible" cladding.

The government has arranged to test cladding in all

Mr Speaker, shortly before I came to the chamber,

I was informed that a number of these tests have come

The relevant local authorities and local Fire Services have been

informed and as I speak, they are taking all possible steps

to ensure buildings are safe and to inform affected residents.

Immediately after this statement, the Department for Communities

and Local Government will contact any MPs whose constituents

So a significant announcement from the Prime Minister,

and No 10 has since confirmed that three samples of cladding from tower

blocks in England alone have been found to be combustible.

We're expecting to hear more from the Local Government Secretary

later today, but now let's go to our correspondent Jim Reed.

What have we learned? As you say, we are expecting a kind of common

statement by Sajid Javid. -- some kind of Commons statement. He might

give us an idea about the number of flats in apartment in bold. In the

last quarter of an hour, the Guardian newspaper has reported it

could be up to 600 blocks across the country which could have this

cladding attached which is linked to the blaze at Grenfell Tower.

Yesterday evening, we heard from people, from residents of an estate

in North London, Tolson, that they were concerned about the cladding on

their block and we went down there, they were receiving e-mails from the

local housing association saying they thought it almost certainly was

the same kind of cladding as was an Grenfell Tower and the interesting

thing from where we went, and we have pictures to show you, I think,

is that this was a new block under new estate, built two or three years

ago, and the central block is 22 stories high. There are real

questions, if new build blocks are using this material which over the

weekend, the government said was banned, there are real questions

about the regulations involved. If professional multinational companies

have been using this apparently with building regulation guidance when

they should not have been. Do we have any indication what the

government intends to do about this, if we now know... I must say, it

does not really come as a surprise, why would Grenfell Tower be a one

off? We now know there are multiple tower blocks across England and the

government is only talking about England at the moment, Wales,

Scotland and Northern Ireland are separate. Now we know this, do we

have any idea what the government intends to do about it? It was

unclear from Theresa May's statement today, whether the government still

think this material breached building regulations. That could be

really important when we go forward into a potential public enquiry and

looking at criminality. Over the weekend, the Chancellor said they

thought this stuff was banned and over the weekend, people in the

firing history have been split down the middle on this, half of them

saying it was clearly bad and they should not have been using it and

the other half saying it is more nuanced. There are real questions

now and still questions for Theresa May about the material and the

building regulations that might have allowed it to be used because we

know for sure it was banned above a certain height in other countries,

in the US and certainly in Germany. So is it banned here or not? That is

one question Theresa May did not answer in the House of Commons

today. People will wonder at such a simple matter is this, in a sense,

that it is a matter that regulations have not covered, that politicians

at the local and national level have not covered. You don't need to be an

expert to know that you don't surround the building with

combustible material. Clearly but one thing we need to be careful

here, because people watching this will be rightly concerned about what

is on the outside of their building, the one we went to in Tottenham last

night is a very different building from Grenfell Tower, very modern, so

it has all the safety and security features like sprinklers, safe

rooms, Fireman's lift, that kind of thing, and people there won't things

that could make everything OK so if it should not be on the outside, it

should not be there but there's a big difference between some of the

new build blocks with their built in safety features and somewhere like

Grenfell Tower, where the cladding has been attached to an older style

building. We will leave it there. Clearly a long way to go but thank

you for bringing us up to date. We are waiting for further

announcements. Michael Forsyth, Theresa May said

the response to the appalling fire at Grenfell Tower was a failure of

the state, both at local and national level. Do you agree?

I do and I'm surprised the chief Executive has taken so long to

resign because the council clearly failed. Whether or not they failed

in terms of building regulations, anyone who saw that I could see the

effect of the cladding and the way the fire drifted up the building at

a very fast pace. The important thing now I think is to focus on

what buildings are affected, and to provide the means and resources to

local authorities to put it right because this news will have families

all over the country being worried about their safety and the first

duty of a government is to protect the safety of its people. If it was

a failure at the local level, the chief executive of the local council

has now resigned. That may not be enough for many people but it is a

start. But the Prime Minister said it was also a failure at the

national level so who should resign at the national level? You know,

when an aeroplane crashes, we don't actually seek to a tribute blame.

What we seek to do is try to find out what happened and if you get in

the blame game, it makes it much more difficult. Your government has

just forced the head of Kensington Council to resign. I'm not sure if

it was the government or not. He said it was Sajid Javid who said he

had to resign. I don't think he should need Sajid Javid to tell him

he had to resign because the way they handled the affairs after the

fire was thoroughly inadequate. I understand that but that is the

local level but if it is also acknowledged there was a failure at

the national level, you should be held accountable there? I don't know

and that is why we need a public inquiry, like we did after Piper

Alpha, which is a comparable disaster, where people look at what

went wrong and where we have recommendations which can be

implemented throughout the country. But in the short term, we have to

reassure people about their safety and this news is going to add to the

anxiety which people in blocks across the country will feel. Is

this not a failure of the whole political class? At the national and

local level, that we have allowed buildings like this, we now learn a

good number, to have been clouded in combustible material? Yeah, I think

it's outrageous and anyone hearing that, they could be 600 buildings

across the country? As I heard that figure, I took a sharp intake of

breath, I was shocked by it and not only do you have to reassure people

that they are safe, you can only do it if you undertake the work

necessary and do the work to make them safe but your question about

accountability I think is the key one in this. Michael is right, you

have to find out what went wrong, it is not about blame but at the end of

the day, there is an issue about responsibility and accountability

and the chief executive resigned. Who was in charge of the building?

