0:00:05 > 0:00:11It was going so well for the Prime Minister, then this.
0:00:11 > 0:00:12The ayes to the right, 309.
0:00:12 > 0:00:14The noes to the left, 305.
0:00:14 > 0:00:16CHEERING.
0:00:16 > 0:00:18A vote on a vote.
0:00:18 > 0:00:22And it didn't go the government's way.
0:00:22 > 0:00:25Hours before a Brussels summit that is supposed to ease
0:00:25 > 0:00:27Brexit talks through to part two, Tory rebels tonight managed
0:00:27 > 0:00:31to force the government to give MPs a meaningful vote on Brexit,
0:00:31 > 0:00:34after a fractious debate that exposed division and distrust
0:00:34 > 0:00:40within the Conservatives.
0:00:40 > 0:00:44Clause nine is not about implementing leaving the European
0:00:44 > 0:00:55Union.Yes, it is. Read it. And sit down.A parliamentary defeat for the
0:00:55 > 0:00:56Prime Minister.
0:00:56 > 0:00:57A parliamentary defeat for the Prime Minister.
0:00:57 > 0:00:59A humiliating setback for the government -
0:00:59 > 0:01:00but what might it change?
0:01:00 > 0:01:03The man who used to run MI6 gives us his first ever
0:01:03 > 0:01:05broadcast interview, with a surprising take on terror.
0:01:05 > 0:01:07You know we need to keep a sense of proportion
0:01:07 > 0:01:09about what we are dealing with.
0:01:09 > 0:01:11I mean I don't think terrorism in its current form presents
0:01:11 > 0:01:14a systemic threat to the nation.
0:01:14 > 0:01:17A giant mouse and a shrinking mogul - Rupert Murdoch gets ready
0:01:17 > 0:01:21to downsize his empire.
0:01:21 > 0:01:26What does Disney's expected takeover for fox mean for the media, and for
0:01:26 > 0:01:27Sky News?
0:01:27 > 0:01:29Sky News?
0:01:29 > 0:01:31And we know something went wrong with building
0:01:31 > 0:01:34regulations at Grenfell - now Chris Cook reports on concerns
0:01:34 > 0:01:40over the fire safety of furniture.
0:01:40 > 0:01:42Hello.
0:01:42 > 0:01:45Well, after a run of good headlines, and just hours before she travels
0:01:45 > 0:01:48to the European Council in Brussels, the Prime Minister suffered
0:01:48 > 0:01:51her first proper defeat of this parliament tonight.
0:01:51 > 0:01:53A vote on Amendment 7 to the EU Withdrawal Bill,
0:01:53 > 0:01:56giving MPs the power to vote on the withdrawal deal
0:01:56 > 0:01:59when it is ready.
0:01:59 > 0:02:03The government says that could derail a smooth and timely Brexit,
0:02:03 > 0:02:06but it was a sign of how finely divided parliament is, the MPs
0:02:06 > 0:02:08split almost down the middle.
0:02:08 > 0:02:14But also a sign that the Conservative party
0:02:14 > 0:02:16has enough rebels - 11 this evening - to obstruct
0:02:16 > 0:02:17the government's plans.
0:02:17 > 0:02:21What a day it was in the Commons.
0:02:21 > 0:02:27Would she be so good as to accept the right honourable and learn a
0:02:27 > 0:02:30gentleman's Amendment seven in the spirit of unity for everybody here
0:02:30 > 0:02:35and in the country?I find it entertaining that somebody who
0:02:35 > 0:02:40criticise me for speaking my mind on this matter are individuals who
0:02:40 > 0:02:45appear to have exercised the luxury of rebellion on many occasions.The
0:02:45 > 0:02:49idea that somehow undermined the referendum decision is just a load
0:02:49 > 0:02:54of rubbish.She talked about a delay of a couple of months. But if the
0:02:54 > 0:02:57treaty is not right in the eyes of this parliament than a couple of
0:02:57 > 0:03:01months could turn into a couple of years and indeed some cases people
0:03:01 > 0:03:07would like it to be a couple of decades.The ayes to the right 309,
0:03:07 > 0:03:15the noes to the left 305.Parliament has asserted itself, the Prime
0:03:15 > 0:03:18Minister tried a power grab, tried to push through a bill without
0:03:18 > 0:03:20proper Parliamentary scrutiny.
0:03:20 > 0:03:22proper Parliamentary scrutiny.
0:03:22 > 0:03:26The vote came after seven this evening.
0:03:26 > 0:03:31One of the rebels, Stephen Hammond had been sacked from his job as
0:03:31 > 0:03:36vice-chair of the Conservative Party. Dominic Greene is a former
0:03:36 > 0:03:40attorney general, whose amendment it was. Bernard Jenkin is a Brexit
0:03:40 > 0:03:42supporting colleague of his from the backbenches.
0:03:42 > 0:03:43backbenches.
0:03:43 > 0:03:46Our political editor, Nick Watt, is with me.
0:03:46 > 0:03:51It was quite a moment. Quite a cock up somewhere in the way the
0:03:51 > 0:03:59government manage the whole business.There are a lot ministers
0:03:59 > 0:04:03been very critical of their own government this evening. One said we
0:04:03 > 0:04:08had very clumsy and stupid, late concessions by the government.
0:04:08 > 0:04:12Another said the whips should have known how very close this was. A lot
0:04:12 > 0:04:16of criticism tonight of the Chief Whip Julian Smith. One Cabinet
0:04:16 > 0:04:23minister said, rule number one for a Chief Whip is no how to count.
