Transcripts For BBCNEWS BBC Newsroom Live 20240714

Supreme court where just over an hour we will have the extraordinary respectable the spectacle of the lawyer for respectable the spectacle of the lawyerforformer respectable the spectacle of the lawyer for former conservative Prime Minister sirjohn major, accusing the current conservative Prime Minister of acting unconstitutionally. Canadian Prime Ministerjustin trudeau says he deeply regrets wearing skin darkening make up at a school gala almost two decades ago. I shouldnt have done it, i should have known better. It was something that i didnt think was racist at the time but now i recognise it was something racist to do. New Research Suggests robberies are increasing at a faster rate in england and wales than in any other major developed country. And John Humphrys has presented his final edition of radio 4s today programme after 32 years on the show well be playing you his closing words. Good morning. Welcome to bbc newsroom live. David cameron has revealed for the first time how he sought the queens help during the Scottish Referendum of 2014, admitting he asked her to raise an eyebrow over the question of independence. Speaking to the bbc in the new two part series, the former Prime Minister says he approached the queen fearing he could lose the vote which would see scotland leaving the union. The queen later spoke to a well wisher of her desire for people to think very carefully about their future. Our deputy Political Editor john pienaar reports. 19,000. The moment in 2014 David Cameron realised the union was safe, for a time anyway. The Referendum Campaign for Scottish Independence had been defeated. Everybody happy . Yes, thank you. Are we running . But now, David Cameron has told the bbc how, after a startling opinion poll suggested most scots wanted independence, the queen hinted openly at her concern, and how he had a hand in it. I remember conversations i had with my private secretary, and he had with the queens private secretary, and i had with the queens private secretary, not asking for anything that would be in any way improper or unconstitutional, butjust a raising of the eyebrow, even, you know, a quarter ofan inch. We thought would, you know, make a difference. Although the words were very limited, i think it helped to put a slightly different perception on things. The convention is that the queen keeps and is kept clear of politics. It is bound up in the current controversy about brexit, where it touches the role of parliament and the Prime Minister. It is the biggest stitch up. 0n borisjohnson and brexit, mr cameron is blunt, saying the man who is now pm expected the leave campaign to lose, but hoped to gain by backing it. In the end, i think, ultimately he put what was good for his political career ahead of what he actually thought was right for the country. So more secrets, secure until now behind this door, out in the open. More tension, more controversy as if there is not enough already to be getting on with. Lets speak to our deputy Political Editor norman smith whos in westminster now. What direction has there been to this, norman . There has been no public reaction but lots of people in westminster will be extremely surprised, not just that the fact David Cameron seemed to seek the queens involvement in the referendum because, lets be honest, its been an unwritten rule of politics through the ages that the monarch is kept out of the hurly burly of daily politics because you risk compromising his or her independence. So all Prime Ministers have very carefully steered away from dragging the monarch in. David cameron not only concedes he did ask the, in effect, raise an eyebrow point give an indication of her view, however subtly. The other extraordinary thing is David Cameron should go public and openly acknowledge in this documentary he did seek the involvement of the queen. That will cause some surprise, involvement of the queen. That will cause some surprise, i imagine, within the snp, there will be particular concern at mr cameron might have sought to use her majesty to help mr cameron win that referendum. It becomes more salient now, of course, because we are in another constitutional crisis, if you like, namely the court battle currently being fought out over whether Boris Johnson currently being fought out over whether borisjohnson was right to Prorogue Parliament, whether he misled the queen or lied to the queen. Again at the moment where there are questions about politicians potentially involving the queen in the daily business of politics. Interesting as well to listen to mr cameron once again talking about the referendum, defending his decision to call its because he believed it was inevitable. Europe was changing before our eyes and he said he kind of reflected every day on the outcome of the referendum and it caused him pain to see such a divided country. Here is what he said. Standing back from this, if youre asking me do i accept a big share of the blame for the difficulties that we face in our country . Do i think about it every day, does it pain me enormously to see our politics frozen and our society divided . Yes, it does, and i do take my share of responsibility for that, of course. Not for leaving the country unprepared . Look, i dont think there was a huge amount more that could have been done than setting out the alternatives, recognising them, that i wasnt the right person to take the country forward, giving a new Prime Minister the chance to choose between those alternatives and take the country forward. And no regrets about the referendum . Ive huge regrets. Talking about the referendum, norman, Boris Johnson apparently being told according to fenlons Prime Minister, he is 12 days to sit out as brexit plans or its over finlands Prime Minister. The finnish Prime Minister using blunt language saying unless the british present their written proposals by the end of the month there will be no time to do a deal and we will have to leave without any agreement. I think they take in downing street as this is more of the diplomatic squeeze being placed on the British Government and they are not seeing it as a hard