I think we all want to hear the result lets make sure the result is correct. The ayes to the right, 309. The noes to the left, 305. Cheering a vote on a vote. And it didnt go the governments way. Hours before a brussels summit that is supposed to ease brexit talks through to part two, tory rebels tonight managed to force the government to give mps a meaningful vote on brexit, after a fractious debate that exposed division and distrust within the conservatives. Clause nine is not about implementing leaving the european union. Yes, it is. Read it. And sit down. A parliamentary defeat for the Prime Minister. A humiliating setback for the government but what might it change . The man who used to run mi6 gives us his first ever broadcast interview, with a surprising take on terror. You know we need to keep a sense of proportion about what we are dealing with. I mean, i dont think terrorism in its current form presents a systemic threat to the nation. A giant mouse and a shrinking mogul Rupert Murdoch gets ready to downsize his empire. What does disneys expected takeover of fox mean for the media, and for sky news . And we know something went wrong with building regulations at grenfell now chris cook reports on concerns over the fire safety of furniture. Hello. Well, after a run of good headlines, and just hours before she travels to the European Council in brussels, the Prime Minister suffered her first proper defeat of this parliament tonight. A vote on amendment 7 to the eu withdrawal bill, giving mps the power to vote on the withdrawal deal when it is ready. The government says that could derail a smooth and timely brexit, but it was a sign of how finely divided parliament is, the mps split almost down the middle. But also a sign that the conservative party has enough rebels 11 this evening to obstruct the governments plans. What a day it was in the commons. Would she be so good as to accept the right honourable and learned gentlemans amendment seven in the spirit of unity for everybody here and in the country . I find it entertaining that some people who criticise me for speaking my mind on this matter are individuals who appear to have exercised the luxury of rebellion on many occasions. The idea that somehow undermines the referendum decision isjust a load of rubbish. She talked about a delay of a couple of months. But if the treaty is not right in the eyes of this parliament then a couple of months could turn into a couple of years and indeed in some cases people would like it to be a couple of decades. The ayes to the right 309, the noes to the left 305. Parliament has asserted itself, the Prime Minister tried a power grab, tried to push through a bill without proper parliamentary scrutiny. The vote came after seven this evening. One of the rebels, Stephen Hammond had been sacked from his job as vice chair of the conservative party. Dominic grieve is a former attorney general, whose amendment it was. Bernard jenkin is a brexit supporting colleague of his from the backbenches. Our political editor, nick watt, is with me. It was quite a moment. Quite a cock up somewhere in the way the government manage the whole business. There are a lot ministers been very critical of their own government this evening. One said we had very clumsy and stupid, late concessions by the government. Another said the whips should have known how very close this was. A lot of criticism tonight of the chief whipjulian smith. One cabinet minister said, rule number one for a chief whip is no how to count. Another one told julian smith earlier this week, you are going to lose this vote unless you make major concessions ahead of the vote. It is important to say this is the second slip up in two weeks byjulian smith. A lot of people are saying that had his predecessor Gavin Williams been in place who had close contacts with the dup, the Prime Minister would not have been so exposed to that meeting in brussels last monday. For the people who wanted to remain, what is their take on how important this is . I saw one remain minister this evening who i could say had at best crocodile tears. Anotherfigure said this is a very significant moment. This person said to me, this is the canary in the coal mine. This is the moment when the government needs to accept there is no majority in this parliament for a hard brexit. There is no majority in this parliament for no deal brexit and the government should now be working with the majority in parliament, not one side. And there is a big vote next week and the government will seek to put on the face of the bill the date of brexit, the 29th of march, 2019. There was a lot of injured tory party hostility today, there was not a love in the room between the two sides. A lot of anger with the rebels. There is fury within government with Dominic Grieve. I spoke to one minister at the heart of this or said, Dominic Grieve will field the chilling hangover of what he has done and what he has done is he has weakened the Prime Minister on the eve of the European Council in brussels tomorrow. This minister said, there are two options. One, it is not worth the candle, lets just the amendment passed. The second option is to say to Dominic Grieve, you said earlier if youre amendment was accepted, you would agree to a negotiation at the report stage about a compromise in which both sides can be happy, presumably your offer still stands. Lets talk to my political