Skip to main content

tv   Afternoon Live  BBC News  September 19, 2019 2:00pm-5:01pm BST

2:00 pm
terms of securing difficulty in terms of securing changes in the law and support for taxation and spending, which would be needed to govern. as well as the fa ct be needed to govern. as well as the fact they would be destroyed in the coming election. the political controls are an essential part of oui’ controls are an essential part of our constitution, they control foreign policy, waging war, dissolution of parliament before 2011 and prorogation. but the central argument here is that parliament, because of being prorogue, because of being suspended was deprived the opportunity to scrutinise the executive at an absolutely critical, political time in the history of this country? it's a good political argument and the house of commons had an opportunity to withdraw confidence from the government if it chose to. it could have brought about dissolution and election on that basis and decided not to. dissolution and election on that basis and decided not toll dissolution and election on that basis and decided not to. i hear
2:01 pm
what you are saying but others will say all of this is such a great area because of our unwritten constitution. we don't know exactly where we do stand and it's a question of balance of powers between parliament and the government and the courts, but it shouldn't be this unpredictable in a sense. i agree it shouldn't be unpredictable and it wasn't unpredictable. the law does not permit judicial unpredictable. the law does not permitjudicial review of the prerogative to prorogue parliament. it is subject to political control. that leaves space for a serious political controversy, a disagreement between mps and the prime minister and eventually there has two... we will have to leave it there because we are back inside the supreme court. let's listen to the government's representative here. supreme court. let's listen to the government's representative herelj paraphrase of course from the opinion of hodge in the case of her
2:02 pm
goal. mark reference has been made to constitutional principle. constitutional principle may embrace legal rules but it may also embrace the convention. convention that is not amenable to enforcement in a court of law. and an example of that was seen in miller one in reference to the convention which was expressed in statutory form but nevertheless remained a convention. in orderto nevertheless remained a convention. in order to proceed under the heading of constitutional principle, there has to be an element of legal content and if you take the example that was cited by mr fordham of the
2:03 pm
unison case, there one could clearly identify the legal right of access tojustice and identify the legal right of access to justice and therefore rely upon that in order to determine the declaration of a rights and enforcement of a right. here we have reference to what is termed parliamentary accountability but what legal content is that concept actually embrace? as distinct from its practical and factual content. ultimately, what this court is being invited to do is to control the length of the prorogation of parliament. as exercised under the prerogative. the length of each session of parliament and the frequency between sessions is
2:04 pm
regulated by constitutional convention and not by the door. and of course that was not always the case because very early on, parliament enacted the triangle act which determined parliament could not be prorogued within 50 days of it having been summonsed. and then in the act of 1664, that provision was repealed. expressly on the basis that it was in derogation of the exercise of the prerogative with which we are concerned. and since then parliament has not sought to legislate generally in respect of prorogation. having had an opportunity i more than 300 years to do so. of course it has legislated in orderto do so. of course it has legislated in order to determine that in certain occasions on certain times
2:05 pm
it should not be prorogued. but will be recalled and the most recent example which has been repeatedly referred to with section three of the northern ireland executive formation. there have been efforts to distinguish the exercise of dissolution from that of prorogation. dissolution has been repeatedly identified as forbidden territory for the courts. it is not just a civil. and yet the distinctions that have been drawn between that and prorogation are far more apparent than they are actually real. in respect of dissolution, of
2:06 pm
course parliament cannot be recalled. and there will ultimately be an election. following that election of course it's provided by the act of 1694 that parliament might not be summoned for a period of up to three years. even in the period from dissolution to election and i'll come on in a moment to look at that period, the executive would remain in place and indeed would remain in place and indeed would remain in place during the period when parliament had not been summoned following an election. of course we now have a decision by
2:07 pm
parliament to regulate dissolution by primary legislation, the fixed—term parliaments act. under the terms of that act and the periods are quite instructive i will suggest, the period between dissolution and an election must be 25 working days or 35 calendar days. during which time the executive will clearly not be accountable to parliament. and there it will be for the executive in that exercise of prerogative powers to determine when parliament will actually be summoned. now in respect of
2:08 pm
prorogation, it is clear that political purposes may very well prevail over any formal purpose or requirement for prorogation of parliament and we have seen many instances of that over the years. if in the event of prorogation parliament takes exception to that course of action, it has a very clear route to adopt. it may, following the prorogation to which it took exception or in anticipation of the prorogation which has not begun because that would be the instant case, at the beginning of september of this year, move a motion of no confidence in the
2:09 pm
executive. in such a motion if move by the leader of the opposition would be heard. so if it has noticed, as it did have, that it was to be prorogued for a period that it took exception to or at a time to which it took exception, it was perfectly free to move a vote of no confidence. what if it conceives that was not to its political advantage. the lord makes the very point i was coming to. forgive me, lord keane. that is precisely the point. it is then the determination of political advantage as to whether or not such a motion is made and indeed the same can be said about the ability of parliament to move a motion in terms of the fixed—term parliaments act in such a motion was
2:10 pm
of course moved in anticipation of the prorogation but the opposition chose to abstain. again an entirely political act. they did not wish to go to the country. they did not wish to go to the people. we have had the suggestion that dissolution is different because the executive is then answerable to the people. well, by way of prorogation again the executive may very well be answerable to the people of parliament takes exception to the prorogation that has been proposed. sol prorogation that has been proposed. so i respectfully suggest that the attempt to draw some distinction between the justice ability of the dissolution of parliament which of course prior to the fixed—term parliaments act would be determined asa parliaments act would be determined as a political act essentially, and that of the exercise of the prerogative of prorogation is simply
2:11 pm
not worth the of any detailed examination. the results may very well be the same, the political considerations of all sides of parliament are bound to be very similarand the parliament are bound to be very similar and the act of the executive can always be the subject of scrutiny ultimately by the people in the form of an election. should parliament choose to adopt that route but as lord kerr observed, they may decide that it is not politically convenient for them to achieve that consequence. so that is where we stand so far as the issue ofjustice ability where we stand so far as the issue of justice ability is where we stand so far as the issue ofjustice ability is concerned, whether it be dissolution or whether it be the prerogative of prorogation, this is forbidden territory. it is a matter between the executive and parliament and if parliament takes exception to the executive they have the tools available to address the matter. if
2:12 pm
they choose not to employ those tools, that is a political matter, it is entirely up to them. and i just add this one further point, how in the context of that political minefield is the court to opine on theissue minefield is the court to opine on the issue of purpose or improper purpose or legitimate political purpose or legitimate political purpose or legitimate political purpose or illegitimate political purpose? how are these concepts to be defined and applied in this context? in my respectful submission, the applicants and the petitioners are inviting the courts into forbidden territory and into what is essentially a minefield. an ill—defined minefield but the courts
2:13 pm
are not with the greatest of respect properly equipped to deal with. can i turn from there to some of the particulars of the appeal in the case of cherry? and the first point i would wish to make is simply this. it may be noted by the court already. in his submission, stone neil made no attempt no attempt whatsoever to respond to the criticisms that i had made of the reasoning of the inner house or indeed to defend the particular and inconsistent approach taken by the inner house in the determination of that case. and in my submission, the reasoning for the reasons are on the grounds i set out before is unsustainable and it must follow that the issues in that case are for this court to determine. which they
2:14 pm
may do properly by reference to the documents. i should also notice the suggestion from mr o'neill that a concession was made in the inner house about justiceability. i was not present in the inner house but i have the opportunity to speak to mr johnson and mr webster who were present and also to look at mr webster's notes. they do not consider that any concession was made but if it was, it is hereby withdrawn. so if i could make that clear with the permission of the court. on cue that clarification. one always precedes on the basis that if something is stuck sternly obvious, a concession is not required and if it is not stock stirringly obvious, a concession is not appropriate. now, furthermore, my learned friend mr fordham
2:15 pm
suggested that sir james my learned friend mr fordham suggested that sirjames eadie had made a concession as to justiceability but again i take exception to that. if parliament has by primary legislation sought in any way to determine when or whether the prerogative of prorogation should be exercised by the executive, then of course this court is entitled to interpret and apply their primary legislation, but i suggest that gives no doorway into the general issue ofjusticeability of the prerogative power of prorogation. so i would seek to put that point as made by sirjames into its proper context. turning very briefly to the issues that arise if this court now has in hand the appeal itself, i simply urge this court to do as the
2:16 pm
lord read suggested yesterday and thatis lord read suggested yesterday and that is to consider fairly and as a whole the documentation, the contemporaneous documentation, the authentic contemporaneous documentation that has been produced in this case. and i'm not going to go back to the comments i made about affidavits in the context of the scottish process. i simply notice that the lord president was perfectly satisfied that i never dated was not in these circumstances required and that is also consistent with the digital of the woodworker where he felt the document spoke for themselves then it would not be required. —— lord walker. the language of the documents is important. i have two notice that my learned friend mr o'neill use these
2:17 pm
courteous and indeed incendiary language in describing ministers, advisers and civil servants. that language is wholly unwarranted but it does reveal an error in his approach. if you approach the documents with the preconceived belief and mindset that they are a sham, then of course that will lead you to a particular conclusion with regard to the construction of some passages in those documents. if on the other hand as i would submit you read them fairly and with an open mind, and they are obviously authentic documents and you realise that they give considered advice to the prime minister and properly re cord the prime minister and properly record a formal cabinet meeting, thenl record a formal cabinet meeting, then i say a different picture appears. and i simply come and that approach, that interpretation to the
2:18 pm
court. there was a complaint of course that somehow prorogation prevents accountability. well, it is a fa ct prevents accountability. well, it is a fact that for a period, prorogation will affect accountability in parliament but it doesn't prevent accountability beyond parliament were again the executive will be questioned and held to account by the public, the media or indeed during a party political conference season at each of those conferences no doubt. but prorogation no more intrudes upon the idea of accountability then would dissolution. and again i cite the point that even under the fixed—term parliaments act, there will be no accountability of the executive to parliament for a period
2:19 pm
of 35 days after dissolution. and nothing can be done in that period because parliament could not be recalled, whereas in respect of prorogation, there are a series of mechanisms that may be employed for that purpose and according to particular circumstances. so again, if one must to fall back on the comparison with dissolution, i would suggest that in fact prorogation is so clearly a matter that is political in nature that it falls within the forbidden territory. now, and above questions were raised including by the lord sale about the effectiveness of post prorogation controls. but in a sense, the same arises with regard to dissolution. if there is dissolution and the government goes to the country and it is re—elected, it may be held accountable on the grounds on which
2:20 pm
it sought at a particular time, so there is no greater and no lesser degree of control. of course the ultimate political control, whether it be prorogation or dissolution, is the ability of parliament to express no confidence in the government. and is the ability to take the government back to the country. and when looking at all of this, we mustn't forget that one of the primary aims of the opposition in parliament is to replace the government. they are notjust parliament is to replace the government. they are not just there to hold them to account. they are there to replace them just as the government has a political imperative to pursue its own policies so the opposition has a political imperative to seek to pursue their policies. and that is all part of the political ground where the courts should not be. now,
2:21 pm
in passing on towards the end of the submissions, my learned friend mr o'neill asserted that the united kingdom could not leave the european union without a deal unless that was authorised by further primary legislation and that was apparently because departure would impact on individual rights. i don't want to dwell on this point. it arose in the inner house but not before lord doherty in the outer house. our note of argument doherty in the outer house. our note ofargument in doherty in the outer house. our note of argument in the inner house address this issue. i should just address this issue. i should just add that mr o'neill's case was directly rejected, paragraph 410 of his opinion. it was rejected as irrelevant challenge to prorogation by lord brody in paragraph 71 of his
2:22 pm
judgment and the lord president rejected that prorogation could have an effect on individual rights, that is on paragraph 59. so in my respectful submission, the submissions by my learned friend mr o'neill do not take him to where he would wish to be and the appeal should be sustained. on the unchallenged grounds that i sought to advance in opening for the courts. now the court will be aware that we produced two further notes perhaps appropriate that i should make reference to these. if i could deal first of all with the note on the effective prorogation on legislation. there was some
2:23 pm
discussion of this yesterday and we have address the factual and legal position in the note that we produced this morning. in short, the government is and has for a considerable period being alive to the need to ensure that the statute book is preferred for exit from the eu and has taken extensive steps to achieve that result. most of that work was actually done earlier in the year in anticipation of an exit on the 29th of march. some further statutory instruments are required to address changes, essentially changes in the eu law since march, and there is a largely of a technical nature. the 2018 act provides for an urgent process for the making of statutory instruments and in the small number of incidences where such s is knew to bea incidences where such s is knew to be a place for exit, they can and they will be in place. of course all such si pin must be debated after 28
2:24 pm
days and the government considers there will be an opportunity to debate all of these before the 31st of october and it won't be a case of addressing a debate on these instruments after that date. so i seek to reassure lord lloyd jones on that point. and in these circumstances, we expect that they will be adequate time to deal with all their sides and indeed with all required primary legislation and in that context, i should stress that some of the brexit related primary legislation that has been referred to by the brp are not required as an exit date and we seek to give an explanation for that in the note that we have provided. they are issues that will be addressed going forward after the 31st of october,
2:25 pm
assuming an exit on that date, but they are not actually required on that date itself. i should say that there was some elements of confusion in the minds of some about what bills blue referred to and a note, it is said that in paragraph five of this second witness statement, suggest that all brexit bills in the la st suggest that all brexit bills in the last parliamentary session have falle n last parliamentary session have fallen insofar as that statement suggest that all brexit related bills fell at prorogation, that is not correct and we point out that many of them passed. i should add in fairness to doctor tomlinson that if you go back to paragraph 37 of his first witness statement, he is referring there to the five not to the totality. i think there has been a misunderstanding on that point. the second matter that has been the
2:26 pm
subject of a further notes is the matter of relief. and we have sought to explain why does lord reid anticipate it might be a little more complicated than it first appeared. what cannot remain is part four of the interlocutor of the inner house. but what i would observe is that while we go in detail through these matters and why we will do maintain very strongly that the prorogation of parliament did take effect notwithstanding the complaints made by the applicants, and that parliament is prorogued and that the prorogation cannot be impugned standing article nine of the bill of rights. there is room of course for
2:27 pm
the courts to make a declaratory or declaration if it comes to the conclusion, contrary to our submissions, that the advice given to the sovereign was unlawful. at that i venture is all that would be required in the context of this case. a declaration that the advice was unlawful. and it would then be essentially for parliament and the executive, the insect tip in particular to decide how to respond to that, considering the reasons that might be given by the court if it comes to that determination —— the executive. is your position that if such a declaration were made, the order in council, while the prorogation effected by the commissioners appointed by the order in council would remain, would be
2:28 pm
legally effective? yes, my lord, thatis legally effective? yes, my lord, that is our position. how would it then be that it would be for parliament to decide how to respond because parliament wouldn't be there? in the first instance it would be for the executive to respond and under the 17 19 act they would seek a proclamation. respond and under the 17 19 act they would seek a proclamationm respond and under the 17 19 act they would seek a proclamation. it would seem strange that article nine is there to protect the privileges of parliament against the executive and the crown. i don't accept the proposition in those bold times if i may respectfully say so. it appears to me that the first question was the proclamation by the lord's commission of proceeding in parliament and we have given six reasons why that must be the case and if it is in parliament, then it falls within article nine. why shouldn't one start at the other end
2:29 pm
and see whether they were properly charged, lawfully charged to deliver their message to parliament? the a nswer their message to parliament? the answer is they were not. ultimately that would mean impugning the proceedings in parliament that have taken proceedings in parliament that have ta ken place proceedings in parliament that have taken place and the consequences of that could be far—reaching. i would suggest, well, first of all we say the order in council itself listening to the proceedings. more particularly, the third stage of the process, the declaration by the laws commissioner prorogued parliament. the reasons it did so may be impugned as having been secured by some means that was not appropriate, they may be impugned on the grounds advanced by my leaded friends on the basis of the advice given was unlawful but the sovereign made the decision on the advice of her prime minister. the order in council was made and the declaration was a
2:30 pm
proceeding in parliament. but my lord's question is this. if the advice given to her majesty the queen was unlawful, then the relay of instructions to the lords commissioners, i should of instructions to the lords commissioners, ishould have thought, was also unlawful, and can be impeached at that stage before they go anywhere near parliament. the lords commissioners may be entirely unaware of the advice given. but whether they are unaware or not... they have their commission under the great seal. i appreciate all of that, but they can only act on instruction from her majesty the queen. and if the advice that she has been given is unlawful, then the instruction that she gives to them to act, whether under the great seal or otherwise, likewise seems to me to be unlawful, is it not?”