deadline after which basically the eu will shut up shop. The position number ten has taken is they will publish proposals but they want to make sure when they do so they dont get shot out of the sky straightaway. Ideas at the moment are being flouted, conversations are ongoing, to prepare this mythical Landing Strip which borisjohnson prepare this mythical Landing Strip which Boris Johnson has prepare this mythical Landing Strip which borisjohnson has talked about ideas are being floated. Went number ten are confident they will get a good healing for these proposals they will then publish them. At the moment they are being cautious because they are not convinced yet the eu is going to give them the thumbs up. Thanks very much, norman. Lets get more on David Camerons remarks about asking the palace for help durin the Scottish Independence Referendum Campaign our royal correspondentjonny dymond is with me now. Its amazing, isnt it, to hear him speaking like this because obviously Prime Minister and queen meet regularly but they are supposed to be completely private conversations. Its astonishing on lots of levels, this story. The first rule of the relationship between Prime Minister and queen as you never talk about the relationship. You go through endless memoirs and biographies, histories of the monarchy, you find almost nothing beyond the platitudes and here is David Cameron saying, of the most critical constitutional moment, ijust the most critical constitutional moment, i just happen the most critical constitutional moment, ijust happen to ask the queen to ask the queen if you could help out. Amazing. Then there is the question of the propriety of the rightness or wrongness of actually doing what he did. Passing the queen to intervene on a political matter. As norman said, there is a whole functioning of the system is the queen does not get involved. Finally, there is the question about the queens decision and decision of her advisers to take part in this. It may well have been she was thinking of saying something anyway, shed already spoken about the value of the union in 1977 in an address to both houses of parliament around thejubilee. To both houses of parliament around the jubilee. Clearly she to both houses of parliament around thejubilee. Clearly she is the queen of the United Kingdom, if there would be one issue she might actually say, think carefully about this, it would be the union. To do so this, it would be the union. To do so after a request had been made by the Prime Minister, i think you are looking at the history of her reign, a very conservative reign, politically, small seek conservative, is being rewritten as we see it. Small c conservative. Has there been comments from the palace . You will not get any comment from Buckingham Palace about demonics role in this but i think its clear the palace will be horrified is this has come out because as norman said, it comes at this a very delicate time where her decision to prorogue, suspend parliament effectively under instruction from Boris Johnson, suspend parliament effectively under instruction from borisjohnson, is coming under questioning by the Supreme Court and this question of what discretion she has two act, to speak, is suddenly having a spotlight thrown on it. This whole thing are supposed to function in darkness, smoothly and quietly and without controversy and suddenly eve ryo ne without controversy and suddenly everyone is saying, how does this work . . Thank you. The Supreme Court will hear submissions from the former Prime Minister sirjohn major today, who will argue borisjohnson acted unlawfully when he suspended parliament. Ben brown is outside the court for us. Quite a showdown, ben. Its the third and final day of these hearings. Effectively trying to decide the highest court in the land, trying to decide if the Prime Minister acted unlawfully when he decided to prorogue or suspend parliament for five weeks. What will be really extraordinary is we will have a lawyer representing the former conservative Prime Minister sirjohn major arguing the current conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson acted wrongly and unlawfully by suspending parliament. He will say the effect of suspending parliament by Boris Johnson, say the effect of suspending parliament by borisjohnson, his advice to the queen to suspend parliament, was to deprive parliament, was to deprive parliament of a voice, thats what sirjohn major will say through his lawyer. And that was motivated by his political interests in ensuring there was no activity in parliaments during the period leading up to the crucial eu summits on the 17th and 18th october. In the meantime, weve had more hearings this morning and more submissions. We heard from the lord advocate for scotland through his lawyer here, james muir qc, arguing once again on behalf of the Scottish Government the prorogation of parliament was unconstitutional. This is what he said. Dissolution paves the way for a general election. It returns matters to the electorate. By contrast, and indeed there are conventions reflected in the Cabinet Office manual about the conduct of government after the dissolution and pending an election. Prorogation, on the other hand, maintains the government in Office Without the mechanisms of accountability to parliament during the period of prorogation. So i say there is an important and significant distinction between the two powers. Could i just press you a bit more on that . Because from the governments case, their researchers suggest the only statutory obligation before the fixed term act, that was, their only statutory obligation of what was to hold a summouns of Parliament Three years after the dissolution of the previous one. If that is right and, like you i havent had time to check it, then you are really falling back on convention as a check, rather than law. It is a reflection of modern times and i suppose. I suppose one might have to consider were a government to exercise or advise her majesty to dissolve parliament, but not to proceed to an election, then, in my submission, one might well have to consider whether legal issues arose in the context of