The council outsourced it to a private company, who were not taking

on board the concerns of residents. That was the policy of the Tony

Blair Labour government. Actually, it predated it and Michael was one

of the pioneers of this but that does not avoid accountability.

Someone has to take responsibility. Know, the 1999 Environment Report by

select committee says we do not believe it should take a serious

fire in which many are killed before all reasonable steps are taken

towards minimising the risks. That was 1999. We then had what, 11 years

of Labour government and then another seven years of Conservative

government but actually, it did take a serious fire before we started to

find out what is going on. Andrew, things have changed a number of

times since then. I think the key thing here is and I would be

interested to know was worthy building with Galicians adhered to

and wanting the Prime Minister could not answer today and I could not

understand why, was this building, and anyone that was referred to, was

it built within the regulations or is it outside the regulations and

someone did not check properly? That is the key answer, is this legal or

illegal and if the Prime Minister can't answer that question, I don't

know who can. The public inquiry... People will be positive that it

could be legal to surround the building... Absolutely. If Grenfell

Tower had been left in its rather ugly state, it was very much a 1970s

concrete tower block, it would have looked ugly but it would not have

gone up in flames the way did, it was surrounding it with this stuff

which turned it into a fire that spread so quickly. If other

buildings are surrounded like this, what should be done? They should be,

the cladding may very well need to be replaced and the local

authorities may need to have help from central government to do that.

I think we should focus on what needs to be done. That is the first

point. Yes, and as to who was responsible or the regulations, that

is a matter for the public inquiry but the immediate thing should be to

put right the risks that are affected by those people. But also,

if the law is inadequate, it needs to be changed pronto, now. We don't

know that yet. If people are living in buildings that run the risk of

what happened at Grenfell Tower, we don't know for sure because we are

still trying to get all the details but if it seems that more of this

combustible material has been used in tower blocks up and down the

land, what should be done? It has got to be removed, there is no

alternative. Should people be moved out of the buildings until it is

removed? That may well be the option but we have to find out if it is

that material or not first. My understanding is there are panels

that look similar, some combustible and some aren't and the checking

process has to come first. Surely this would be logged in every town

Hall, surely planning permission, building regulations, the files must

exist in the town hall? You shouldn't have to go to the towers

to see them. All of this must be on record. I'm sure every local

authority will be doing that now and what we have to avoid is it becoming

a sort of party political issue. Everyone wants to see this put right

and the people who've been affected by this terrible fire... They cannot

wait on the inquiry, they need to move now, lives are at risk. Indeed.

As if the police did not have enough on their hands, there was this

attempted day of rage Westminster yesterday. Seemingly encouraged by

the Shadow Chancellor. He says the government "Has forfeited the right

to govern". Do you agree? On a number of things, I agree with that

but not connected with this. I think it is an inadequate government and a

weakened government. Has it forfeited the right to govern? As

time goes on, the House of Commons will make that decision. I know why

people are angry. John McDonnell has made the decision already, says it

has forfeited the right to govern, do you agree? I think this

government is an incompetent government and I want to see it

replaced as soon as possible. As it forfeited the right to govern, one

more time? Saying no implies that somehow I think they've got a right

to government, I think it is inadequate and incompetent and that

is as much as I could say. You would not repeat what the Shadow

Chancellor say? He can speak for himself, he does not lead me to do

it for him. Indeed, we do and they will be even more angry when they

find out that there are many more buildings in a similar situation to

the one in Notting Hill. But do you think these days of rage really

help, given that even some of the residents, some of the victims asked

the demonstrators not to proceed? Is this a rather unseemly underbelly of

Corbyn is, the demonstrations? It's not about that, we had

demonstrations and marches forever but they don't change much at the

end of the day. John McDonnell thinks they do. Makabu the challenge

for politicians of all parties and political classes to show you can

effect change by political decisions and that is what the politicians

have to prove and step up to the plate. On Grenfell Tower Brexit and

all these issues, otherwise people take the law into their own hands

and that is the last thing we want to see. Do we know yet, are we sure

that Theresa May has a grip of this? I think she has. What is the sign?

SHE announced in inquiry, it was in the Queen's speech, she has

intervened and taken immediate action and I don't think it helps

for people to trash the Prime Minister when she needs to focus on

getting things put right. At the time of national emergency, it is

not trashing the prime ministers to ask if she's got a grip, that is the

minimum we expect of a Prime Minister in these circumstances. --

if the Prime Minister's to ask if she has got a grip. What is the

evidence? She has set up the enquiry, said that she will bring

forward legislation as an advocate for people who are affected by

tragedies of this kind. She has indicated... But it is the case,

Michael, if you are a resident or a local person here, your abiding

thought on this is everyone has been too slow to respond. For the Prime

Minister to show she has got a grip, she has to write much more quickly

because of the stories from residents of the aftermath of the

are disgraceful. These are people who have lost their lives, lost

friends and family. But we have a system of local government in this

country. And it failed them. There has to be a significantly better

response in the future. Let's leave that because there is more

information to come and we will return to it.