0:04:23 > 0:04:27Another one told Julian Smith earlier this week, you are going to
0:04:27 > 0:04:32lose this vote unless you make major concessions ahead of the vote. It is
0:04:32 > 0:04:36important to say this is the second slip up in two weeks by Julian
0:04:36 > 0:04:41Smith. A lot of people are saying that had his predecessor Gavin
0:04:41 > 0:04:45Williams been in place who had close contacts with the DUP, the Prime
0:04:45 > 0:04:49Minister would not have been so exposed to that meeting in Brussels
0:04:49 > 0:04:56last Monday.For the people who wanted to remain, what is their take
0:04:56 > 0:05:02on how important this is?I saw one remain minister this evening who I
0:05:02 > 0:05:08could say had at best crocodile tears. Another figure said this is a
0:05:08 > 0:05:12very significant moment. This person said to me, this is the canary in
0:05:12 > 0:05:17the coal mine. This is the moment when the government needs to accept
0:05:17 > 0:05:22there is no majority in this Parliament for a hard Brexit. There
0:05:22 > 0:05:25is no majority in this Parliament for no Deal Brexit and the
0:05:25 > 0:05:29government should now be working with the majority in parliament, not
0:05:29 > 0:05:34one side. And there is a big vote next week and the government will
0:05:34 > 0:05:41seek to put on the face of the bill the date of Brexit, the 29th of
0:05:41 > 0:05:46March, 2019.There was a lot of injured Tory party hostility today,
0:05:46 > 0:05:50there was not a love in the room between the two sides. A lot of
0:05:50 > 0:05:55anger with the rebels.There is fury within government with Dominic
0:05:55 > 0:06:00Grieve. I spoke to one minister at the heart of this or said, Dominic
0:06:00 > 0:06:03Grieve will field the chilling hangover of what he has done and
0:06:03 > 0:06:08what he has done is he has weakened the Prime Minister on the eve of the
0:06:08 > 0:06:15European Council in Brussels tomorrow. This minister said, there
0:06:15 > 0:06:19are two options. One, it is not worth the candle, let's just the
0:06:19 > 0:06:25amendment passed. The second option is to say to Dominic Grieve, you
0:06:25 > 0:06:29said earlier if you're amendment was accepted, you would agree to a
0:06:29 > 0:06:34negotiation at the report stage about a compromise in which both
0:06:34 > 0:06:41sides can be happy, presumably your offer still stands.Let's talk to my
0:06:41 > 0:06:44political guests. Dominic Grieve has been talked about whilst sitting
0:06:44 > 0:06:47there very patiently. The knives are pretty much out for you, aren't
0:06:47 > 0:06:54they?I doubt it, I am not concerned about knives be out for me. I am in
0:06:54 > 0:06:58parliament to do my duty by my constituents and for my country.
0:06:58 > 0:07:03Knives can be anywhere, I will not be bothered by that in any way at
0:07:03 > 0:07:07all. What I am is intent on trying to support the government in doing
0:07:07 > 0:07:10the right thing and the right thing is carrying out Brexit in an
0:07:10 > 0:07:15orderly, sensible way which has a proper process to it and which
0:07:15 > 0:07:20enables the right decisions to be made at the right time. That is what
0:07:20 > 0:07:24I will continue to do. I am sorry to hear if colleagues think so ill of
0:07:24 > 0:07:31me. But it is not going to affect what I do one bit.You will vote
0:07:31 > 0:07:35next week against this idea of having a fixed legal date for
0:07:35 > 0:07:41Brexit?I hope it will not be necessary. I am sure the government
0:07:41 > 0:07:45will be defeated and I have no desire to defeat the government for
0:07:45 > 0:07:49a second time. I have been in parliament for 20 years and apart
0:07:49 > 0:07:55from HS2 I have not rebelled before. Are you open to negotiation and
0:07:55 > 0:08:01compromise on the way the issue of the votes are handle?My whole life
0:08:01 > 0:08:05is negotiation. I tabled these amendments over a month ago, I have
0:08:05 > 0:08:07had a very sensible dialogue with government ministers about what
0:08:07 > 0:08:14their purposes, sometimes probing, sometimes teasing out, sometimes
0:08:14 > 0:08:19pointing out flaws. So far until this evening we had always managed
0:08:19 > 0:08:22sensible outcomes which improved legislation and kept everybody
0:08:22 > 0:08:27broadly happy. I am sorry the negotiations foundered, it was a
0:08:27 > 0:08:31spectacular foundering, I cannot deny that. There appears to have
0:08:31 > 0:08:36been a complete breakdown within government as to how to answer
0:08:36 > 0:08:43perfectly legitimate points which is worrying, but people will learn from
0:08:43 > 0:08:48experience. I also noted I have colleagues who work pro-Brexit and
0:08:48 > 0:08:51much more supportive of the government who were pointed out that
0:08:51 > 0:08:55the legislation was in a very bad condition and could not be allowed
0:08:55 > 0:09:01to stay in the condition it was in. You learned the Brexiteers and the
0:09:01 > 0:09:05government think all of this is a back door way of giving the MPs a
0:09:05 > 0:09:10chance to impose a soft Brexit, something closer to Norway, if the
0:09:10 > 0:09:15government comes back with something closer to Canada. That is possible
0:09:15 > 0:09:19because you now have that veto power at a late stage in the process.
0:09:19 > 0:09:24Correct or not? The exact terms of Brexit are matter for negotiation
0:09:24 > 0:09:29for the government. It is right that I will not have the closing down of
0:09:29 > 0:09:34options, I have said that on many occasions. The impression we have
0:09:34 > 0:09:39had is of options being closed down and that is not acceptable.Does
0:09:39 > 0:09:45this make a soft Brexit more likely? Is it meaningful in that sense?You
0:09:45 > 0:09:51may be misreading this. This bill is about process, not outcome. It is
0:09:51 > 0:09:55true that process matters, but this bill is about how you carry out a
0:09:55 > 0:10:00process rather than the negotiation itself. I have been studious in not
0:10:00 > 0:10:04trying to interfere with the government's negotiating strategy. I
0:10:04 > 0:10:08have hardly asked a question because I think Parliament's ability to
0:10:08 > 0:10:13interfere with a negotiating strategy is limited. But I am of the
0:10:13 > 0:10:17view that it is in the country's interest that we keep a close
0:10:17 > 0:10:22relationship with the EU or suffer serious consequences. I would like
0:10:22 > 0:10:26the Brexit that minimises risk and maximises opportunity.Let me turn
0:10:26 > 0:10:32to Bernard Jenkin. I know you do not want to have an on-air, blue on blue
0:10:32 > 0:10:39fight here in the studio. Do you think this gives MPs some back door
0:10:39 > 0:10:49away of imposing a softer version of Brexit?Obviously some people think
0:10:49 > 0:10:54it does, but it does not change the price of fish very much. The
0:10:54 > 0:10:57government has been frank that this is only about how you implement the
0:10:57 > 0:11:03withdrawal.If it does not change the direction of things, what is the
0:11:03 > 0:11:08problem?What it means is because these powers will now not be
0:11:08 > 0:11:11available to the government to use until another act of Parliament has
0:11:11 > 0:11:16been passed, it may mean that we have to pass an extra act of
0:11:16 > 0:11:20Parliament very late in the day at the very top speed and I do not
0:11:20 > 0:11:28think that is necessarily the better outcome. But it is life. The problem
0:11:28 > 0:11:31is the act of Parliament that implements the withdrawal agreement
0:11:31 > 0:11:35may not finished going through Parliament until after we have left.