guests. Dominic grieve has been talked about whilst sitting there very patiently. The knives are pretty much out for you, arent they . I doubt it, i am not concerned about knives be out for me. I am in parliament to do my duty by my constituents and for my country. Knives can be anywhere, i will not be bothered by that in any way at all. What i am is intent on trying to support the government in doing the right thing and the right thing is carrying out brexit in an orderly, sensible way which has a proper process to it and which enables the right decisions to be made at the right time. That is what i will continue to do. I am sorry to hear if colleagues think so ill of me. But it is not going to affect what i do one bit. You will vote next week against this idea of having a fixed legal date for brexit . I hope it will not be necessary. I am sure the government will be defeated and i have no desire to defeat the government for a second time. I have been in parliament for 20 years and apart from hs2 i have not rebelled before. Are you open to negotiation and compromise on the way the issue of the votes are handle . My whole life is negotiation. I tabled these amendments over a month ago, i have had a very sensible dialogue with government ministers about what their purposes, sometimes probing, sometimes teasing out, sometimes pointing out flaws. So far until this evening we had always managed sensible outcomes which improved legislation and kept everybody broadly happy. I am sorry the negotiations foundered, it was a spectacular foundering, i cannot deny that. There appears to have been a complete breakdown within government as to how to answer perfectly legitimate points which is worrying, but people will learn from experience. I also noted i have colleagues who work pro brexit and much more supportive of the government who were pointed out that the legislation was in a very bad condition and could not be allowed to stay in the condition it was in. You learned the brexiteers and the government think all of this is a back door way of giving the mps a chance to impose a soft brexit, something closer to norway, if the government comes back with something closer to canada. That is possible because you now have that veto power at a late stage in the process. Correct or not . The exact terms of brexit are matter for negotiation for the government. It is right that i will not have the closing down of options, i have said that on many occasions. The impression we have had is of options being closed down and that is not acceptable. Does this make a soft brexit more likely . Is it meaningful in that sense . You may be misreading this. This bill is about process, not outcome. It is true that process matters, but this bill is about how you carry out a process rather than the negotiation itself. I have been studious in not trying to interfere with the governments negotiating strategy. I have hardly asked a question because i think parliaments ability to interfere with a negotiating strategy is limited. But i am of the view that it is in the countrys interest that we keep a close relationship with the eu or suffer serious consequences. I would like the brexit that minimises risk and maximises opportunity. Let me turn to bernard jenkin. I know you do not want to have an on air, blue on blue fight here in the studio. Do you think this gives mps some back door away of imposing a softer version of brexit . Obviously some people think it does, but it does not change the price of fish very much. The government has been frank that this is only about how you implement the withdrawal. If it does not change the direction of things, what is the problem . What it means is because these powers will now not be available to the government to use until another act of parliament has been passed, it may mean that we have to pass an extra act of parliament very late in the day at the very top speed and i do not think that is necessarily the better outcome. But it is life. The problem is the act of parliament that implements the Withdrawal Agreement may not finished going through parliament until after we have left. It is all very complicated and very obscure. What was sad was that however clumsily, the government was offering concessions at the last minute and some of the rebels were just shouting, too late, too late, which sounded a little petulant. How many times have you voted against the conservatives . Probably scores of times. Is it not rich to be haranguing the people who voted against the government . I was not haranguing anybody today, i was engaging in honest debate. You disagree with Nadine Dorries who said there should be deselected and should never be allowed to stand again . Yes, i do, that is not very helpful. I rebelled to try and get a referendum. I rebelled years ago on the martial treaty when they refuse to have a referendum. I rebelled when powers were being taken away from parliament did not even touch the ground when legislation was being made in this country. All of these powers are commendable and controllable by parliament and ultimately they are only temporary. We have had a referendum. If the majority of mps took the view they wanted a softer brexit than the one currently being talked about, is it legitimate for them to impose that on the government if some parliamentary way of doing that can be found . Is that legitimate . Nearly everybody voted for article 