The question for today is about Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson,

still regularly tipped as a future Tory leader.

His reputation hasn't exactly been enhanced by a BBC radio

interview he gave yesterday, when he struggled to answer

It led the interviewer to compare their conversation

to a well-known comic double act - but which one was it?

At the end of the show, our very own comic double act,

Angela and Michael, will give us the correct answer.

The Prime Minister has just arrived in Brussels

thoughts on the issue of rights for EU migrants in the UK

and British citizens living in Europe.

To find out more, let's speak to the BBC's new, fresh-faced

Welcome, nice to see you. Tell me, what is Mrs May hoping to achieve

and what is going to happen today? The summit when it starts in about

two macros will be business as usual for the EU, discussing things like

internal and external security, and having a working dinner to talk

about international affairs and Donald Trump climate change. At the

end, Theresa May will say a couple of words to update her fellow EU

leaders in what is the impact of the decisive general election in the UK

in the Brexit process. She is also expected to say some words about her

so-called generous offer about the rates for EU citizens living in the

UK after Brexit. Still shrouded in mystery about that. Then Mrs May

will be politely asked to leave the room and the remaining leaders will

get an update on the first stage of negotiations for the chief

negotiator in the EU side Michel Barnier and do their own Brexit

business, deciding on the criteria for relocating two EU agencies based

in London which have to move after Brexit. I understand they are

arguing about where they should go so they are not entirely united. Is

she not going to be entirely overshadowed, polite as they may

well be, by the presence of the new President of France, President

Emmanuel Macron? Yes, that is the arrival everybody's will waiting

for, the freshfaced boy wonder Emmanuel Macron, the new President

of France. And when you talk to the people around this city, who are

usually quite cynical, you mention the name Macron and a smile crosses

their lips and they talked openly about him being the new hope for

Europe and the proof people can still be rallied to the European

project. His big pitch before he came here was a new process by which

the EU could ban certain foreign investments and sensitive economic

areas in the EU. It looks like that will be downgraded and will remain

in the hands of the member states and the EU will not have new powers.

Theresa May has already been pushed to the side in the sense that EU

officials and leaders do not want Brexit to contaminate the

proceedings at the summit today and tomorrow, they want to talk about

these big issues like climate change, security and the economy,

which is why the Brexit section has been left until after dinner, quite

late tonight. I understand from one diplomatic source, the Brexit

discussion might last less than half an hour. So you will have a

late-night, Adam! It, thank you. Adam Fleming in Brussels.

Yesterday, the Queen came to Parliament to set out the 27

Bills the government intends to pass in what the Prime Minister

hopes will be a two-year session of Parliament.

In other words, there will be no cladding next year. -- no Queen's

Speech. But all the signs are it's

going to be one of the most turbulent parliaments

in generations, as the Conservatives try to get their legislation

through without a Commons majority. Of course, it's not the first time

we've had a minority government. # We are amazed, but not

amused by all the things Some might say this was a dark time,

with power cuts, the three-day week, industrial unrest and two elections

within eight months. The first was in February,

and after a close result, a minority Labour government took

office under Harold Wilson. But after a difficult few months,

with Parliamentary defeats and dissent from his own

backbenchers, Mr Wilson decided As you know, Her Majesty the Queen

has agreed to my request that Parliament should be dissolved

on Friday, and the general election will be held

on Thursday, 10th October. He was rewarded with a majority

of just three seats. But within two years,

there was a return to minority government, because of a by-election

defeat and defections. Harold Wilson resigned

and Jim Callaghan took over He was forced to make

a series of unofficial deals with minority parties

like the Ulster There was also the Lib-Lab pact

in 1977, an agreement where Liberals supported the government in return

for policy consultation. But this was short-lived, as a year

later, the Liberals called it a day. As the parliamentary

arithmetic got tighter, the whips brought in sick

and injured MPs for crucial votes. But despite their efforts,

when the Conservative leader Margaret Thatcher tabled a motion

of no-confidence against a backdrop of the Winter of Discontent

the government lost by one vote, ushering in 18 years

of Conservative rule. So minority governments from the

past. Brexit dominated the Queen's Speech,

with eight bills relating Let's look in a bit more detail

at what the Government is proposing and the challenges Mrs May might

face in getting her The main piece of Brexit

legislation is the Repeal Bill, which gets rid of the 1972

European Communities Act and gives MPs the ability to convert or amend

all EU law into UK law. The government says

the Immigration Bill will enable the Government to end the free

movement of EU nationals into the UK, but still allows

the country to attract "the brightest and the best"