0:11:35 > 0:11:41It is all very complicated and very obscure. What was sad was that
0:11:41 > 0:11:45however clumsily, the government was offering concessions at the last
0:11:45 > 0:11:51minute and some of the rebels were just shouting, too late, too late,
0:11:51 > 0:11:56which sounded a little petulant.How many times have you voted against
0:11:56 > 0:12:03the Conservatives? Probably scores of times. Is it not rich to be
0:12:03 > 0:12:07haranguing the people who voted against the government?I was not
0:12:07 > 0:12:12haranguing anybody today, I was engaging in honest debate.You
0:12:12 > 0:12:14disagree with Nadine Dorries who said there should be deselected and
0:12:14 > 0:12:19should never be allowed to stand again?Yes, I do, that is not very
0:12:19 > 0:12:27helpful. I rebelled to try and get a referendum. I rebelled years ago on
0:12:27 > 0:12:30the martial treaty when they refuse to have a referendum. I rebelled
0:12:30 > 0:12:36when powers were being taken away from Parliament did not even touch
0:12:36 > 0:12:40the ground when legislation was being made in this country. All of
0:12:40 > 0:12:43these powers are commendable and controllable by Parliament and
0:12:43 > 0:12:50ultimately they are only temporary. We have had a referendum. If the
0:12:50 > 0:12:53majority of MPs took the view they wanted a softer Brexit than the one
0:12:53 > 0:12:57currently being talked about, is it legitimate for them to impose that
0:12:57 > 0:13:02on the government if some Parliamentary way of doing that can
0:13:02 > 0:13:09be found?Is that legitimate? Nearly everybody voted for Article 50. The
0:13:09 > 0:13:13reality is you try to negotiate the withdrawal agreement and a free
0:13:13 > 0:13:18trade agreement, but if an acceptable arrangement does not
0:13:18 > 0:13:23emerge, you are still leaving. I personally do not want that, I hope
0:13:23 > 0:13:28we get the agreement. Some people are trying to reverse... We are
0:13:28 > 0:13:39going to hear a new phrase. Brexinos, where we have all the
0:13:39 > 0:13:42regulations impose upon us and we do not have the freedom to do trade
0:13:42 > 0:13:49deals with other countries. Some people say it is a soft Brexit and
0:13:49 > 0:13:52Theresa May has called it a non-Brexit.We have to leave it
0:13:52 > 0:13:55there.
0:13:55 > 0:13:57If you ever want to meet someone who personifies
0:13:57 > 0:13:59the British establishment, you won't do better
0:13:59 > 0:14:03than an encounter with Sir Richard Dearlove.
0:14:03 > 0:14:06He may have a low personal profile, but he had a long career
0:14:06 > 0:14:10in the intelligence services and was put in charge of MI6
0:14:10 > 0:14:13for five years under Tony Blair.
0:14:13 > 0:14:16That makes him M if you like your Bond movies, although actually
0:14:16 > 0:14:21they used the letter C for the boss in real life.
0:14:21 > 0:14:24In his time at MI6 in its famous building on the South bank
0:14:24 > 0:14:28of the Thames he had to handle 9/11, the build-up to the war in Iraq,
0:14:28 > 0:14:32and the controversy over the so-called dodgy dossier
0:14:32 > 0:14:34that exaggerated the certainty of the intelligence
0:14:34 > 0:14:39for Iraq having WMD.
0:14:39 > 0:14:43He was actually criticised in the Chilcott report for adding
0:14:43 > 0:14:47weight to a report that had not been properly evaluated.
0:14:47 > 0:14:51He went on to be on a master of a Cambridge college,
0:14:51 > 0:14:55so in short he is the kind of man you might either see as a public
0:14:55 > 0:14:57servant who has helped keep the country secure,
0:14:57 > 0:15:05or as part of a deep state that has been getting everything wrong.
0:15:09 > 0:15:11But while Sir Richard is an establishment insider,
0:15:11 > 0:15:14he has taken a different view from most of his counterparts
0:15:14 > 0:15:15on Brexit - he's in favour.
0:15:15 > 0:15:18He's just written an open letter to President Macron in France,
0:15:18 > 0:15:22explaining why it's in the EU's interest to let us go, so the 27 can
0:15:22 > 0:15:24get on with the integration they need without us
0:15:24 > 0:15:27getting in the way.
0:15:27 > 0:15:29Being a former head of MI6, he's kept away from
0:15:29 > 0:15:31broadcast interviews.
0:15:31 > 0:15:33But given where we are with Brexit, he agreed
0:15:33 > 0:15:40to his first one with Newsnight.
0:15:40 > 0:15:46I asked him why you thought Brexit was a good idea. -- why he thought.
0:15:46 > 0:15:49I am looking more generally I think than the average person at Europe.
0:15:49 > 0:15:53We have always been skin deep members of the European Union.
0:15:53 > 0:15:57We have believed in a shallow political union.
0:15:57 > 0:16:04Quite honestly if Macron is determined to integrate Europe
0:16:04 > 0:16:08politically as he states, he really does not want us to be part of it
0:16:08 > 0:16:10because we would be very effective in stopping his progress.
0:16:10 > 0:16:13So what I am arguing is that we are offering
0:16:13 > 0:16:22continental Europe and opportunity.
0:16:22 > 0:16:24We can be very supportive of a united Continental
0:16:24 > 0:16:26Europe which will serve our interests closely.
0:16:26 > 0:16:31There is no disaster about the UK returning to
0:16:31 > 0:16:33a mid Atlantic position which is the one that we have
0:16:33 > 0:16:34traditionally occupied.
0:16:34 > 0:16:37You have used a very interesting phrase, we can go back
0:16:37 > 0:16:38to our mid Atlantic position.
0:16:38 > 0:16:41A lot of people would say, yes, the mid
0:16:41 > 0:16:47Atlantic position is lovely, except with time as president.
0:16:47 > 0:16:48-- with Trump as president.
0:16:48 > 0:16:50Something really big has changed, the US is no
0:16:50 > 0:16:51longer what it was.
0:16:51 > 0:16:54Trump is president, and that is a large element of
0:16:54 > 0:16:55unpredictability.
0:16:55 > 0:16:57Trump is only going to be there probably for
0:16:57 > 0:16:59another three years.
0:16:59 > 0:17:01I think we need to think more broadly.
0:17:01 > 0:17:08We have a very close relationship with the
0:17:08 > 0:17:11United States, not only in defence and security terms, but also in
0:17:11 > 0:17:14trading terms.