50. The reality is you try to negotiate the Withdrawal Agreement and a free trade agreement, but if an acceptable arrangement does not emerge, you are still leaving. I personally do not want that, i hope we get the agreement. Some people are trying to reverse. We are going to hear a new phrase. Brexinos, where we have all the regulations impose upon us and we do not have the freedom to do trade deals with other countries. Some people say it is a soft brexit and theresa may has called it a non brexit. We have to leave it there. If you ever want to meet someone who personifies the british establishment, you wont do better than an encounter with sir richard dearlove. He may have a low personal profile, but he had a long career in the Intelligence Services and was put in charge of mi6 for five years under tony blair. That makes him m if you like your bond movies, although actually they used the letter c for the boss in real life. Parliamentary select in his time at mi6 in its famous building on the south bank of the thames he had to handle 9 11, the build up to the war in iraq, and the controversy over the so called dodgy dossier that exaggerated the certainty of the intelligence for iraq having wmd. He was actually criticised in the chilcott report for adding weight to a report that had not been properly evaluated. He went on to be on a master of a cambridge college, so in short he is the kind of man you might either see as a Public Servant who has helped keep the country secure, or as part of a deep state that has been getting everything wrong. But while sir richard is an establishment insider, he has taken a different view from most of his counterparts on brexit hes in favour. Hes just written an open letter to president macron in france, explaining why its in the eus interest to let us go, so the 27 can get on with the integration they need without us getting in the way. Being a former head of mi6, hes kept away from broadcast interviews. But given where we are with brexit, he agreed to his first one with newsnight. I asked him why he thought brexit was a good idea. I am looking more generally i think than the average person at europe. We have always been skin deep members of the european union. We have believed in a shallow political union. Quite honestly if macron is determined to integrate europe politically as he states, he really does not want us to be part of it because we would be very effective in stopping his progress. So what i am arguing is that we are offering Continental Europe an opportunity. We can be very supportive of a united Continental Europe which will serve our interests closely. There is no disaster about the uk returning to a mid atlantic position which is the one that we have traditionally occupied. You have used a very interesting phrase, we can go back to our mid atlantic position. A lot of people would say, yes, the mid atlantic position is lovely, except with trump as president. Something really big has changed, the us is no longer what it was. Trump is president , and that is a large element of unpredictability. Trump is only going to be there probably for another three years. I think we need to think more broadly. We have a very close relationship with the United States, not only in defence and security terms, but also in trading terms. I mean, i think i could make a convincing argument that in some respects trumps administration, in terms of the relations with the uk, have not been altogether as difficult as obama. Well, thats an interesting one, isnt it . Obama was closer to the centre of the values of the uk, probably. Yes, certainly in value terms, i agree. Trump has been unreliable as well, hasnt he . Im thinking particularly on intelligence, your old industry. After the manchester bombing, photos were sent to american intelligence and they appeared in the new york times. He has done some unpredictable things, but i dont think you should necessarilyjudge the intelligence relationship in terms of trumps tweets. Do think they are a reliable ally for intelligence purposes at the moment . I think there are still a very reliable ally for intelligence purposes, and im sure if you asked that question of the head of cia he would give you a very positive and true indeed. Do you believe the Christopher Steele dossier on trump . This was the document which said some salacious. Im not going to get into that. But you knew Christopher Steele. I wondered whether. I wont confirm or deny that i knew christopher. I think that there is probably some credibility to the content. I wouldnt put it any more forcefully than that. The other superpower, or would be superpower that brexit affects our relationship with, is russia, isnt it . And many people are worried that what brexit is doing is undermining the cohesiveness of europe. In offering a forceful counterweight to russian mischief. Well, i disagree with you saying that the eu necessarily offers that counterweight. The eu doesnt have the military capability or power to balance russia. And whats interesting is we have seen a considerable revival of nato. A revival in nato . Well, yes. I thought trump was busy questioning it. He did question it. But i think his recent statements show actually that the american commitment to nato is not fundamentally in question. And i think that one of the ancillaries of brexit should be an increase in our defence spending. On russia, some have argued