2:31 pm
or otherwise, likewise seems to me to be unlawful, is it not? i may respond in this way. if her majesty, having received the advice of her minister, had entered parliament in prorogued it in person, would that prorogation be amenable to challenge in this court? isubmit... in this court? i submit... i don't know that that is all that helpful, to be honest! the circumstance is that she receives advice, let's say, for the sake of discussion, which is unlawful. then, if she cannot convey to the... it is nothing to do with the queen, of course, she is simply performing her constitutional function, but the instruction that she gives to the lord's commissioner, so the argument goes, cannot be valid, since it was based on unlawful advice. so it is at the
2:32 pm
stage before it gets anywhere near parliament that the attack on the lawfulness of what is to take place occurs, is that not right? know, the attack which is made in these applications is on the lawfulness of the advice. if the advice was unlawful, would it not follow that the order in council was liable to be quashed? i would submit that it is not liable to be quashed, because it is incidental to the proceedings in parliament, and therefore falls under the in parliament, and therefore falls underthe ambit of in parliament, and therefore falls under the ambit of article nine. that sounds like putting the cart before the horse! i say that we should actually start by recognising that the prorogation was a proceeding in parliament which falls within the ambit of article nine of the bill of rights, and we don't have to go further. i know my righted understanding that no undertaking is being offered —— and
2:33 pm
ami undertaking is being offered —— and am i right to understand that no undertaking has been offered? the prime minister would take all necessary steps to address any decision of the court that determined that the advice was unlawful. that sounds like something which really ought to go without saying. exactly so. it is not for the executive to give undertakings to obey the law. the executive does obey the law, and if the courts tell us obey the law, and if the courts tell us what the law is, we will address that. just so i am clear, and to understand the position, are you saying that the word impeached in article nine covers a case where the consequence flows from an order of the court? i am saying that the proceedings themselves are protected. protected by article nine. so the court's order would not
2:34 pm
have consequence? my lady, my lords, unless there are further matters that you would wish to raise, having adopted the two additional notes, i would rest my case there. now, thank you very much. —— no, thank you very much. i suspect that mr o'neill may be correct in saying this case is unique in having three members of the house of lords addressing it. whether that is an advantage, i may not need to pronounce upon! my ladies, my lords, i gratefully adopt the submissions that the court this morning from the lord advocate, from mr fordham and from lord
2:35 pm
garnier. the court has received comprehensive oral and written submissions over the last three days, and i therefore wish in my replyjust to days, and i therefore wish in my reply just to emphasise days, and i therefore wish in my replyjust to emphasise what we say with respect are the central areas in the arguments advanced by my friends lord keane and sirjames. and may i say something about the facts, and then the law, and then cani facts, and then the law, and then can i address the remedy? as my friend lord keane did. now, on the facts, we say the central issue is, why was it appropriate to prorogued for five weeks, longer, as the court knows, than on any occasion in the la st knows, than on any occasion in the last 40 years? and lord keane's response when this question was put
2:36 pm
to him was that the prorogation was not in substance for five weeks, because three weeks of the period would have involved the recess of parliament for the conference season. therefore, in truth, the prorogation is for seven, i think he said, seven working days of parliament. our responses, we say that that does not explain, far less justify, closing parliament for five of the 7.5 weeks prior to the 31st of the 7.5 weeks prior to the 31st of october. having regard, of course, to the adverse effect on the ability of parliament to perform its scrutineer functions at this critical time. why do i say that? because first, as sirjames and lord keane both accepted, it is parliament, not the executive, which
2:37 pm
decides whether to have a recess for the conference period. parliament may or may not have decided to have a three week recess this year when the 31st of october is fast approaching. the prime minister'sdecision took that matter out of the hands of parliament. secondly, even if there was a co nfe re nce secondly, even if there was a conference recess this year decided on by parliament, parliament would still, during those three weeks, have been in session, and therefore, written parliamentary questions could have been asked, and would have needed to be answered. and
2:38 pm
parliamentary committees could report, and would report. the court knows it has been a regular feature of the past few months, at least the la st of the past few months, at least the last few months, that parliamentary committees have been reporting on reporting urgently on all aspects of the brexit process. so some degree, an important degree, of parliamentary scrutiny would still have been available, and this prorogation for five weeks at this time prevented any parliamentary scrutiny for that period. and the third answer to lord keane is the point put to him by my lady, lady black, and your lordship and your ladyship asked lord keane to explain why there was any need for a
2:39 pm
prorogation prior to the 7th of october or thereabouts. what was the reason? and there was in my submission no answer to that central question. to which date did you say? the 7th of october. a week or so... not precisely, but around the 7th of october. what was the need for a prorogation prior to that date, was the question put, if i understand correctly, by my lord and my lady. and the court heard the answers. i say there was no coherent answer to that question. the documents on which lord keane relies in relation to this whole matter include, let us not forget, the note dated the 16th of august in the prime minister'sown handwriting. it was read out yesterday by my friend, mr o'neill,
2:40 pm
and! yesterday by my friend, mr o'neill, and i don't ask the court to go back to it, but it is in the middle of trial bundle, tab 39, page 316, electronic page 379, and it is the one where the prime minister says the whole september session is, in his words, no more than a rigmarole to show the public mps earn their crust. that is what he says, and thatis crust. that is what he says, and that is his words. i am very happy for the court to follow lord keane's approach that he articulated a few moments ago. read this document fairly, and with an open mind. there is no need to adopt any incendiary language, lord keane's criticism of my friend mr o'neill. the document speaks for itself. and what does it say? it speaks to the failure to
2:41 pm
understand that parliament, as the sovereign body, will wish to ask questions of the executive committee debate matters, to report through its committees, possibly enact more legislation. and it will wish to do so during the september weeks concerning the negotiations, if any, with our european partners, at the planning for no deal. and i was asked on tuesday by my lady, lady ardan, about the bills that were lost because of the prorogation from the 9th of september. the court now has the answer, a detailed answer to that question, and there is no dispute. the government's note accepts that a number of important bills have been lost. they include, incidentally and sadly, the courts and tribunals online procedure bill, on which, if i may say so, lord
2:42 pm
keane works tirelessly and skilfully to pilot through the house of lords. it is one of many bills that have been lost. now, sirjames points out, and he is absolutely right, that it out, and he is absolutely right, thatitis out, and he is absolutely right, that it is inherent in prorogation that it is inherent in prorogation that bills are lost. but my lady lady ardan's question is important because it provides a further answer to the prime minister'ssuggestion in his hand written note that i mentioned a few moments ago, that parliament has got no business to transact during this period. so what is all the fuss about? the bills, some of them very important bills, that were being debated, that we are going through the stages of both the house of lords and the house of commons, demonstrate the error in the prime minister'sanalysis. we
2:43 pm
therefore maintain our factual submission, made in opening, that this five week prorogation has prevented parliament from carrying out its scrutiny functions over the executive for a period of exceptional links, longer than any prorogation of the past 40 years, for no rational reason, and at a time when the constitutional principle of the executive being answerable to parliament is of vital importance. all of this conflict, and i'm coming onto the law, with the constitutional law principle that the executive is subject to parliamentary scrutiny. and it is enough for our case to apply, as the deputy president put
2:44 pm
to me on tuesday, the padfield principle that a minister can be shown to have acted unlawfully in the exercise of a discretionary power because of the effect of the decision. and my friend mr fordham was absolutely right this morning to emphasise that my lord, the deputy president's judgment in the emphasise that my lord, the deputy president'sjudgment in the unison case is again based on impact, not based on there being any need for a malign motive. but i added if necessary, and in my case, it is not necessary, and in my case, it is not necessary, i would go further if necessary, i would go further if necessary, and invite the court to draw the inference that the links of the prorogation was motivated strongly influenced by the prime minister'swish to prevent scrutiny by parliament, because he regarded parliament as a threat to the
2:45 pm
successful implementation of his policies. there is no rational reason for a five—week prorogation, giving the prime minister the broadest possible margin of discretion, and if that is right, the court is entitled to draw an inference that there was an improper reason. see padfield. i remind the court that in opening, i referred to interviews given by the prime minister himself in august. it was on trial bundle is 54 and 55. the court recalls a bbc interview and a sky news interview, and each of those, the prime minister himself stated that parliament was a threat to the implementation of his policies. neither of my friends, lord keane nor sir james, policies. neither of my friends, lord keane nor sirjames, a dress
2:46 pm
that evidence. the documents on which the government relies are of limited assistance to the court because there is no witness statement by or on behalf of the prime minister, telling the court that they contain the only reasons for a five—week prorogation. may i turn to the law? the arguments advanced by both of my friends has two main limbs. first, they say the main issues are notjusticiable. and first, they say the main issues are not justiciable. and secondly, first, they say the main issues are notjusticiable. and secondly, they dispute that there is an irrelevant principle of constitutional law. we respond that those two points go together. if, as we submit, there is a relevant principle of constitutional law, that is the supremacy of parliament, and the
2:47 pm
inferior status of the executive and its accountability, then it is a question for the courts whether in the light of that principle, this decision is outside the proper scope of the legal power to advise on prorogation. sirjames of the legal power to advise on prorogation. sir james accepted, of the legal power to advise on prorogation. sirjames accepted, and properly so, in answer to my lord lord kerr, that it is for the court to decide the proper scope of a prerogative power. we submitted, and we maintain the submission, that parliamentary supremacy is a principle of our law. it is as fundamental as the rule of law, and access to justice. it is not a mere convention. and it is not confined, as sirjames submitted, to an obligation on the
2:48 pm
executive and the courts to comply with enacted statutes. that is a consequence, an important consequence, an important consequence, of parliamentary sovereignty. but another feature of the legal principle of parliamentary sovereignty is that the executive is answerable to parliament. and it therefore follows, we say, that the executive, the junior partner, cannot claim a legally unfettered power to close down the senior partner. for as long as the executive likes, for whatever reason it likes, and however substantially damage to the ability of parliament to perform its scrutiny functions. sirjames to perform its scrutiny functions. sir james then said
2:49 pm
to perform its scrutiny functions. sirjames then said that for the court to intervene would breach the principle of the separation of powers. our answer is that the court is being asked to intervene in order to uphold the separation of powers. that is to ensure that the executive cannot, by its own acts, escape from scrutiny by parliament. sirjames then says there are no traditionally manageable standards. he points out, correctly, that any prorogation involves a limitation on parliamentary sovereignty. he asks, how many days of prorogation is lawful? what reasons mayjustify prorogation? ouranswer is prorogation? our answer is that the court will in this case carry out precisely the
2:50 pm
function that it performs in other public law cases. it applies the relevant legal principle here of supremacy of parliament and the answer ability of the executives of the circumstances of the case. it looks at the length of the case. it looks at the length of the case. it looks at the length of the prorogation. it looks at the reasons given for the length of the prorogation. it looks like the adverse impact on parliamentary scrutiny. it looks at any inferences that the court thinks it is appropriate to draw as to whether at least part of the motive was to avoid parliamentary scrutiny. and having done all that, the court asks itself whether, in the light of all those circumstances, and applying, i accept, a generous margin of discretion in favour of the prime
2:51 pm
minister, whether his decision, his advice, is beyond the proper scope of his powers. this is standard business and judicial review and all other contexts. was this decision reasonably necessary to further a legitimate objective? reasonably necessary to further a legitimate objective ? conferring reasonably necessary to further a legitimate objective? conferring a broad margin of discretion, because of the context. and i say it is not, with great respect, it is not the function of the courts to identify all the circumstances in which prorogation would be lawful. and the court does not need to supply a bright line standard, an algorithm to answer all circumstances. a good example of that is the judgment of my lord the deputy president in the unison case. the fees charged by the
2:52 pm
lord chancellor were unlawful, and they were unlawful because of the adverse impact on the constitutional principle of access to justice. and they were unlawful, even though it would be lawful for the lord chancellor to charge some fees, and the court was not identifying —— how could it —— where the dividing line would fall? sirjames would fall? sir james then referred would fall? sirjames then referred to various acts of parliament, including the re ce nt acts of parliament, including the recent northern ireland act, and i say none of them exists in this exercise, because none of them can be said to involve a parliamentary intention to remove the obligation on the executive. —— none of them
2:53 pm
assists in this exercise. only to exercise its powers in a manner lawful to the relevant principles of our constitutional law and our judicial review. then, finally, sir james judicial review. then, finally, sirjames relied on the fact that the authorities have suggested that the power to dissolve parliament is an reviewable, and the court has expressed interest in that matter. i respectfully agree with what the lord advocate and lord garnier submitted this morning. a dissolution of parliament serves a vital constitutional function in ensuring democratic accountability of the members of the house of commons. but i add a further factor. prior to the abolition of this prerogative power in 2011, it was an
2:54 pm
reviewable because it was a personal prerogative of the crown. see rfv huston, essays on constitutional law. it is our authorities, the miller authorities, volume five, tab 81, the relevant passage starts on page 85 and continues to address this question on pages 77—80. my lord asks sir james this question on pages 77—80. my lord asks sirjames whether it was his submission that her majesty does enjoy a personal prerogative in relation to prorogation of parliament, and sir james relation to prorogation of parliament, and sirjames was very clear in his answer. he said, i am not making any such submission. and that answer, the court will recall, is consistent with what happened in this case. i showed the court in opening the radio interview with the
2:55 pm
president of the council, jacob rees mogg. i am not making any positive submission to that effect? —— you are not making? no, i am not making any submission. it is not part of his case. our argument as to the contrary, and i say it is entirely understandable why sir james contrary, and i say it is entirely understandable why sirjames did not make a positive submission that her majesty does enjoy a personal prerogative in relation to prorogation. and the reason, as there would respectfully submit, is that given an argument by lord sales. it would be profoundly unsatisfactory in a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law if the court were to conclude that there does not need to be any legal controls on this power, because any abuse can be addressed