people to work here. There are also bills relating

to Customs and Trade, which allows the UK to have a stand-alone customs

regime and flexibility to accommodate future trade

agreements with the EU and others MPs vote next week

on the Queen's Speech, but without a majority,

the Conservatives are relying on a deal with Northern Ireland's

Democratic Unionist Party - but no deal is currently in place,

despite the election Once clear of the Commons,

the legislation will also have to navigate the House of Lords,

where the Tories also Peers have suggested that

because Theresa May does not have a majority in the Commons,

they would not have to respect the 'Salisbury Convention',

where Lords do not oppose legislation that is in

a government's manifesto. Labour's Baroness Smith has said

the unelected chamber would respect We will find out what that means in

a minute. And finally, the SNP could also

cause the Government problems. Theresa May has suggested

that the Scottish Parliament might need to approve parts of the Brexit

legislation, with the SNP saying they want control over farming

and fisheries policy. So those are some of the hurdles

facing the Government. No doubt there will be more down the

We'll come to the Lords in a moment, but first, let's talk

We're joined now by Labour's John Mann, who campaigned for Brexit.

Welcome to the programme. You were a prominent Labour Leave support. What

you say to your party colleagues in the Lords who might be thinking of

frustrating Brexit? We stood in a very clear election manifesto on the

major issues and so that mandate is there and anyone who fears from it

in the Lords, there will be a sub theme that will emerge, which will

be Lords reform. I would expect at some stage the Commons will want to

debate and deliberate and do something in that. So I would not

be, if I was in the House of Lords, wanting to try and overturn the

Labour manifesto. Obviously, the Conservative manifesto. And the

referendum that took place. So let me spell this out, if the Lords do

not behave, in your terms, you would threaten them with abolition? I

would get rid of them anyway. Would you get a majority in today's

Commons? Is the Government strong enough to do that? I think the

likelihood of Lords reform is very high, if this Parliament lasts long

enough for legislation to start taking place. Just one of the little

sideshows. And the idea that unelected Lords could overturn

decisions of the Commons that were in line with a Labour manifesto and

the referendum, that the majority of the country voted on, would be

anathema to most people, so it is going to need some finesse and skill

in the Lords for them to play their role appropriately and effectively.

And if they do, they will certainly have considerable influence, but if

they overstepped the mark, I think that will come back very quickly in

what authority they are overturning. What you say to that? I have been

the Lords leader of the Labour Party for years and have lost count of how

many times people say, if the Lords wreck this, we will abolish them. It

is a misunderstanding of how the House of Lords operates. How are you

going to operate in the Brexit bills? In the way that we always

have and will do. The Salisbury Convention that you mentioned and

Michael may agree, betrays a real misunderstanding. 1945, the Labour

government, massive majority. It is important! You do not understand it.

I do understand it, I know very well about the Salisbury Convention and

it came in with the 1945 Labour government and the Lords do not

challenge that Labour government. I am not trying to find out what

happened in 1945. It is relevant! I know that, I want to know what you

will do when these Brexit bills come to the Lords. You fight it up so I

thought you would want to raise the issue. I think this thing about the

Salisbury Convention and what happens is as if the fight is

between the House of Lords and the Executive. The Government have the

challenge not just through Brexit but through the House of Commons...

But you are not in charge of the Commons, you are in charge of Labour

in the Lords. I am asking you because you will not answer the

question! Let me ask for a third time. I am trying really hard to

answer your question! Will you answer the primacy of the Commons on

this legislation will you attempt to amend it? I have made it very clear

we observe the premises of the Commons, but if the Prime Minister

does not get exactly what she wants out of the House of Commons, the

Government cannot try and use the House of Lords or abuse the House of

Lords to do what the Government wants, we have to look at the

primacy of the Commons and not the Executive. But whatever comes to

Lords will have been passed by the Commons, either primacy of the

Commons. Yes. So shall you are obliged to observe that? All

legislation comes from the Commons, we look at the detail of that and do

things in the normal way we always have done which has never caused any

excitement. Where John and others have got this totally wrong is the

issue about what the Government can do in the House of Commons, and I

think the biggest challenge for this Government stop Gregory Havret Prime

Minister that could not put half a manifesto in the Queen's Speech. --

for this Government. And we have a Prime Minister. You reassured by

this? I understand what goes on in the Commons, a sit in the Commons

and I am very clear what the manifesto is regarding immigration

in the EU which hardly received any commentary on the election. A

position I am far more comfortable with is immigration from Jeremy

Corbyn's manifesto than we had from Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and Ed

Miliband. And from what the Labour position is. The issue that emerges

is if we have freelancing Lords who are in essence break the Labour whip

by going against the Labour manifesto. Along with a grossly

overrepresented number of Liberals. You said every time somebody does

something the House of Lords you do not agree with, abolish the House of

Lords, that is not grown-up politics. It is a revising chamber,

it looks up legislation and make suggestions to the House of Commons,

but it is always the House of Commons that has the final say and

nobody I know in the House of Lords is challenging that.

