Skip to main content

tv   Afternoon Live  BBC News  September 17, 2019 2:00pm-5:00pm BST

2:00 pm
hello, you're watching afternoon live — i'm simon mccoy. today at 2:00pm: the supreme court begins hearing two appeals which will decide whether borisjohnson broke the law by suspending parliament. identifying whether a power has been used for a valid purpose is a legal question. it is not a political question. let's wait and see what they say. would you be ready to recall parliament if that is what the supreme court says you should do? i think the best thing i can do is wait and see what the judges say. iam i am reporting live with implications that could have
2:01 pm
wide—ranging indications for the country. wide—ranging indications for the country. england cricketer ben stokes accuses the sun newspaper of shattering his privacy with what he calls an "utterly disgusting" report about a family tragedy. the trial begins of four people accused of murdering 17—year—old girl scoutjodie chesney in a park in east london. coming up on afternoon live, all the sport, will parry is here. the champions league is back tonight. liverpool are away and italy. frank lampard is managing for the first time. plenty more of this to come over the next few days. dry weather, blue skies and sunshine was double the uk whether detail is coming up later in the programme we will be out into the programme we will be out into the atlantic. a couple of tropical storms currently on their own which could make the news over the next couple of days. thanks, ben. also coming up — after a gruelling 5a hours — sarah thomas becomes the first person to swim across the english channel four times in a row.
2:02 pm
hopefully i can sleep the rest of the day. i'm pretty out of it, really tired right now for sure. hello everyone — this is afternoon live — i'm simon mccoy. in one of the most dramatic days in the brexit drama so far. 11 supreme courtjudges have begun hearing two appeals to determine whether the prime minister acted lawfully when he suspended parliament for five weeks. scotland's highest civil court — and the high court in london — have given different rulings on the shutdown. the prime minister says he will "wait and see what the judges say" before deciding whether to recall parliament. let's get more from ben brown who's at the supreme court.demonstrators from both sides of the brexit divide are here outside the supreme court,
2:03 pm
the highest court in the land. earlier on today we had from lord panic representing gina miller saying essentially the reason the prime minister prorogued or suspended parliament was because he wa nted suspended parliament was because he wanted to silence it because he saw it as an obstacle and a threat to his government policies. we will hear from the his government policies. we will hearfrom the government his government policies. we will hear from the government lawyer this afternoon but let's talk now, then, to professor alison young from cambridge university who has been watching these proceedings. what if you made of the arguments we've had so far? he is putting across a very clear argument that it is thejob of across a very clear argument that it is the job of the court to look at the law and he is arguing there are legal limits to we can exercises power. there is the standard code in proper purpose and he says that can apply herejust proper purpose and he says that can apply here just as it can proper purpose and he says that can apply herejust as it can in proper purpose and he says that can apply here just as it can in other circumstances and here we can say it was not the right purpose because it was not the right purpose because it was undermining the principles of the constitution. he was also saying there has been no
2:04 pm
written statement from the prime minister about why he did that. from that, that lack of a written statement you can infer that his purposes were improper. but some people would say that is quite a big leap. i can see why they are saying that but what you're saying is we have got this evidence from the prime minister to do media interviews that they where he was talking about this aspect of permitting government policies and the fear that he had a if parliament could vote him down he would not be able to get the deal he wanted through brexit. and then you have got other statements from the advice of the prime minster was given to go away and prorogued. what's lord panick are saying is if that was not his purpose, it is purpose wasjust extended then he could have given evidence, we could have questioned him. and when we don't have that evidence then can't we take a step back and infer that what he said to the media is his real purpose? we will hear from the government's side, what can we expect there, do you think? i think he will try to argue two
2:05 pm
things. first he is going to say this is not above law, it is about politics. there are no real legal limits on how you can prorogued parliament it is alljust political. and then he will go on to say even if there were legal limits they were here. there is no evidence of an improper purpose and there is no background because additional crisis. thank you very much indeed. let's go back inside the hearings because here now from lord keane who is the advocate general and pushing the government position that this is not a matter for the courts, government position that this is not a matterfor the courts, it government position that this is not a matter for the courts, it is government position that this is not a matterfor the courts, it is not government position that this is not a matter for the courts, it is not a matter of law, purely a matter of politics. let's listen in then to lord keane. the principles of democracy and the rule of law. he refers that to lord hodge in the case. to the same effect as lord brodie, paragraph 81 of the inner house judgment which is ans
2:06 pm
of the inner house judgment which is an s 1226. —— ms 1226. there had been no contravention of the claim of right, which was part of the case which had been advanced on the half of the petitioners. and indeed he observed about halfway down that paragraph that while we had much mr o'neill in behalf of the petitioners, which was both interesting and staring, but a particularly scottish tradition of holding the crown in its various manifestations to account, for
2:07 pm
present purposes and not having actually identified any material differences between the applicable scots law and the corresponding law, mr o'neill was to an extent pushing atan mr o'neill was to an extent pushing at an open door however only to an extent. lodge drummond young did not address the matter directly in the same way as the lord president and lord brodie but your lordship has made note that in his opinion, in paragraph 97 and 98, which can be found in ms 1237, he refers to the constitutional system of the united kingdom. that is hardly surprising when we are dealing with the prerogative powers which may be exercised with respect to the parliament of the united kingdom. and indeed also when we come on to consider the privileges of that united kingdom parliament. and i
2:08 pm
note, and your lordships may have seen note, and your lordships may have seen this already, but this is also consistent with the written case submitted for the lord advocate. in footnote six of that case, i am afraid there are no ms references that i am aware of. he notes, however, the prerogative issue here is the power of the crown and right of the united kingdom to prorogued the united kingdom parliament. the legal content and effects of that prerogative cannot sensibly differ as between the different jurisdictions of the united kingdom nor at the level of contradiction or principle. should there be any difference in approach between the different jurisdictions difference in approach between the differentjurisdictions in the united kingdom as regards the proper full of the court in reviewing the exercise of that prerogative the important thing is that the correct
2:09 pm
approach should be taken in that regard in bothjurisdictions. now, for reasons which i will come on to elaborate, i would court to some authority that underpins the proposition that, in addressing the prerogative, as it applies to the united kingdom parliament, and considering the privileges of that parliament, one has regard to common principles of public law throughout the united kingdom. ijust note in passing that the matter was addressed in the case of boyle against the lord advocate has long ago as 1965, when the court observed that it would be highly unusual if not surprising if the application of these matters differed as between these matters differed as between the north and the south bank of the
2:10 pm
tweed. i would also refer to the case of adams against the guardian newspapers which was an outer house case in which the judgment was given by lord reid. that can be found at ms 1325. by lord reid. that can be found at m51325. and, at by lord reid. that can be found at ms 1325. and, at paragraph 13 of thatjudgment,. lord that judgment,. lord reid thatjudgment,. lord reid observed as follows, there is little modern authority in scotland on the issue of parliamentary privilege but it was common ground before me and appears to me to be clear that the law in this matter is in general at
2:11 pm
least subject to any divergence arising in consequence of other differences and differences between scots and english law, the same in scotla nd scots and english law, the same in scotland as elsewhere in the united kingdom. no difficulty arises in particular from the fact that the bill of rights was passed by the convention parliament in england and padded scottish equivalent to the claim of right, the latter being less specific issue of freedom of speech. as mitchell, in his work on constitutional law, explains, doctrines of parliamentary privilege we re doctrines of parliamentary privilege were more fully developed in 707 in england than in scotland and it was natural that the greater should have been accepted as the privileges of the union parliament quite apart the natural tendency of that parliament to refer to precedents which were familiar to the majority of its members. and that judgment familiar to the majority of its members. and thatjudgment was in turn approved in the case of colson against her majesty's advocate. the decision for the high court of justice, is essentially the criminal court of appeal judgment
2:12 pm
justice, is essentially the criminal court of appealjudgment in 2015. i should say that there are also echoes in the lord read's observations of the evidence which the late lord rodger in his capacity as lord president of the court of session and so robert carswell in his then capacity as chiefjustice of northern ireland gave to the joint committee on parliamentary privileges where they made clear that they were convinced that the role would be interpreted in scotla nd role would be interpreted in scotland and northern ireland to reflect closely the interpretations placed on parliamentary privilege by the english court. so it is quite clear that the decision in the inner house and the divisional court decision and miller did not result from any substantive distance between english law and scots law because as the inner house held in
2:13 pm
this context, there simply wasn't any such difference to be relied upon. my lady and my lords, the second matter of agreement with the inner house is that the prorogation of parliament does not have a direct consequence on individual rights. and the inner house rejected the petition's argument that the issue was rendered admissible on that basis. the lord president addressed the matter at paragraph 59 of his judgment which can be found at ms 1212. and briefly said however, the probing of parliament does not have a direct consequence on individual legal rights. the issue is notjust
2:14 pm
admissible on that basis in the petition's argument the opposite effect on this point is rejected. and again, lord drummond young, at paragraph 125 which is at ms 1253 simply observed, and finally i should express concurrent with the views of your lordship and the chair on the question of reduction documents applied and the that prorogued parliament does not have a direct effect on individual legal rights. so, again, ithat issue direct effect on individual legal rights. so, again, i that issue to one side, albeit it may re—emerge as my learned friend mr o'neill presents his submissions to the court. but method matter of agreement with respect to the matter of the house is the acceptance by majority of the lordships that a principle exists in public law and
2:15 pm
that whether an issue is ultimately to decibels will depend upon the subject matter. and that can be found in the opinion of the lord president which is that ms 1208 where he observed the decision under review which seems to be made by the prime minister alone is that to the quest to majesty the queen to exercise her prerogative to prorogued parliament, may be subject toa prorogued parliament, may be subject to a judicial review. whether the issueis
2:16 pm
to a judicial review. whether the issue is ultimately admissible will be dependent on the subject matter and a reference to the gchq case. to similar effect, we find lord brodie in paragraph 80 85 of his opinion, thatis in paragraph 80 85 of his opinion, that is at ms 1226. and i won't seek to ta ke that is at ms 1226. and i won't seek to take your lordships through the entirety of that passage but again he appears to approach the matter on the basis that there may be an issue of non—summit ability and it may be determined by reference to the subject matter of the case.