that basically they interfered in the brexit referendum because they felt that it was in their interests for britain to vote out. Are you convinced by those arguments . No, not at all. I mean, i dont think, ive not seen anything that can convince me at all that the russians intervened significantly in the brexit referendum. But they might have intervened in the us . I dont think theres any question they got involved in the us election. I think probably on putins part that was a misjudgement. Ok, so i sort of understand the geography of your argument. On terror, you said its containable and ultimately manageable. Now is that what marks you out from your successors . I believe strongly, personally, in the issue of proportionality. And. What i mean by proportionality is we have a lot of serious social problems to deal with, and the chances of getting caught up in a terrorist attack, even when the terrorist attack is quite high, are relatively low. The problem is that when attacks happen they are shocking, catastrophic. And of course you get a Massive Media reaction to them. Too much of a media reaction, do you think . Yes, i think so. Weve had this debate. I know, and im not blaming the media lts irle¥iffeelz ; but we need to keep a sense of proportion about what we are dealing with. I dont think terrorism in its current form presents a systemic threat to the nation. It presents the possibility of horrible happenings, which we are learning how to deal with. And of course, at the moment there is unquestionably going to be a heightened risk as we have got more returnees coming back from syria, probably from afghanistan as well. I want to come back to this issue of trust. Do you feel. You may say it doesnt explain brexit, but do you feel the establishment is viewed with a kind of anger and distaste . I mean, it could be the expenses scandal, it could be the financial crash, it could be iraq. I think that is a dangerous generalisation, evan, i really do. Do you . I mean, you were involved in the iraq build up. Do you think responsibility was taken for the mistakes made at that time, the dodgy dossier . Were not here to discuss iraq, and if we start on that track we will be here for hours. Butjust in general, do you see that as an area where some of the rot set in in this relationship between the government and the governed in this country . No, i dont think so. So much as subsequently happened in the middle east that that would be a facile argument. Can i ask one last one . Talk to a lot of people, mostly remainers but not exclusively, who think the world is going to hell in a handcart. Whats your sort of analysis . Is this a 10 year process of turbulence, our be talking to years of turbulence . I would have thought probably nearer five. Nearerfive. I think we can emerge from that in a pretty strong position, if we do not lose self belief and self confidence. Sir richard dearlove, thank you very much. Evan, thank you. Tomorrow could be a decisive day in the history of Rupert Murdoch and his enormous media empire. For over half a century he has been building it up. If reports out of america are to be believed, tomorrow could see a very significant restructuring because disney appears poised to takeover a huge chunk of it 20th century fox. A huge deal that would leave murdoch controlling a much smaller and more focussed group of news businesses. But what does this tell us about the Media Industry and what could it mean for sky, and particularly sky news in the uk . Im joined from new york by shannon bond, the us media correspondent for the financial times. And in the studio by david yelland. Hes the former editor of the sun and knows Rupert Murdoch very well. Is it right to view this as murdoch retreating a bit into the area he knows and loves, news . I think anybody would have been surprised just a few months ago to think Rupert Murdoch was going to be a seller. He spent decades building this empire. It does seem to be a bit of a retreat to his origins in the news and in sports here. It is not going to be the sprawling empire that fox is today. Is this an era semiretirement for Rupert Murdoch . I dont think it is retirement of any kind. He is retreating to news. But i dont think that is the right word. I think this is about the next ten to 15 years. Apple is six, seven times, well, four times the size of fox and disney together. Amazon is 560 billion. The west Coast Companies in the us and the chinese will control media in ten years time. There would be two chinese giants, four us giants. The only one that will survive will be disney now. Basically it is just racing to get big and be safe . I think he has accepted he has not got the scale in the Digital World to be one of the top one or two. Is that your view of it in terms of the Bigger Picture of the entertainment scene in the next decade . I think that is absolutely right. It is an acknowledgement that fox does not have the scale for the future of entertainment. It is true, we see these enormously Disruptive Forces coming out of silicon valley, are also changing the way that media is produced and consumed. Who paying for it, who is watching it . Over here we think it quite a lot about sky. In the United States it is probably not considered a huge thing. What does this mean for sky . The murdoch share will be in the disney empire. Murdoch wanted all of it. We assume disney will take it all . Right, our