2:56 pm
by her majesty. that would put her majesty in a quite impossible position. remedy. the remedy we seek from the court is a declaration that the prime minister'sadvice to her majesty was unlawful. and we would respectfully ask the court, if it is in our favour, to make such a declaration as soon as possible. no doubt, for reasons to follow. as soon as possible, because time is of the essence. we do not accept the argument, respectfully, advanced by my friend lord keane that article nine of the bill of rights immunise is the order in council —— matter
2:57 pm
immunise is the order in council or any action that was taken in reliance upon it. and that is because the order in council was based, if our submissions are correct, on unlawful advice. the order in council was not advice. the order in council was not a proceeding in parliament. it precedes the procedures in parliament. and therefore, if necessary, we would argue that the court is able to give further relief. however, we would expect, in the light of a declaration, that the prime minister will ensure that parliament resumes as soon as possible next week. and we consider
2:58 pm
that the appropriate way forward is for these matters, in the light of a declaration, to be addressed by the prime minister, the politicians, and by the parliamentary authorities. and we recognise that unless it is necessary to do so, this court will understandably be reluctant to grant further relief. the court, understandably, will be anxious not to take any steps that may be seen as trespassing on the exclusive rights of the houses of parliament to "determine the regularity of their own internal proceedings". i quote from lord simon in the pic in case. “— quote from lord simon in the pic in case. —— the pickin case. but every parliament needs to have,
2:59 pm
in your scenario, the opportunity to do that. it does. so it would need to meet as soon as possible in order to decide what it is going to do next. exactly so, my lady. and i want to emphasise, even though we are seeking only a declaration, it's an important declaration. we would ask the court if it is with us on the merits to give an indication if the court thinks it is appropriate, an indication of what the court expects now to happen, which is for parliament urgently to meet so that parliament urgently to meet so that parliament can decide what happens next. did parliament have power to determine that it had not been for road and then save all the bills that were to be lost or seem to be lost when the purported prorogation happens? in my submission, parliament would
3:00 pm
have power to do what it thinks appropriate in this most unusual situation, and were it to decide that by reason of the prorogation, having been based on unlawful advice, if the court is with us, from the prime minister to her majesty, that it would in the view of parliament be appropriate to treat the prorogation in parliamentary terms as null and void. then, that decision cannot be challenged in the court, because that decision would undoubtedly be a decision that was a decision concerning the regularity of their own internal proceedings. and i am submitting that the appropriate way forward in this unusual and difficult circumstance is to let
3:01 pm
parliament sorts out the problem. but it can only do so if, first, the court grants a declaration that the advice was unlawful, and if the court, with great respect, thinks it appropriate to do so, encourages the prime minister to ensure that parliament meets as soon as possible next week. does the prime minister have to do anything to ensure that parliament meet next week? well, it may be that the speaker of the house of commons and the lord speaker in the house of lords, if this court were to declare speedily that the advice was unlawful and that the advice was unlawful and that this court is not going to give any further remedy because it expects the matters will be dealt with in parliament, and the lord speaker and the speaker of the house of commons will take action to ensure that parliament reopens as soon as possible next week. it is a
3:02 pm
matter for them. and then, parliament and parliament will decide exactly how it wants to proceed. and in my submission, that is the appropriate way forward. i respectfully submit it is not for this court to become involved in those matters unless it really has to, lest the matter need to be looked at further. i quite understand that, but do i correctly understand you go with your submission that, if a declaration of unlawfulness in relation to the advice is given, it doesn't require an intervention by the prime minister. it is really a matter for parliament. that would be my submission. it would be a matter for the lord speaker of the house of commons to decide how best now to proceed. they would know in that contingency. they would know that
3:03 pm
this court, the supreme court, had ruled that the prime minister'sadvice, which led to the prorogation, was unlawful. they would know, if the court were prepared so to indicate, that the basis of that declaration was that the court took the view that the parliamentary scrutiny was required for legal reasons. and no doubt, politicians and others would be asking the speaker of the house of commons, and the lord speaker, to reassemble parliament, so parliament can decide as soon as possible next week how they think, how parliament thinks it is best to proceed. this court will have done itsjob, and it will then be back to parliament. all i could stand in the weight of that would be if the prime minister, and i very much hope that this is unrealistic, that the prime minister hears of a declaration, he is the
3:04 pm
vindication is from the court, and says, well, i vindication is from the court, and says, well, lam vindication is from the court, and says, well, i am simply not going to ta ke says, well, i am simply not going to take action. in the circumstances, we would submit, it would be open to the speaker each house to reassemble parliament if they so wish to. he doesn't have to take action. that is sufficient. iamjust sufficient. i am just wondering about the possibility that this might lead to a further constitutional clash? the implication of lord keene's submissions, as i understood them, is that even if this court were to declare that the advice were unlawful, parliament would nevertheless stand prorogued, because a prorogation, he submits, is none effective, and following that logic, parliament could not meet again unless a proclamation we re meet again unless a proclamation were to be made under the 1787 act, which would have been initiated by the prime minister.
3:05 pm
my answer to that is, if the court gave a declaration, and even if the court as i am suggesting, gave no further remedy, it would be implicit in that that what followed from the advice was effected by the illegality and lawful nature of the advice. it was thought appropriate by the speaker of the house of commons and the lord speaker, notwithstanding the prime minister, to reassemble, they could be no legal challenge to that. there could be no legal challenge to any decision that was made by parliament itself as to what to do next. that is my submission. i wonder whether people don't need to have a clearer view, whatever the outcome of these proceedings are, where everyone is left. if we uphold
3:06 pm
your appeal, isn't it going to be important not least because of the time constraints that it is very clear who is the person in law from home further steps are required? is that the prime minister, which it would be if parliament is prorogued, or is it the speakers which it would be if parliament was not prorogued? don't people need to know where they stand more clearly than where you are indicating? our concern is that time is passing and if this court is going to make a ruling on these questions, it will inevitably, we fear, take this court longer than if this court simply decides to declare illegality... make an assumption that whatever this court thinks the a nswer that whatever this court thinks the answer in the substance is to these proceedings, this court will produce
3:07 pm
an answer as soon as it humanly can. make that assumption. i am very grateful. i have made my submissions. it is self—evidently a matter for the court how it thinks it best appropriate to proceed. my submission is governed notjust by questions of time, it is also governed by the standard approach when we come to remedies, as my lord better than most knows, that the court only does what it needs to do and it doesn't do more than it needs to do, but i take your lordship's point. it may be helpful for the court to say as much as it can within a speedily as possible in relation to these matters. clarity is very important so everybody knows where they stand. i entirely take the point that my lord is making.
3:08 pm
where they stand. i entirely take the point that my lord is makingm the point that my lord is makingm the advice was unlawful, has there nevertheless been a valid prorogation? can we duck that?” nevertheless been a valid prorogation? can we duck that? i am not suggesting that the court ducks it, i not suggesting that the court ducks it, lam politely not suggesting that the court ducks it, i am politely suggesting to the courts that it does as much as it can come as quickly as it can if it is with us on the merits and the danger, the concern is that it takes the court a lot longer to resolve that question than simply to give a declaration and an indication and time is passing. we have already lost effectively two weeks of the five weeks. but your submission surely has to be that if the advice is lawful, unlawful, sorry, then any action taken upon it cannot be
3:09 pm
valid. it is my submission. although you are not asking us to go further, there is an order in the scottish proceedings to the effect that the prorogation is of no effect. and we are being asked by lord keane to recall that order. that is true but lam recall that order. that is true but i am anticipating this may be impertinent that the court is going to give an answer as soon as possible, as soon as humanly possible, as soon as humanly possible to use the word, but it is going to give a reasoned decision at a later stage. i assume the court is not going to produce it all in one go. make no assumptions whatsoever. i make no assumptions. we are asking the court to do whatever it thinks is appropriate in the circumstances. i have made my submissions. but i ta ke i have made my submissions. but i take my lord's, deputy president's point in relation to this.|j take my lord's, deputy president's point in relation to this. i may
3:10 pm
have misunderstood but when you talk about a declaration of unlawfulness, does that extend only to the advice also to the standing of the order in council? we have asked only for a declaration that the advice of the prime minister was unlawful, but as is put to me, it is an inevitable consequence of a conclusion to that effect that the order in council was also unlawful. if i be right that article nine can't protect it because it is not a proceeding in parliament. that is howl because it is not a proceeding in parliament. that is how i put it. because it is not a proceeding in parliament. that is how i put itm it possible there is a 2—stage solution? what you are suggesting is of course that might avoid another major constitutional question having to be resolved on this appeal, namely is that the court which has jurisdiction to give relief or is it to parliament's sole prerogative in relation to the conduct of its own
3:11 pm
proceedings? is it a 2—stage matter possibly that if the court were minded and i'm certainly not giving any indication to being in favour, thenit any indication to being in favour, then it could defer that question to see what happened or what? that was what i was submitting to the court when i started this submission or remedy, that the appropriate way forward may be for the court to give a declaration if it is in our favour of the merits, to give an indication of the merits, to give an indication of what it thinks not to happen over to parliament, but if necessary, the court would have to deal, inevitably had to deal with a thorny, further a new constitutional question of whether further relief is appropriate, but that may be unnecessary. it may be that in light ofa unnecessary. it may be that in light of a declaration and an indication of a declaration and an indication of this matter may be resolved in parliament. i'm sure mr o'neill would say he is asking us to uphold
3:12 pm
the interlock of the inner house. he is. i the interlock of the inner house. he is. lam the interlock of the inner house. he is. i am reminded, the interlock of the inner house. he is. lam reminded, i the interlock of the inner house. he is. lam reminded, lam gratefulto mr fordham of the note that the prime minister and the advocate general for scotland presented to the court this morning. paragraph 17 does say that the court may find it be unlawful for parliament to remain prorogued for any further. and advising the sovereign to bring forward the meeting of parliament, pursuant to the meeting of parliament act, the only option lawfully open to the prime minister. in that event, a declaration may be sufficient on the basis of the prime minister would comply with the terms of the judgment having that effect. asi of the judgment having that effect. as i understand it, if the court we re as i understand it, if the court were to indicate that is the only option lawfully open to the prime minister, then the meeting of parliament act provides the answer. but then all the bills would have fallen. yes, subject to parliament
3:13 pm
deciding that in these exceptional circumstances a different approach ought to be taken. we will have to decide what the answer is and we will have to decide in one way or another what the consequences of that answer are. indeed so, my lady. none of this is easy. i don't suggest it is and that may be why the suggestion by a lady when i was scrapping to open these submissions, may be the best way forward, taking this in stages but that is a matter entirely for the court. you are asking for a limited declaration with leave to apply? yes and if the court thought it appropriate, an indication of what the court hopes will happen next and if it doesn't happen, the court will need to grapple with the question of whether
3:14 pm
to grant further relief, which we hope will not be necessary. those are the submissions on behalf of mrs miller. unless i can seek to assist the court further? no. thank you. thank you to everyone who has been involved in the preparation and presentation of these cases. a great deal of work has gone on behind to ensure that the large number of documents, the party has written submissions, the relevant materials, the authorities could be made available to us in an organised form and ina available to us in an organised form and in a very short time. we appreciate that. we are also grateful to the council who have addressed us for their oral submissions. and for largely keeping to the timetable that the court had set. and we recognise the that this hearing has placed on the court
3:15 pm
staff and else involved. i must repeat that this case is not about when and on what terms the united kingdom leaves the european union. the result of this case not determine that. we are solely concerned with the lawfulness of the prime minister's decision to advise her majesty to prorogue parliament on the dates in question. as we have heard, it is not a simple question. and we will now consider carefully all the arguments which have been presented to us. but we also know this case must be resolved as quickly as possible and we hope to be able to publish our decision early next week. thank you again one and all. the court is now adjourned. there we are, that is the end of these three days of hearings. a
3:16 pm
really extraordinary case here at the supreme court in central london where the legal drama has been around whether or not the prime minister, borisjohnson, around whether or not the prime minister, boris johnson, was around whether or not the prime minister, borisjohnson, was lawful or unlawful when he gave advice to the queen to prorate or suspend parliament for five weeks. and lady hale just there, the parliament for five weeks. and lady halejust there, the president parliament for five weeks. and lady hale just there, the president of the 11 supreme court justices hale just there, the president of the 11 supreme courtjustices saying this is not going to be a simple question, none of this is easy, she said, but she said there should be a judgment early next week, so we don't know whether that will be monday, tuesday, but that is the implication about when we will get that criticaljudgment implication about when we will get that critical judgment and implication about when we will get that criticaljudgment and then you just heard the debate between the judges and load panic representing the business woman gina miller about if they do say this was unlawful by the prime minister, then what follows ? the prime minister, then what follows? does the prime minister then have two act or is itjust for
3:17 pm
then have two act or is itjust for the speaker of the house of lords and speaker of the house of commons to recall parliament effectively? all of these questions are to be answered. let's get immediate reaction now because we are seeing people leaving the supreme court now. we may get hopefully a word with one or two of the protagonists in this dramatic case. with so many legal constitutional, political implications but while we wait to see who emerges from the accord, let's get thoughts from a barrister, legal commentator who has been watching throughout. and doctorjoel morgan from middlesex university. jeremy, what strikes you about what we have heard from the government side, gina miller's side in this argument, summing up really the whole argument about this case. argument, summing up really the whole argument about this casem is the conclusion of an extraordinary three days of legal analysis at the supreme court. we have just heard from lord
3:18 pm