That's not what I said, I said in the context of having so many people

in the House of Lords who are out of touch with the majority of the

British population of the EU referendum, there is a likelihood I

think at some stage that House of Lords reform will emerge, if this

parliament last long enough for that kind of legislation. Hold on, John

Mann, we are going to let you go now because you kindly came in at the

last minute and we are grateful for you for coming in and giving your

point of view, John Mann, Labour MP, Michael Coulson, it is a

well-established convention at the House of Lords does not challenge

the manifesto policies of a government with a majority. Does

that apply to a hung parliament where it does not have a majority?

You're not going to like my answer because I think your question is

irrelevant. What Angela is saying is right, the House of Lords will look

at the legislation from the House of Commons and often, that legislation

has not even be properly scrutinised in the House of Commons, and they

will discuss it and they may suggested amendments but the idea

that House of Lords is going to obstruct a bill which gives us the

ability to operate an immigration policy, for example, when we are

committed to leaving the European Union by March 2019, we need to have

these policies in place. I've no doubt people will suggest amendments

but at the end of the day, the Commons will have the final say.

That is what Angela said yesterday. Nobody reported the debate yesterday

from the Lords but it was a very civilised discussion and the lords

are not going to obstruct things but they are going to help make sure we

get things right which is what the Prime Minister urged us to do. So

let me make clear, Labour's policy in the Lords, it may wish to amend,

improve as it sees the bill in its way but it will do nothing to

obstruct the Brexit process? We have said that, you did this interview

with me about a year ago and I gave you the same answer. I've been very

clear. I can point out that a few things have happened in the past

year, in fact, a few things have happened in the past month so it is

relevant again. We have always been clear, it's not for the House of

Lords to block Brexit and we've never tried to. We've made sensible

suggestions to the government like on the position of EU nationals

which would help our nationals abroad and the government has

refused to accept that. I think that House of Lords got it right and

maybe the Prime Minister is wishing she took our advice. But the final

decision is with the House of Commons. We have taken the decision.

What about the membership of the single market? Will Labour peers

attempt to block after leaving membership of the single market? I

think the possession of Labour peers is going to be that we would like to

have terms and conditions to the single market as close as what we

have got now while negotiations are going on. That is government and

Labour policy in the Commons. No, because Theresa May said you wanted

to come out of the single market completely. We think it is a good

starting point... Let's get to that, the policy of the Labour manifesto

and the Conservative manifesto was to end membership of the single

market, still to attempt to have as good a free trade deal as they can

get but no longer do have membership. Is that a policy that

will be upheld in the Lords? I don't see that changing in the Lords but

that does not mean we think the single market is a bad thing and I

think we would like to get as close to the terms and conditions, as

Michael Heseltine and David Davis have said, get as close to that as

possible. Being a member of the EU means you are not a member of the

single market, that is a matter of fact, but we don't want to throw the

baby out with the bath water. There's nothing unclear about it.

Let me be clear, do you support us leaving membership of the single

market? It is a matter of fact that when we leave the EU, you have left

the single market. What I think about it is irrelevant. Norway is a

member of the single market but not a member of the EU. But it is a

membership -- member of the EEA which gives it membership of the

single market, which may be a transitional thing but membership of

the single market will go when we leave the EU but we want to try to

retain the benefits of the single market in terms of tariff free

trade, for example, which is really important to British industry.