2:17 pm
in particular paragraph 84 making reference to the sandyford decision that was made reference to 0bama loa n that was made reference to 0bama loan advance lord pannick. i should add that lord drummond young dissented at this point and i simply ask your lordships to note that that can be found in paragraphs 102—103 which is at ms 1240. but looking to the majority decision in the house again on the standpoint it is clear that the inner house accepted the issue of non—10 foot two and justiciability depend upon the subject matter before the court and that, i would venture, is clearly consistent with extensive authority
2:18 pm
which is set out in our written case from paragraph 55 onwards which my learned friend will address in due course and in more detail. again i put those three issues to one side at this stage. the next point that i would seek to address with the court concerns the interlock edge pronounced by the inner house on the 11th of september this year. and that can be found at ms 505. and if i might refer the court in particular to part four of the
2:19 pm
interlocutor, which was pronounced after they had reversed the decision of the lord ordinary and allowed the motion and it is in these terms find and declare that the advice to prorogued parliament on a day between ninth and 12th of september until 14th of october 2019 and hence any prorogation which followed thereon is unlawful and therefore no and of no effect and discern. now, insofar as the inner house seek to declare the prorogation unlawful i will take no issue with their order. but insofar as they purport to declare that prorogation is now and
2:20 pm
of no effect i submit that they have simply gone where the court could not go. as your lordships will be aware, prorogation may be via the sovereign in person. that has not happened in recent years. i believe the last sovereign to prorogued parliament in person was william iv but alternatively, it may take place by lords commissioners acting on the commission from the sovereign. those lords commissioners some in the house of commons speaker of the house of commons speaker of the house of commons to the upper chamber and declare under the authority of the great seal, that parliament is prorogued. these are proceedings in parliament and consistent with the lord
2:21 pm
parliamentary privilege which is common to both england and scotland that such proceeding should not be impeached in any court. and in that context, of course, i would make reference to article nine of the bill of rights which for reference can be found at authority 43, ms 2893. and i would also refer to the claim of right, albeit its wording is rather different and less direct, which is in the bundle at 44, ms 2902. so my submission at this stage is that on any view part four of the inner house interlocutor must be recalled and i understand... it is quite a difficult concept isn't it, lord keane? it is unlawful but it is valid? it is because the courts are not to cross the boundaries and intrude
2:22 pm
upon the proceedings in parliament. they may make the appropriate declarative and i would take up a point and mention towards the end of his submission by my learned friend lord pannick that if this court finds that the advice of the prime minister was unlawful the prime minister was unlawful the prime minister will take all necessary steps to comply with any declaration made by the court. and that is the appropriate way in which this matter should be addressed. that dispenses with the problem, you might say. indeed. and they understand that the speakers council has advised that as far as they are concerned parliament is prorogued at the present time and it is to dispense with any debate the title particular attention to pa rt the title particular attention to part four of the interlocutor because it did actually generate debate as to whether or not
2:23 pm
parliament should or should not be sitting. we have got an awful lot to think about in this case have we not, lord keen? and whether this is or is not a proceeding in parliament it seems to me to be an extremely difficult question. it is, if i'm adventure, my lady, perhaps one that we can essentially put aside if the court is willing... that is what you are suggesting that we do. it may be necessaryjust to have the reputation of your point before we decide to put it to one side. we will wait and see. very well. i appreciate that the activity takes place in the houses of parliament but that in itself is not enough to turnit but that in itself is not enough to turn it into a proceeding in parliament. i indicated my lady, i would submit that the conduct, whether it be of the sovereign of the lords commissioner, are
2:24 pm
proceedings in parliament and should not be questioned by the court but it may be that we can have further debate on the issue. what is the effect of the undertaking? what happens if this court does declare the prorogation? does parliament then reconvene? it will be then for the prime minister to address the consequence of that declaration and to consider... what are the consequence could there be? the consequence could be that he goes to the queen and seeks the recall of parliament. 0ther recall of parliament. other other alternatives, you say, i think? asi think? as i say, i have given a clear undertaking that the prime minister
2:25 pm
will respond by all necessary means to any declaration that the original prorogation was affected by any unlawful advice that he might have given for the purposes of the original prorogation. can we take it, then, he would not apply to have parliament prorogued ain? iam not ain? i am not in ain? iam notina ain? i am not in a position to comment on that proposition at all, my lord. what you say the effect is because abiding by declaration conjures up a number of possibilities. that will have to be addressed by the decision—maker, my lord. it would be helpful to have the undertaking given invited so we are absolutely clear. i intend for that to be done my lord. as i say, the terms of the undertaking i give is that if the court finds that the advice of the prime minister was unlawful the
2:26 pm
prime minister will take the necessary steps to comply with any declaration made by the court. that is slightly different from the order of the scottish court. the prorogation was unlawful. are you accepting that if the advice was unlawful then the prorogation is unlawful? the position, as i understand it, is that the complaint from the petitioners is that the advice given her majesty was unlawful because... i understand that. the decision of her majesty to prorogued cannot be impugned. 0n impugned. on my part it would be helpful if between you and lord pannick you can work out and gives a clear formulation of what you say or are prepared to undertake. iam prepared to undertake. i am prepared to speak to him to see
2:27 pm
if we can agree. without that we would have to rule on your bill of rights point. indeed, sir. to respond to my lord's question that the, no undertaking. with the undertaking of parliament an opportunity to decide whether it wishes to pass new legislation before that happens? my before that happens? my lady, it must be for the decision—maker to decision declaration made by the court and to ensure that it proceeds lawfully thereafter. cani thereafter. can i ask lord keen what the status is to be of the order in council granting prorogation? 0r doing prorogation. the order in council is the intimate by which the lord commissioners are engaged to prorogued parliament but it is merely an instrument for that
2:28 pm
purpose. it is possible for a council to be impugned —— make an order in council to be impugned. i accept that and there is an order for that. are you saying that its effect is spent? it would be spent in those circumstances, my lord, yes. because the order in council directs the prorogation from a particular date to another particular date. sometime between the fourth and the 9th of september and the 14th of october of this year.
2:29 pm
my my lord, the focus of the submissions that i now make will be on the detailed reasoning of the inner house of the court of session. in the context of the inner house having agreed on the principle of non—justiciability in public law. what the inner house then set to do was to apply an exception to that principle and i will submit that they then airat air at where airat where an air at where an error in the conclusion is that they do. and i would observe that these are inferences that the lord ordinary who this case in the first instance was not prepared to draw.
2:30 pm
—— men who heard this case. furthermore, i venture there is an examination of the inconsistent reasoning in the three inner house opinions tends to reveal the very absence of manageable judicial standards for the exercise that the inner house purported to carry out. the in—house sought to apply what they regarded as a proper person, or improper purse must to the exercise of the prerogative of prorogation. various terms were used in the
2:31 pm
opinions of the inner house, formal purposes, standard use, proper purpose, intended scope. but, as we seek to set out in some detail in the written case at paragraph 87 through to 90, the prerogative of prorogation not exercised for one or more limited purposes. and i would submit for the reasons explained in the case at paragraphs 88—90 that an improper purpose doctrine or test has no sensible application to the exercise of the prerogative power of prorogation. the determination of
2:32 pm
what are proper and improper purposes for which, for example, statutory powers can be used, it depends clearly on identifying the policy and objects of the relevant statute, and my learning friend lord pannick made reference to the case of paddy field. that, as padfield makes clear, it's a question of statutory construction and i would submit that no similar exercise can be conducted with respect to the prerogative power of prorogation as opposed to, for example, a prerogative instrument. and we know that parliament may be prorogued for a variety of reasons, political as much as formal. and certainly, the power to prorogue
2:33 pm
parliament is not in any sense limited to the preparation of a new queen's speech. that was a point which the divisional court made very clear in its ownjudgment and i refer in particular to itsjudgment at paragraph 55. indeed, the divisional court went on to observe that even if one was looking only at the matter of the provision of a new queen's speech, it was not for the courts to determine how much time might be contemplated as necessary or required even for that purpose alone. in the course of his submission to my learning friend lord pannick did not make references to the prorogation act of 1867 and i wonder ifi prorogation act of 1867 and i wonder if i could draw that to the court's
2:34 pm
attention. it is in the perdition authorities bundle at tab 48 and can be found at ms2922. looking very briefly at the provision of section one, whenever her majesty shall be pleased by and with the advice of the privy council of her majesty, in this context of course the prime minister or the executive, to issue her royal proclamation to prorogue parliament, from the date to which it shall then
2:35 pm
stand summoned or prorogued, to ever further date being not less than 14 dates from the date thereof, such proclamation shall without any subsequent issue of a writ or patent or commission under the great seal of the united kingdom be a full and sufficient notice to all purpose and is whatever such a royal intention of majesty —— all persons. parliament shall thereby extend prorogued until the day in place in such a commission appointed notwithstanding any formal law, usage or practice to the contrary. but that isn't what happened in this case. that is not what happened in this case but the point, my lady, is simply this. that parliament has made express provision that where parliament stands prorogued, it may be prorogued for a further period of at least 14 days, at least 14 days, by exercise of the prerogative. and
2:36 pm
thatis by exercise of the prerogative. and that is not, on the face of it, related to a queen's speech and, indeed, if you go on to section two of the act, it provides this act shall not apply to the case of the prorogation of parliament at the close of a session. what was the person for the prorogation in this case? i'm going to come on to address that in some detail, my lord, because various assertions have been made touching upon the proposition of improper purpose. and various influences have sought to be drawn which are adverse to the purpose which was put before
2:37 pm
the court. and therefore, as i say, i will come on to address that in some detail but before i go there, cani some detail but before i go there, can ijust some detail but before i go there, can i just take this some detail but before i go there, can ijust take this a stage further? there are clear examples of where the prerogative has been exercised for political reasons, rather than formal reasons, and, indeed, for extensive periods of time. my learning friend lord pannick said that these were of some vintage, as it were built and given that he is seeking to find upon principles of constitutional law that have developed presumably over the last 300 years or so since the bill of rights, it doesn't seem to be inappropriate to look at how the matter has been addressed in the interim. and, perhaps most conveniently, your lordships can refer to our case at paragraph 71,
2:38 pm
andi refer to our case at paragraph 71, and i regret that there seems to be no electronic numbering for this. and just to put in context at the beginning of paragraph 70, it is observable in giving advice on prorogation, the prime minister will necessarily take into account matters that are political. it goes on, the history of the power to prorogued parliament to support the fa ct prorogued parliament to support the fact that it has been used for political purposes, including for the purpose of restricting the time otherwise available to debate legislation and to prolonged periods including at moment of political importance and when the government of the day lacked a majority in the house of commons. the first example is given in respect of september
2:39 pm
1914, shortly after the outbreak of the first world war, where parliament was initially prorogued until the 27th of october with the king's speech on prorogation noting that the circumstances, "call for action not speech". and on 16 0ctober1914, parliament was further prorogued by proclamation until the 11th of november 1914. and that clearly was not for the purpose of the king's speech. and then the second example, on first august 1930, parliament was prorogued until the 28th of october, a period of 87 days and this was during the onset of the great depression following the 1929 wall st crash when the new government of james ramsay macdonald did not command a majority in the house of commons. and again, that was clearly not for the purpose of
2:40 pm
delivering a king's speech. 0ne might observe rather that it was clearly so that the executive could avoid unnecessary scrutiny and circumstances where they did not come on the face of it... studio: we arejust going to come on the face of it... studio: we are just going to leave the proceedings in the supreme court. they are talking about the consequences of losing this case. they replied that the consequences could be that the prime minister go to the queen and seeks the recall of parliament. they are getting to the nub of the argument on the scottish ruling. we will pull away for a moment. there are other things going on, particularly in bournemouth. the liberal democrats are holding their conference and we will hear from jo swinson, their leader, who says that the lib dems would revoke article breath —— article 50. jonathan blake is watching these pictures, a big
2:41 pm
day for her. it is certain is, a big moment in herfirst day for her. it is certain is, a big moment in her first speech to the liberal democrat party faithful here in bournemouth as their leader. she will present herself as a candidate for prime minister. no shortage in jo swinson's ambition but of course, with those big ambitions come big expectations from a party which is riding something of a wave at the moment and trying its best to capitalise on its anti brexit stance. she has of course won backing from the party members here for her new brexit policy, revoking article 50 as a lib dem government. here she is. for my first liberal democrat conference, i am thrilled to stand before you today as your leader. and i am delighted to see so many old friends who have kept the torch of liberalism burning bright through troubled times. and i'm excited to welcome thousands of new members to our cause, flocking to
2:42 pm
the liberal democrats as the clear rallying point for a movement to create an open, fair, inclusive society. over the summer, we showed the others how it's done. we had an energetic and positive leadership contest where many thousands of you engaged, and i want to save a huge thank you to my friend ed davey. applause ed, you are a brilliant campaigner with a superb record of action at climate change secretary of state, and i'm delighted that there is also and i'm delighted that there is also a promise of more with you in the key roles of shadow chancellor and now deputy leader. applause