analysis at the supreme court. we havejust heard from lord panic, really closing for gina miller and he brought this back to basics in that brilliant, come way he has. he said to the court, there has been a lord about justice ability. said to the court, there has been a lord aboutjustice ability. that is this idea that it is a note go area for the court because it is politics but what david panic was saying, this is the sort of exercise you perform on a regularjudicial review. you look at it in the round, you look at the reasons given. you look at what the effect was. if the effect was to undermine parliamentary sovereignty and for the rug from under parliament's feed, you can get involved. he was very clear on that and closing and try to make it simple for them. lord keane, for the government, he was clear in what he said. he said to the 11 supreme court justices, clear in what he said. he said to the 11 supreme courtjustices, this is forbidden territory, this is a
3:19 pm
mindful, don't go into it. exactly. it is important to remember about everything we have heard is this is bothjudges picking everything we have heard is this is both judges picking up everything we have heard is this is bothjudges picking up the important issues. let's pause and listen to joanna cherry from the scottish national party. who have brought the case that was successful in the court of session in edinburgh that borisjohnson was unlawful in suspending parliament. the supreme court has said it is going to hand down a judgment early next week. we are very encouraged by the lengthy discussion that took place at the end of the hearing about the form of remedy that the court would grant in the event it was inclined to find in our favour. we are very happy with how the hearing has gone. we are grateful to the hard work of our legal teams. we hope that democracy in the united kingdom will be
3:20 pm
restored. it is really important to understand that the court this afternoon have emphasised that this case is not about when and on what terms the united kingdom will leave the european union if indeed it does. it is about whether or not it was lawful for boris johnson to suspend parliamentary democracy for five weeks and like jolly, i am very encouraged by the lengthy discussion this afternoon about the type of remedy the court should pronounce. asi remedy the court should pronounce. as i said at the beginning, i remain of the view that i am cautiously optimistic that the united kingdom supreme court will follow the judgment of scotland's supreme court and find that borisjohnson's judgment of scotland's supreme court and find that boris johnson's action was unlawful. can i make one last statement. all of us, whatever side of the brexit divide we are on, should be worried about a world in which a prime minister can suspend
3:21 pm
parliament as an inconvenience. those who support borisjohnson's actions at the moment should be asking themselves the question, how they would feel about a future labour prime minister, perhaps jeremy corbyn, who did not any longer want to be subject to the constraints that parliament might place upon his actions? how would they feel about this? this is not an issue about brexit, this is an issue about who holds power in this country, is it parliament elected by the people or is it a leader elected bya the people or is it a leader elected by a tiny number of members, self—selecting members, of a particular party? it is important to reiterate what scotland supreme court said when lord drummond young said it is not the job of the judiciary to politically scrutinise the government. it is the job of parliament and mps like myself to politically scrutinise the government. but when the government suspends parliament and prevents
3:22 pm
parliament from doing itsjob, then it is possible for the judges to step in. the judges in scotland who are willing to step in and i am cautiously optimistic the judges in the uk supreme court will do likewise. can i ask you, lord keane for the government said this is forbidden territory. it is a minefield to thejudges forbidden territory. it is a minefield to the judges should not go into. the scottish court has already addressed why that is not the case and lord pannick, qc for gina millerand ourown the case and lord pannick, qc for gina miller and our own legal team have invited the supreme court to follow the persuasive reasoning of the supreme court of scotland that this is a matter of legality, a matter of upholding democracy and a matter of upholding democracy and a matter of upholding the rule of law. cani matter of upholding the rule of law. can i add this point. it is difficult for me to understand how we can be said to be politicalfor the supreme court to stop the prime
3:23 pm
minister suspending parliament but not political for the supreme court to allow the prime minister to suspend parliament. what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. plainly there are political consequences which ever way the court decides but what is at stake here is the fundamental principle, absolutely central to our constitutional make up and that principle is the supremacy of a parliament that is elected by the people. there is a suggestion even if the court says this is unlawful that the prime minister mightjust prorogue parliament again. that was said earlier this week and richard keen did not deny that that was the case and i think that is why there has been such an anxious and lengthy discussion this afternoon about the sort of remedy the uk supreme court should pronounce if they find for the case i am leading in and for gina miller. what would you like to see happen if thejudges here say this was unlawful, what should
3:24 pm
follow? i would like the court to make as clear a statement as possible as to what should follow. ina possible as to what should follow. in a normal, functional democracy, one would expect the prime minister to obey what the supreme court says but we are not currently in a normal functional democracy. we are in a democracy in' sway prime minister with no majority has suspended parliament because it was getting in his way so i would hope the uk supreme court will be as clear as they possibly can be about the consequences of their decision should they find in our favour. parliament should come back as soon as possible and if the prorogation has been ruled to be unlawful by this court, if then the prorogation will have been avoided and we should go back to the position we were in a week past monday when parliament was prorogued. all the committee should
3:25 pm
be back up and running, all the bills should be back before the house, or the question session should be back up and running and mps should be able to bring urgent questions and debates as they did before. parliament should go back to its normaljob in a normal, functioning democracy of holding the government to account. that is what my constituents elected me to do, thatis my constituents elected me to do, that is what they elected my colleagues to do and no amount of booing and shouting is going to prevent us from doing that. we are in the hands of the supreme court now and we had to find out what ruling they make, but that is why i am so hopeful that their ruling will be as clear as possible about the consequences of their ruling so that there can be no room for manoeuvre and no room for any more dirty tricks from boris johnson. there is a period of five days prescribed by the northern ireland executive
3:26 pm
formation act that begins if i recall correctly on the 14th of october during which parliament will sit come what may. and those five days might well be used by parliament to enact emergency legislation to remove from an autocratic prime minister the right to treat parliament as a mere inconvenience that he can set aside when politically expedient for him so to do. i very much hope parliament will use those valuable five days to deliver that in result. one further point. the prime minister has been very clear he wa nts minister has been very clear he wants us to leave with a deal. under the terms of the 2018 withdrawal acts, there is an awful lot to do that will take a substantial period of time that work must begin immediately otherwise we will, whatever the prime minister wishes, leave without a deal on the 31st.
3:27 pm
there we are. that isjoanna cherry, the scottish national party mp, two of the people who brought the case that was successful in the court of session in edinburgh, saying that borisjohnson had behaved unlawfully when he advised the queen to suspend parliament. you had the two of them they're being booed and jeered by pro—brexit demonstrators outside the supreme court, but we are waiting until the early next week for the 11 supreme court justices until the early next week for the 11 supreme courtjustices to give us their ruling. let's consider what has just been their ruling. let's consider what hasjust been said their ruling. let's consider what has just been said with my guest here again, jeremy breyer and doctor joel grogan. just while we wait to
3:28 pm
talk to you, there is gina miller, the business will am central to this case. “— the business will am central to this case. —— business woman. not making any comments and getting chairs from some of the demonstrators here, pro remained demonstrators outside the supreme court, and the pro—brexit demonstrators cheering and booing her and that is the kind of mixed reception she has had for the three days of this case. gina miller instrumental in the article 50 case here at the supreme court after the referendum. let's go to our guests. jeremy, what have you made about what we heard there on the steps of the court from joanna cherry?m what we heard there on the steps of the court from joanna cherry? it is an extraordinary atmosphere here. what was important to them i think was the supreme court, if they find in theirfavour, are was the supreme court, if they find in their favour, are as clear as possible about what they say should happen. i think they are worried
3:29 pm
that if the supreme court find it unlawful and don't go any further that the prime minister could just go back to parliament and read prorogue and just simply suspend parliament again. what they are calling for is for the court to be clear in terms of what it says should happen next. if they are absolutely clear, lord keane had been saying earlier on, be careful, to thejudges. you been saying earlier on, be careful, to the judges. you are entering a mine field, you are entering forbidden territory. how difficult would it be for those 11 supreme court justices? lady hale would it be for those 11 supreme courtjustices? lady hale saying none of this is easy. we began and now we end on the same point. it is for the supreme court to decide the most challenging issues of law. this is the most challenging political and legal issue. the crash of politics and law questions at the co re politics and law questions at the core of our constitution but to echo, the very challenging point coming up is if it is found unlawful
3:30 pm
and that is, we don't know what will happen, if it is found unlawful, what next? there was a very important exchange during the case today in which the government lawyers were caught on to take an undertaking, a promise to the court that they would follow whatever direction the court gave and in a telling sentence, lord keane said, it is not for the government to give undertakings to obey the law, the executive obeys the law. we are seeing all the lawyers coming out now with piles of documents. lots of boxes of documents. what happens now with the 11 judges? give us an idea. have they made up their minds or are they like a jury who will now sit in a room and hammer out what they think? it is possible to work out that some of the justices have probably made up their mind. they might not have worked out their reasons, some of the questions may be seen as trying to thrash out uncertainties in their minds but
3:31 pm
some of them have worked out which way they are going. i don't think all of them have. what is interesting is we don't get a unanimous verdict and we don't need a unanimous verdict. this could split 6—5, 7—4. what we might get is one summary judgment from the split 6—5, 7—4. what we might get is one summaryjudgment from the media and for the public to consume as soon as possible and then a more detailed judgment or series of judgments later. i'll heard lady help thing she would act as quickly as humanly possible to get the judgment out. the supreme court justices will do this very fast, i am sure we have high will have a judgment at the latest next week. taking the weekend, may be longer to think this through. but they do have different positions which we almost know about in terms of whether they regard in the first place this court as an appropriate place to decide a matter of this constitutional importance. exactly. we come back to the same three issues. first, is
3:32 pm
there such a political issue that you should never be considered by the courts. are there any legal standards, can we look at anywhere in history that tells us how to assess whether or not this advice was lawful? third, this will be the difficult thing, where there is silence, for example the lack of witness statements on behalf of the government, can we infer improper motive, can we see a bad choice to make bad advice? thank you. let's remind you of the closing submissions really which is what they were effectively from the two sides of the argument. it was like a classic courtroom drama with at the end you hear the barristers from both sides putting their case not to ajury both sides putting their case not to a jury but to the 11 supreme court justices, but hoping their points are going to be taken on board and we heard from lord keane qc representing the government who said trying to determine the motivations of politicians is as we have been
3:33 pm
saying, a minefield for the court and something the supreme court judges are simply not equipped to do. how in the context of that political minefield is the court to opine on the issue of purpose or improper purpose or legitimate political purpose or a legitimate political purpose or a legitimate political purpose? how are these concepts political purpose? how are these co nce pts to political purpose? how are these concepts to be defined and applied in this context? in my respectful submission, the applicants and the petitioners are inviting the courts into forbidden territory and into what is essentially a minefield. an ill—defined minefield. but the courts are not, with the greatest of respect, properly equipped to deal with. that was not keen for the
3:34 pm
government. then we have the submission from lord panic representing gina miller who we have seen leaving the court. he said the length of time of the suspension of parliament, this prorogation, which have an adverse effect on parliament's have an adverse effect on pa rliament‘s ability to have an adverse effect on parliament's ability to perform its essential functions of scrutiny. this five week prorogation has prevented parliament from carrying out its scrutiny functions over the executive for a period of exceptional length, longer than any prorogation in the past 40 years, for no rational reason and at a time when the constitutional principle of the executive being answerable to parliament is of vital importance. that is lord pannick for gina miller. let's talk to our legal
3:35 pm
correspondent who has been with us here for the last three days. fascinating, absorbing courtroom drama essentially in the supreme court. some up for us what it will means. it is such a grey area that thesejudges are now means. it is such a grey area that these judges are now venturing into as they consider theirjudgment. this case has stress tested to the very limit our unwritten constitution. if we had a written constitution. if we had a written constitution that said two weeks probing is fine but five weeks isn't, we wouldn't be here and it has shown the tectonic plates of the constitution grinding up against each other because really the government's argument is, you, the judges, cannot intervene. prorogue is the exclusive territory of the executive and parliament and there is no role, there are no manageable orjudicial standards against is no role, there are no manageable or judicial standards against which you canjudge or judicial standards against which you can judge the or judicial standards against which you canjudge the prorogue in parliament. on the one side. on the other side, the executive can't use
3:36 pm
pro broking to escape scrutiny. it isa pro broking to escape scrutiny. it is a straight battle between those two notions of our constitution, those two ideas but it is a fascinating example of judicial review because ultimately when we have these clashes, these crunches, they come to the courts and it is an independent judges, they come to the courts and it is an independentjudges, we have a relatively small independent judiciary, they don't have a big civil service, some would say they punch above their weight but when it comes down to it, we trust 11 people in theirto comes down to it, we trust 11 people in their to determine whether the highest, the mighty is in the land, whether the minister, the prime minister has acted wilfully or not. but we are in fascinating territory because if they do declared the prime minister has acted unlawfully, we had to look at the nature of that declaration to see where things go from there. whether it is a case of mps filing back in at the invitation of the speaker, whether it has to be
3:37 pm
activated by the government. we have seen three days of really intense legal argument, more dramatic than we would normally have seen in a supreme court case, often feels like an academic seven. this has been shot through with real drama, a lot of advocacy, almost oratory in cases. high emotions and crowds chanting one way or another. it shows how is our politics is somewhat unravelled, people have become extremely emotive on both sides of the argument. this is the legal argument, it has focused a national debate and the crown say have come to watch, to cheer, to blue and we will all know monday or tuesday what the result is. it is a really difficult task. an invidious task for thesejudges but really difficult task. an invidious task for these judges but we pay them to do it.