0:17:14 > 0:17:16I mean, I think I could make a convincing argument
0:17:16 > 0:17:21that in some respects Trump's administration, in terms of the
0:17:21 > 0:17:25relations with the UK, have not been altogether
0:17:25 > 0:17:27as difficult as Obama.
0:17:27 > 0:17:33Well, that's an interesting one, isn't it?
0:17:33 > 0:17:36Obama was closer to the centre of the values of the UK, probably.
0:17:36 > 0:17:39Yes, certainly in value terms, I agree.
0:17:39 > 0:17:40Trump has been unreliable as well, hasn't he?
0:17:40 > 0:17:44I'm thinking particularly on intelligence, your old industry.
0:17:44 > 0:17:50After the Manchester bombing, photos were sent to American intelligence
0:17:50 > 0:17:52and they appeared in the New York Times.
0:17:52 > 0:17:54He has done some unpredictable things, but I don't
0:17:54 > 0:17:58think you should necessarily judge the intelligence relationship in
0:17:58 > 0:18:01terms of Trump's Tweets.
0:18:01 > 0:18:03Do think they are a reliable ally for intelligence
0:18:03 > 0:18:04purposes at the moment?
0:18:04 > 0:18:06I think there are still a very reliable ally for intelligence
0:18:06 > 0:18:10purposes, and I'm sure if you asked that question of the head of CIA he
0:18:10 > 0:18:17would give you a very positive and true indeed.
0:18:17 > 0:18:20Do you believe the Christopher Steele dossier on Trump?
0:18:20 > 0:18:28This was the document which said some salacious...
0:18:28 > 0:18:29I'm not going to get into that.
0:18:29 > 0:18:31But you knew Christopher Steele.
0:18:31 > 0:18:34I won't confirm or deny that I knew Christopher.
0:18:34 > 0:18:38I think that there is probably some credibility to the content.
0:18:38 > 0:18:42I wouldn't put it any more forcefully than that.
0:18:42 > 0:18:48The other superpower, or would be superpower
0:18:48 > 0:18:53that Brexit affects our relationship with, is Russia, isn't it?
0:18:53 > 0:18:55And many people are worried that what Brexit
0:18:55 > 0:18:59is doing is undermining the cohesiveness of Europe.
0:18:59 > 0:19:07In offering a forceful counterweight to Russian mischief.
0:19:07 > 0:19:11Well, I disagree with you saying that the EU necessarily
0:19:11 > 0:19:14offers that counterweight.
0:19:14 > 0:19:16The EU doesn't have the military capability
0:19:16 > 0:19:24or power to balance Russia.
0:19:24 > 0:19:29And what's interesting is we have seen a
0:19:29 > 0:19:30considerable revival of a Nato.
0:19:30 > 0:19:31A revival in Nato?
0:19:31 > 0:19:34Well, yes.
0:19:34 > 0:19:36I thought of Trump was busy questioning it.
0:19:36 > 0:19:39He did question it.
0:19:39 > 0:19:45But I think his recent statements show actually that the American
0:19:45 > 0:19:50commitment to Nato is not fundamentally in question.
0:19:50 > 0:19:52And I think that one of the ancillaries of
0:19:52 > 0:19:56Brexit should be an increase in our defence spending.
0:19:56 > 0:20:00On Russia, some have argued that basically they
0:20:00 > 0:20:08interfered in the Brexit referendum because they felt that it was in
0:20:08 > 0:20:10their interests for Britain to vote out.
0:20:10 > 0:20:11Are you convinced by those arguments?
0:20:11 > 0:20:13No, not at all.
0:20:13 > 0:20:15I mean, I don't think, I've not seen anything
0:20:15 > 0:20:18that can convince me at all that the Russians intervened
0:20:18 > 0:20:21significantly in the Brexit referendum.
0:20:21 > 0:20:24But they might have intervened in the US?
0:20:24 > 0:20:26I don't think there's any question they got
0:20:26 > 0:20:30involved in the US election.
0:20:30 > 0:20:31I think probably on Putin's part that was
0:20:31 > 0:20:34a misjudgement.
0:20:34 > 0:20:37OK, so I sort of understand the geography of your argument.
0:20:37 > 0:20:39On terror, you said it's containable and
0:20:39 > 0:20:47ultimately manageable.
0:20:47 > 0:20:50Now is that what marks you out from your successors?
0:20:50 > 0:20:52I believe strongly, personally, in the
0:20:52 > 0:20:58issue of proportionality. And...
0:20:58 > 0:21:01What I mean by proportionality is we have a lot of serious social
0:21:01 > 0:21:10problems to deal with, and the chances of
0:21:10 > 0:21:12in a terrorist attack, even when the terrorist
0:21:12 > 0:21:14attack is quite high, are relatively low.
0:21:14 > 0:21:17The problem is that when attacks happen they are
0:21:17 > 0:21:19shocking, catastrophic.
0:21:19 > 0:21:21And of course you get a massive media
0:21:21 > 0:21:23reaction to them.
0:21:23 > 0:21:25Too much of a media reaction, do you think?
0:21:25 > 0:21:26Yes, I think so.
0:21:26 > 0:21:27We've had this debate.
0:21:27 > 0:21:29I know, and I'm not blaming the media
0:21:29 > 0:21:31for the world in which we live.
0:21:31 > 0:21:32It's inevitable.
0:21:32 > 0:21:33It's what audiences are talking about.
0:21:33 > 0:21:34Exactly.
0:21:34 > 0:21:37But we need to keep a sense of proportion about
0:21:37 > 0:21:38what we are dealing with.
0:21:38 > 0:21:40I don't think terrorism in its current form
0:21:40 > 0:21:44presents a systemic threat to the nation.
0:21:44 > 0:21:47It presents the possibility of horrible happenings, which we are
0:21:47 > 0:21:52learning how to deal with.
0:21:52 > 0:21:54And of course, at the moment there is
0:21:54 > 0:21:56unquestionably going to be a heightened risk as we have got
0:21:56 > 0:21:58more returnees coming back from Syria,
0:21:58 > 0:22:03probably from Afghanistan as well.
0:22:03 > 0:22:05I want to come back to this issue of trust.
0:22:05 > 0:22:06Do you feel...
0:22:06 > 0:22:09You may say it doesn't explain Brexit, but do you
0:22:09 > 0:22:16feel the establishment is viewed with a kind of anger and distaste?
0:22:16 > 0:22:19I mean, it could be the expenses scandal, it could be the financial
0:22:19 > 0:22:21crash, it could be Iraq.
0:22:21 > 0:22:23I think that is a dangerous generalisation,
0:22:23 > 0:22:24Evan, I really do.
0:22:24 > 0:22:25Do you?