a modern, constitutional democracy. Some of the latest exchanges inside the Supreme Court. The 11 justices on the panel have to decide and we will not necessarily get their judgment this week, it might be next week. The first of what must decide if they can rule on this question of whether the Prime Minister acted lawfully over the suspension of parliament and, if so, what action do they recommend . Do they go ahead and say it was lawful parliament has to or Parliament Must be recalled. Lets go live inside the court. We heard the Scottish Government intervention, there will also be a Welsh Government intervention and were also hearing from a victim from Northern Ireland, son was murdered by loyalist paramilitaries in 1997. His qc is really arguing the suspension of parliament has been and will be more acutely and severely felt by the people of Northern Ireland. Is represented this represented United Kingdom policy and approach prior to the change of government, leadership. Paragraph 42, both parties, that is, the eu 27 states and the uk, affirm the achievements, benefits and commitments of the Peace Process will remain of paramount importance to peace, stability and reconciliation. They are greedy good friday or belfast agreement they agree the good friday agreement is must be protected in all its parts and this extends to the Practical Application of the 1998 agreements on the island of the 1998 agreements on the island of ireland and to the totality of the relationship set out in the agreement. This delicate constitutional balance which was achieved. At the bottom of paragraph 43, the United Kingdom also recalls its commitment to avoidance of a ha rd its commitment to avoidance of a hard border including any physical infrastructure and checks and controls. Both parties recognise and respect the provisions of the Agreement Regarding the constitutional status of Northern Ireland and the principle of consent. The commitment set out in the joint report must remain fully consistent with these provisions. Its really an outline of, one draws oii its really an outline of, one draws on documents to establish what our unwritten our unwritten constitution points to. This is the sort of document that helps in that process. Paragraph 46, the commitments and principles outlined are not be determined will not predetermine the outcome of later discussions. They must be upheld in all circumstances irrespective of the nature of future agreements between the eu and the uk. Im afraid youve lost me as to the bearing this has on the validity of the prorogation of parliament. This feeds into section ten of the withdrawal act. Which is an important safeguarding provision inserted by way of amendment by parliament which reflects the terms of the joint report and the policy of the joint report and the policy of not erecting a hard border on the island of ireland. What does it have to do with the prorogation of parliament . If it is done to stymie parliaments and remove the only protection available to the people of Northern Ireland, parliament will prevent the erection of a hard border, then it is relevant in that context. You can say in a sentence that it parliament is prorogued, all of the safeguards, particularly that are particularly important in Northern Ireland, would be lost. I think probably we have that point that doesnt necessarily require terrific collaboration as to how important it is. Lam not is. I am not sure how far the court would be assisted in the particular section of the yellowhammer report which lays out the calamity that will befall Northern Ireland. Perhaps. It is page 82. Paragraph 18. Whether or not withdraw from the eu isa whether or not withdraw from the eu is a good or a bad thing for any pa rt is a good or a bad thing for any part of the uk is not the issue before us. I agree but it is the context of it. The context is important. If this is the effect of this, as i said, the effect and execution of this decision to stymie parliaments has this effect then its important for the court to be aware of that. Put it in that context. How does it legally affectjust it in that context. How does it legally affect just this ability . This strikes me as completely irrelevant to the legal question the court, any of the legal questions we have to decide. I respect that view, my lord. Your essential point is these are the tangible effects on Northern Irelands by the removal of scrutiny from parliament. Does it require any elaboration beyond that . Reallyjust trying to convey. I suspect we are all aware of the general contents of the yellowhammer report. Lam glad report. I am glad to hear it but it does no harm sometimes to lay out exactly what is going to happen to Northern Irelands. The purpose of this healing is not to rehearse the pros and cons of brexit. Either generally or for Northern Ireland in particular. Idirect Northern Ireland in particular. I direct you to section ten of the withdrawal act because, the importance of this provision is that this will be now impeded in its operation because of the lack of parliamentary scrutiny. It was the provision designed to ensure there would not be and exits which erected a hard border. It is at m513 tab two of the intervenors authorities. We will pull away from us live proceedings in the Supreme Court because that was qc representing the Northern Ireland victims campaigner. His son was killed by paramilitaries in 1997. He is really arguing Northern Ireland will be disproportionately affected, acutely affected by the suspension of parliaments and he was getting some questions from judges asking whether his submissions were entirely releva nt. His submissions were entirely relevant. Anyway, we will, weve been hearing from the Scottish Government and we will later hear from the Welsh Government with their concerns about the proroguing, suspension of parliament. Of course, just after midday we will hear from sirjohn majors lawyer, former conservative Prime Minister who is highly critical of Boris Johnson conservative Prime Minister who is highly critical of borisjohnson and effectively saying mrjohnson has acted unconstitutionally in suspending parliament. Lets discuss