2:43 pm
just six months ago, at our spring conference, few of us would have predicted that our party would be winning on this scale. and for that we have my two most immediate predecessors to thank. tim who, in the days after the european referendum, knew that our natural place as a party was to unashamedly make the case for britain to stay in the european union. tim, you are absolutely right. applause and vince, you have served our party, and our country, with such great distinction. you have so
2:44 pm
valiantly led the fight to stop brexit and helped our party soar to new heights, and i know that the next parliament will be all the poorer without you by our side. the voice of reason in these unreasonable times. vince, from all of us, thank you. applause last autumn conference, i remember standing at the side of the conference hall next to our dear friend paddy. he was upbeat, energetic as ever and, as we listened to the debate, he leaned over and whispered that we needed to talk about the future of the party! we agreed to have coffee. i wish we had been able to, i wish i could
2:45 pm
pick up the phone to ask his advice, i wish he could see our party now. he would have been in his element. applause and, asi and, as i sat last week at his memorial service with thousands of others, we remembered a man who was bowled, fearless, determined —— who was bold. a man who brought people together. he worked closely with labour prime minister tony blair, his eulogy was read by former conservative prime ministerjohn major. a man whose impatience to create change was undimmed into his 70s, setting up more united, to make space for liberal values to close
2:46 pm
beyond party lines. paddy, we miss you so much. applause and i looked around, and marvelled at westminster abbey itself. the sheer magnificence of scale. the intricate stonework and the colourful beauty of the stained glass. a spirit lifting place. and i reflected, before a single stone was laid, someone imagined what was possible. it stands today as a physical embodiment of what greatness can be achieved when we raise our sights and come together with a shared vision. that spirit of ambition and shared endeavour is what our politics and our country
2:47 pm
needs right now. applause bold, fearless, determined, and what a start we have made. i cannot be the only one losing count of our many newly elected representatives! beatrice wishart, our new msp for shetland. applause the first ever woman elected to parliament from the northern isles. our own fabulous squad of 16 meps. applause seven new mps, took a, james, philip, luciana, angela and sam. ——
2:48 pm
chuka umunna. more than 700 extra councillors. applause and tens of thousands of new members since we last met. can everyone who isa since we last met. can everyone who is a new member please stand up or put your hand up right now? applause to you all i say welcome. we all say welcome. and thank you. because
2:49 pm
together, we are building something special. so, let's keep going, and let's keep growing. the tired old parties have failed. looking inward ata time parties have failed. looking inward at a time of national crisis our country needs us at this precarious time. we don't have ten or 15 years, we need to seize the opportunity now. so, let me be clear... applause let me be clear, there is no limit to my ambition for our party and our country, and today i am standing here as your candidate for prime minister. cheering and applause
2:50 pm
because people across britain deserve a better choice than an entitled etonian or a 1970s socialist. because it is only by having the liberal democrats in power that we can build a better future. because we owe it to the next generation. like olivia. 14 yea rs next generation. like olivia. 14 years old, she wrote to me after i became leader. she told me what she is doing to help stop exit. she signed up to be a lib dems
2:51 pm
supporter. in good company, like 20,000 others! travelled to london to go on eight people's vote march. she wrote to me about how brexit takes away her rights, how she was never asked to leave the eu. young people like olivia are being stripped of the opportunities that our generations have enjoyed. and how powerless they feel, as they watched politicians gamble with their lives. girls like olivia, boys like my own two, andrew and gabriel. people often say to me, how do you do this with two young children? of course, it is hard, parenting is never easy. but they are why i'm standing here. i can do something to change the future, how
2:52 pm
could i not do this? it is why i came back two and a half years ago, in despairat came back two and a half years ago, in despair at where our country was heading. when theresa may called that general election, i knew in a heartbeat that i had to stand and win east dunbartonshire again. there is too much at stake. and i knew that even if there was only the smallest chance that we could change the direction our country had taken, i had to do everything i could to make that happen. so, that is why i'm here today, and that's why you are here too. applause ahead of us, we have the fight of our lives for the heart and soul of britain. because, conference, the
2:53 pm
next few weeks are by deciding the kind of country we are, who we want to be, whether we tackle our biggest challenges with our closest allies or on our own. whether we welcome those who want to build a better life in our country or shut the door on them. whether we ensure that every single child can go on to fulfil their dreams. the first task is clear. we must stop brexit. applause and we are crystal clear. a liberal democrat majority government will revoke article 50 on day one. cheering and applause
2:54 pm
because there is no brexit that will be good for our country. europe makes our united kingdom stronger, but brexit hurts our family of nations. for so many, the 2016 referendum ushered in a new kind of politics, driven by hate, fear and division. but for those of us who had lived through the 2014 independence referendum, it all felt too familiar. i am scottish. i am british. i am too familiar. i am scottish. i am british. iam european. applause
2:55 pm
scottish nationalism and english nationalism would both have me choose. but there is no contradiction. i'm a proud scot, i love our united kingdom, and ifeel stronger as part of the european family. and i want to speak directly to people in scotland. we come together, voted overwhelmingly to remain in the european union and, together, we can stop brexit. we are building a movement across the united kingdom that is on the verge of stopping it. and you have a part to play in growing and strengthening this winning campaign across the uk. join us, come with me and be part of the bigger movement for change, a big vote for the liberal democrats
2:56 pm
in scotland at the next general election will give us the final push we need. the energy is with us so come with us to stop brexit. applause last month, i visited the border in northern ireland. some think boris johnson still hasn't bothered to do. daschle got borisjohnson. boris johnson. those communities remember what it was like to have a ha rd remember what it was like to have a hard border. the man who told me about being detained at a checkpoint for 90 minutes with his wife and new baby just because he for 90 minutes with his wife and new babyjust because he came from the wrong part of town. and despite vague words about unspecified technological solutions, the people there know that even the lightest
2:57 pm
equipment at the border will become a target, and it will require security. they fear that what is currently just a security. they fear that what is currentlyjust a line on the map will once again become a hard border. and perhaps even more importantly, a dividing line in the mind. a return to the psychology of us mind. a return to the psychology of us and them, instead of everyone living together, british and irish identity is mixing invisibly. our family of nations, scotland, england, wales, northern ireland, we are at our best together, looking out at the world, not shutting it out. it is the liberal democrats who will fight to keep our united kingdom together. applause
2:58 pm
brexit will put lives at risk. in the event of a no—deal brexit, doctors are worried about the impact that border delays will have on the supply of time sensitive radiopharmaceuticals. that is cancer patients waiting longer for scans and treatment as a direct consequence of government policy. brexit will hurt our economy. thousands of car manufacturing jobs already lost. honda in swindon, jaguar land rover in birmingham, ford in bridgend, nissan in sunderland, and more if we leave. this brexiteer government wants to pay for their ideology with other people's jobs. pay for their ideology with other
2:59 pm
people'sjobs. applause the truth is they will not be effected, and they will not be there to help when the redundancy notices are handed out. they will not be there when the homes are repossessed or the marriages break down under financial stress, which makes what borisjohnson is financial stress, which makes what boris johnson is doing financial stress, which makes what borisjohnson is doing quite so sickening. because he knows all of this. we know he knows all of this, because operation yellowhammer, the government's no deal planning, tells us government's no deal planning, tells us how bad it is going to be. but the truth is you cannot plan for no deal, planning for no deal is like planning to burn your house down. you might have insurance but you are still going to lose all your stuff. but boris had set himself on this
3:00 pm
course. he claims he can negotiate a brexit deal in a month! i would not hold out much hope. yesterday he failed to negotiate where to have a press conference! laughter applause we all know that commitment has never been borisjohnson's strong suit. applause. but it's clear he is determined when it comes to crashing us out without a deal. just look at what he has done over the last few weeks. he prorogued parliament to try to prevent prorogued parliament to try to p reve nt m ps prorogued parliament to try to prevent mps stopping a nokia brexit. he's kicked 21 mps out of the
3:01 pm
conservative party. —— stopping a no—deal brexit. including churchill's grandson. just because they dared to stand up to him. there is even now the suggestion that he would break the law and refuse to ask for an extension of article 50. silencing critics, purging opponents, ignoring the law. for someone opponents, ignoring the law. for someone to do it but hooper claims to hate socialist dictators he is doing a pretty good impression of one. applause. and borisjohnson's insults of choice are rather revealing. big girl's blouse. girly swot. let me tell you, conference, if he thinks
3:02 pm
being a woman is somehow a weakness he is about to find out it is not! applause. when the general election comes i cannot wait to take on the collective forces of nationalism and populism that will be standing on that debate stage. johnson, faraj and corbyn. if he had campaigned to remain in 2016 with half of the energy you put into the 2017 election we may have seen a different result.
3:03 pm
applause. then the day after the referendum he said we should trigger article 50 immediately. he whipped his mps to vote for it and even now, when faced with all the clear and obvious danger is that brexit brings, jeremy corbyn still insists that if labour wina corbyn still insists that if labour win a general election they will negotiate their own brexit deal to ta ke negotiate their own brexit deal to take us out of the eu. nigel farage might be brexit by name but clear thatjeremy corbyn is brexit by nature. applause.
3:04 pm
my applause. my dad was a huge influence on my life. he encouraged me to believe that we can change things for the better. he encouraged me to challenge the way things are. and above all. he taught me always to keep learning, to be curious, to ask questions and actually, that's what any good liberal does. because we can't make progress if we are into prepared to question the world around us. to challenge vested interests and concentrations of power. to imagine that a different world is possible. applause.
3:05 pm
and that's how the liberal tradition has always been a breeding ground for new ideas. it was gladstone's minister, w e forster, who asked why any child should miss out on education and made parents send their children to school. it was david lloyd george who asked why the most vulnerable in society are left to fend for themselves and he paved the way for the welfare state. it was beveridge who asked why anyone should have to pay for health care and masterminded our beloved nhs. and it was paddy ashdown who asked whether it is inevitable that modern economies destroy the natural environment and put the liberal democrats at the forefront of green thinking. the liberal democrats, we come from a long line of innovators. so when we were in government we asked why any child should go hungry
3:06 pm
at school and we introduced free school meals universally. we asked why baby should only have one parent ta ke why baby should only have one parent take care of them in the first year of life and redesigned shared pa rental leave. of life and redesigned shared parental leave. and we asked why the state should judge what kind of love is acceptable and we made same—sex marriage legal because love is love. applause. now we need to do it again. because our country needs us. the world around us is changing fast and we need to be bold, unconstrained by conventional wisdom. and my first
3:07 pm
question is this. why is our success asa question is this. why is our success as a country reduced to a gdp figure. applause. we have been conditioned to believe that as long as gdp keeps growing everything is fine but this ignores the reality behind the numbers. that the reality behind the numbers. that the social contract is broken, that working hard and playing by the rules is no longer enough to guarantee a better life. that our planet is at breaking point. gdp measures how often we replace our clothes, our cars and our computers. how many young offenders institution to be built for children without hope. how much diesel pollutes our airand damages our hope. how much diesel pollutes our air and damages our lungs. and it comes to gdp, bobby kennedy was spot on 15 years ago. it measures everything in short except that
3:08 pm
which makes life worthwhile. applause. that's why a liberal democrat government will put the well—being of people and our planet at the heart of what we do and this autumn we will set out our own well—being budget. others around the world are doing this already. the new zealand government set out the words first well—being budget. iwant government set out the words first well—being budget. i want the uk to follow that example. i want us to fundamentally rethink the purpose of our economy so that it works for people and our planet.
3:09 pm
our well—being budget will spell out our priorities for public spending on the things that matter most. both right now and for future generations. and my well—being ambition extends well beyond government spending. the hope of our society, including business, should work towards building the kind of country we want. people and our planet will thrive with the liberal democrats in power. applause. and conference, how can we look our children in the eye if we don't act now to tackle the climate crisis? we are the last generation that can stop irreversible damage to our environment. earlierthis stop irreversible damage to our environment. earlier this year, parliament declared a climate
3:10 pm
emergency but what has the government done since then? we have set off the fire alarm and now they arejust standing set off the fire alarm and now they are just standing by watching it burn. literally, four days we watched the anime is on, the world's lungs, burned. at home we have children whose lungs damps develop properly because of air pollution in our towns and cities. —— watched the anime is on burn. the climate emergency an existential threat and only our party has the bold detailed plan to tackle it. we will plant the trees, retrofit their homes, we will build the wind turbines, the solar panels on the tidal barrages. but government alone cannot solve this. it will take all of us. the government, individuals and business to build the zero carbon uk we need to build the zero carbon uk we need
3:11 pm
to become and that is why my liberal democrat government will introduce climate risk reporting and create a new green investment bank to channel investment into green projects from fossil fuels. investment into green projects from fossilfuels. and it is investment into green projects from fossil fuels. and it is why i want to engage everyone in the country by establishing a uk citizens climate assembly to drive a national debate about how exactly we will reach net zero by 2045 and earlier if possible. applause. we will do it all, not because it will create thousands of good new jobs, although it will. not because it will cut energy bills, although it will cut energy bills, although it will. not because it will make our country a cleaner, richer, happier nation. although it will. we will do it because we has to.