Throwing the baby out with the bath water leaving the EU is not

responsible. What about leaving the EU? That is something changing

across the EU and one of the interesting thing about immigration

is so many businesses and universities are now saying we want

a sensible immigration policy. So a continuance of free movement? There

must be some forms of free movement, not the same as it is now because we

are leaving the EU but the position of the government of an immigration

cap has not worked. It sounds like you are up for a lot of amendments

that would quite substantially change what the government is trying

to do. I think we will see the amendment in the House of Commons on

this, actually. The point I was trying to make earlier, that you did

not want to listen to, the point is, the amendments will happen in the

Commons and we will have to examine what the Commons sends us, not the

government's initial intentions. I know that but then you get a chance

to amend in ways that you see fit to do. What I have been trying to

establish if you are going to make substantive changes to the Brexit

legislation, so it fundamentally changes the nature and the form and

the manner in which we are leaving? You seem to be under its average and

that the House of Lords changes legislation, if we make changes, we

suggest it to the government and they go back to the Commons, which

is the point I keep making, the House of Commons has primacy here so

we may well suggest a number of amendments to the House of Commons

but it will be for them to accept or reject. But going forward, you could

delay the timetable? This is another question you put to me before and I

will answer in the same way again, you don't have extended ping-pong,

we might ask the Commons to think again and if they choose not to, we

might occasionally asked them to think a second time but I can't

because any occasion in the House of Lords when it has gone beyond that

while I have been there. Why are you so confident the government's Brexit

legislation will be largely unscathed in the Lords? Because we

are legally committed to leaving the EU in March 2019, we need to put in

place policies on immigration, fishing and a range of other things

and the detail is important and the Commons will look at it and the

Lords is full of people who have got considerable expertise as it is

right they should be involved in the way the Prime Minister has

suggested. But I am pretty confident that the House of Lords is not going

to be used to obstruct the process and Angela in has beat yesterday

made that very clear and there is no appetite in the House of Lords... Is

he right to be confident? He is but I keep coming back to the point the

House of Lords has never obstructed government legislation, we make

suggestions but if the Prime Minister is going to be concerned, I

would be concerned about the Commons. She might not have the

majority for some of the things herself. She's not got a majority in

her own party for some other things she has suggested, it is not just

Brexit, it is other bills as well which is why the detail will be

important, the House of Lords has expertise... The Labour manifesto

campaigned on ending membership of the single market and the Labour

manifesto recognised that free movement would have to end so isn't

there a majority in the Commons, with Labour and Conservative, for

these things? In the Labour manifesto, we accepted by leaving

the European Union, it ends our membership of the single market.

That does not mean we think the terms and conditions on which our

businesses trade across Europe are bad and we should do the best to get

as close to those as possible and not hamper our businesses and the

economy. The Prime Minister says she wants that but unless she brings

policies forward, she will find it difficult to get the business for

the Commons. I don't think it will be as clear-cut as some making out,

it can be very public they did. Finally, Michael, let me ask you

about Scotland, the convention in which the Scottish Parliament has

two, on matters that are devolved, the Scottish Parliament basically

has to give consent to the Westminster Parliament, is... No.

Some people say, and until the Supreme Court ruled this was not a

legally binding matter, what is the situation on this? It is called a

convention because it is a convention. Actually, we had a big

debate on this when the government I think foolishly put it into the

Scotland Bill but the clause said that they would not normally

legislate in respect of devolved matters without a legislative

consent motion. There is no requirement to do so. The SNP have

been trying to make out it is a veto and they are in the absurd position

of saying they should have a veto on the government being able to take

back powers from the European Union whilst at the same time arguing that

they want to remain in the European Union and those powers to remain in

Brussels. It is absurd. But on the narrower constitutional point, you

don't believe... No. That the Scottish Parliament has a veto on

these Westminster issues? The European select committee, which

gave evidence to and we discussed this in depth, my view is that there

no veto and this is UK legislation and therefore, it does not apply and

it is yet again the nationalists trying to make trouble and

difficulty. Well, we asked the SNP to come on the programme today but

they said no one was available. What a surprise!

Now, the Liberal Democrats may have outperformed pretty low expectations

at the general election, but they still only have 12 MPs

But their share of the vote went down a bit. Some people have

questioned the party's decision to campaign wholeheartedly against

Brexit. Here's Tim Farron, announcing his

resignation last week. This is a historic time in British

politics. What happens next, in the next months and years, will shape

our country for generations. My successor will inherit a party that

is needed now more than ever before. Our future as an open, tolerant and

united country is at stake. The cause of British liberalism has

never been needed more. People who will fight for a Britain that is

confident, generous and compassionate are needed more than

ever before. That is the challenge our party and my successor faces,

and the opportunity I am certain they will rise to with my help.

Mr Farron has now left the building and the race

So far, it's not exactly a crowded field.

The only MP to have said they want the job is Vince Cable,

Welcome back. Have not seen you for ages. Well I've been writing novels.

Why are you doing this? I think it's important. I've come back, I did not

expect to be here six weeks ago but I'm back at a crucial time for the

country. And for the party. I think I have got a combination of

experience, energy and enthusiasm. I think I could do the job well. I'm

going for it. You said that "The political winds are moving in the

Lib Dems' favour". Where are they coming from? What I mean by that is

that I think there is a big gap opening up in what you good possibly

call the centre of British politics. The Conservatives are in serious

trouble, the 30 year war over Europe is reigniting in a serious way. The

Labour Party did extremely well in the election, no getting away from

that but I think the hard-core economic policies they have got,

which are really not credible, I think open a space for a party which

is economically literate, pro-business and has got experience

of government. But that was the analysis of many Lib Dems when the

election was called, that you have a Conservative Party in real trouble

over Brexit, whatever, even more trouble than Theresa May thought, as

it turned out, the Labour Party has moved to the left, now with the hour

for the Lib Dems. You had your chance and in fact, you actually did

worse in terms share of the vote, in total votes, land 2015 which was one

of your worst in modern times? As you accepted at the beginning, did

better in terms of MPs, we got more diversity but the vote share was

down and the challenge is to get it but as you know, British politics is

now moving very fast. It is highly uncertain. I'm pretty positive that

if we can occupy that enormous ground in the middle of politics, we

have got to Mendis opportunity. Was it a mistake for your party to call

-- a tremendous opportunity. Was it a mistake for your party to go for a

second referendum on the EU? I don't think it was a mistake but it did

not cut through in the way we are tired and I think that was because a

lot of people thought it was a way of running the old referendum

because we thought it was wrong. It sounds as though you would jump

that? No because the role of the second referendum is quite

different, in two years' time, there will be a fundamentally different

situation. You would have a second referendum? I would in two years'