0:22:25 > 0:22:27I mean, you were involved in the Iraq
0:22:27 > 0:22:28build-up.
0:22:28 > 0:22:31Do you think responsibility was taken for the
0:22:31 > 0:22:36mistakes made at that time, the dodgy dossier?
0:22:36 > 0:22:39We're not here to discuss Iraq, and if we start on
0:22:39 > 0:22:43that track we will be here for hours.
0:22:43 > 0:22:46But just in general, do you see that as an area where some of
0:22:46 > 0:22:51the rot set in in this relationship between the government and the
0:22:51 > 0:22:52governed in this country?
0:22:52 > 0:22:54No, I don't think so.
0:22:54 > 0:22:56So much as subsequently happened in the Middle
0:22:56 > 0:22:57East that that would be a facile argument.
0:22:57 > 0:23:01Can I ask one last one?
0:23:01 > 0:23:03Talk to a lot of people, mostly Remainers but not exclusively, who
0:23:03 > 0:23:11think the world is going to hell in a handcart.
0:23:11 > 0:23:14What's your sort of analysis?
0:23:14 > 0:23:17Is this a 10-year process of turbulence, our be talking to
0:23:17 > 0:23:18years of turbulence?
0:23:18 > 0:23:20I would have thought probably nearer five.
0:23:20 > 0:23:21Nearer five.
0:23:21 > 0:23:24I think we can emerge from that in a pretty strong position, if
0:23:24 > 0:23:29we do not lose self belief and self-confidence.
0:23:29 > 0:23:31Sir Richard Dearlove, thank you very much.
0:23:31 > 0:23:35Evan, thank you.
0:23:35 > 0:23:38Tomorrow could be a decisive day in the history of Rupert Murdoch
0:23:38 > 0:23:45and his enormous media empire.
0:23:45 > 0:23:48For over half a century he has been building it up.
0:23:48 > 0:23:51If reports out of America are to be believed, tomorrow could see a very
0:23:51 > 0:23:52significant restructuring because Disney appears
0:23:52 > 0:23:54poised to takeover a huge chunk of it -
0:23:54 > 0:23:5620th Century Fox.
0:23:56 > 0:23:59A huge deal that would leave Murdoch controlling a much smaller and more
0:23:59 > 0:24:00focussed group of news businesses.
0:24:00 > 0:24:06But what does this tell us about the media industry -
0:24:06 > 0:24:09and what could it mean for Sky, and particularly Sky News in the UK?
0:24:09 > 0:24:12I'm joined from New York by Shannon Bond, the US
0:24:12 > 0:24:13Media Correspondent for the Financial Times.
0:24:13 > 0:24:15And in the studio by David Yelland.
0:24:15 > 0:24:23He's the former editor of the Sun and knows Rupert Murdoch very well.
0:24:23 > 0:24:29Is it right to view this as Murdoch retreating a bit into the area he
0:24:29 > 0:24:34knows and loves, news?I think anybody would have been surprised?
0:24:34 > 0:24:37Months ago to think Rupert Murdoch was going to be a seller. He spent
0:24:37 > 0:24:43decades building this empire. It does seem to be a bit of a retreat
0:24:43 > 0:24:46to his origins in the news and in sports here. It is not going to be
0:24:46 > 0:24:55the sprawling empire that Fox is today.Is this an era semiretirement
0:24:55 > 0:25:04for Rupert Murdoch?I don't think it is retirement of any kind. He is
0:25:04 > 0:25:07retreating to news. But I don't think that is the right word. I
0:25:07 > 0:25:14think this is about the next ten to 15 years. Apple is six, seven times,
0:25:14 > 0:25:21well, four times the size of Fox and Disney together. Amazon is $560
0:25:21 > 0:25:28billion. The West Coast companies in the US and the Chinese will control
0:25:28 > 0:25:32media in ten years' time. There would be to Chinese giants, for US
0:25:32 > 0:25:37giants. The only one that will survive will be Disney now.
0:25:37 > 0:25:43Basically it is just racing to get big and be safe?I think he has
0:25:43 > 0:25:47accepted he has not got the scale in the digital world to be one of the
0:25:47 > 0:25:52top one or two.Is that your view of it in terms of the bigger picture of
0:25:52 > 0:25:57the entertainment scene in the next decade?I think that is absolutely
0:25:57 > 0:26:01right. It is an acknowledgement that Fox does not have the scale for the
0:26:01 > 0:26:05future of entertainment. It is true, we see these enormously disruptive
0:26:05 > 0:26:10forces coming out of silicon valley, are also changing the way that media
0:26:10 > 0:26:16is produced and consumed. Who paying for it, who is watching it?Over
0:26:16 > 0:26:20here we think it quite a lot about Sky. In the United States it is
0:26:20 > 0:26:26probably not considered a huge thing. What does this mean for Sky?
0:26:26 > 0:26:29The Murdoch share will be in the Disney empire. Murdoch wanted all of
0:26:29 > 0:26:35it. We assume Disney will take it all?Right, our understanding is one
0:26:35 > 0:26:39where the other Disney World and up morning Sky. Fox will continue to
0:26:39 > 0:26:43buy the rest of the shares and either they will get approved by
0:26:43 > 0:26:47them, and then it will become part of the Disney deal. If not, Disney
0:26:47 > 0:26:52will take over that 39% stake they own now and make its own bid to on
0:26:52 > 0:26:57the rest of it. One way or the other, Skye goes to Disney. It does
0:26:57 > 0:27:04not have resonance in the US. But we do recognise that for Disney it is a
0:27:04 > 0:27:07big distribution platform for them in Europe for their content. Very
0:27:07 > 0:27:14important for future strategy.Sky News, a lot of people say Sky News
0:27:14 > 0:27:20loses money, and the best way to run a news organisation is to have a
0:27:20 > 0:27:23billionaire behind you loves news. Will Disney be interested in Sky
0:27:23 > 0:27:28News?People don't realise that Disney is an incredibly big provider
0:27:28 > 0:27:34of news in the US. It owns ABC and has done for 20 years. ABC is one of
0:27:34 > 0:27:39the big three original networks. The irony is the CMA have the government
0:27:39 > 0:27:47are looking at variety. The fact is Rupert Murdoch created Sky. He
0:27:47 > 0:27:50created so many of these assets which authorities around the world
0:27:50 > 0:27:55are looking at. Without him it wouldn't exist. Now Sky will be
0:27:55 > 0:27:59owned by a US media giant but not Fox. There is a huge irony there. I
0:27:59 > 0:28:05would say to Anna Bolton and my friends at Sky, they will be fine.