3:38 pm
thank you very much. they said none of this is easy. that might be an understatement. the supreme court justices going off now, then, to consider their judgment, justices going off now, then, to consider theirjudgment, which they will take a few days over, and as lady hale was saying, they will do everything they humanly can to bring it as soon as possible. we expected to be next week. that is the from the old bailey, news that charges have been dropped against one of four defendants charged with the murder of pc andrew harper, which happened in berkshire last month. jed foster, who is 20, was charged on the 19th of august and has been in custody since, charged with the murder of pc andrew harper, who we are showing you now. prosecutors told mrs justice are showing you now. prosecutors told mrsjustice whipple at the old bailey that a full file of evidence had now been gathered and there was no realistic prospect of conviction, and proceedings against mr foster should not and cannot continue. jed
3:39 pm
foster was being released from prison. this comes as three teenagers appeared in court charged with the murder of andrew harper. henry long, who is 18 from reading, and 217—year—old boys who cannot be named for legal reasons, have appeared in court, along with thomas king, who is also accused of conspiracy to steal a quad bike. —— two space—bar17—year—old boys. you may remember that pc harper had only married several weeks before his murder, when he was dragged under a van while responding to reports of a burglary. tom symons is our correspondent at the old bailey, and we will talk to him about this development later. you are watching afternoon life. —— afternoon live. comments made by david cameron on the queen's intervention in the scottish independence referendum campaign have caused "an amount of displeasure" at buckingham palace, a source has told the bbc.
3:40 pm
speaking on a two—part series on his six years as prime minister, mr cameron said he turned to buckingham palace for support when a newspaper opinion poll backed independence for the first time. the queen later urged people to "think carefully about the future". buckingham palace has made no official statement on mr cameron's remarks. our political correspondent helen catt reports. it was a referendum david cameron won. in 2014, scotland rejected independence but the former prime minister wasn't always confident it would be victory he was staring in the face, and he's now revealed that when the no campaign started trailing in the polls he turned to the queen for help. i remember conversations i had with my private secretary and i had with the queen's private secretary, not asking for anything that would be in any way improper or unconstitutional, butjust a raising of the eyebrow, even a quarter of an inch, would make a difference. shortly afterwards, the queen told well—wishers in aberdeenshire
3:41 pm
she hoped people would think very carefully about the future, a comment widely reported and taken to show concern for the union. at the scottish parliament this morning, the first minister addressed the admission. i think the revelations, if i can call them that, from david cameron today say more about him than they do anybody else. and really demonstrate, i think, the panic that was in the heart of the uk government in the run—up to the independence referendum five years ago. the palace has not commented on david cameron's remarks, but a source there has told the bbc there is "an amount of displeasure". by convention, the queen is kept out of politics and conversations with her private, but david cameron does have form. speaking after the same referendum in 2014, he was overheard saying the queen had purred down the line when he spoke to her about the result. he said that was a mistake
3:42 pm
for which he had apologised, and said perhaps he'd already said too much. perhaps borisjohnson might have appreciated him saying a bit less, specifically when speaking about his motivations during the referendum campaign. in the end, ultimately, i think he put what was good for his political career ahead of what he actually thought was right for the country. not a charge mr cameron would accept about himself. he maintains his decision to hold the eu referendum was the correct thing to do but some of his former colleagues disagree. we started a series of meetings about whether to offer a referendum on europe, and i was against because i thought it would split the conservative party and put business offside, having done so much work to get them on side, and fundamentally we might lose the referendum. if he follows convention,
3:43 pm
interventions like this are likely to be reasonably rare from david cameron but what he said this week may have already added more upheaval in turbulent times. so this lunchtime, it emerged from a source that there has been an amount of displeasure at the comments from david cameron. mr cameron was speaking tojeremy vine on bbc radio 2, who asked him what he made of the palace's response. we have just been told that your remarks on the queen and the scottish vote have led to an amount of displeasure at the palace. so you're not having a good week here. well, look, itried in the book to give an honest explanation of the things that i did and the things that i said. i certainly didn't ask for anything improper to happen. i was trying to explain the frustrations there were when you had one side in the referendum saying, "we are going to have a queen of an independent scotland and everybody is fine and dandy with that," and that was a frustration, so i tried to set that out in the book.
3:44 pm
so i tried... but you put her up to something and that's not how... i certainly didn't do that. you asked her to raise an eyebrow? i didn't ask for anything improper. you asked via channels, you made it clear you wanted her to play a role in the referendum and now you've said that, there are people like alex salmond, a scottish nationalist... of course alex salmond would say that... ..he sees the queen as being in the other corner. he wants to break up the united kingdom. but you have compromised her, haven't you? you can ask the question a million other ways, i'm not going to say any more about it. all right. our royal correspondent jonny dymond is with me now. now, it's you the palace was speaking to when they use those words. i think it needs someone who does not deal with buckingham palace normally to understand the understatement and the use of language and what is really being said here. fair enough. ithink language and what is really being said here. fair enough. i think the fa ct said here. fair enough. i think the fact that someone at the palace wa nted fact that someone at the palace wanted to say there was this amount of displeasure is an indication that when the queen was asked to raise an
3:45 pm
eyebrow, she... she raised more than that, i suspect! i think eyebrow, she... she raised more than that, i suspect! ithink those eyebrows shot up, and things were hurled across the room, i expect! wasn't that bad?! i think the palace is clearly pretty upset. when you say the palace is clearly pretty upset, what does that say about what the queen thinks of this? because thatis the queen thinks of this? because that is at the heart of this. well, the queen has been a very small see conservative monarch. the way she has done everything is to stay out of domestic politics. —— small—c conservative. she has spoken about the union of great britain and northern ireland before, make clear that that has been precious to her. she has stayed out of the hint of any other aspect of domestic politics. and here she is, being revealed to have been very involved ina revealed to have been very involved in a critical political situation. now, it may be that she was going to get involved anyway, but the fact is that when mr cameron says i asked, it looks to a lot of people as if
3:46 pm
she was used as a political tool. and that is the last thing she or her advisers or the people in the court want people to think about the queen. what she did say after that was that people should think carefully about the future. we have no idea if that was as a result of what david cameron said or not. no. but that is what is going to annoy the palace, that we are going to ra ke the palace, that we are going to rake all over this again. yes, it is raking over this all again, it is asking questions about a role that nearly all the time she has been on the throne, no one has asked questions about, because she has been so conservative, because she has kept out of the business. but it is not just here, has kept out of the business. but it is notjust here, but every monarch. because the discussions between the prime minister and the monarch are supposed to remain private. notjust the discussions, but the relationship as well. you know, it may be david cameron didn't ask the queen directly. he talked about conversations with the private
3:47 pm
secretary, her most senior adviser. all of that is supposed to be confidential. and he hasjust trampled on it. he hasjust sort of thrown convention to the wind, you get the pretty strong impression he knows it as well, because he is saying, oh, i have probably said too much. he has got that right, hasn't he?! he may well have got that right! the whole system has run on unknowns, and grey areas, and not asking too many questions about the role, and now, people are going, well, what is the role? very quickly, and on a scale of 1—10, when the phrase are something like causes displeasure, if one is very angry and ten is very happy...” would give you a good seven. ok, john, thank you very much. that's get more in the developing story, the case of the 20—year—old man who was accused of murdering pc andrew harbour which has been dropped. —— andrew harper. tom, at the old bailey, bring us up—to—date. simon, you will remember that pc andrew harper was killed after he
3:48 pm
responded to a report in berkshire last month of a vehicle being stolen. he was hit by a car and dragged along the road a considerable distance, and he died of his injuries. he was 28 years old, and it was a great shock to everybody, including his family, clearly, and also the wider police community. well, four people were charged with his murder, but today ata charged with his murder, but today at a hearing here at the old bailey, we have heard that one of those, a 20—year—old, jed foster, has been told that the charges against him are being dropped. now, the prosecutor in the case told the judge, mrsjustice whipple, that the police had now gathered a full file of evidence in the case, having already decided to charge him, and the crown prosecution service made that decision. the full file of evidence suggested that there was insufficient evidence to continue with the charges. in fact, he said these proceedings cannot and should not continue or stop there was no realistic prospect of mr foster
3:49 pm
being convicted. he is being released from prison. that leaves three defendants. the first is henry long, who is 18, and two 17—year—old boys, who we cannot name for legal reasons. they all face charges of conspiracy to steal a quad bike. another man also faces charges in connection with the theft. we heard that the trial in this case is due to ta ke that the trial in this case is due to take place next march. tom simon is at the old bailey, thank you very much. this alice is here with the business news in just a moment. first, our headlines. buckingham palace suggests there is an amount of displeasure at david cameron's revelation that he sought the queen's help during the vote on scottish independence. on the final day of the supreme court hearing into whether boris johnson acted lawfully in suspending parliament, the government's top man in scotland reiterates that prorogation is a political rather than a legal issue.
3:50 pm
a man accused of the murder of pc andrew harper has had the charges against him dropped. hello there. we are back again. this is your business update on afternoon live. the bank of and has left uk interest rates on hold at 0.75%. —— the bank of england. all nine policymakers we re of england. all nine policymakers were unanimous in the decision, and signalled that prolonged practice uncertainty would keep interest rates lower for longer. they have said the uk would avoid falling into recession this year, but warned that brexit and trade worries were weighing on the economy. retail sales fell in august, according to the office for national
3:51 pm
statistics. british shoppers brought fewer goods than in july, statistics. british shoppers brought fewer goods than injuly, defying expectations of zero growth, in a worrying sign for the uk economy. and the uk high street giant next has published strong results for the first six months of the year. sales we re first six months of the year. sales were up 4.3% and pre—tax profits we re were up 4.3% and pre—tax profits were also up 2.7%, but the boss warned about the growing trouble of high—street rental costs, which could lead to store closures. let's talk about burger king. from today, no longer giving away plastic toys with its children's meals? yes, and this is something the chain has been doing since the 1990s. i remember getting plastic toys and those children's boxes. where are they now? where are they now? where are they now? where are they?! probably on my mum's attic! it is an extraordinary story, this one. burger king is a massive business, and this young pairof massive business, and this young pair of sisters, eller, aged nine,
3:52 pm
and caitlin, aged seven, got together this petition and got over 500,000 people together to sign up, asking the chain to get rid of plastics and their kids' meals. they sent this through, and today, burger king have taken away all plastics from their kids meals. this comes amid a growing wave of concern from the public, towards fast food chains and other businesses, to reduce their plastic count. we have actually got the boss of burger king on the line, alistair murdoch, chief executive of burger king uk. many thanks forjoining us on the line. so, how soon after receiving this petition from nine—year—old ella and seven—year—old caitlin decide burger king would get rid of plastic toys kids meals? is this something the company has been thinking of doing for a while now? yes, it is fair to say we have been thinking about this alongside other parts in our sustainability strategy for about 18 months, but it would be fairto for about 18 months, but it would be fair to say that ella and caitlin certainly hurried us up.
3:53 pm
yes, what a fantastic achievement for such young girls. you are also going to provide plastic recycling bins in your restaurants as well, encouraging families to bring in old toys that they might have in their mums' attics, to be melted down, because of course, plastic toys cannot be recycled at home alongside other household plastics, can they? that's right. what we are actually doing is working with another company called pentatonic, and they ultimately provide the expertise. they will help us do this. it is a five stage process, whereby ultimately, all these toys will be sorted and graded by hand, and ultimately, we will recycle those toys that are handed back in, or certainly be parts of those toys that can be recycled. they will become play areas and trays in our restau ra nts become play areas and trays in our restaurants again. where you surprise that one of your major competitors, mcdonald's, has
3:54 pm
not decided to follow suit? —— were you surprised? we try to focus on what we are doing, as opposed to necessarily what the competition is doing. i think they made some announcement today that they will look to follow some of the work we are doing on this as well. so i'm sure they have got some admirable practices too. today has been a big brexit day, with the supreme court hearing, with the bank of england citing no deal uncertainty is a big concern for the economy generally. what would burger king like to see with regard to brexit in the coming days and weeks? i think we have had quite a long time to prepare for brexit, what with what happened in march as well, so from a sourcing point of view, what we have managed to do in the last two or three years is make sure that over 80% of our products have actually been sourced within the uk, so that gives us some confidence of that. but i think what we are all looking for is business leaders and businesses, we are looking for certainty, and when that certainty comes in in whateverform
3:55 pm
certainty, and when that certainty comes in in whatever form that ta kes, comes in in whatever form that takes, that will drive more consumer confidence, and then, as you are just reporting yourselves, that will get people back out on the streets shopping again. many thanks for joining shopping again. many thanks forjoining us, chief executive of burger king uk, alasdair murdoch. thank you. are we done? i'm not sure if we will have a quick look at the markets today. possibly not. but i can tell you they are rather muted in reaction to that bank of england decision. widely expected, rates left unchanged. thank you, alice. let's have a look at the weather, with helen. hello. it still looks as though we have some rain on the way later in the weekend and next week, but in the weekend and next week, but in the meantime, we enjoy some late summer sunshine. this is a stunning view down the conway estuary in north wales. slightly more fair weather cloud further north in keswick in cumbria, but either way, for many, it is fine and sunny. the satellite picture shows far more
3:56 pm
sunshine today compared with yesterday across scotland, northern ireland, and northern england, and temperatures have responded. the low 20s, for many parts on land away from the coast. through the night, of course, under the starry skies at this time of year, with the lengthening nights, temperatures willdip lengthening nights, temperatures will dip away very, very quickly indeed, and it will be another chilly night. not as cold as recent nights, but starting to pull in more ofa nights, but starting to pull in more of a south easterly breeze. still notable, and still enough for some fog issues. southern scotland, we think, north—eastern england, eastern england as well. probably more prevalent than they were this morning. so they will still be around for the rush hour before they clear, and then again, it is dry with plenty of sunshine. and warmer, and we could see 23 or even 24 across parts of the more fort area towards inverness, across the western highlands, and certainly into the low 20s for northern ireland, and 21—22 for sheltered parts of england and wales as we pick up that south and south easterly wind. so things are getting, if you like, a little warmer still as we pick up that air
3:57 pm
off europe. it means, of course, we will pick up a brisk wind as well, so that will just temper the field along the south and east coast, but overnight, you can see temperatures aren't quite as low as we go into saturday morning. because of the win, they won't be as many fog patches either, but this is the warm where we are tapping into, that is pushing its way towards the shore. the warmest weather, the highest temperatures, likely to be in eastern areas on saturday. this is potentially the fly in the ointment to spoil things a little. thundery showers digging in and the west, and that gusty wind tempering the feel of the day. again, 22—24 inland in shelter. but a very different second pa rt shelter. but a very different second part of our weekend, because now, it looks as though that band of showery rain or bands of showery rain will stagger their way eastwards, so it could be that northern england and scotla nd could be that northern england and scotland don't see much rain till very late in the day, then it brightens up later. so not as warm as you can see. but there is still a little question mark over sunday.