understanding is one way or the other disney will end up owning sky. Fox will continue to buy the rest of the shares and either they will get approved by them, and then it will become part of the disney deal. If not, disney will take over that 39 stake they own now and make its own bid to on the rest of it. One way or the other, sky goes to disney. It does not have resonance in the us. But we do recognise that for disney it is a big Distribution Platform for them in europe for their content. Very important for future strategy. Sky news, a lot of people say sky news loses money, and the best way to run a News Organisation is to have a billionaire behind you who loves news. Will disney be interested in sky news . People dont realise that disney is an incredibly big provider of news in the us. It owns abc and has done for 20 years. Abc is one of the big three original networks. The irony is the cma have the government are looking at variety. The fact is Rupert Murdoch created sky. He created so many of these assets which authorities around the world are looking at. Without him it wouldnt exist. Now sky will be owned by a us media giant but not fox. There is a huge irony there. I would say to adam bolton and my friends at sky, they will be fine. Are big American Media empires interested in having news channels as loss leaders to give them prestige and a life present in the world . I think it is absolutely significant for them. Also, you cant discount the viewing they are getting from these channels. We are all obsessed with streaming, we are all talking about disruption. But people are still watching the news and sport live. Those are areas in which the so called Linear Television system is going to be strong for a while yet. There are still millions of people who want to tune in to see these things as they happen. Thank you both. When the grenfell fire happened six months ago, we quickly realised that something had gone wrong with the building regulations, or at least the way they were implemented. The result in that case was a tragedy that has prompted a complete review of fire safety in tall buildings. Well, tonight we can bring you details of another area of fire safety regulation, which some believe needs examining it is that which purports to prevent furniture from burning. Now, the rules governing furniture in this country are tough, which you might assume is a good thing in the wake of grenfell. But it turns out to be more complicated. Good in theory, using fire retardant fabrics is of limited effectiveness in practice. And it has a significant downside in terms of toxicity when fire breaks out. This special report on the problem, and how we got here, is from our policy editor, chris cook. There is one area where britain has usually thought of itself as having the toughest safety regulations on earth, furniture. We subject it to harder tests than anyone else to try to make it as fireproof as possible for good reason. For example, a sofa can be a massive fire hazard. But questions have arisen about the safety of the rules we use to contain this risk. The Civil Servant who was until recently in charge of reviewing these regulations has had a change of heart about their wisdom since he got involved in this field in the mid 2000s. I would have said these are the most stringent fire safety, domestic arrangements in the world. They are a Great Success and they are saving lives and the rest of the world should really come up to the same level of requirements that we have in the uk. But you absolutely dont believe that now . I absolutely dont believe that now. In britain furniture fabric has to pass very tough tests, uniquely tough in the world, before you are allowed to sell it on the open market. Manufacturers, though, have worked out that the easiest way to get through those tests is simply to load the fabric with chemical flame retardants. The Grenfell Tower fire is an apt moment to consider the wisdom of this approach. Within the tower the fire obviously moved through the building very rapidly and people reported noxious, black smoke filling the interior. A dozen residents were treated afterwards for cyanide poisoning, including a 12 year old member of the gomes family. The smoke was certainly so intense that as soon as you took a mouthful of air, or in this case smoke, you were gagging. Smoke is always bad for you, it can always kill you. But the thing is, the commonest fire retardants in use in uk furniture work by interfering with the chemistry of the flame and a by product of their use is that when a fire gets going, the smoke is more toxic. A new Peer Reviewed paper in the journal chemisphere suggests they make it much more toxic. The first thing we found was that the sofas burnt at almost the same kind of rate. You did not get a particular slowing down comparing the non flame retardant sofas with the flame retardant ones. The second thing is we got between two and three times more toxicity in the smoke from the uk fire retardant sofas than we did from the european non fire retardant sofas. More toxicity means more Carbon Monoxide and Hydrogen Cyanide in the smoke. But the Chemical Companies point to their own research saying uk sofas clearly do better at resisting fires than other european sofas when they are first ignited, and advocates of flame retardants note that even if it makes mature fires more dangerous, preventing fires is the only smart