3:12 pm
because, as the placards say, there is no planet b. applause. and, conference, where is our outrage when the lives of our young people are being cut so short. earlier this year i saw first—hand the that follows in the wake of a fatal stabbing. together with pauline pearce i visited the beautiful shrine built by family and friends after someone was stabbed to death. the shrine was full of flowers, photographs, messages and some of his favourite things, too. a skateboard, a hat. cans of his favourite fizzy drink. he was just
3:13 pm
15 years old and while we stood there, some of his fans came by, taking a break from their gcse revision, grieving and mourning theirfriend revision, grieving and mourning their friend instead of revision, grieving and mourning theirfriend instead ofjust worrying about their exams like every other teenager. he was clearly so loved. we need a public health approach to tackling the knife crime epidemic in our communities. as we have seen in glasgow. when i was first elected back in 2005, glasgow was the murder capital of europe with 39 people killed in the city that year. around the same time, the city decided to take a public health approach to knife crime. so the violence reduction unit was set up, working with schools, hospitals and job centres to tackle violence. in effect, it meant giving more than
3:14 pm
just dealing with the physical consequence of knife crime. it means treating bothered behaviour as an epidemic that spreads across the communityjust like epidemic that spreads across the community just like we would epidemic that spreads across the communityjust like we would with the disease. and the results have been spectacular. since 2005, the murder rate in glasgow has dropped by 70%. schools, hospitals, job centres and police working together to eradicate this violence from our communities. but to win this battle we need to invest far more in providing young people with good youth services. applause. being a teenager isn't easy and it has become a hell of a lot harder because young people have nowhere to go. they need places where not only
3:15 pm
can they hang out with their friends, but they can also get the support they need when things go wrong. that's why liberal democrats will give local authorities the funding they need so that they can all provide you with services and re—establish youth workers. applause. because every time a life like that young boys is cut short, we are failing our young people and it must stop now. applause. conference, one of the things i am most proud about from our time in coalition government is how we fought for better mental health services. and in particular, all of the work that norman lamb has done over the years. applause.
3:16 pm
norman's campaigning zeal and unwavering determination to put mental health on the agenda have been second to none. and i am so glad he will continue his work outside of parliament because we still need to do so much more for mental health. applause. because, conference, why should any child travel as much as 339 miles to get a mental health bed. that is from here to durham. a child who is so ill that they need to be hospitalised, forced to leave family and friends behind just to get the treatment they need. why have we as a society decided that is something we cannot change and that we should just accept it? a liberal democrat
3:17 pm
government will ring fenced funding for mental health services. applause. and we will invest far more heavily in the childhood and adolescent mental health services that communities need. applause. conference, i won't stand here and pretend i have all the answers for what happens next. there are enough marital politicians around. and the more i get to see of them the more obvious it is that they actually know nothing. but this much i am sure of. that opportunity in front of us is huge. and it is for the taking. we can win. we must win. and
3:18 pm
to do so we must build the biggest liberal movement this country has ever seen. we cannot be satisfied with a place on the fringes of british politics. narrow and pure, small and irrelevant. ourjob narrow and pure, small and irrelevant. our job is narrow and pure, small and irrelevant. ourjob is to gather the forces of liberalism and see the rallying point for change. —— be the rallying point for change. —— be the rallying point for change. —— be the rallying point for change. we must be welcome and inclusive, recognising this journey we are on.
3:19 pm
we can transform our society. my vision for our country is one where every single person is valued and included. a country where people work hard and are rewarded with a decent home. enough money to meet their needs and live with dignity. every baby born is given the security and the love they need to face the world with confidence. where every child can play and learn about the world free from worry and stress. for every young person is nurtured and supported in the path they choose. where people work in good jobs for decent wages and flexible ways. in a culture of mutual respect where experience is shared across the generations listening to the wisdom of years. we
3:20 pm
support vulnerable people. people are circumstances mean they will a lwa ys are circumstances mean they will always be vulnerable and every single one of us who may be vulnerable, for there to illness or grief, redundancy or trauma. vulnerable, for there to illness or grief, redundancy ortrauma. new parenthood or old age. where we it easierfor people to parenthood or old age. where we it easier for people to live in good health and people know that our excellent nhs is always there when they need it. where people can be themselves, no matter what god they pray to our nine, the colour of their skin or who they love. where eve ryo ne their skin or who they love. where everyone knows they can make a contribution to society and this is measured by creativity and compassion, laughter and love, innovation and inspiration more than money. where enterprise and businesses celebrated because it
3:21 pm
a cts businesses celebrated because it acts as part of the solution, not pa rt acts as part of the solution, not part of the problem. where we respect the natural world. this planet, our only home. in the act with urgency required to live within our environmental means because we will not leave our children a poisoned planet. where we love our country, our wonderful united kingdom. our strong family of nations. scotland, england, wales and northern ireland. who have achieved so much together and will not be ripped apart. where we take our place in the wider world with responsibility, with respect to ourselves and other nations, too. only a liberal democrat government can deliver the fair, inclusive and open future that we deserve. applause.
3:22 pm
at the next general election, voters will choose the kind of country we wa nt to will choose the kind of country we want to be. insular, closed and selfish or collaborative, open and generous? a politics hate and division or one of respect, hope and inclusion? liberal democrats, we can build a broad, open, liberal movement our country needs. we can defeat nationalism and populism. we can change our politics. stop brexit and when a brighter future! applause. —— wina applause. —— win a brighterfuture. herfirst
3:23 pm
—— win a brighterfuture. her first speech to the party's conference as leader. overturn a law and ensuring the uk will leave the eu. she said no—deal brexit would be like burning the house down. she is appealing to scottish voters to join appealing to scottish voters to join a movement across the uk to stop brexit. while she does the traditional mingling with party members in the new mps that have joined the party in recent days, let's bring onjonathan blakey was listening to that. the biggest ovation came when she said i am standing here as your candidate for prime minister. they liked that. they certainly do and the liberal democrats are fired up and the liberal democrats are fired up byjo and the liberal democrats are fired up byjo swenson's speech this afternoon with that clear message that she had. there is no limit to her ambition as leader of the liberal democrats and the party itself. the message to the party members in the hall was clear. we
3:24 pm
can win and we must win and she presented herself as their candidate for prime minister. of course, they area for prime minister. of course, they are a long way from government at the moment but she is not held back in her ambition. she said the party would like to win upwards of 300 seats in the election and it is key brexit policy now, to revoke article 50, cancelling brexit without another referendum if it was able to form a majority government. jo swinson said she would deliver that on day one. there was applause for that but it has not gone down that well with some members of the party who worry that it is putting the liberal democrats into extreme opposition. under the general election does not happen or if they do not win it than they will find themselves in a difficult position of having to revert to a second referendum. interestingly, there was no mention of holding another
3:25 pm
referendum in jo swinson's no mention of holding another referendum injo swinson's speech. she talked about the 2016 referendum ushering in a politics of hate, fear and division and although the lib dems say and she has said earlier at this conference that it is still their priority to have another referendum if there is not a general election campaign, no mention of that today. but it was a clear, calm and confident speech i thought from jo swinson who is clearly presented herself as a different type of leaderfrom sir vince herself as a different type of leader from sir vince cable and making the liberal democrats reason for existence now stopping brexit. jonathan, thank you very much. in one of the most dramatic days in the brexit drama so far, 11 supreme courtjudges have begun hearing two appeals to determine whether the prime minister acted lawfully when he suspended parliament for five weeks. let's get more from ben brown who's at the supreme court. he is outside.
3:26 pm
then, what has been going on? lord keen has been putting the government's case and in particular talking about in the past when parliament has been probed for nakedly political parliament has been probed for na kedly political reasons, parliament has been probed for nakedly political reasons, going back into history. 1948, 1930. just to underline the case that actually, borisjohnson has not acted unlawfully. that is the charge against him that the 11 judges that the supreme court are going to have to consider whether the prime minister did act unlawfully when he prorogued parliament. let's talk to a couple of have been watching and listening to the proceedings here. a lecturer in public law at the university of surrey and also from the centre—right think tank, the politics exchange. and a senior lecturer in law at the middlesex university of london. first of all, listening to lord keen for the government, how would you summarise his case.
3:27 pm
he made two very important points. there is no difference in law as applied by the english court and by the court in edinburgh. so they are just disagreeing on an application of the same legal standards that is the first point. the second point, which i think is the key for the government's case, this is correct, the problem is non—justiciability so it is not for the courts to decide on what is a proper purpose for the prime minister to advise the queen on whether to prorogued parliament or not. so is that essentially what the government's case is? that this is a matter of politics, not the law, not the courts to decide? precisely. there is this distinction between what is constitutionally required and what is legally required and what is legally required and what is legally required and even if it was unconstitutional for the prime minister to seek that prorogation, it does not follow automatically that it was unlawful. and i do not think it was unlawful.
3:28 pm
lord pannick earlier on for gina miller arguing the opposite saying that effectively, borisjohnson, the prime minister was trying to silence parliament because parliament, he saw as a threat and an obstacle. exactly. this is why we saw the three central points arguments are questions of lord pannick this morning. and this goes to the point of the justiciability. is this a matter of law? i would say, if something is unconstitutional that would automatically mean it is unlawful but it is this question. if something is a legal power then it is subject to legal restraints. this comes back to the foundation of our legal system, the rule of law. if you have a power it is fettered. that is the point a constitution. the second issue is going to be whether or not there are established legal standards against which we can judge this power. what lord pannick was doing was looking back on the different precedents that we have of times when we have looked at
3:29 pm
prerogative powers and the courts haven't had prerogative powers and said, you cannot use them in that way. you cannot use them to frustrate a statute. but the difficulty, this is why it is such unprecedented case, is we have never seen a unprecedented case, is we have never seen a situation where there is not really a piece of legislation but the most difficult, this is the most difficult argument for lord pannick is to, well, inferfrom difficult argument for lord pannick is to, well, infer from the silence... but the argument must be it as an ordinary power used for ordinary purposes. if this was used foran ordinary purposes. if this was used for an unlawful purpose it is not lawful. it is not constitutional. what did you think of what lord pannick was saying earlier on on behalf of gina miller? this was borisjohnson trying to silence parliament because parliament is in the way, an obstacle, threat? that was a very useful strategy for him to employ the focus on those allegedly improper purposes perhaps even unconstitutional purposes that borisjohnson may have had. but i
3:30 pm
still think that this is not legally releva nt still think that this is not legally relevant so this distracts us from the real issue which is, does the law control exercises are prerogative to prorogued and i agree with the government that it does not. so this whole discussion about what were his motives are not legally relevant. to think that is what the 11 supreme courtjudges will agree with? i think they will. this is going to be the view. do you think that is what the 11 judges will decide?” look forward to seeing their judgement. the big difficulty, if they decide it is unlawful is, what is next? are we going to hear, as borisjohnson said yesterday, the respect forjudges, the respect of the dependence of the judges, and respect of the judges say it is unlawful? going back into history,
3:31 pm
as we have been hearing, is that useful, going back to 1930 in 1948? talking about how parliament was prorogued back in those days?” think it is useful. if we have instances of unquestioned lawful exercises of prerogative powers, this is very good evidence for us that, of the scope of that power. the legal rules don't disappearjust because they are not used for 40 years, contrary to what lord pannick might have been saying. we will see what thejudges will might have been saying. we will see what the judges will say. we may not get a judgement into next week, so you might have to be patient. let's, in the meantime, listen in again, the government's chief law officer in scotland. fascinating argument with huge legal, constitutional and
3:32 pm
political implications. and indeed, if we go over to paragraph 12, we can see the note applied by the prime minister and it is in the context of what i just said. the whole september session is a rigmarole introduced to show the public mps were earning their trust. as nikki notes, it's over the conference season, so as nikki notes, it's over the conference season, so the sitting days lost are actually very few. and then, the board president went on to consider the for the documents, and i'm not going to read them out at length on this stage, but essentially, the fourth document was a redacted cabinet minute... it's essentially noting what the prime minister had decided. and paragraph
3:33 pm
15, the lord president noted that this timetable gave parliament ample time to debate brexit in the period before the october european council, 17-18 before the october european council, 17—18 october, and again at the run—up to the uk departure date on the 31st of october. it was important to them assize the decision to prorogue parliament for the queen's speech was non—driven for brexit considerations. it was... not surprising that perhaps what was being anticipated there was some pushback for political purposes from other parties within parliament, who might seek to suggest that there was some alternative motive behind the prorogation of parliament. lord pannick then sought to place
3:34 pm
considerable stress upon the apparent absence of a witness statement from the prime minister... if we are leading the document produced, do we find in any of the four documents in all, an explanation of why five weeks was necessary for the opening of a new session in the queen's speech? because it was going to a company the conference recess of three weeks, with a result that only seven sitting days will be lost to parliament if it was prorogued during that period. that might be said to be a possible defence to the five weeks. it doesn't expand my five weeks. it doesn't expand my five axles chosen. the period of five axles chosen. the period of five weeks would also fall between the reporting periods of the