time. Let me just explain... You don't sound very enthusiastic about

it. Orange Mackreth I am and when I made my leadership statement, it is

up there at the front. It is a different question because we are

faced with whether we want to accept the result of the negotiation or

not. There may be other options on the table. It is a different

question and a different set of issues and given the existing

referendum has launched this process, we would need another one

to close it off. That was not Tim Farron's policy. It was but... You

called it is respect for and counter-productive. I didn't, had we

had a second referendum to second-guess the previous one, that

would have been disrespect but we accepted the result. What we are now

arguing is that at the end of the negotiating process, the British

public should have the right to approve what has come out of it. It

could be a disastrous outcome. But although you have been in

retirement, we have not stopped keeping track of you, in Brighton on

the 19th of September, 2016, you said that to hold another vote on

the Brexit deal secured by Theresa May was disrespectful to voters and

politically counter-productive. Well, what I was talking about at

that time... I don't think I used the word deal in that context but if

I did, I did not put it correctly. You were referring to the deal which

raises the question of the problems. I do remember the interview. No, you

don't, you were speaking at a fringe event, not an interview. OK, at a

fringe event, let me be clear, I have said throughout we should not

have a second referendum to invalidate the last vote but we are

dealing with a fundamentally different question when the

negotiations have been completed. Do we accept the results? Supposing for

example, the negotiations are a complete disaster and we have no

deal, crashing out... It is not impossible. It could happen although

large numbers of the Cabinet appear to be warning against it, we could

get a bad deal so how do we terminate the process? In an ideal

world it should be parliament but given this process has been set in

train by a referendum, we would need another one to validate it. That is

the context in which I have been speaking and I fully support the

idea of having a referendum in those circumstances.

You also as tree questions about a referendum on the deal. What happens

if you win, is that binding, do you have a third referendum? What is the

answer to your own questions? How we will round this process up, the

country is very divided. Whatever happens, this thing is going to go

on and on and the worse the outcome, the more we need to have the public

on our side. So should we make it the best of three? I am not in

favour of having a lot of referendums! Seriously, we are going

to have... Well, you wore the one that's it, do we have a third?

Potentially, we have an enormous mess at the end of this negotiation.

You can say that again! We have to find a way out of it and how do we

find a way out of it? Have you done a deal with Jo Swinson, from

Scotland? I have not done a deal with any MP. People have said you

will make a deal to do -- to be the leader for a couple of years and

then stand aside for her. That is not true, I will run as leader and

will run the course of the Parliament if I need to. If this

Parliament does run for five years and that is a big if, if it does,

you would be almost 80 by the next election. Yes, I would be quite a

what younger than Gladstone when he 40 macro the general election. So

you could see an 80-year-old taking the party into an election campaign?

This is nothing to do with physically, it is how you feel. I

have plenty of energy. So we could have a party of the young and the

youth having an eight-year-old, that would be interesting. That is

conceivable, five years is a long way away in the political scene, it

is almost geological. We have to get through the issue of a potential

early election, the Brexit negotiations. But I am definitely

opt for it. I can see that. You are not just a politician, you have

always been a commentator on politics and you follow it very

carefully, and the economy. We have talked many times on these issues.

How long do you think the Government will survive, is it possible? I

think it could survive quite a long time, not least because I do not

think the public have an appetite for an election. We have had three

votes in two years and in each case the country has become more divided.

Four in Scotland in three years. So I do not think there is any appetite

among serious people to have another look election. But we have to

perform the role of opposition and we will be constructive and that is

the role we will perform. Do you know who you will be facing? I think

Ed Davey, a good colleague of mine. We will wait and see. And when will

we get the result? In September. Before the party conference. Before

it? You should add a bit of excitement to the conference and

hold it back, we always need excitement at a Lib Dem conference!

That is for our powers that be to decide, it will comply with whatever

it is. I shall watch from afar. Vince Cable.

Now, if you're one of the 130,000 or so people heading

to Glastonbury Festival this weekend, you might be

looking forward to leaving politics behind you.

If so, bad luck, because it looks like some

Jeremy Corbyn, who likes to say he's got youth on his side,

will be introducing the American rap duo Run the Jewels.

But if there are any other MPs about to get on the train

to Somerset, worrying about what to pack and how to behave

- then worry no more, because here's Ellie,

with our political guide to attending a festival.

Glastonbury and getting ready for it may not be as easy as it looks.

Tents, like controversial policies, can be difficult to pitch. So

politicians, this is a little help from your friends at the Daily

Politics. In our guide to festivals. Get a friend to show you the ropes.