strategy. The best way to deal with toxicity of smoke is to begin with not to have a fire. Not only do we benefit from not having the toxic smoke, but you will benefit from not having the flames spread, you will benefit from not having the structure being put into structural danger, you will have no problem of the fire travelling to different compartments and finding different fuels. This is, however, not the first wave of unrest about retardants. So the flame retardants are what are called semi volatile, that means they are coming out always from the couch, you dont have to sit on it, they are always coming out, and they are heavy, they drop into dust. You get dust on your hands and you eat a sandwich and you are eating flame retardant. Our own governmentjust last year noted flame retardant chemicals, particularly brominated flame retardants, can be harmful to human and animal health. There is a big question though about whether these regulations are actually preventing fires. For example, they dont really take account of the fact that in a sofa arm you might have a load of flammable hessian or wood or even cardboard just under the surface. Professor ryan does not support reducing flame retardant use, but also acknowledges the statistical difficulty in proving their effectiveness. When you look into medicine, for example, i envy them tremendously. They do meta analysis, which is an analysis of the reviews of the reviews. In fire science we cannot do meta analysis. We have like three studies per topic instead of 3000, which is the level of the studies that you will require to actually inform the politicians. So we operate in this area slightly in the dark. People from competing disciplines give different answers to the same questions. It is a complex Public Policy issue. So how did we end up with these rules . The story of our fire regulation really starts in the 1980s when there was real disquiet about fire deaths. In part because we used horrifyingly flammable foam padding in furniture, which is nowjust banned, and more people smoked. I am warning this room could be a burnt out shell because of the burning cigarette someone forgot. This man is bob graham, then a manchester firefighter, speaking in 1985 on newsnight. We were running a feature on how many fires were then being caused by cigarettes. We have got a situation where we have the smallest emission source in the home being responsible for the largest proportion of deaths. At that Time Assistant chief fire officer graham wanted Cigarette Companies to roll out self extinguishing cigarettes to cut down on fires. Not a universally popular view in 1985. Here at the headquarters of the Tobacco Advisory Council repeated requests for a spokesman to discuss self extinguishing cigarettes have been met with polite refusals. The Tobacco Companies may not have been talking to newsnight, but we do know that they were watching. Newsnight has dug up legal disclosures from the us which show just how concerned they were about our reports. One of them notes that their inability to put forward a defensible pr stance on these issues had been amply demonstrated by tv comments injuly1985. That is when that newsnight report went out. They needed to find a way to get people to talk about fires as being caused by furniture, not by cigarettes. From these documents we know that Tobacco Companies contributed to the development of flame retardants for furniture. In britain, big tobacco set up a special fire safe cigarette working group. This press conference, called by a West Midlands fire chief in 1988, was enormously helpful. It was critical in forcing the debate from cigarettes and onto furniture. And the documents show converting firefighters to their cause was a key plank of big tobaccos policy. Now thanks to those court disclosures, we now know that the Tobacco Companies had actually been working on mr graham, and another firefighter who was on that podium. You see, the documents a re pretty clear. The Tobacco Companies thought they had no credibility to talk about fire safety, and they needed a protective ring of firefighters who could do it for them. So they said mr graham could be one of their so called spark plugs, people who could move the debate their way. So they met him, they engaged with him and sought to make him see furniture rather than cigarettes as the problem. And we know that pretty soon he changed his mind in that direction. We asked mr graham whether he knew back in the 1980s, that he was being targeted by tobacco lobbyists. I didnt know that. They saw you and your support for the self extinguishing cigarette as a thing we had to deal with. Yeah. I was in the fire service. You wouldnt be allowed to do anything like that. You know, you couldnt deal with any businesses, whatever they were. But i never heard from them. Not that i can remember anyway. So you werent aware at any point of the Tobacco Industry sort of. No, i wasnt. Thats all new to me. Mrgraham said hejust changed his mind in favour of furniture regulation. He wasnt alone. In 1988, the government was persuaded. Britain banned a lot of flammable furniture and brought in the current tests. The response from big tobacco . Job done. There memos referred to the group on fire safe cigarettes, self extinguishing. That though was not the end of the lobbying. The Chemical Companies who make retardants became bigger players. The alliance for