0:28:05 > 0:28:12-- Adam Boulton.Our big American media empires interested in having
0:28:12 > 0:28:15news channels as loss leaders to give them prestige and a life
0:28:15 > 0:28:21present in the world?I think it is absolutely significant for them.
0:28:21 > 0:28:24Also, you can't discount the viewing they are getting from these
0:28:24 > 0:28:29channels. We are all obsessed with screaming, we are all talking about
0:28:29 > 0:28:32disruption. But people are still watching the news and sport live.
0:28:32 > 0:28:37Those are areas in which the so-called linear television system
0:28:37 > 0:28:41is going to be strong for a while yet. There are still millions of
0:28:41 > 0:28:44people who want to tune in to see these things as they happen.Thank
0:28:44 > 0:28:45you both.
0:28:45 > 0:28:47When the Grenfell fire happened six months ago,
0:28:47 > 0:28:51we quickly realised that something had gone wrong with the building
0:28:51 > 0:28:53regulations, or at least the way they were implemented.
0:28:53 > 0:28:56The result in that case was a tragedy that has prompted
0:28:56 > 0:28:58a complete review of fire safety in tall buildings.
0:28:58 > 0:29:00Well, tonight we can bring you details of another area
0:29:00 > 0:29:04of fire safety regulation, which some believe needs examining -
0:29:04 > 0:29:08it is that which purports to prevent furniture from burning.
0:29:08 > 0:29:10Now, the rules governing furniture in this country are tough,
0:29:10 > 0:29:14which you might assume is a good thing in the wake of Grenfell.
0:29:14 > 0:29:17This special report on the problem, and how we got here,
0:29:17 > 0:29:18is from our policy editor, Chris Cook.
0:29:18 > 0:29:21There is one area where Britain has usually thought of itself as having
0:29:21 > 0:29:27the toughest safety regulations on earth, furniture.
0:29:27 > 0:29:31We subject it to harder tests than anyone else to try to make it
0:29:31 > 0:29:39as fireproof as possible for good reason.
0:29:39 > 0:29:44For example, a sofa can be a massive fire hazard.
0:29:44 > 0:29:47But questions have arisen about the safety of the rules we use
0:29:47 > 0:29:51to contain this risk.
0:29:51 > 0:29:54The civil servant who was until recently in charge
0:29:54 > 0:29:57of reviewing these regulations has had a change of heart
0:29:57 > 0:30:00about their wisdom since he got involved in this field
0:30:00 > 0:30:03in the mid-2000s.
0:30:03 > 0:30:06I would have said these are the most stringent fire safety,
0:30:06 > 0:30:09domestic arrangements in the world.
0:30:09 > 0:30:11They are a great success and they are saving lives
0:30:11 > 0:30:15and the rest of the world should really come up to the same
0:30:15 > 0:30:17level of requirements that we have in the UK.
0:30:17 > 0:30:18But you absolutely don't believe that now?
0:30:18 > 0:30:22I absolutely don't believe that now.
0:30:22 > 0:30:26In Britain furniture fabric has to pass very tough tests,
0:30:26 > 0:30:31uniquely tough in the world, before you are allowed to sell
0:30:31 > 0:30:33it on the open market.
0:30:33 > 0:30:36Manufacturers, though, have worked out that the easiest way
0:30:36 > 0:30:39to get through those tests is simply to load the fabric with
0:30:39 > 0:30:44chemical flame retardants.
0:30:44 > 0:30:48The Grenfell Tower fire is an apt moment to consider
0:30:48 > 0:30:50the wisdom of this approach.
0:30:50 > 0:30:52Within the Tower the fire obviously moved through the building very
0:30:52 > 0:30:59rapidly and people reported noxious black smoke filling the interior.
0:30:59 > 0:31:02rapidly and people reported noxious, black smoke filling the interior.
0:31:02 > 0:31:04A dozen residents were treated afterwards for cyanide poisoning,
0:31:04 > 0:31:06including a 12-year-old member of the Gomez family.
0:31:06 > 0:31:09The smoke was certainly so intense that as soon
0:31:09 > 0:31:13as you took a mouthful of air, or in this case smoke,
0:31:13 > 0:31:23you were gagging.
0:31:24 > 0:31:27Smoke is always bad for you, it can always kill you.
0:31:27 > 0:31:30But the thing is, the commonest fire retardants in use in UK
0:31:30 > 0:31:32furniture work by interfering with the chemistry of the flame
0:31:32 > 0:31:35and a by-product of their use is that when a fire gets going,
0:31:35 > 0:31:41the smoke is more toxic.
0:31:41 > 0:31:43A new peer-reviewed paper in the journal Chemisphere suggests
0:31:43 > 0:31:46they make it much more toxic.
0:31:46 > 0:31:49The first thing we found was that the sofas burnt at almost
0:31:49 > 0:31:51the same kind of rate.
0:31:51 > 0:31:53You did not get a particular slowing down comparing
0:31:53 > 0:31:56the non-flame retardant sofas with the flame retardant ones.
0:31:56 > 0:31:59The second thing is we got between two and three times more
0:31:59 > 0:32:03toxicity in the smoke from the UK fire retardant sofas
0:32:03 > 0:32:09and we did from the European non-fire retardant sofas.
0:32:09 > 0:32:11than we did from the European non-fire retardant sofas.
0:32:11 > 0:32:14More toxicity means more carbon monoxide and hydrogen
0:32:14 > 0:32:18cyanide in the smoke.
0:32:18 > 0:32:21But the chemical companies point to their own research saying UK
0:32:21 > 0:32:24sofas clearly do better at resisting fires than other European sofas
0:32:24 > 0:32:28when they are first ignited, and advocates of flame retardants
0:32:28 > 0:32:32note that even if it makes mature fires more dangerous, preventing
0:32:32 > 0:32:35fires is the only smart strategy.
0:32:35 > 0:32:38The best way to deal with toxicity of smoke is to begin
0:32:38 > 0:32:40with not to have a fire.
0:32:40 > 0:32:43Not only do we benefit from not having the toxic smoke,
0:32:43 > 0:32:47but you will benefit from not having the flames spread, you will benefit
0:32:47 > 0:32:49from not having the structure being put into structural danger,
0:32:49 > 0:32:58you will have no problem of the fire struggling to different compartments
0:32:58 > 0:33:01you will have no problem of the fire travelling to different compartments
0:33:01 > 0:33:02and finding different fuels.
0:33:02 > 0:33:04This is, however, not the first wave of unrest about retardants.