3:35 pm
northern ireland executive formation act. this could have been done in ten days or less, couldn't it could shall not of parliament was in recess and i will go on to explain why —— recess and i will go on to explain why -- not if coleman was in recess. i will go on to explain. the house made a fundamental error... what could not happen during recess, because there was exhibited by the house, ate fundamental misunderstanding of what position, pursuant to parliamentary procedure. my question would relate to the spectator article, tab 32 of the
3:36 pm
english trial bundle. if my lord would allow me a moment. of course. we are told this spectator article is dated 29 june, we are told this spectator article is dated 29june, and the important headline, will parliament be able to stop the next pm leaving without a deal? and obviously, one highlights in particular the last sentence of the second paragraph, we have already seen this game played out with prorogation, admittedly a nuclear option. my question is, would the court be entitled to consider that background when it considers the submissions to the prime minister in the documents provided? with respect,
3:37 pm
ms da costa wrote that with a private firm, not when working with number ten, so we would be appropriate for her to speculate in her private capacity as to what parliament could do, might do them and indeed, there are other articles where it was motion to, for example in the daily telegraph to him that if perlman was paroled up until the 3ist if perlman was paroled up until the 31st october, it would not be able to prevent a no—deal brexit. we know that never happened and we know that parliament —— if parliament was prorogued up until. i am sure one
3:38 pm
can go through any number of media articles, political blogs and others, during this period when a great deal of speculation was going on, but what we are looking at here are the concrete reasons which were given to the prime minister and acknowledged by the prime minister for this prorogation. and in my submission, the documents themselves speakfor submission, the documents themselves speak for themselves, and they don't require a witness statement. although it was considered by my friend, lord pannick. but having noted that those documents were there, what is perhaps most surprising is the way in which the
3:39 pm
other half departed from the documents, and sought to infer some alternative, sometimes referred to as clandestine nine, purpose. but before going on to address that, i should also just noticed the point made by the board president about the absence or otherwise of a witness statement —— the lord president. my noble friend, lord pannick, made some considerable, placed some considerable weight up on this. if you could turn to paragraph 55 of the lord president's opinion. he said, there is remarkably little set about the... in the respondent's pleadings. although the court would not expect
3:40 pm
an affidavit, scottish equivalent of an affidavit, scottish equivalent of a witness statement, from a government minister or official testifying to the reason, and he then refers to the procedure, lord walker delivering the opinion of the minority, it would expect... it was not the view of the other house that somehow the absence of an affidavit was of any significance or lead to the drawing of any adverse inference whatsoever. in the context of the scottish procedure. and that reflects, as i would suggest, the point made by lord walker in the passage, where he says, where the documents speak for themselves, there will be no requirement for a witness statement, and the lord president having set up the
3:41 pm
documents at length, did not require an affidavit for the documents. what the lord president did was to determine, notwithstanding the terms of the document or documents that the particular circumstances pointed toa the particular circumstances pointed to a true reason which could then be impugned, that was the term he used, true reason, in paragraph 53. and if i could briefly give the court references to the approach with the inner house took to this, the board president at 56 referred to what he termed the extraordinary length of the prorogation —— the lord president. he put that in context. five weeks, not seven days. lord
3:42 pm
brody referred to the lengthy term of probation. lord young refers to the same matter, and said, no rational expedition for the length of prorogation had been given. but with the greatest of respect, such an expiration had been provided and has indeed provided for in the document and had been recorded by the lord president in his opinion at paragraph 11. namely that because the prorogation would cover conference the prorogation would cover co nfe re nce recess the prorogation would cover conference recess period, the number of sitting days lost would be up to seven. why did he need to cover the co nfe re nce seven. why did he need to cover the conference sitting... i am just going to elaborate on that, if i
3:43 pm
may. how can the court draw an inference of improper motive in the face of that evidence? and that is particularly glaring in circumstances... the lord did not feel there was any basis. in circumstances where we know the divisional court did not consider that there was any basis for going behind the primary documentation. and where the inner house comes to rely upon inferences, inferences which might be contemplative whether there is a gap in the evidence, but here there was no gap in the evidence. the inner house conclusion
3:44 pm
rejects wholesale the documentary evidence, that is referred to.” rejects wholesale the documentary evidence, that is referred to. i do not know you can say they rejected him did not find a practical reason for the prorogation...” him did not find a practical reason for the prorogation... i am hoping to get there in a few moments, my lord. but the point that i make is a perfectly rational reason can be provided, taking into account the conference provided, taking into account the co nfe re nce recess . provided, taking into account the conference recess. the inner house seems to explain it away by emphasising the distinction between... and this is where the inner house had a fundamental error of understanding. at paragraph 96, he observed if parliament is in recess but not prorogued, it may
3:45 pm
reconvene itself. at paragraph 107, lest there be any doubt about this, he said that recess can be revoked by parliament at any time. i paragraph 119, he said of recess, parliament can resume sitting at any time. and then the lord president, at paragraph... parliament, when in recess, may recall itself. and then, lord brady, perhaps less explicit, at paragraph 91, said parliament has at paragraph 91, said parliament has a right to sit if it wishes to. my lords, if parliament is in recess, it cannot reconvene itself, it
3:46 pm
cannot revoke recess, it cannot resume at any time and it cannot recall itself. standing order 13, which can be found at tab 33 of the miller supplementary, which can be found at tab 33 of the millersupplementary, provides which can be found at tab 33 of the miller supplementary, provides that if the house of commons is in recess, and for convenience, you will also find it at paragraph 121 of the written case, it provides if the house of commons is in recess, it can only be recalled at the request of the executive. and then, it is for the speaker of the house of commons to determine if the executive request is in the national interest. interesting that these
3:47 pm
stain orders for the house of lords are rather different, standing order 17 of the house of lords provides that the speaker can recall parliament. there are two points to be made here. one, once parliament went into recess, it wasn't open to parliamentary return at will. and two, if the executive had wanted to prorogued parliament while it was in recess, it would have had to recall parliament to prorogued it, and if the speaker had decided it wasn't in the speaker had decided it wasn't in the national interest, that could not have been done. and therefore, prorogation would have been delayed until after the conference recess period. which ran for about three
3:48 pm
weeks, into including the first week of october. so once you factor in that point, and appreciate the fundamental misunderstanding or ever made by the inner house, you can go back to what the board president —— lord president said in paragraph 11 of his opinion. in summarising the documents that were before him. and this is the lord president recording the documents before him. second line, although the planned prorogation will be 34 days, the
3:49 pm
expected conference recess of three weeks would mean only 1—3 days would be lost in the weeks commencing nine september and four in the week commencing seven october, a total of seven days. and yet, later in his opinion, he expresses his opinion about the extraordinary length of the prorogation, that it is five weeks rather than seven days. it was, in reality, seven sitting days never going to be lost, not five weeks of sitting days —— that were going to be lost. and that, in response to the inquiry... what is the practical reason? that is what the practical reason? that is what the lord president poses? with
3:50 pm
respect, that is not the question the lord president proposes at all. he asks why five weeks instead of seven days. why lose seven? why should he not be seven? why should it be one day? why should it be 14 days? how is the house going to judge what is an appropriate term... is there anything in the documents directed specifically to the reason why any days, whatever should be lost the point is... there was no loss of five weeks of sitting time of parliament, there was a loss of a maximum of seven sitting days. can
3:51 pm
you help me was a really basic practical questions? could parliament have decided not to go into recess? yes, although there was no record of it not being in recess during this period... but the theory is... the number of days lost would have been the larger numberwe are days lost would have been the larger number we are looking at. there was no record of it not having done so. second question number practical question, could a definite prorogation from the date after —— could have been a prorogation? they would have had to wait until he returned... it was contemplated the returned... it was contemplated the return will be after the first week of october, so we would go into prorogation. and even if you limited purgation to a few days, you would
3:52 pm
be returning on the end date of her rotation that was actually granted. —— and date of prorogation. it could still have achieved 14 october, but parliament would have still been in recess the preceding three weeks. let me be careful. the house of commons would have been in recess. yes, the house of commons and house of lords don't go to recess the same times necessarily stop sometimes they do and sometimes they don't.“ the house of commons went into recess. . . the house of commons went into recess... the committees would be able to continue. committees convention during recess. to what extent they do can be a question of fa ct. extent they do can be a question of fact. those are both important forms
3:53 pm
of accountability. they are forms of accountability, but given the speed with which committees operate... questions could be submitted, written questions could be submitted and would be responded to, and that is the extent of it during recess. the point i make is that it is quite plain that the inner house, in addressing this issue in deciding it could impugn, could impugn the decision of the prior minister, was proceeding upon a fundament of misconception —— by the prime minister. given the importance of this, i minister. given the importance of this, lam minister. given the importance of this, i am not sure... minister. given the importance of this, lam not sure... it is striking the minute refers to a numberof striking the minute refers to a number of considerations bearing on
3:54 pm
timing and is an explanation of the kind that i think the lord might be looking for which are for for two in the lord president's opinion. she advises the prime minister against having the queen's speech a week early because of the snp conference. and she gives an explanation about proroguing in the period of the 12th of september, to do with the practicalities of the existing bills. in addition she says at paragraph ten, with the road to the date of the queen's speech, business managers have long had in october date in the diary and it has been a
3:55 pm
central planning. in my view, 14 october is achievable but any earlier is extremely pressured. and then... and then at 14, finally, politically, it is essential parliament sits before and after the eu council. there is a detailed analysis with perspective why the prorogation, standing the conference recess, should take us up to the 14th of october, although in theory i accept the observation made by your ladyship that they could have come back at the end of the conference period, after the first week of october, and sought to have a queen's speech and then prorogued
3:56 pm
the parliament. but there are a variety of reasons as to why that would not be considered appropriate. people will have to read it, but there is quite a lot in this minutes to do with reasons for the timing on advice that was given. and yet all of it is cast aside by the inner house,in of it is cast aside by the inner house, in place of an inference which isn't required because the documents speak for themselves, and in circumstances they did not consider necessary there should be any additional affidavit or witness statement to speak to the documents, which were plain on their face for the reasons we have just considered. and yet... could you please remind me? it is 317 in the miller bundle. in the trial bundle. and
3:57 pm
electronically, if you have got the miller memory stick, which i have not, 381. i was looking for in that bundle, thanks so much.” not, 381. i was looking for in that bundle, thanks so much. i wouldjust add, because the question of parliament voting against a conference parliament voting against a co nfe re nce recess , parliament voting against a conference recess, or not having a conference recess, or not having a co nfe re nce recess , conference recess, or not having a conference recess, as a matter of fa ct, conference recess, as a matter of fact, there are a of parliament who are parties to the scottish action, and the first petitioner provided three affidavits on various dates, the first very detailed, the second dealing more with the issue of cost
3:58 pm
and the third dealing in some detail about the issue of interim relief. and having examined those affidavits, i can find no hint of a suggestion that parliament would not have gone into conference recess. and yet, lord brody was able, he felt, to describe the period as egregious. the lord president was able to describe it as extraordinary come but only because of a fundament of misunderstanding of how parliament operates within the context of recess. my lords, given the time, i would seek to rest my
3:59 pm
submissions there. and my respectful submission, it is appropriate that the inner house be recalled, and evenif the inner house be recalled, and even if the court were against me on that, it should recall part for because of the reasons i sought for. and having noted what the lady hill set about agreeing a form of words, i will speak to my honourable friend, lord pannick, on its... and no doubt on those instructing you.” don't think mr o'neill is ever readily ignored on these circumstances. unless there are
4:00 pm
further questions from the court, i would rest my summation. thank you very much, lord keen. with thanks to everybody with the position of their timing of the court will now adjourn. look forward to hearing you at 10:30am. so, fora so, for a stay of proceedings and the supreme court closing on time, four o'clock. let's go back to the supreme court. covering this, ben brown... yes, it has been a fascinating day of hearing so far and we started with lord pannick, representing gina miller in the case that the prime minister did act unlawfully in suspending parliament, saying that effectively the prime
4:01 pm
minister had tried to silence parliament because it posed a threat to him because it was an obstacle to him. this afternoon, we heard lord keane for the government saying that actually, if you look back in history, many times parliament has been prorogued or suspended, sometimes for nakedly political reasons. we can get an assessment of where we are with this three—day hearing. stefan is from the oxford university faculty of law.” hearing. stefan is from the oxford university faculty of law. i think it seems clear the judges are leaning towards justiciability. whether or not the court should answer these questions. from the questioning, i get the sense that the courses are thinking this is questionable. is this something the courts can decide upon? exactly. the
4:02 pm