consumer fire safety in europe aggressively lobbied to extend our rules to other eu countries. They had the same strategy get a firefighter. Id been retired about five years. And then they asked for a meeting. I met them. They said, wed like you to raise fire awareness in europe. And i said, ok, but i do it my way. Im not being influenced by anyone. And they were funded by the fire retardant company . Yes, by a committee of all the flame retardant manufacturers in europe, which is halogenated, phosphorus and all those kind, i understand. And at one time i think smoke alarm people as well. 0k. And the. So from its birth, the alliance was really founded by the fire flame retardant companies, with you as executive front man . I guess. Yeah. It would be silly to say no to that. Mr graham stressed that the alliance did not advocate for retardants in particular, although Chemical Companies would tend to benefit from the tough fire safety rules he wanted. But theyre not the only lobby. Back in 2014, the Business Department proposed changing the test, to make it more sensitive to how modern furniture is actually made. It doesnt represent the way that furniture is constructed, and it doesnt take into account the many Flammable Materials you can get close to the surface in the arms and so forth. You could never bring that test in now. The proposed test reforms would mean regulation and materials not currently covered by the rules, but would also mean an overall reduction in flame retardant use. So he was expecting the Chemical Industry to resist. Another industry though was mobilised by the changes. The Furniture Industry really likes these regulations, because they are a barrier to trade. Because it gives them a huge advantage in the home market. Because if you are a german manufacturer and you want to sell furniture into the uk, youve got to create a separate range that complies with our regulations. A Furniture Industry body said they thought our rules needed a full update, but oposed the reforms because they thought they wouldnt meet government objectives. The government believes these regulations do need reform, but we dont spend much on research to balance the competing concerns about effectiveness and toxicity. Some ministers sought consensus on what would work. But that collapsed in part because there is so much money riding on opposing change. Do you think that we make foreign safety policy on a scientific basis . Not at the moment, no. Ive been involved with committees that set regulations and address regulation changes. And i can tell you that im surprised how little the role of science has in these committees. The standards process in the uk is dominated by people who can afford to attend the meetings, and those are usually people with a vested interest in a particular outcome. All lobbying is funded by the industry. All the resistance to improvements in standards comes from the industry. And there is either money to be made or money to be lost. This is not ancient history. The government consulted once again last year on changes that would reduce the flame retardant load in ourfurniture. We dont know what theyll do, but we do know they faced organise opposition from industry. Also, in the wake of the disaster in kensington, and with relatively little Large Scale Research to rely on, ministers may find it easiest to hope this concern burns itself out. Chris cook. Thats just about it for tonight but before we go, one of the front pages tomorrow stands out, the daily mail describes the tory rebels that voted against the government today as self consumed malcontents. I today as self consumed malcontents. , ahmed will be here tomorrow but from me, good night. Hello there. The weather has taken a wintry turn. In fact across many parts weve seen heavy snow across central and northern england, across the pennines, onto wales and scotla nd the pennines, onto wales and scotland so icy patches will become a problem from the midlands north tonight and during tomorrow mornings rush hour. Pledge of showers in northern and western areas, snow on the hills, may be down to low levels, a windy day with gales in exposure and the best of the sunshine in central and eastern parts and some places staying dry altogether. A colder day than today, 16 at altogether. A colder day than today, 1 6 at best. This area of low pressure pushes off into the near continent, opens the door to a northerly from the arctic so a cold day on friday evening, cold but quieter, fewer showers around, more sunshine, particularly through central parts, a few wintry showers around coastal areas and breezy and cold, 3 5. A cold start to the weekend but as we head into sunday, this milder air will move in off the atlantic. Welcome to newsday, on the bbc. Im babita sharma, in london. The headlines trump lashes out at his party after the republicans shock defeat in alabama. A lot of republicans feel differently, they re happy a lot of republicans feel differently, theyre happy with the way it turned out, but as the leader of the party i would have liked to have had the seat . A major defeat for the british Prime Minister as lawmakers will now get a vote on the final brexit deal. Im rico hizon, in singapore. Also in the programme south koreas leader visits beijing. Could there be a thaw in relations between the countries . And meet the k pop star whos fighting back against the body shamers. Live from our