0:33:04 > 0:33:06So the flame retardants are what are called semi-volatile,
0:33:06 > 0:33:09that means they are coming out always from the couch,
0:33:09 > 0:33:12you don't have to sit on it, they are always coming out,
0:33:12 > 0:33:14and they are heavy, they drop into dust.
0:33:14 > 0:33:16You get dust on your hands and you eat a sandwich
0:33:16 > 0:33:19and you are eating flame retardant.
0:33:19 > 0:33:21Our own government just last year noted flame retardant chemicals,
0:33:21 > 0:33:23particularly brominated flame retardants, can be harmful
0:33:23 > 0:33:28to human and animal health.
0:33:28 > 0:33:31There is a big question though about whether these regulations
0:33:31 > 0:33:34are actually preventing fires.
0:33:34 > 0:33:38For example, they don't really take account of the fact that in a sofa
0:33:38 > 0:33:41arm you might have a load of flammable Hessian or wood or even
0:33:41 > 0:33:44cardboard just under the surface.
0:33:44 > 0:33:46Professor Ryan does not support reducing flame retardant use,
0:33:46 > 0:33:50but also acknowledges the statistical difficulty
0:33:50 > 0:33:53in proving their effectiveness.
0:33:53 > 0:33:55When you look into medicine, for example, I envy them tremendously.
0:33:55 > 0:33:57They do meta analysis, which is an analysis
0:33:57 > 0:33:59of the reviews of the reviews.
0:33:59 > 0:34:02In fire science we cannot do meta analysis.
0:34:02 > 0:34:06We have like three studies per topic instead of 3000,
0:34:06 > 0:34:09which is the level of the studies that you will require to actually
0:34:09 > 0:34:13inform the politicians.
0:34:13 > 0:34:16So we operate in this area slightly in the dark.
0:34:16 > 0:34:18People from competing disciplines give different answers
0:34:18 > 0:34:21to the same questions.
0:34:21 > 0:34:24It is a complex public policy issue.
0:34:24 > 0:34:27So how did we end up with these rules?
0:34:27 > 0:34:30The story of our fire regulation really starts in the 1980s
0:34:30 > 0:34:34when there was real disquiet about fire deaths.
0:34:34 > 0:34:37In part because we used horrifyingly flammable foam padding in furniture,
0:34:37 > 0:34:43which is now just banned, and more people smoked.
0:34:43 > 0:34:46I am warning this room could be a burnt out shell
0:34:46 > 0:34:50because of the burning cigarette someone forgot.
0:34:50 > 0:34:53This man is Bob Graham, then a Manchester firefighter,
0:34:53 > 0:34:56speaking in 1985 on Newsnight.
0:34:56 > 0:34:59We were running a feature on how many fires were then
0:34:59 > 0:35:00being caused by cigarettes.
0:35:00 > 0:35:03We have got a situation where we have the smallest emission
0:35:03 > 0:35:06source in the home being responsible for the largest
0:35:06 > 0:35:10proportion of deaths.
0:35:10 > 0:35:13At that time Assistant Chief Fire Officer Graham wanted cigarette
0:35:13 > 0:35:15companies to roll out self extinguishing cigarettes
0:35:15 > 0:35:18to cut down on fires.
0:35:18 > 0:35:22Not a universally popular view in 1985.
0:35:22 > 0:35:24Here at the headquarters of the Tobacco Advisory Council
0:35:24 > 0:35:34repeated requests for a spokesman to discuss self distinguishing
0:35:34 > 0:35:36repeated requests for a spokesman to discuss self extinguishing
0:35:36 > 0:35:38cigarettes have been met with polite refusals.
0:35:38 > 0:35:41The tobacco companies may not have been talking to Newsnight, but we do
0:35:41 > 0:35:43know that they were watching.
0:35:43 > 0:35:45Newsnight has dug up legal disclosures from the US
0:35:45 > 0:35:53which show just how concerned they were about our reports.
0:35:53 > 0:35:56One of them notes that their inability to put forward
0:35:56 > 0:35:58a defensible PR stance on these issues had been amply demonstrated
0:35:58 > 0:36:00by TV comments in July 1985.
0:36:00 > 0:36:02That is when that Newsnight report went out.
0:36:02 > 0:36:05They needed to find a way to get people to talk about fires
0:36:05 > 0:36:07as being caused by furniture, not by cigarettes.
0:36:07 > 0:36:10From these documents we know that tobacco companies contributed
0:36:10 > 0:36:12to the development of flame retardants for furniture.
0:36:12 > 0:36:15In Britain, big tobacco set up a special fire safe
0:36:15 > 0:36:18cigarette working group.
0:36:18 > 0:36:22This press conference, called by a West Midlands Fire chief
0:36:22 > 0:36:25in 1988, was enormously helpful.
0:36:25 > 0:36:28It was critical in forcing the debate from cigarettes
0:36:28 > 0:36:30and onto furniture.
0:36:30 > 0:36:32And the documents show converting firefighters
0:36:32 > 0:36:37to their cause was a key plank of big tobacco's policy.
0:36:37 > 0:36:40Now thanks to those court disclosures, we now know
0:36:40 > 0:36:43that the tobacco companies had actually been working on Mr Graham,
0:36:43 > 0:36:46and another firefighter who was on that podium.
0:36:46 > 0:36:48You see, the documents are pretty clear.
0:36:48 > 0:36:51The tobacco companies thought they had no credibility
0:36:51 > 0:36:53to talk about fire safety, and they needed a protective
0:36:53 > 0:36:58ring of firefighters who could do it for them.
0:36:58 > 0:37:02So they said Mr Graham could be one of their so-called spark plugs,
0:37:02 > 0:37:04people who could move the debate their way.
0:37:04 > 0:37:07So they met him, they engaged with him and sought to make him see
0:37:07 > 0:37:10furniture rather than cigarettes as the problem.
0:37:10 > 0:37:14And we know that pretty soon he changed his mind in that direction.
0:37:14 > 0:37:18We asked Mr Graham whether he knew back in the 1980s, that he was being
0:37:18 > 0:37:21targeted by tobacco lobbyists.
0:37:21 > 0:37:25I didn't know that.
0:37:25 > 0:37:29They saw you and your support for the self-extinguishing cigarette
0:37:29 > 0:37:33as a thing we had to deal with.
0:37:33 > 0:37:35Yeah.
0:37:35 > 0:37:36I was in the fire service.
0:37:36 > 0:37:39You wouldn't be allowed to do anything like that.
0:37:39 > 0:37:43You know, you couldn't deal with any businesses, whatever they were.
0:37:43 > 0:37:45But I never heard from them.