courts can decide upon? exactly. the court says the high court should not. the court of sessions, it took the opposite view in scotland? my senses his only preliminary and we will see what happens but the court seems to be leaning that way and leaning towards the prime minister was unlawful and we only get to that step once we decide it was for the court. what was put to the courses —— with the judges today to suggest that what boris johnson —— with the judges today to suggest that what borisjohnson did do in suspending parliament was unlawful? the questioning from lady hale was telling, she made the point to lord pannick several times that beyond the purpose of prorogation, was of the purpose of prorogation, was of the case at the effect of this might be enough to render this prorogation unlawful? they are leaning towards a direction and asking themselves, does it matter what the prime minister was thinking or was it more
4:03 pm
about whether or not the effect is to be five —— deprived parliament of its ways. lord keen for the government was really going back into history? saying that in 1930, the time of the depression, parliament was suspended for ages for nakedly parliament was suspended for ages for na kedly political parliament was suspended for ages for nakedly political reasons? very true and the raw lots of questions but the response from the applicants in this case was to say, well, yes, but the exercise in the last 40 yea rs has but the exercise in the last 40 years has been uncontroversial for the most part and it has been predictable so even when parliament was prorogued in the past 40 years, it was not controversial and it is plainly controversial right now. this is a great area, isn't it? this area between the law, the unwritten constitution and politics? definitely and lord pannick was being pushed in this question a number of times, being asked whether he could cite any authorities to
4:04 pm
establish that prorogation could be reviewed. plainly that was not possible because such a case has never come up so he possible because such a case has never come up so he had to rely on other cases to make that proposition. thank you for the moment. our correspondent has been watching the proceedings. quite noisy. lots of demonstrators as people come out of the court expressing their opinion but dominic, sum up what you have heard today. it has been very calm in court! a complete difference. as lady hale this morning said, to the court, theirjob is to resolve this fundamental point potentially from the point of constitutional law, and it does not declare or define how and when or if the uk will leave the eu under the brexit process. so it has been very calm. this morning there was really quite effective and clear attacking from lord pannick
4:05 pm
representing gina miller, saying the situation is unprecedented and what borisjohnson did situation is unprecedented and what boris johnson did was situation is unprecedented and what borisjohnson did was unique in constitutional history by closing parliament for five weeks in this critical period before brexit and this afternoon, lord keen, the advocate general for scotland, has come back to that to say it does not matter what lord pannick told you this morning what you will hear tomorrow, for the scottish case, it matters that what you judges have empowered to intervene in this question. he took the court on two episodes, 1948, when parliament was prorogued for one day for what lord keen said was a nakedly political process. that was lawful, he said. earlier this year he said mps had the power to pass an act which could have blocked prorogation and at this point, i won't go into the
4:06 pm
technicalities, his point as he said they did not take that power when they did not take that power when they had the opportunity so parliament has never intended the judges to have a legal oversight over this complex oversight between the executive, the queen and parliament. all to play for in the days to come. is it possible at this early stage to get any sense at all of the way the 11 judges might be leaning? it is like trying to read the room. it is quite impossible. i saw calculations on which justices we re saw calculations on which justices were on the miller panel three years ago in the article 50 case, four of them voted with her and two against so them voted with her and two against soi them voted with her and two against so i don't think you can read anything into this and they have been focused on questioning the council so far on points where they feel they have not been clear enough to the court as to what they intend and one thing speaks volumes... the big issue about what exactly is the prime minister's explanation for why
4:07 pm
he led primary prorogation and the fa ct he led primary prorogation and the fact there is no witness statement from the prime minister, for gina miller and joanna cherry that speaks volumes but the government says you don't need one because it is clear his power exists and he doesn't need to explain that and that will be an issue in the days to come. dominic and stefan, thank you both very much. we arejoined and stefan, thank you both very much. we are joined from oxford and stefan, thank you both very much. we arejoined from oxford by the barrister helen mountfield, who acted for gina miller in that case. that successful legal action which forced parliament to be consulted over the triggering of article 50. you took part in those proceedings. what do you have to do is an advocate and as an lawyer at the supreme court to really make your mark and persuade the judges that your case is the right one?” mark and persuade the judges that your case is the right one? i didn't actually represent gina miller, i represented the people's challenge
4:08 pm
group in that set of litigation, lord pannick... inaudible. we cannot get that line from helen mountfield. to sum up... lord pannick this morning, representing gina miller, said effectively that if boris johnson was trying to parliament because parliament represented a threat, then this afternoon we had the opposite side, the government side, lord keen, who was saying there has been plenty of historical precedent and times when parliament has been prorogued and he talked about 1930 and 1948 and sometimes for nakedly political reasons. it was also interesting about what might happen if thejudges to interesting about what might happen if the judges to find against boris johnson and lord keen was asked this and he said that if the court finds
4:09 pm
that the advice of the prime minister was unlawful, then the prime minister will take the necessary steps to comply with any declaration made by the court. lord keen for the government was asked, would he prorogue parliament again? he said! would he prorogue parliament again? he said i won't comment on that. let's get the views of robert craig, from the university of bristol, who has been watching as well. what have you made of this so far? pretty noisy out here with lots of demonstrators and people coming out step but is it possible to say who has got the better of the argument so has got the better of the argument so far? i don't think so and i will say that it is very different coming out here. i got my ticket early and i was queueing up and it is so different in there, measured and quiet and there were many interventions this afternoon, which was interesting. thejudges after
4:10 pm
lunch were keen to talk about how there were... if they were to grant a remedy, what would it be? i declaration? how would it be drafted ? on the declaration? how would it be drafted? on the hypothesis that miller wins, what would be the remedy drafted? you are saying that if thejudges said remedy drafted? you are saying that if the judges said this had been unlawful? would the court say that prorogation, suspension of parliament, is null and void? would they insist parliament is recalled? that is what they were asking, they are asking for help with that because it is difficult to understand as a matter of law what would happen if they won. . is it null and void? would there be a new session? would they revive the old session? would they revive the old session? and because it was not clear the judges session? and because it was not clear thejudges are session? and because it was not clear the judges are pressing after lunch as to what exact remedy they would go for and i think that is
4:11 pm
what they were doing. the first thing the 11 judges must decide is, is this a matter for them even to consider? is this a matter of law or is this pure politics? what would you say about that? in terms of what you say about that? in terms of what you think is going on in there, when you think is going on in there, when you like your mp are you electing a representative to your representative to your representative assembly or is it also a responsible government situation? most academics think it is just situation? most academics think it isjust a situation? most academics think it is just a representative assembly but if you think that you think the executive has no independent or executive has no independent or executive mandate but if you take a more responsible government approach, you think the manifesto you elect to, you will elect the party and they have a mandate and that creates more tension between the executive and the department because they have their own legitimacy and a vote of no confidence is the ultimate remedy of parliament against the executive and they did not do that. that is a political question but as a matter of law they had a brief mention of
4:12 pm
the vote of no confidence issue by lord reid but they have not focused on that otherwise. lord pannick for gina miller earlier said boris johnson was trying to sell parliament. is there any evidence that might be the inference but is evidence he was trying to do that? there are certainly some memos that have been released and there has been a lot of coverage from some footnotes you made on various memos put to him but there is no witness statement and we come back to this point again and again. lord keane was pressed as to what the reasons would be for this and he said i will come to that later and he said, look at the documents and there is no witness statement on the court generally appear to be pressing the advocates as to why there was no further evidence as to what the prime minister was doing. let's go
4:13 pm
back to helen mountfield, who did ta ke back to helen mountfield, who did take part in that gina miller case at the supreme court. that was over article 50. what have you made of the hearing so far today? well, i would agree with previous speakers that it would agree with previous speakers thatitis would agree with previous speakers that it is quite hard to read the supreme court and i think that is a job, to listen to the whole case before they form any view but it is right that they are probing in particular the point about the evidence and what was in the prime minister's mind and if he did have reasons for proroguing parliament. and why that is not on the witness statement. lord keen for the government said this is not a big deal. plenty of times prime ministers have prorogued or suspended parliament in history for whatever reasons they like, often nakedly political? well, if there hasn't been a challenge in a
4:14 pm
previous case you cannot say that was legal or not. i think the real issue here is the apparent use of the power to stop parliament getting in the way and parliament is effectively in charge here. the ministers are answerable to parliament and of parliament has been prorogued to keep them quiet, that really is a very big constitutional deal. have you got any inkling as to how this might go? how the 11 judges might decide? well... not... ithink how the 11 judges might decide? well... not... i think the justiciability question is important and the court said this is not our business and we cannot intervene in any circumstances, there will be nothing to stop the prime minister saying that in that case i will prorogue parliament until the 3rd of november. i think keeping control over it is very important, then the issueis over it is very important, then the issue is whether or not the court is
4:15 pm
satisfied that the prime minister has used the power for a proper satisfied that the prime minister has used the powerfor a proper or improper purpose and that depends on their view of the evidence. helen mountfield, thank you. i havejoanna cherry from the scottish national party, who brought the initial case which was successful in scotland at the court of session. how do you think it has gone? you are trying to persuade thesejudges think it has gone? you are trying to persuade these judges that boris johnson was unlawful when he suspended parliament. are you optimistic? reasonably optimistic and we have not had a chance to make our arguments today, we heard from gina miller's lawyer in this afternoon the chief law officer for the government in scotland. it is noteworthy that a lot of supreme court judges, noteworthy that a lot of supreme courtjudges, particularly lord kerr, were keen to know what the real reasons were for prorogation. and the council did not seem keen to tell them and that is another matter, why did this take place? the scottish government found it was to
4:16 pm
stymie scrutiny and therefore that was an unlawful purpose. lord keane for the government was arguing that we have seen this lots of times in history, parliaments suspended or prorogued, 1930, 1948, sometimes for nakedly political prorogued, 1930, 1948, sometimes for na kedly political reasons, effectively saying, what is the big deal? lord pannick anticipated that argument this morning and what he said was, these prorogations were not challenged in court in the past and it took place at a time with a lot ofjudicial review was less developed. i am confident that if you look to modern public law principles whether in the scottish constitution tradition or the english tradition, there is a reasonable chance that uk court will follow this. but the 11 judges have two decide that this is a matter for them? it is a matterfor an two decide that this is a matter for them? it is a matter for an court of
4:17 pm
law to decide? i am recently confident that they will, i find the arguments made by lord pannick this morning persuasive and she invited the uk supreme court to adopt the reasoning of the supreme court, which is what we will invite them to do in relation to whether this is justifiable. is this happening because there is this grey area between the law and politics in the constitution? i would like to see a written constitution and whence scotla nd written constitution and whence scotland becomes independent we will have a written constitution with the supreme court guarding over it. even without. .. gina miller supreme court guarding over it. even without... gina millerjust coming out, by the way. applause. crowd boos. getting a mixture of cheering and booing because there are
4:18 pm
demonstrators on both sides of the brexit divide here. remain supporters and leave supporters, all expressing their views for gina miller, who once again is one of the key figures in this case. just as with the article 50 case at the supreme court. back to you... there is this grey area and it is a very difficult course for these 11 judges? uncharted territory in the scottish court sailed into uncharted territory last week when they give a lengthy decision without any detailed reason and i think those reasons are persuasive and lord pannick thinks they are persuasive andi pannick thinks they are persuasive and i would say i am reasonably confident they will follow the scottish court and the reason i am confident is if they don't, they will have said the british concert allows the prime minister of a minority government to suspend parliament to get it to stop getting in its way. that is dictatorship. if
4:19 pm
the 11 judges, if the decision is the 11 judges, if the decision is the way you want it and boris johnson has acted unlawfully, what then? was the suspension null and void? and what is a prime minister have to do? the scottish court said it was unlawful and null and void but they did not make any positive order saying parliament should be resumed. if it is null and void then there was nothing to stop parliament being resumed but it was interesting that this afternoon the british government tried to give the court some sort of undertaking that the finding of the court... the court reviewed what that meant and it is because in recent times we have had the unprecedented situation of the british prime minister said he was prepared not to obey the law and the uk supreme court is reluctant to ta ke uk supreme court is reluctant to take the british government at face value. extraordinary times! thank you very much. well, very noisy scene you very much. well, very noisy scene outside the supreme court. as
4:20 pm
many of those who have been inside referring to. very quiet inside. legal argument, very calm inside but outside we have had demonstrators from both sides, leave supporters and remain supporters, both sides of the argument making their voices heard pretty loudly, three days of hearing. the first day has been fascinating. two more days to go. we possibly will not get the judgment from the 11 judges of the supreme court, eight men and three women, until next week. but that also will be absolutely riveting. back to simon in the studio... thank you. breaking news from the us... this follows the attack on the saudi oil facilities. the us previously released satellite images showing damage from the weak and's unprecedented strikes. it blames iran and this is coming from cbs,