3:58 pm
3:59 pm
4:00 pm
hello, you're watching afternoon live — i'm simon mccoy. today at 4... the supreme court finishes its hearing into whether borisjohnson's decision to suspend parliament was lawful. a decision is expected early next week. a buckingham palace source has suggested there's "an amount of displeasure" at david cameron's revelation that he sought the queen's help during the vote on scottish independence. not asking for anything that would be in any way improper or unconstitutional butjust... be in any way improper or unconstitutional but just. .. of be in any way improper or unconstitutional butjust... of the eyebrow. prosecutors drop a murder charge against 20—year—old jed foster who was accused of murdering pc andrew harper. three other teenagers appear at the old bailey on murder charges. coming up on afternoon live all the sport — olly foster. hello, there is a 32 week ban for
4:01 pm
the former england forward peter beardsley, the fa have found him guilty of using racist language in a coaching role at newcastle. all the details coming up. thanks olly, and we'll bejoining you for a full update just after half—past. helen willetts has all the weather. more late summer sunshine coming up but we need the rain and it looks like we are due a change to more u nsettled like we are due a change to more unsettled conditions later in the weekend. thanks helen. also coming up, why burger king is ditching free plastic toys which usually come with children's meals. news nationwide will have more in half an hour. hello, everyone, this is afternoon live, i'm simon mccoy. the supreme court has finished its hearing into whether borisjohnson's decision to suspend parliament was lawful. the judges have said they hope to publish their ruling next week. summing up his case
4:02 pm
against the government, lord pannick said the suspension should be lifted as soon as possible but the government's senior advocate in scotland, lord keen, said the courts should not be dragged into politics. let's go to ben brown who is at the supreme court. we have had three days of engrossing and enthralling hearings and submissions here at the supreme court, the highest court in the land where 11 court, the highest court in the land where11 supreme court justices court, the highest court in the land where11 supreme courtjustices have to decide whether or not the prime minister, borisjohnson, to decide whether or not the prime minister, boris johnson, broke to decide whether or not the prime minister, borisjohnson, broke the law and acted unlawfully when he advised the queen to suspend parliament, prorogue parliament for five weeks. they have gone off to consider theirjudgment five weeks. they have gone off to consider their judgment and we should get it early next week. lady hale, the president of the 11 justices, said none of this is easy, we will do this work as soon as we humanly can. in other words, reach
4:03 pm
theirjudgment. it humanly can. in other words, reach their judgment. it was humanly can. in other words, reach theirjudgment. it was interesting as we had the closing submissions from both sides of the argument. lord pannick said that effectively borisjohnson, the lord pannick said that effectively boris johnson, the prime lord pannick said that effectively borisjohnson, the prime minister, bytes are spending parliament, advising the queen to do so, had stopped parliament from scrutinising the government. but lord keem, representing the government, in his closing remarks said the 11 supreme courtjudges must not go into this political minefield and must not stray into forbidden territory. let's get this report from our correspondent, richard lister. it seemed at times like an item and without end but those who gathered outside the supreme court today intent on either stopping a coup or stopping the eu knew that the argument inside at least would end today. but not before one from conservative prime minister at the opportunity to offer a damning assessment of the action is a boris
4:04 pm
johnson in suspending parliament. his lawyer said it was inescapable that the real reason was to avoid scrutiny of brexit and the government had not told reasons set out in the documents put before the court by the prime minister cannot be true and complete reasons for the decision. he said suspending parliament was motivated by mr johnson's political interests. the court also heard from raymond mccord, who warned that brexit could threaten the good friday peace agreement. in many ways, mr mccord speaks for the silent majority in northern ireland. who want a peaceful, prosperous future. which can really only be based on the good friday agreement, and that delicate constitutional settlement which has been achieved. the lawyer for mr mccord outlined ways in which brexit could affect northern ireland. the
4:05 pm
justices intervened repeatedly, saying that was not what they were there for. so many people are listening to you, and they will hear these points, these general points about brexit and its effect on northern ireland, and it may come to entirely the wrong conclusion, namely that this is what we are looking at. now, don't abuse our politeness, and don't abuse lady hale's patients. this is the issue at hand, whether borisjohnson asked the queen to suspend parliament to stop mps scrutinising his brexit process. the length of the prorogation was motivated, or at least strongly influenced, by the prime minister's wish to prevent scrutiny by parliament because he regarded parliament as a threat to the successful implementation of his policies. it does not prevent accountability beyond parliament. again, the executive will be questioned and held to account
4:06 pm
whether by the public, the media or indeed during the party political co nfe re nce indeed during the party political conference season, each of those conferences no doubt. courts in scotla nd conferences no doubt. courts in scotland and england came to different conclusions about whether the suspension of parliament was lawful. the supreme court must now decide which of them was right. richard lister, bbc news. we can get the latest now from our correspondent, dominic casciani. it was fascinating, the closing moments come when some of the supreme court justices were asking questions really about, if they say the prime minister has acted unlawfully, what follows ? minister has acted unlawfully, what follows? what happens to parliament? we see this sometimes happen in judicial review cases, where a minister is effectively on the rack and there has to be some kind of guidance from the courts about what to do but i don't think we have seen it quite like this because effectively we have huge existential
4:07 pm
problem, stepping into the unknown about the supreme court park traditional role in telling either at the executive or parliament what to do. what it looks like it's coming down to is effectively three options. aidan o'neill, who drove the scottish keys to success in edinburgh, says he wants the equivalent of what would be a quashing order, basically the prorogation it never happened so parliament could sweep right back in a zip boris johnson parliament could sweep right back in a zip borisjohnson did not advise the queen in the first place. the government came back in a complicated paper today and in submissions suggested that we don't wa nt to submissions suggested that we don't want to see that happen and what we wa nt want to see that happen and what we want is effectively a declaration, a declaration of unlawfulness. but that allows the executive, the prime minister, to work out how he should remedy the situation and they are saying that is a proper balance between the legal and political power lord pannick to see for gina
4:08 pm
miller in the final closing submissions opened up a real debate over this because he said, fine, give a declaration of unlawfulness but that then potentially means it is nothing to do with the prime minister and he is out of the picture, he has broken the law so forget about him. leave it to the speakers at the commons and the lords to sort it out. that is a very clever move, i reckon because what it suggests to the judges is that it allows them room to come to a legal decision over this case, whether the prime minister acted legally or not, but leaves the politics of what happens next to parliament itself andi happens next to parliament itself and i think this will become a crucial factor and i think this will become a crucialfactor in their and i think this will become a crucial factor in their thinking. obvious the i'm speculating but i think it is a crucial part. and all of that assumes the hypothesis that they find the prime minister has acted unlawfully, and a warning to them from the government side, that if they do that, they are going into forbidden territory, a political
4:09 pm
minefield. that is going to be a big decision for these 11 supreme court justices. what is interesting about that, while that was lord keen's quite clear warning to the court, that this was not for them but it was about executive power, time and again over the years, we have seen the courts inched towards taking some of that power or clarifying some of that power or clarifying some of that power or clarifying some of that power and effectively taking it from the executive. through the last three days we have had examples in the court where judges have ruled in the past that they can curtail the power of the executive and rule in favour of another form of the law. in this case, what they were saying is there was no way you could step into this political question of how frequently and have regularly parliament sits lord pannick came back and said, yes you can, you have got to look at the measure, measure the situation and the circumstances we are in this critical moment of national importance. parliament might want to sit, it might want to put ministers
4:10 pm
feet to the fire about what they are doing to solve the brexit question and that has been denied, the opportunity had been denied and so parliamentary sovereignty as been breached. over to you, justices, to sort this out but that is where i think the balance lies in the case. let's speak now to drjoelle grogan, a senior lecturer in uk public & eu law at middlesex university. do you think the law in this country has moved on so the judges can, do you think the law in this country has moved on so thejudges can, if they want to, say that the prime minister has evidently behaved unlawfully whereas maybe in years gone by they wouldn't have been that bold? we are again witnessing unprecedented times in which we are really talking about these very fundamental questions. from what we've heard, it is translated actually as to what the court can do ifa actually as to what the court can do if a decision, if some advice by one of the core organs of state, by government, is bound to be unlawful? and so negatively impacting the
4:11 pm
parliament. in terms of what has been recent, the move is that the courts have been recently, it has been to look at these prerogative powers, these old crown powers, and say that what they are limited to, there are limits to the application. we have heard this very important principle that underpins the parliamentary sovereignty but also the rule of law. this is one of the key arguments pronto if this is a legal power, it must have legal limits. the courts will have to look incredibly closely at these legal limits if they can, and if they should point out earlier in the day, the 11 supreme courtjustices heard some pretty fascinating and extremely submissions from the lawyer for sirjohn major. we had a former conservative prime minister saying that the current conservative prime minister has effectively broken the law and not been telling the truth about his reasons for proroguing parliament and a third
4:12 pm
former conservative prime minister has been on the tv and radio all day, pondering his role in this incredible situation. these emissions for sirjohn major were quite extraordinary datum of the submissions. that political and spiritual punch they bring to proceedings. he made a few waspish points in his arguments, at one points in his arguments, at one point his legal papers compare what has happened, the proroguing parliament, without effectively a bond of trust with parliamentarians, to the actions of a dodgy estate agent in new zealand, referring to a case from new zealand law with his point being that surely a prime minister should have better standards. his most serious point was when he gave examples, hypothetical examples of what a future prime minister could do if the supreme court does not step in and set some kind of standards and para meters and set some kind of standards and parameters for the prorogation of parliament where there is no sound reason for it to happen. one of the
4:13 pm
exa m ples reason for it to happen. one of the examples used was where you have a prime minister who comes to power who is philosophically absolutely opposed to armed forces, perhaps a very left—wing prime minister, not naming names, and that prime minister uses prorogation to allow the technical law around on foot to fall away and therefore we would have to disband the army and he said you have to guard against that. he was given very careful listen by the justices because i think it was a careful and nuanced argument he brought to court. i think the big issue we have got, my betting is that the court has already resolved about whether they can hear the case but the question now is whether... you think they have decided they can hear it? i think all the drift of the questions in the last couple of days has been on the whole issue of whether the prime minister acted unlawfully and everybody has been very focused on that. i'm not suggesting there will be a unanimous
4:14 pm
decision but the focus had been on this issue of whether the prime minister acted unlawfully and what should they do about it if he has. thank you very much indeed, we are out of time but that is the latest from the supreme court. we await the judgment from the 11 supreme court justices early next week. comments made by david cameron on the queen's intervention in the scottish independence referendum campaign have caused an amount of displeasure at buckingham palace, a source has told the bbc. speaking on a two—part series on his six years as prime minister, mr cameron said he turned to buckingham palace for support when a newspaper opinion poll backed independence for the first time. the queen later urged people to "think carefully about the future". buckingham palace has made no official statement on mr cameron's remarks. our political correspondent helen catt reports. it was a referendum on david cameron won. in 2014 scotland rejected
4:15 pm
independence but the former prime minister wasn't always confident it would be victory he was staring in the face, and he's now revealed that when the no campaign started trailing in the polls, he turned to the queen for help. i remember conversations i had with my private secretary and i had with the queen's private secretary, not asking for anything that would be in any way improper or unconstitutional, butjust a raising of the eyebrow, even a quarter of an inch, would make a difference. shortly afterwards, the queen told a well—wisher in aberdeenshire she hoped people would think very carefully about the future, a comment widely reported and taken to show concern for the union. at the scottish parliament this morning, the first minister addressed the admission. i think the revelations, if i can call them that, from david cameron today say more about him than they do anybody else. and really demonstrate, i think,
4:16 pm
the panic that was in the heart of the uk government in the run—up to the independence referendum five years ago. by convention, the queen is kept out of politics and conversations with her private, but david cameron does have form. speaking after the same referendum in 2014, he was overheard saying the queen had purred down the line when he spoke to her about the result. this morning, speaking to the bbc, he said that had been a terrible mistake for which he had apologised and this time he may have set a bit too much. perhaps borisjohnson might have appreciated him saying a bit less, specifically when speaking about his motivations during the eu referendum campaign. in the end, ultimately, i think he put what was good for his political career ahead of what he actually thought was right for the country. not a charge mr cameron would accept about himself. he maintains his decision to hold the eu referendum was the correct
4:17 pm
thing to do but some of his former colleagues disagree. we started a series of meetings about whether to offer a referendum on europe, and i was against because i thought it would split the conservative party and put business offside, having done so much work to get them on side, and fundamentally we might lose the referendum. if he follows convention, interventions like this are likely to be reasonably rare from david cameron but what he said this week may have already added more upheaval in turbulent times. helen catt, bbc news, westminster. it's emerged that there's what's been described as "an amount of displeasure" at buckingham palace at comments from david cameron who's admitted that he sought the queen's help during the scottish referendum campaign in 2014. mr cameron was speaking tojeremy vine on bbc radio 2 who asked him what he made of the palace's response. we have just been told that your remarks on the queen
4:18 pm
and the scottish vote have led to an amount of displeasure at the palace. so, you're not having a good week here. well, look, itried in the book to give an honest explanation of the things that i did and the things that i said. i certainly didn't ask for anything improper to happen. i was trying to explain the frustrations there were when you had one side in the referendum saying, "we are going to have a queen of an independent scotland and everybody is fine and dandy with that," and that was a frustration, so i tried to set that out in the book. so i tried... but you put her up to something and that's not how... i certainly didn't do that. you asked her to raise an eyebrow? i didn't ask for anything improper. you asked via channels, you made it clear you wanted her to play a role in the referendum and now you've said that, there are people like alex salmond, a scottish nationalist... of course alex salmond would say that... ..he sees the queen as being in the other corner. he wants to break up the united kingdom. but you have compromised her, haven't you? you can ask the question a million other ways, i'm not going to say any more about it. all right.