0:37:45 > 0:37:47Not that I can remember anyway.
0:37:47 > 0:37:51So you weren't aware at any point of the tobacco industry sort of...
0:37:51 > 0:37:54No, I wasn't.
0:37:54 > 0:37:57That's all new to me.
0:37:57 > 0:37:59Mr Graham said he just changed his mind in favour
0:37:59 > 0:38:00of furniture regulation.
0:38:00 > 0:38:01He wasn't alone.
0:38:01 > 0:38:04In 1988, the government was persuaded.
0:38:04 > 0:38:07Britain banned a lot of flammable furniture and brought
0:38:07 > 0:38:08in the current tests.
0:38:08 > 0:38:09The response from big tobacco?
0:38:09 > 0:38:12Job done.
0:38:12 > 0:38:15There memos referred to the group on fire safe cigarettes,
0:38:15 > 0:38:25self-extinguishing.
0:38:25 > 0:38:27That though was not the end of the lobbying.
0:38:27 > 0:38:30The chemical companies who make retardants became bigger players.
0:38:30 > 0:38:32The alliance for consumer fire safety in Europe aggressively
0:38:32 > 0:38:34lobbied to extend our rules to other EU countries.
0:38:34 > 0:38:36They had the same strategy - get a firefighter.
0:38:36 > 0:38:38I'd been retired about five years.
0:38:38 > 0:38:39And then they asked for a meeting.
0:38:39 > 0:38:43I met them.
0:38:43 > 0:38:46They said, "We'd like you to raise fire awareness in Europe."
0:38:46 > 0:38:49And I said, "OK, but I do it my way.
0:38:49 > 0:38:52I'm not being influenced by anyone."
0:38:52 > 0:38:56And they were funded by the fire retardant company?
0:38:56 > 0:39:00Yes, by a committee of all the flame retardant manufacturers in Europe,
0:39:00 > 0:39:04which is halogenated, phosphorus and all those
0:39:04 > 0:39:08kind, I understand.
0:39:08 > 0:39:11And at one time I think smoke alarm people as well.
0:39:11 > 0:39:13OK.
0:39:13 > 0:39:15And the...
0:39:15 > 0:39:20So from its birth, the alliance was really founded by the fire flame
0:39:20 > 0:39:26retardant companies, with you as executive front men?
0:39:26 > 0:39:28retardant companies, with you as executive front man?
0:39:28 > 0:39:29I guess.
0:39:29 > 0:39:30Yeah.
0:39:30 > 0:39:31Yeah.
0:39:31 > 0:39:36It would be silly to say no to that.
0:39:36 > 0:39:39Mr Graham stressed that the alliance did not advocate for retardants
0:39:39 > 0:39:40in particular, although chemical companies would tend
0:39:40 > 0:39:43to benefit from the tough fire safety rules he wanted.
0:39:43 > 0:39:44But they're not the only lobby.
0:39:44 > 0:39:46Back in 2014, the Business Department proposed changing
0:39:46 > 0:39:49the test, to make it more sensitive to how modern furniture
0:39:49 > 0:39:50is actually made.
0:39:50 > 0:39:52It doesn't represent the way that furniture is constructed,
0:39:52 > 0:39:55and it doesn't take into account the many flammable materials you can
0:39:55 > 0:39:59get close to the surface in the arms and so forth.
0:39:59 > 0:40:03You could never bring that test in now.
0:40:03 > 0:40:05The proposed test reforms would mean regulation and materials not
0:40:05 > 0:40:08currently covered by the rules, but would also mean an overall
0:40:08 > 0:40:11reduction in flame retardant use.
0:40:11 > 0:40:14So he was expecting the chemical industry to resist.
0:40:14 > 0:40:17Another industry though was mobilised by the changes.
0:40:17 > 0:40:22The furniture industry really likes these regulations,
0:40:22 > 0:40:25because they are a barrier to trade.
0:40:25 > 0:40:30Because it gives them a huge advantage in the home market.
0:40:30 > 0:40:37Because if you are a German manufacturer and you want some
0:40:37 > 0:40:40Because if you are a German manufacturer and you want to sell
0:40:40 > 0:40:42furniture into the UK, you've got to create
0:40:42 > 0:40:44a separate range that complies with our regulations.
0:40:44 > 0:40:53A furniture industry body said they thought our rules
0:40:53 > 0:40:55needed a full update, but oposed the reforms
0:40:55 > 0:40:57because they thought they wouldn't meet government objectives.
0:40:57 > 0:40:59The government believes these regulations do need reform,
0:40:59 > 0:41:02but we don't spend much on research to balance the competing concerns
0:41:02 > 0:41:06about effectiveness and toxicity.
0:41:06 > 0:41:08Some ministers sought consensus on what would work.
0:41:08 > 0:41:11But that collapsed in part because there is so much money
0:41:11 > 0:41:12riding on opposing change.
0:41:12 > 0:41:15Do you think that we make foreign safety policy on a scientific basis?
0:41:15 > 0:41:18Not at the moment, no.
0:41:18 > 0:41:19I've been involved with committees that set regulations
0:41:19 > 0:41:22and address regulation changes.
0:41:22 > 0:41:25And I can tell you that I'm surprised how little the role
0:41:25 > 0:41:28of science has in these committees.
0:41:28 > 0:41:33The standards process in the UK is dominated by people who can
0:41:33 > 0:41:36afford to attend the meetings, and those are usually people
0:41:36 > 0:41:39with a vested interest in a particular outcome.
0:41:39 > 0:41:43All lobbying is funded by the industry.
0:41:43 > 0:41:46All the resistance to improvements in standards
0:41:46 > 0:41:49comes from the industry.
0:41:49 > 0:41:52And there is either money to be made or money to be lost.
0:41:52 > 0:41:55This is not ancient history.
0:41:55 > 0:41:58The government consulted once again last year on changes that
0:41:58 > 0:42:00would reduce the flame retardant load in our furniture.
0:42:00 > 0:42:04We don't know what they'll do, but we do know they faced organise
0:42:04 > 0:42:06opposition from industry.
0:42:06 > 0:42:09Also, in the wake of the disaster in Kensington, and with relatively
0:42:09 > 0:42:12little large-scale research to rely on, ministers may find it
0:42:12 > 0:42:22easiest to hope this concern burns itself out.
0:42:23 > 0:42:27That's all for this evening.
0:42:27 > 0:42:33Before we go, the Daily Mail describes those Tory rebels as self
0:42:33 > 0:42:38consumed malcontents. It asks, are you proud of yourselves? From me,
0:42:38 > 0:42:41good night.