4:21 pm
senior us officials have told the network they have identified the locations in iran from which a combination of 20 drones and cruise missiles were launched and they say the locations are in southern iran at the northern end of the persian gulf. the head of nato says he is extremely concerned tensions will escalate after these attacks. that information suggesting that the tension is ratcheting up. we will talk to our washington correspondent a little later. liberal democrat leaderjo swinson has closed her party's conference in bournemouth by reiterating her pledge to cancel brexit if the lib dems are elected to government. she told delegates she was standing before them as her delegate for prime minister. let's go over live to bournemouth now and our political correspondent, jonathan blake. still very silly there and the sun is shining on the lib dems as far as
4:22 pm
drew spence? very sunny. not just because of the weather for the party conference, there are signs that there are mps coming to the lib dems, disillusioned with labour and they have a new, young leader who seems to be incredibly ambitious. it was an ambitious speech thatjoyce vincent made this afternoon to the party faithful, it went down very well, as you would expect. herfirst as leader and she said her number one priority would be stopping brexit. there is a change in how the party will go about that. they say if they get into government they would provoke article 50 without holding any second referendum. that is if they won the schmeichel win a majority. that is a big f but she told members that winning a majority
4:23 pm
ina told members that winning a majority in a general election was absolutely her intention... we need to seize the opportunity right now so let me be clear that micro applause. let me be clear, there is no limit to our ambition for our party and country and today i am standing here as your candidate for prime minister... cheering and applause here they love that in the hole. joe swinson, as you would expect, had harsh words for her political opponents and she talked about an election campaign is taking on the forces of nationalism and populism, describing jeremy corbyn as being brexit by nature. if nigel farage was brexit my name. she had a dig at borisjohnson as well, was brexit my name. she had a dig at boris johnson as well, criticising his approach to brexit and proroguing parliament as well and she suggested the government might be willing to break the law, even
4:24 pm
the prime minister has never actually said that. and she raised theissue actually said that. and she raised the issue of his insults in the language that boris johnson the issue of his insults in the language that borisjohnson has chosen to use... boris johnson's insults of choice are rather revealing. big girl's lies. girly swot. let me tell you, if he thinks being a woman is a weakness, he is about to find out it is not! cheering and applause when the election comes, i cannot
4:25 pm
wait to take on the collective forces of nationalism and populism that will be standing on that debate stage. jo swinson clearly keen to make something of the fact she is the first woman leader of the lib dems had set herself apart in style and substance from the other party leaders she will be up against in a general election campaign. going back to brexit, there was no mention in the speech of campaigning for and trying to secure a second referendum to overturn the result of the one in 2016. that is their policy although they say that in a general election they say that in a general election they would campaign on the basis of revoking article 50 if they got into government. supporters of another referendum in the party might raise eyebrows at that omission from the speech. there was also some policy parts about continuing the lib dem
4:26 pm
commitment to mental health and a section on the environment and lowering greenhouse gas emissions and setting up a citizen's assembly to decide the best way to do that. and then the idea of what she described as a well—being budget, something the new zealand government has put into place were by government policy is judged and tested not only on its impact on the economy but also on people's well—being, using various indicators, and they also are considering the idea of a happiness minister, maybe there is a change of career in that for you, simon! on the other hand! jonathan mike, in bournemouth... ! the england cricketer ben stokes has described a front—page article by the sun newspaper about a family tragedy 31 years ago as "disgusting" and "immoral". in a statement put on twitter earlier today, stokes said the paper's decision to publish the story would have "grave and lifelong consequences" for his mother in particular. he wrote: "today
4:27 pm
the sun has seen fit to publish extremely painful, sensitive and personal details concerning events in the private lives of my family, going back more than 31 years. it is hard to find words that adequately describe such low and despicable behaviours, disguised as journalism. for more than three decades, my family has worked hard to deal with the private trauma inevitably associated with these events and has taken great care to keep private what were deeply personal and traumatic events. " jacqui hames is a director of hacked off — a group which campaigns for a free and accountable press. it came together in the wake of the phone hacking scandal. kiefer —— thank you for hanging on. what was your reaction to the front page? i felt physically sick. he realised immediately that you don't have to know the full story to imagine the enormity and the trauma of the emotional response to senior
4:28 pm
headlines like that. it doesn't matter who you are. that sort of investigation into very traumatic events that happened over 30 years ago, lets not forget. it must be devastating for the family and i did feel physically sick watching it.- the heart of the story is an argument about what interest the public need and what is in the public need and what is in the public interest? it is quite right the press should be able to investigate anything they want to if they feel it is in the public interest. but in what realm of fa ntasy interest. but in what realm of fantasy is this in the public interest? when you look at the enormity of what is happening in our country and across the world at the moment, is this really the most important story going around at the moment? i would question whether this is in the public interest, this happened before ben stokes was born. why on earth should they be putting
4:29 pm
this on the front page of a newspaper? it does nothing but damage the mental health of that family. let me read you the statement from the sun... a spokesperson for the sun said: "the sun has the utmost sympathy for ben stokes and his mother but it is only right to point out the story was told with the cooperation of a family member who supplied details, provided photographs and posed for pictures." "the tragedy is also a matter of public record and was the subject of extensive front page publicity in new zealand at the time." "the sun has huge admiration for ben stokes and we were delighted to celebrate his sporting heroics this summer." he was contacted prior to publication and at no stage did he or his representatives ask us not to publish the story." it is important and we need to get clarification from ben stokes and whether that is true but a statement says there are inaccuracies in the article. and i think it is worth remembering that even in their own statement the paper acknowledged there was publicity at the time, we are talking over 30 years ago, my is
4:30 pm
are talking over 30 years ago, my is a suddenly so relevant, just because he scored runs for his country, which is worth talking about and championing? it has no effect on him asa championing? it has no effect on him as a public person at all. and u nfortu nately as a public person at all. and unfortunately there is no deterrent from newspapers acting in this way time and time again and we have seen over the last few days, gareth thomas hounded and the rnli smeared and there is just a thomas hounded and the rnli smeared and there isjust a repercussion thomas hounded and the rnli smeared and there is just a repercussion for this sort of behaviour from these newspapers and they are regulated by themselves. there is no one holding themselves. there is no one holding them to account. does this breach them to account. does this breach the editor post my code?” them to account. does this breach the editor post my code? i think so. i was involved in this arena for a while and i think this is an intrusion into privacy and grief but the facts should be investigated and it should not be for me to decide, it should not be for me to decide, it should not be for me to decide, it should be for an independent
4:31 pm
regulator. the leveson inquiry recommendations were starting to be set up for recommendations were starting to be set upforan recommendations were starting to be set up for an independent regulator away from politicians and from the press. but of course, our politicians, who are so in hock to people like rupert murdoch and the barclay brothers and all the other press barons, they reneged on all the promises they made to the victims of hacking and they allowed the press to carry on with impunity, doing exactly what they like with no recourse. it is really good to talk to you and i was going to let that out i was going to use another word! let that dog out! thank you for joining us. adjourn. look forward to hearing you at 10:30am. more on that breaking story, senior officials finding that location in
4:32 pm
iran were the attack on the oilfields was launched from. what exactly a re oilfields was launched from. what exactly are these officials saying? as we understand it, they have been talking to cbs news and telling them they have identified the launch sites, and locations from which the saturday attacks began, from which they emanated, those drones and those missiles, some 20 of them altogether, and they have located them in southern iran. and that is something the us has been edging towards over the last two or three days anyway in declaring president —— declaring. president trump declaring, good as, iran were behind it. they are not from yemen, the houthi rebels there had been claiming they fired these missiles,
4:33 pm
these drones. it would fit with the sidelight images. —— satellite images. they appear to show the impact on the northern and western side of this petrochemical plant which, geographically, is nearerto iran. if all else is equal, that is what they are saying, and that is backed up by the images they released earlier. having said all that, there haven't been any official announcements at this stage and if they do now... if they are not certain this is the case, it raises the question what they knew next to. it does indeed. gary, got to leave it there. thank you very much. coming up, we'll bring you all the day's sport, including a look ahead to tonight's opening matches in the champions league groups — with chelsea and liverpool both in action. now it's time for a look at the weather with ben rich.
4:34 pm
good afternoon. it's a beautiful day for most parts of the uk. a fairly chilly breeze blowing for some north sea coasts and some extra cloud rolling in for western scotland and northern ireland. that cloud will continue to push its way in from the northwest as we go into this evening and overnight. we will eventually see some splashes of rain. further south, we hold onto clear skies, and it is going to be a chilly night. quite a cold start to tomorrow morning but the best of the sunshine through the day will be found across the midlands, wales, down towards the midlands, wales, down towards the south having been. further north, there will be more cloud. for thou prix of rain —— further operates of rain. those temperatures are set to climb as we head towards the end of the week, particular the weekend. some spots on saturday get to 25, 20 6 degrees, but it does get more unsettled as we head into
4:35 pm
sunday —— 20 five, 20 6 degrees. this is bbc news — our latest headlines. lawyers have been giving evidence at the supreme court in london, on the first of three days of hearings that will determine whether borisjohnson broke the law by suspending parliament. identifying whether a power has been used for a valid purpose is a legal question. it is not a political question. would you be ready to recall parliament if that's what the supreme court says you ought to do? i think the best thing i can do is wait and see what the judges say. liberal democrat leader jo swinson closes her first party conference, telling members her first task as prime minister would be to stop brexit. a liberal democrat majority government will revoke article 50 on day one. england cricketer ben stokes describes the the sun newspaper as "immoral and heartless"
4:36 pm
for printing a story about a family tragedy nearly three decades ago. sport now on afternoon live with will perry. breaking news from japan, and it is bad news for wales. the wales coach sent home from the world cup for alleged breaking of rules on betting. he has been in integral pa rt betting. he has been in integral part of warren gallen's backroom team. wales are flying stephenjones to fill that gap. he had been confirmed as the successor following the tournament. rob howley on his way back to wales from japan. new zealand have won the last two world cups, and even though their
4:37 pm
former... they remain favourites. lyons captain sam warburton joined us earlier and he believes about a dozen side have a chance of winning the trophy. itjust shows how open this world cup is. we should be genuinely excited about wales, england, ireland, about getting to a world cup final potentially. it is very real. those fan should be very excited. wales, i very real. those fan should be very excited. wales, lam very real. those fan should be very excited. wales, i am going tojudge all teams of the group stages in a big group games. those three teams in that front running pack, along with south africa and new zealand, to get to a world cup final.” with south africa and new zealand, to get to a world cup final. i think you will like this. i will show you footage of tonga landing injapan. check out the lady who clearly booked her seed not knowing what she
4:38 pm
was in for. singing there we go — tonga arriving in great spirits. there is that lady, waking up, arriving in tokyo and quite a surreal moment for her. still very confused at this stage. you naughty! let's talk about football. manchester city, a defensive problem, issue. john stones, he has been ruled out for five weeks, leaving john stones, he has been ruled out forfive weeks, leaving city john stones, he has been ruled out for five weeks, leaving city with one recognised centre back. laporte out. now withoutjohn stones
4:39 pm
and their chances... and the 18—year—old eric garcia from the academy has travelled with the squad. also an option for pep guardiola. doesn't seem long that liverpool be tottenham in the champ easily final. it is back on. liverpool without their stryker to fokker ricci —— divock origi with an ankle injury. we tried to reach the level of last year. we want to be as consistent as least as last year. frank lampard will take charge of chelsea in the champions league for the first time. they play valencia sta mford the first time. they play valencia stamford bridge. franklin parts as anything is possible if chelsea gets her a anything is possible if chelsea gets hera group anything is possible if chelsea gets her a group stage —— the group
4:40 pm
stage. i believe we can get through, but we have to do it where it is tough. once you get through, if you through, i tough. once you get through, if you through, lam tough. once you get through, if you through, i am confident where we should be but aware of the dangers ina tough should be but aware of the dangers in a tough group. ecb offering ben stokes... stokes said the article deals with deeply personal and traumatic events that affected his new zealand based family more than 30 years ago. the sun told the bbc received confirmation of a family member. the ecb said they fully understand his unhappiness and intend to release a supportive statement later on today. aberdeen has been named as the host of the bbc‘s sports personality of the year for the first time. the event will ta ke for the first time. the event will take place on december 14, the city also hosting the inaugural bbc festival of sport over the preceding
4:41 pm
two days. the cyclist geraint thomas was the public‘s winner last year. that's all the sport for now. now on afternoon live, let's go nationwide and see what's happening around the country in our daily visit to the bbc newsrooms around the uk. let's go to bbc look east's janine machin, who joins us from cambridge. she is talking about new research into peanut allergies. and over in hull, peter levy from look north. he's talking about the online abuse local football players and management have been receiving. so janine, scientists at addenbrooke's hospital in cambridge have made a significant discovery about peanut allergies. they have. they found that two things in particular, significantly increasing the chance of a reaction to peanuts. one of them is lack of sleep, which may not be all that surprising. we have heard before it can have an effect on conditions, but the other is exercise.