I am surrounded by new Bis dashing nudists now! Hi, Richard. Before he

was an MP or the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson was invited to

Glastonbury with an unlikely friend. Singer and songwriter and left-wing

activist Billy Bragg, he loved it, once he worked out how to pronounce

it. What you say, Glastonbury? It is not the hunting and shooting and

fishing brigade. If you are a politician, you probably never

switch off. Say yes to taking part in little programmes while you are

there but find a public -- a quiet spot. We will leave it there, thank

you. Enjoy yourself, but remember a silent disco does not mean other

people will not hear you. Silent disco! Webber's Deputy Leader Tom

Watson posted various images of himself in social media having a

great time, but white trousers? Make sure you know how you're getting

home, Tom Watson did not look like he did and it is 122 miles back to

Westminster. And if you are late back, do not tell people you are

going. Clive Lewis, who is going again year, last time missed his

debate in Parliament as Shadow Defence Secretary because he was not

back in time. We welcome the new Shadow Defence Secretary. I think he

has gone AWOL in his first parade! And here are some final thoughts for

our festival frenzy to politicians. The weather can be unpredictable,

there could be storms, with lots of different cams, you might get lost,

and there will be people walking around who you may suspect are high,

but you are used to that in Westminster! There you go, the

definitive guide. With Mr MacRae were to an John MacDonald about to

make... -- with Mr Corbyn and John McDonnell

both due to make appearances at the festival, you could be

forgiven for thinking that only people with left-wing political

views are allowed in. I'm reliably informed that isn't one

of the entry requirements, and to prove it, we've even managed

to find a Conservative activist I assume you are not going to that

wearing that? No, probably not. No, because she would stick out like a

sore thumb and they would assume you were a Tory! When he addresses his

adoring fans in The Pyramid stage, what will you be doing? Hopefully

something else, listening to music or watching a film with family and

friends, whatever. Can you watch a film at Glastonbury? Yes, they have

a theatre stage. What is the point of that? It is about getting

together and having a fun time with people whose company you enjoy. Have

you been before? Yes, I have been twice before. Have you got a fancy

tent? Not quite, I go with family who Glastonbury veterans so they

sought me out, not too bad. You the only Conservative who will be there?

Not sure! That is refreshingly honest! You mean there might be one

of the? Perhaps! Yes, I do not expect you would catch many people

admitting they were Conservative there because very left-wing! You

have no choice now, they are watching you on telly, you have a

big neon sign! Why do you think 18 to 24-year-olds and even and

34-year-olds voted substantially for Mr Corbyn and very few for the

Conservatives? I think it is Jeremy Corbyn's cornucopia of goodies he

offered in this manifesto. Things like rent control and free tuition

fees, these things typically very attractive to young people who

perhaps do not have as much money as people further down the line. I

think that is probably true and explains why Labour got 62% of the

youth vote and your party got 27%. Why should young people believe in

capitalism when they have no capital? I think it is because

capitalism really come at the end of the day, has been proven time and

time again to be the most benign system there is. You are not

convincing the young people. No, neither is Theresa May. That is what

I am talking about! And her form of capitalism is a kind of

protectionism and it is not reflective of the world and free

markets. Her failure to win the intellectual battle over her

policies and failing to explain why her policies would help young people

is a big part of why she was the youth vote. You going to take your

life in your hands and attempt canvassing at Glastonbury? Goodness,

no! I did not even canvassed during the general election. Maybe that is

why so few young people if you cannot even be bothered to campus.

No, I did a protest vote at this general election and I voted for

Liberal Democrats because I live in a Conservative safe seat and was

disillusioned with the way the Conservative Party was. So even in a

safe seat, they cannot count on your support? How long will you go for? I

will go down this afternoon and I will leave on Sunday night. Good

luck and I hope the weather holds up! I have been told it will break

up. Fancy going? No, I am not nearly as cool as everybody else at

Glastonbury! I don't think they will be very call this weekend! Would you

care to double the numbers and make it two Tories? I think I might stick

out like more of a sore thumb! That I would not wear a tie, no. But

that's tie, and might be tempted. You notice!

There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.

The question was about Boris Johnson getting in a muddle on the radio,

and which comic double act was the interview compared to?

So, Angela and Michael, what's the correct answer?

It sounded like the two runners. What does this Queen's Speech do to

make sure the criminal justice system stops treating black people

more harshly than white? There are measures, I believe in the Bill in

the courts which I think is supposed to address some of those issues and

one thing in particular that we are looking at is... Measures to, hang

on a second... That what all sorts of measures that we want is to take,

to ensure that we do not discriminate against everybody. Does

that sound like the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom?

Probably not. It sounded a bit like Diane Abbott. It was on the Diane

Abbott scale. It is a lesson to everybody that if you have got your

notes, do not start flicking through paper and know your stuff before you

go on. That is what we have begun to expect from Boris, he will laugh it

off as a joke and it is not he is our Secretary. He should have

learned by now, if you are talking in the Queen's Speech, you should

know what is in it. I think interviewers are becoming

increasingly cruel to politicians. Well, it passes the time! It is not

cruel to ask a question about... The Prime Minister talked about a

burning injustice, it is not a cruel question to talk about what deals

with that. When they do not get it right, to play it over and over

again is quite cruel. He made a virtue of being shambolic and it is

not fun when you Foreign Secretary. We will leave it there. That is all

for today. The One o'clock news is starting

over on BBC One now. I will be back tonight

with Alan Johnson, Michael Portillo, Michelle Dewbury, Richard Madeley

and Melanie Phillips The critically-acclaimed

series is back. then we have to treat only patients

with very early stages of