4:19 pm
our royal correspondentjonny dymond spoke to the palace, he told me what was said to him. the fact that somebody at the palace wa nted the fact that somebody at the palace wanted to say there was this amount of displeasure is an indication of when the queen was asked to raise an eyebrow... it is more than that! i think both eyebrows have shot up and who knows has been held across the room! is it that bad? i think the palace is clearly pretty upset. when you say that palace is pretty upset, what does that say about what we think the queen thinks of this? this is at the heart of this. the queen has been a very conservative monarchy, small c. the way she had done everything is to stay out of domestic politics. she has spoken about the union of scotland and england and wales and northern ireland before and made clear that is very precious to her but every other aspect of domestic politics she has stayed out of, even a hint
4:20 pm
of it, she had stayed away from it. here she is, being revealed to have been very involved in a critical political situation. it may be that she was going to get involved anyway but the fact is that when mr cameron says, i asked, but the fact is that when mr cameron says, iasked, it looks but the fact is that when mr cameron says, i asked, it looks to a lot a people as if she was used as a political tool and that is the very last thing she or her advisers or the people in the court want people to think about the queen. what she did say after that was that the people should think carefully about the future. we have no idea if that was as a result of what david cameron said or not. but that is what will annoy the palace is that we are going to rake over this again. it is making over it all over again, it is asking questions about again, it is asking questions about a role that nearly all the time she has been on the throne nobody has asked questions about, because she has been so conservative and kept
4:21 pm
out of business but it is notjust her, it is every moniker because the discussions between the prime minister and monarch are meant to remain private. notjust the discussion but the relationship. it may be that david cameron did not ask the queen directly also be talked about conversations with the private secretary, her most senior adviser. all of that is supposed to be confidential and he has trampled on itand be confidential and he has trampled on it and thrown convention to the wind. you get the pretty strong impression he knows it because he saying, oh i have said too much. he has got that right! he has got that right but the whole system has run on unknowns, grey areas, not asking too many questions about the role and now people are going, what is the role? quickly on a scale of one to ten, phrases like cause displeasure, if ten was really angry and one was happy... seven on that. a man accused of the murder of pc
4:22 pm
andrew harper has had the charge against him dropped. jed foster was arrested and charged with the murder of the police officer in berkshire last month. but today prosecutors at the old bailey said there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction. meanwhile three teenagers have appeared before the high court in london charged with the murder. our home affairs correspondent, tom symonds has been following this from the old bailey. pc andrew harper was killed after he responded to reports in berkshire last month of a vehicle being stolen. he was hit by a car, dragged along the road a considerable distance and he died of his injuries. he was 28 years old and it was a great shock to everybody including his family, clearly, and the wider police community. four people were charged with his murder but today at a hearing here at the old bailey, we have heard that one of those, 20—year—old jed foster, has been told that the charges against him are being dropped. the prosecutor in the case told the
4:23 pm
judge that the police had now gathered a full file of evidence in the case, having already decided to charge him and the crown prosecution service made that decision, but the full file of evidence suggested there was insufficient evidence to continue with the charges. in fact, he said these proceedings cannot and should not continue. there was no realistic prospect of mr foster being convicted. he is being released from prison and that leaves three defendants. the first is henry long, who is 18, and two 17—year—old boys who we cannot name for legal reasons. they all face charges of murder and conspiring to steal a quad bike. another defendant, thomas king, 21, also faces a charge in relation to the theft. we heard today that the trial in this case is due to take place next march. confidential documents that "reflect
4:24 pm
the ideas the uk has put forward" on brexit have been shared with the eu, the uk government has revealed. it comes after finland's prime minister said borisjohnson had 12 days to set out his brexit plans to the eu, or be left with a no—deal withdrawal. let's speak now to our chief political correspondent vicki young, who's at westminster. confidential documents are one thing but is this a plan? boris johnson has already said he is cautiously optimistic about getting a deal but of course the attack from the other side has been, show us what it is you want. we know there has been a change in the amount of discussions going on, boris johnson change in the amount of discussions going on, borisjohnson going to see jean—claude juncker earlier this week and he will have more talks with leo varadkar week and he will have more talks with leo va radkar and week and he will have more talks with leo varadkar and angela merkel as well next week in new york. all have that has been going on and borisjohnson as talked about a landing zone, the framework for where a deal would be done but of course, you will not be surprised to hear, it means changes to the northern irish backstop. now the comet is saying they have given
4:25 pm
these what are called technical non—paper is —— the government is saying. what that means is that it is not an official response, they are not the official guidelines that the government will give butjust things they have been talking about andi things they have been talking about and i think they are worried about them being linked and trashed before they get to the stage of talks —— being leaked. and they don't want them out there before the conservative party conference which happens in a couple of weeks. we will have to see when we see the details but it does look to involve northern ireland being separated a little bit more from the uk than i think the dup, for one, would like. they would stay closer to the european union to avoid that hardboard up at the question is whether they can make the checks happen away from the border in a way thatis happen away from the border in a way that is enough for the northern irish community to accept. don't rush off, but i'm hearing we have a clip borisjohnson talking in the wa ke clip borisjohnson talking in the wake of the end of the case of the
4:26 pm
supreme court over his decision to prorogue parliament and we might get a decision early next week but let's hear what he said. you agree that david cameron put the queen in a difficult position with his remarks about her comments in the scottish referendum? not only do i not comment on conversations that i may have held with her majesty but i don't comment on conversations she may have held with anybody else, i don't think i should get down that route. and when you rule out proroguing parliament again lose your case the supreme court?” proroguing parliament again lose your case the supreme court? i have the greatest respect for the judiciary in this country, and i think the best thing i can say at the moment, whilst their deliberations are continuing, is that obviously i agree very much with the master receptor old and the lord chiefjustice with the master receptor old and the lord chief justice and with the master receptor old and the lord chiefjustice and others who in our favour the other day, in favour of the government, but i will wait to see what transpires. the bbc are
4:27 pm
saying that the eu confirmed this month they have had some documents from you as part of the brexit negotiations. how much of this is an indication that you are making progress? i don't want to exaggerate the progress we're making but we making progress. what we need to do, so people understand, we need to find a way whereby the uk can come out of the eu and really be able to do things differently, not remain under the control of the eu in terms of laws and trade policy, which is the problem with the current agreement, but come out in such a way as to protect ireland, make sure there is not a border, a hard border of any kind in northern ireland, and make sure we protect the good friday peace process. we think we can do that and we think we can find a way forward , that and we think we can find a way forward, we think we can solve that problem. and i think we are making some progress. you heard jean—claude juncker yesterday i think saying that he does not have any emotional
4:28 pm
attachment to the backstop. that is progress. because they were not saying that a month ago. but let's see where we go. it is vital, whatever happens, that we prepare for no deal, and we will be ready, we will get ready for no deal on october the 31st. you have to do both things at once. dealing with a lot of issues there but if parliament is recalled next week, what will he do? that's a good question! we don't know if that will happen. they say they want to scrutinise the government. remember that when the announcement that parliament would be suspended happened, they did come back and managed to change the law so that borisjohnson as prime minister will have to go and ask the eu for an extension to article 50, a delay to brexit and he would have to do that around the 19th of october. interestingly, there are discussions going on between the government and the eu about that extension not being granted if they manage to get
4:29 pm
a deal. you can see how that might work, what they are trying to do, if that extension does not happen then it really would be a case of deal or no dealfor mps it really would be a case of deal or no deal for mps and it really would be a case of deal or no dealfor mps and i think it really would be a case of deal or no deal for mps and i think they would hope that pressure would be put on mps to pass any deal that they have managed to agree together. other sources are playing this down, saying it is not realistic and actually they are focused on getting that deal but you can see this kind of thing is being discussed and of course boris johnson of thing is being discussed and of course borisjohnson has said he will not ask for that extension so that would help them with that. will not ask for that extension so that would help them with thatm is all about the numbers, how many times have we said it? if there was a deal, how likely is it it would get through parliament?” a deal, how likely is it it would get through parliament? i think it has always been the case, what is the alternative? if the alternative is no deal, and it really is no deal, then that could change the minds of enough labour mps, we know that may be a few more have said they wish they had voted for theresa may's deal. of course the dup would have to be on the side. and
4:30 pm
interestingly, the 21 conservative mps who have of course been booted out of the parliamentary party, i think a number of them would vote for a deal and that is the point they have said all along, they have voted to leave with a deal but what they are worried about is leaving without a deal so the big question as ever is how many of the conservative exit here side could be persuaded to get behind boris johnson if it manages to get the deal and at the moment that is difficult to see. i think it is difficult to see. i think it is difficult to see. i think it is difficult to know how many labour mps might come across at that point but if it looks like a no deal two weeks later, you never know. thank you very much. time for a look at the weather. here's helen willetts. that looks nice. it is. we have had so many beautiful weather watchere rs across the country. they are telling the story. so you have hundreds to show us. we have settled on one. if we had the time we could show you hundreds and the joy today it is the widespread. of course we need the
4:31 pm
rain, so although we are forecasting this lovely weather for the next day or two it looks as if we might balance things on sunday. our weather pictures is rather pretty for most parts of the country at the moment. some late summer warm sunshine as well, just to demonstrate, basically top to tail the country accept the far northern isles of scotland where it is cloudy with the remnants of the weather. that is moving away overnight. it is getting longer at the moment, a bit chilly, temperatures, nine, ten degrees, i think the main issue overnight will be a bit of mist and fog. it could be thick again through the rush hour, the north east of england, southern scotland more prone. and it lasts through the rush hour. it may well catch you out so watch out for that. it clears away nine, 10.00 then lots more sunshine again. and as we pick up that southerly breeze, the temperatures are lifting so tomorrow up across the north east of scotland we might
4:32 pm
get 23 or 24 degrees celsius. and as i mentioned, the fine late summer sunshine is lasting into saturday. a big question mark over sunday, it looks like we will see things breaking down to thunderstorms and into next week it could be that some of the tropical air that has been affecting the east coast of the usa gets entrailed into our weather system and it looks more unsettled. more later.
4:33 pm
this is bbc news — our latest headlines. the supreme court finishes its hearing into whether borisjohnson's decision to suspend parliament was lawful. a decision is expected early next week. a buckingham palace source has suggested there's "an amount of displeasure" at david cameron's revelation that he sought the queen's help during the vote on scottish independence. prosecutors drop a murder charge against 20—year—old jed foster who was accused of murdering pc andrew harper. three other teenagers have appeared at the old bailey on murder charges. and why some of britains' coastal beauty spots have seen a rise in the number of accidental deaths. sport now on afternoon live with olly foster. olly, peter beardsley has been suspended from all football—related activity for 32 weeks. what is this about? it has been going on a long time. he left newcastle where he was a coach
4:34 pm
enwith the under 23 earlier this year, that was an an internal investigation that lasted over a year during which time he had been suspended by the club. he denied all the allegation, one of them being he called an african player under his charge a monkey, that was while he was looking after those under 23s, an fa independent commission found him guilty of breaches of there, using discriminatory language. he said, they say we regret the outcome we have felt compelled to reach in this case, mr beardsley they say is a towering figure in football, his reputation beyond question but on three occasions, which are the subject of the charges made remarks they say which were obviously racist, and were wholly unacceptable. even if he did not intend to do no so he plainly did cause offence, it is a very long statement from them, and beardly‘s solicitor have released a statement on his behalf, and he says it was
4:35 pm
almost impossible for him to clear his name because of the serious flaws he said and contamination of evidence that occurred in the disciplinary process, but he is going to respect this sanction and he says he looks forward to returning to work in football. he is free to work in the game again, from the end of next april, he has listen ordered to complete a face to face education course but for the next 32 weeks banned from all football activity so he can't be a pundit or anything. 58 is quite young olly! golf. rory mcilroy has been taling about slow play in golf and how difficult it was to watch the solheim cup at times last weekend. is this controversial? it is a hot topic and led to public spats between players on the men's tour in social media and affects player, damages the image of the sport, and the rules are in place, already, ta ke the rules are in place, already, take too long over a shots, more
4:36 pm
than 40 seconds per shot you get warned. do it again you get docked or shot. the trouble is it is rarely enforced. this is the crux of it. we had that high profile solheim cup, the women's equivalent of the ryder cup and! the women's equivalent of the ryder cup and i spoke to the winning captain catriona matthew, she said governing bodies need do more to combat slow play. for the drama of that final whole victory for europe, during the three days some rounds we re during the three days some rounds were taking six hours, now mcilroy said he was trying to watch it on the telly, trying to support the european team but he said it found it so frustrating. it is a turn off watching golf when it is that slow. matthew agrees that slow play just has to be punished. slow play is a problem in men's and ladies golf but really, i mean i am a fairly quick player so it frustrated me no end as well. the only solution is for the referees to
4:37 pm
stamp down on it, they have to start out giving penalties and the players will speed up. the rugby world cup gets under way tomorrow. all nations are action in the first couple of day, england started on sunday. they play in the north of the country, in japan. sunday. they play in the north of the country, injapan. they have held their first training session this morning, mark wilson and is backin this morning, mark wilson and is back in training. eddiejones names his side for that tomorrow morning. new zealand start the defence of their title against south africa, things have got a bit heated between the coach, steve hanson says that the coach, steve hanson says that the springboks coach has been trying to put pressure on the referees, the frenchman has refereed five of the fixtures between the two. the all blacks have won every single one, erasmus says officials have historically favoured the all blacks because they have been so good and
4:38 pm
they have this aura round them. more football this evening. arsenal will rest ozil for their match at frankfurt. it kicks off at five to six. he has played over an hour of football this season, that is all. made his first start in sunday's draw at watford. missed the start of the season after being targeted by carjackers. i want to use different players, so, the first 11, i mean, the 19 players in the squad for tomorrow, and... they rested that match. five british teams in the europa league, scottish champions celtic are at rennes. there is that arsenal fixture. wolves ca m e there is that arsenal fixture. wolves came through six matches to reach this group stage, they start
4:39 pm
against braga. manchester united against braga. manchester united against astana. there is one for the pub quiz, the first caz scam side to play manchester united. robert kubica is leaving formula one. the pole secured the team's only point this season as they prop up the constructors championship, she says he wants another chapter in his life. that is 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 speak to bbc south today presenter anjana gadgill, who's in the studio in southampton talking about two sisters
4:40 pm
who prompted the fast food giant burger king to change policy. and we have rogerjohnson from bbc north west tonight who is talking about bury football club waiting to see whether their team will be allowed back into the football league. so anjana, tell us about these sisters and what they have been doing. they are been doing something amazing. yes, there has been real recognition for the two girls from southampton, burger king's ceo called them a catalyst for change. mcdonalds first introduced its happy meal 40 years ago, a box with burger and fries and a drink and plastic toy. it proved to be an effective market toy with tie ins with film, in 1990 burger king launched their version but two girls from southampton, ella and caitlin, they like eating at both places but they have been learning about plastic pollution in schools and the damage it can cause to the environment. so last year, they started up a petition, to stop the two companies
4:41 pm
from making plastic toys, bbc south today spoke to them about it in july. they say they are recyclable. i don't think they are. it is hard to re cycle don't think they are. it is hard to recycle think them and they get put in landfill or in the ocean. when you get them, you only really like you get them, you only really like you play with them for live five minutes then you throw them in the bin. and this campaign is spread across the country? yes, the petition got 500,000 signatures and the girls became part of a bbc programme war on plastic with hugh and anita. they breath letters to the fast—food giants and they took a trailer load of plastic happy meal toys to mcdonalds's. q and now their actions have got a result. burger king said it will no longer give away plastic toys with children's meals and it is asking customers to bring in their old plastic toys they can meltdown to make other items.