4:42 pm
essentially, this research has found that if people with a peanut allergy haven't slept well or maybe they haven't slept well or maybe they have been to the gym, a pre—much have been to the gym, a pre—much have the amount of peanut their body can withstand. —— pretty much halves the amount of peanut. we know one in every 100 adults are allergic to them. for children, that figure is even higher. it is one child in every 50. for those with very severe allergies, even a 30th of peanut can make their throats want to the point they cannot breathe. it can send their body into shock. and both of those can be fatal. two takeaway workers were jailed for not telling a customer. she died. how will this help? firstly, it will give these people a better understanding of their cutoff levels. how much peanut, if any, they can withstand before becomes a problem for them. they also hope it will help towards
4:43 pm
better labelling of food. the feuds standards agency commissioned and funded trial because they say there are too little research into allergies —— the food standards agency. instead of a vague, may contain traces of nuts, they can have a more accurate labelling so they can tell people just how much ofa they can tell people just how much of a risk that food poses them. also, they think they may be able to apply these tests to other allergens — dairy, shellfish, sesame, this kind of things. the advice of people with peanut allergies has been avoid the peanuts completely. this does not change that, but the hope is, with more research and more evidence, it might in the future. fascinating. let's go to hull, peter levy. trolling, wise it a problem
4:44 pm
there? they follow people, make abusive or much about them. it appears everyone in the public eye, not just the well—known stars, appears everyone in the public eye, notjust the well—known stars, but eve ryo ne notjust the well—known stars, but everyone public eye seems to be a victim these days and because causes can be very distressing. the owner of hull kingston is rovers, put out a statement, saying, i have no problem with people expressing their disappointment but there is a line that should not be crossed. it is clear he has had a hard time on friday. whole macaroni player says he has come off social media altogether and says —— hull rugby player. it seems sports is far immune from trolling. the owner of hull city football camp a micro ——
4:45 pm
cam...| hull city football camp a micro —— cam... ithink hull city football camp a micro —— cam... i think over the years, i have come to ignore it, to be honest. 0rjust block them and don't see it any more. i think it is, people have got on twitter these days and they can see what they want on there. as a manager in a football player, you have to be very careful. if you respond to one of those, you can put yourself in trouble. what is the advice for victims of this?” think the public think people in the public eye must have a thick skin. gary linacre and rachel riley got together, if you are trolled, you should ignore —— gary lineker. just last week, i was speaking to a yorkshire mp who was telling me about the abuse that they regularly
4:46 pm
gets and how hurtful and distressing it is. these people can sit in the comfort of their own homes and write what they want, the longer—term damage, we probably have yet to see. just quickly, there was a great programme last week all about trolling that little mix starjesi had to deal with. it is on iplayer now. trolling is not going away. more tonight on that? more tonight on that, and this happens only to popular personalities with a large fan based... don't you worry! have you ever worked with him? not yet - i very much look forward to it. no sincerity in that. let's shut that
4:47 pm
off. janine and peter, thank you. and if you would like to see more on any of those stories, you can access them via the bbc iplayer. we go nationwide on afternoon live. israelis are voting in their second election in five months after prime minister benjamin netanyahu failed to form a coalition government earlier this year. mr netanyahu has made hardline promises in the lead up to the vote — including a pledge to annex part of the occupied west bank. our middle east correspondent tom bateman has been to one polling station in tel aviv and sent us this report. well, this is the man it is all about, of course, israel's now longest serving prime minister, benjamin netanyahu. he is, in effect, fighting for his political survival in this election today. it has been a turbulent
4:48 pm
and divisive campaign, it's seen him making increasing appeals to the nationalist right—wing in israel, saying very controversially he would annex parts of the occupied west bank if he is elected. and he's up against this chap, benny gantz, he is a former leader of israeli army and he heads this new coalition that he's started with former generals. they say they want to end division in israeli society. but i think a crucial issue today is to be turn out. we are at a polling station in tel aviv, it's been really busy here, chatting to lots of people coming in. this is actually a stronghold for blue and white, that new opposition. some of the voters i've been chatting to this morning saying they want to change, they say it's time to end things for netanyahu. but the point about this election is it is unprecedented. there's never been a second election within the same year here in israel. for mr netanyahu, things fell apart after the vote in april. he couldn't form a new government, a new governing block, and on the surface was a spat, divisions over israel's religious versus its nonreligious character. beneath that, more fundamentally,
4:49 pm
he's politically weakened because he is facing looming corruption charges. but at the end of all of this, there could be more uncertainty. there is no clear route to victory for either side. tom bateman with that report. in a moment, the latest business news. first, a look at the headlines on afternoon live: lawyers have been giving evidence at the supreme court in london on the first of three days of hearings that will determine whether borisjohnson broke the law by suspending parliament. liberal democrat leader jo swinson closes her first party conference — telling members her first task as prime minister would be to stop brexit. england cricketer ben stokes describes the the sun newspaper as "immoral and heartless" for printing a story about a family tragedy nearly three decades ago. here's your business headlines on afternoon live. apple is in court in an attempt to overturn a european commission ruling, which says it owes ireland more than £10
4:50 pm
billion in back taxes. brussels ruled three years ago that apple's effective tax rate of 1% in ireland amounts to illegal state aid. apple and the irish government argue that the arrangement is legal. the deadline for smart meters to be rolled out in homes across the uk has been delayed by four years. while customers don't have to install them, energy providers must offer them to everyone but now they have until 2024 to do so. the companies have warned the technology is not ready and many customers have complained their smart meters don't work as promised. the office space provider wework is reportedly planning to delay its stock market flotation, with investors questioning how much it's really worth and raising concerns over its management. it had planned to sell shares next week at a price which would have valued the company at almost £38 billion, but that's expected to be put on ice until next month.
4:51 pm
oil. oil, the price. a day ago, we we re oil. oil, the price. a day ago, we were talking about the biggest rise in the oil press from 20 years. it follows the attack in saudi arabia. knocking out 5% of the world's supply, knocking out 5% of the world's supply, that cost lots of panic. today committee markets have still been quite jittery but i want to take a look at exactly what happened. if you like a chart, as i do, this is fascinating. look what happened there! the oil price suddenly slumped quite sharply. we go on air at 2pm... they have turned on their tally, senior... all about disruption. the disruption, the reports are, may not
4:52 pm
be as bad as previously thought. you see the oil price coming down. more going on today as well. we have been hearing about wework, a flotation that had all of the financial world quite excited, but that looks i get may not happen. these are everywhere now. these are ever about what night not be farther shares. let's get more on this. jeremy thomson cook is the founder of complete currency consulting. we can talk to him now but what has been moving the market. the oil price, it's been really fascinating, because we have seen this sort of settled state and we saw that sudden drop off. is this just about short—term disruption? drop off. is this just about short-term disruption? a little bit. there was an unconfirmed reuters report the disruption into the oil markets and the oil supply, as a result of these attacks on sunday,
4:53 pm
may only be a couple of weeks when people thought it would be months. prices are coming lower as a result of that. we will probably find out more around 6pm uk time. the saudi oil minister is giving a press co nfe re nce oil minister is giving a press conference and help lee's able to educate us a little bit more about how saudi arabia is dealing with the remnants of what has happened, the efficacy of further countermeasures to threats that may have in any future against saudi oil operations and where we go from now. given this happen on the couple of days ago, there is still going to be a certain amount of risk premium within the price. prices elevated because people thought, it happened sunday i could not happen again? indeed. looking at the price there, many people remember the price of oil being over $100 a barrel. it does not look that bad given that context stop lou it is all about the rate or
4:54 pm
the scale of the —— given that context the scale of the —— given that co ntext sto p the scale of the —— given that context stop lou it is all about the rate or the scale. it means you may find businesses currently to react for cost pressures. as we have talked about as well, if this is the start of something, whether we see businesses trying to hedge themselves moving forward on the basis prices may only be going higherand basis prices may only be going higher and higher. higher oil prices now at the world needs. what the world doesn't need, it is postponing. it is embarrassing. you don't want to say you're coming to market and then postponed because... wework scheduled to race something like $20 billion over the course of its ipo. reports suggesting they
4:55 pm
could not raise more than two will see them move away from the table. if they don't have an ipo by the end of the year that at raises 3 billion, they will lose their credit line. a bit of an apocalyptic scenario for the company. they may just be postponing things, see if they can offer shares at lower prices and get more investors involved. for now, postponement is almost as bad as cancellation. jeremy, great to talk to you. thank you. falling stars. the same for the market as a whole. we are looking a little bit weaker, pretty flat overall. pound is picking up. pound is picking up, not doing too badly. it does look like a year ago! don't
4:56 pm
know what to make of what is going on. they are all watching the supreme court we are. we know they're going to take a wild to make theirjudgement, and they're going to take a wild to make their judgement, and such they're going to take a wild to make theirjudgement, and such can be truly pound there against the dollar. plenty to watch. thank you. see you tomorrow. your watching afternoon live. a second man has been arrested in connection with a burglary at blenheim palace on saturday in which a high value golden toilet was taken. the 36—year—old man from cheltenham was released under investigation, thames valley police said. anyone with information as to the whereabouts of the stolen toilet is urged to contact police. now it's time for a look at the weather with ben rich. a beautiful day. i was spoiled for
4:57 pm
choice with weather watcher pictures. clouds clouding over a little bit. more cloud developing here to the afternoon across the northwest of the uk. quite a chilly breeze for some of these north sea coast as well. come further inland and west, temperatures two and the afternoon around 18 or 19 degrees. to this evening internet, it is going to turn chilean de —— through this evening and tonight. outbreaks of rain into 25,000 west. could be starting tomorrow morning around two or three degrees. this high—pressure with us pretty much until the end of the week, a weak frontal system moving across scotland. outbreaks of rain, the rain really confined come further
4:58 pm
south, the best of the sunshine found in the southern half of wales. those temperatures about the same as we have had today. quick look at thursday, likely to certify some patchy... most of us see some sunshine. those temperatures just beginning to creep up and that is a process that will continue as we head through friday and into the start of the weekend. high—pressure pushes away eastwards, a south or southeasterly breeze, and that will drag some warmer air in our direction from the near continent. friday's weather looks like this. a lot of blue sky and sunshine. quite breezy by this stage in the west but those temperatures, up to 19 degrees for glasgow, 22 in cardiff, saturday could be warmer still for some of us. leads
4:59 pm
—— leeds 22. more generally u nsettled —— leeds 22. more generally unsettled for all of us for the second half of the weekend.
5:00 pm
today at 5pm... in a landmark case at the uk supreme court, judges consider whether boris johnson acted unlawfully in suspending parliament for five weeks. one of the main questions being tackled today was whether this was a purely political question and not a matter for the court. the court is not equipped to decide what is a legitimate political consideration and what is an illegitimate political situation. no prime minister has abused his powers in the manner in which we allege in at least the last 50 years.

53 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on