4:42 pm
what they have done and we spoke to them last night, is they certainly hurried us up and were cat trick but we have been working on a sustainable strategy and removing toys for 18 months but it is very fairto toys for 18 months but it is very fair to say they hurried us up along that process. burger king says it is going to save 320 tonnes of plastic a year, mcdonalds says it will still have toys in its happy meals but toys can be swapped for fruit, so we will see how many children go for that. it does say that next year they will introduce books, the girls themselves, they have been at school all day, but we are going to be talking to them tonight here on bbc south today at 6.30. we are a short slot with them before they head off to brownies. ok. there you go. look forward to seeing that. thank you. to roger. bury were expelled from the follow. you have been to see
4:43 pm
fa ns the follow. you have been to see fans who have taken it hard. when bury went out of business they were kicked out of the football league by the efl, that it would hit the town hard, because so many people for so many people it is such an integral pa rt many people it is such an integral part of their lives, and you are right, the couple that we have been to see would certainly fit that bill. they are both called carl, we met them in carl number one's house, as you can see, it is a shrine to bury football club. all over the walls, there are burishires, bury photos, all sorts of memorabilia, and they say they have completely being put off football as a result of what happened to their beloved clu b of what happened to their beloved club who at the moment are not kicking a ball in an ir, the ground is locked up, there is no football going on there and at the moment they are not playing in the league. this is what they had to say. massive hole. it is more than a foot ball massive hole. it is more than a football club. it is a massive part of my life. can't bear to look at any of the football result, the interest has totally gone. you
4:44 pm
haven't been watching at all. not even england. i have phenomenonished with football until bury can be reenstated. proper fan, what the latest with bury? he mentioned there about them being reinstated. all is not lost. it is unusual for politicians from across the political divide to come together as we know at the moment, more perhaps than ever before, but across party group of mps from greater manchester as well as the local council, the mayor of the city region andy burnham, all working to try and lobby the football league tole allow bury to start again, next season, albeit in league two. they were in league one, they are accepting they will be relegated and they could go to league two. next week there is a meeting of the other 71 football league clubs at which it is expected they will be discussing that proposal. if that gives, if they get the go—ahead that gives bury a lifeline that a month ago they didn't expect to get. they were expeued didn't expect to get. they were
4:45 pm
expelled from the league but there isa expelled from the league but there is a real groundswell of opinion and a movement to get that reversed. the man who owns the club is still in charge, as far as we can tell there aren't any employees at the moment. there aren't any player, he needs to sell the club, whoever buys it needs to profit has a financial future and if that can be done, maybe, just maybe, there might be light at the end of the tunnel, but it is still a long dark one ahead. a lot of ifs and makes there. all right. plenty more north west tonight, 6.30 tonight. good to see you roger. great to see you both. welcome to nationwide. thank you for joining us.
4:46 pm
there's been a big increase in the number of accidental deaths in coastal waters around britain this year. figures from the maritime and coastguards agency show that in the south west of england in the 12 months up to september, 28 people have died compared with 11 in the previous year. lucie fisher has been finding out why. on the run, a man's been spotted 200m out and battling big swells. he'd been caught out by strong currents in gwithian near hayle. this, just one of thousands of rescues performed by the rnli around our coasts this year. what happened ? my son and a friend of his went in over here, but they got ripped straight out across the bay. i was a bit worried about them, so i went out after them. they've come back in now, have they? yeah, they've gone between the flags, where they should be. many rescues involve families and children, but there's one group most at risk by far. data shows men are the victims of the majority of coastal deaths
4:47 pm
last year, particularly young and middle—aged men. i think a lot of the time it's because their abilities are better than they are and i think humans just do that in general. so, they will say, "no, i'm a good swimmer, i will swim where i want." they might be a good swimmer in the pool, but they don't actually know how the sea is. such a raw, natural kind of environment. psychologist dr isabel richter has studied how people behave when they are by the sea. she says there is evidence we all behave differently when we are on holiday. there is a lot of research about tourist versus home behaviour and it proves that people on holidays perform more risky behaviour than at home. you think, "no, it is my holiday, i deserve to have fun. i was waiting for this the whole year and now i want to go out and, yeah, enjoy myself. " and as the latest statistics from the maritime and coastguard agency show, the consequences of making the wrong
4:48 pm
call on risk or ignoring safety advice can be fatal. 28 people died this year around the south west coasts — more than double the number last year. while we were filming, the jet ski was sent to help look for a man who had been reported in the water just around the headland off an un—life—guarded beach. tragically, in that case, a body was picked up by the lifeboat. a sobering reminder of the dangers of the sea. lucy fisher, gwithian. and you can see more on this story on inside out: south west, available now on the bbc iplayer. in a moment, the latest business news. first a look at the headlines on afternoon live. the supreme court finishes its hearing into whether borisjohnson's decision to suspend parliament was lawful. a decision is expected early next week. a buckingham palace source has suggested there's "an amount of displeasure" at david cameron's revelation that he sought
4:49 pm
the queen's help during the vote on scottish independence. prosecutors have dropped a murder charge against 20—year—old jed foster who was accused of murdering pc andrew harper. three other teenagers have appeared at the old bailey on murder charges. dark one ahead. here's your business headlines on afternoon live. the bank of england has left uk interest rates on hold, at 0.75%. all nine policymakers were unanimous in the decision and signalled that prolonged brexit uncertainty will keep interest rates lower for longer. we'll have more on this in just a mo. retail sales fell in august, that's according to the office for national statistics. british shoppers bought fewer goods than injuly, defying expectations of zero growth in a worrying sign for the uk economy. the high street giant next has published strong results for the first sixth months of the year. sales were up 4.3% and pre—tax profits were also up 2.7%.
4:50 pm
but the boss warned about the growing problem of high street rental costs which could lead to more store closures. i have been talking about this on nationwide and that that have an interest view with the two sisters we will be talking about. so from today, burger king will no longer give away plastic toys with its children's meals? a great example of people power. the two young sister ella and caitlin, nine and seven, they managed to rack up nine and seven, they managed to rack up over 500,000 signatures to send to burger king to ask hem to get rid of plastic. the toy, you can't recycle them a long with your normal household plastic, so the response from the boss has been yes, we will hear what you want and we will action it, but i also when speaking to him managed to sneak in a quick brexit questionful it is fair to say we have been thinking about that
4:51 pm
long side other parts on our sustainable strategy for 18 months but it would be fair to say ella and caitlin certainly hurried us up. big brexit day with the supreme court hearing, in bank of england citing no deal uncertainty is a concern for the economy, what would burger king like to see with regard to brexit over the coming days and weeks? well, i think we have had a long time to prepare, for brexit, what with what happened in march as well, so from the sourcing point of view what we have managed to do, is you know make sure over 80% of the products are sourced within the uk, so that gives us some confidence of that, but i think what we are all looking for as business leaders and businesses, we are looking for certainty, and i think when that certainty, and i think when that certainty comes in and whatever form that takes, that will drive more consumer confidence and then, you know, as you reported yourself, that will get people back outen the streets shopping again. let us pick up on brexit. one day i
4:52 pm
will never say that, that is a long way off! it was mentioned repeat in in the the bank of england's decision today. the policy makers said it was unanimous decision to keep rates on hold at 0.7%, but they also issued really stark warnings about what could happen in the wake ofa about what could happen in the wake of a possible no—deal brexit, in those minutes as they are called they said that the pound would fall, inflation will jump. growth they said that the pound would fall, inflation willjump. growth will wea ken inflation willjump. growth will weaken but they did say if we head toa weaken but they did say if we head to a smooth brexit, the bank expects demand to rise, perhaps leading to hiring interest rates. we have heard them warn on this before. absolutely. they did this when the vote happened and nothing changed. absolutely. any way... it has been a day of central bank activity, we heard from the the federal reserve overin heard from the the federal reserve over in the us earlier in the day. let us get a wider perspective on
4:53 pm
this and talk to lawrence gosling. simon raises a good point there. we had these very stark warnings from the monetary policy committee from the monetary policy committee from the bank of england earlier today, citing concerns for the economy in the wake of a hard no—deal brexit. but there were some slivers of light and some positivity in the minutes as well. it was, the last quarter, the bank of england suggesting that growth in the uk economy will be sort of flat but it thinks it will be pick up and be in positive territory from the next three months so again, territory from the next three months so again, over the course of the year, there are saying they think the uk economy will don't grow but as you were saying they keep signalling that whatever deal the uk comes outwith, in the brexit negotiations, could really be the sort of key determinant of the longer term path of the economy. and of course what they were saying as the boss of burger king was saying
4:54 pm
in the last hour, is uncertainty thatis in the last hour, is uncertainty that is the biggest problem in all of this whatever happens but with regards to interest rates, we had the federal reserve over in the states cutting them earlier in the day. other banks round the world moving in that direction, where do you see the uk central bank heading with regards to rates?” you see the uk central bank heading with regards to rates? i think it will carry on with this cautious path. we haven't seen any significant changes in interest rates for a couple of year, it seems it is ten years ago that interest rates were over 5%, that seems generations ago, notjust a decade and the way they have signalled it, they need to have a bit of armoury in theirfirepower, but they need to have a bit of armoury in their firepower, but if things look significantly worse, say in next year, they can cut interest rates back, but they are trying to balance up a slight fear of inflation, with wages going up and potential higher costs, with the sort of slightly anaemic growth so they are suggesting they will remain cautious and as you said earlier interest rates will probably stay lower for longer. absolutely. let us
4:55 pm
talk about next, because they issued strong result, a very good start to the year, for the first six months of the year, but the share price still fell, and the boss there sounded a very strong alarm about high street rent, especially versus online shopping. absolutely, next half its sales are online sow it has transitioned its business from being heavily dependent on the high street. it has shut six stores recently, lower than expected. he has put a, they signalled the threat of high rents as many have seen should be something that perhaps needs to be looked at more widely, because it is holding back a lot, a lot the high street. indeed. good to talk to you.
4:56 pm
what is snecs? i see what you did. we had a little tease there. that is off the back of those warnings of the boss saying look, we are doing well, but if rents continue to climb... there we go. it is going to lead to more store closures and that is what we have heard bosses talk about for a long time. that is how the ftse 100 about for a long time. that is how the ftse100 reacted to that interest rate, from the bank of england at 12 noon. it was widely expected. 0k. expected. ok. alice, nice to see you. thank you very much. now it's time for a look at the weather with helen willetts. hello, it looks as if we have some much—needed rain on the way later in the weekend and into next week, for the weekend and into next week, for the meantime we are enjoying late summer sunshine. this is a stunning view down the conwy estuary in
4:57 pm
wales, more fair weather cloud in cumbria but either way for many it is fine and sunny, the satellite picture shows more sunshine compared with yesterday across scotland, northern ireland, and northern england and temperatures have responded, the low 20s for many parts, inland away from the coast. through the night, of course, under the starry skies at this time of year with a lengthening nights temperatures will dip away quickly indeed. it will be another chilly night. not as cold as recent nights because there is more of a south—easterly breeze. still notable and enough for fog south—easterly breeze. still notable and enough forfog issue, scotland, northern england england, more prevalent than this morning, they will be round through the rush hour, it is again dry with plenty of sunshine, and warmer, we could see 23, even 24 across parts of the moray firth area to inverness in the western highlands, into the low 20s, northern ireland and 21, 22 for
4:58 pm
sheltered parts of england and wales as we pick up that wind, so things are getting, if you like a little warmer still as we pick up that air off europe. it does mean we will pick upa off europe. it does mean we will pick up a brisker wind, so that will temper the feel, but you will see temperatures aren't as low as we go into saturday morning, because of the wind there won't be as many fog issues but this is the warm air we are tapping into that is pulling its way to the shores so the warmest weather, the highest temperatures will be more likely be in eastern area this is fly in the ointment to spoil things in the south and west, thundery showers digging in and that gusty wind, tempering the feel of the day. 22 to 24 in land in shelter, but a very different second pa rt shelter, but a very different second part of the weekend, because it looks as if that band of showery rain or bands of showery rain will stagger their way eastwards, so it could be that northern england and scotla nd could be that northern england and scotland donald see rain until later in the day. so not as warm as you
4:59 pm
can see but there is still a little question mark over sunday.
5:00 pm
today at 5:00... displeasure at buckingham palace after david cameron reveals he sought the queen's help ahead of the scottish independence referendum. the former prime minister told the bbc he suggested her majesty "raise an eyebrow" about the prospect of scotland voting for independence. not asking for anything that would be in any way improper or unconstitutional, butjust a raising of the eyebrow. the queen then urged people to "think carefully about the future". the other main stories on bbc news at 5:00... on whether borisjohnson's decision to suspend parliament in the run—up

43 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on