todays proceedings. I have the legal expert from the oxford faculty of law and also a senior lecturer in law at middlesex university. Stephan, this intervention from sir john major, in which he is really saying, if you can allow this Prime Minister to suspend parliament, advise the queen to suspend parliament, where would that end . He gives an example of a Prime Minister could simply disband the army. Its extreme examples, for sure. He mentions a Prime Minister as to Prorogue Parliamentjust mentions a Prime Minister as to Prorogue Parliament just when mentions a Prime Minister as to Prorogue Parliamentjust when the army act comes up for renewal or a Prime Minister proroguing parliament when it becomes apparent he or she will lose a vote of no confidence. They are extreme examples but its important to bring out the principles, on what basis are we supposed tojudge principles, on what basis are we supposed to judge this if not on the basis of principle. Boris johnsons explanation basis of principle. Borisjohnsons explanation about the proroguing parliament was because there is a queens speech coming but sirjohn major said that makes no sense and cannot be the explanation. Effectively saying borisjohnson is explanation. Effectively saying Boris Johnson is misleading explanation. Effectively saying borisjohnson is misleading people. The lawyer puts it slightly more carefully but says at the very least its an incomplete explanation because there is nothing stopping the Prime Minister implementing his legislative agenda in the absence of a queens speech. Its largely ceremonial and important for that purpose but not necessarily legally. As we saw, weve heard from the Scottish Government and healing from the Welsh Government with their concerns about this decision to parliament for five weeks. Exactly. We heard quite powerful statements this morning from james muirfor statements this morning from james muir for the Scottish Government, going back to the constitutional principles, calling on the Supreme Courtjudges to principles, calling on the Supreme Court judges to apply anxious scrutiny because these are so important. What this anxious scrutiny mean . He is appealing to, they should not look at this as a matter of political discretion, something that should be stepped away from by judges, that it is so important at the most foundational sense of the uk legal system they must look at everything very closely and apply a very High Standard of review. In the words ofjames very High Standard of review. In the words of james muir this very High Standard of review. In the words ofjames muir this morning, this is not an ordinary court, this is not ordinary times and that Higher Standards must be applied and expected of government. This is the final day of the hearings, when did you think we will get a judgment and how do the 11 justices at the Supreme Court, do they sit round a talk about it like members of a jury . They will definitely have intense discussions. I assume it will be more informal once the cameras are off and away from the courtroom. As to when, thats hard to say. Probably get a decision before we get the reasons for that decision but i would not put money on any particular day. Very cautious. Thank you very much indeed. Thats the latest from the Supreme Court. It will be very interesting to hear that from sir john major. He will not be here in person but we will hear that submission through his barrister. Just after midday. Thats it from the Supreme Court. Back to you in the Supreme Court. Back to you in the studio. We are going straight to westminster for breaking news. Norman smith is there. Some proposals have gone to brussels. Tell is more. Downing street have confirmed submitted technical documents to the eu regarding their thinking, the ideas they are floating in terms of a brexit deal. They cite these do not amount to written papers, written proposals of flushing out the British Governments position. What is the difference between a technical document and written proposal . It sounds to me as if the British Government is very tentatively, slowly beginning to reveal the outline of its position without having to put everything on the table in one big swoop. Fearful of the proposals being rejected. I suspect what theyre trying to do is gradually or incrementallyjust let the eu have a sneak look at the sort of thing is they are thinking about so of thing is they are thinking about so if it goes down too badly, they have not staked too much. Its like a slow lifting of the veil, it seems to me. Why this matters is there has been mounting pressure on the British Government to set out in writing what on earth it once. We heard from john juncker, Michel Barnier and the finnish Prime Minister last night saying youve got to do this, we need it by the end of the month or its going to be too late. Now the British Government have disclosed theyve handed over some technical documents, they described them as non papers, just to safeguard their positions. Presumably around they are thinking about what sort of Common Market for agri Food Products in the island of ireland would look like, how that would operate and how you could have cheques away from borders, those sort of technical nitty gritty details. How they would work without actually putting it as a formal proposal. I think slowly, slowly, the British Government is beginning to reveal a time. There is a quote from a Commission Spokeswoman saying with regard to the proposals, i can confirm weve received documents from the uk. We will have technical discussions on this basis on today and tomorrow in some aspects of customs, manufactured goods and rules. In other words, agriculture and food specifically, as you described. It seems really strange that this is being done in this way youve described as a slow lifting of the veil when they discussions have been, there have been public discussion about the potential agreement focusing on this area for some time. Why has it taken so long to filter through to the technical side of things . The short answer is because within the British Government the view they have one shot at getting disapproved, there is no time to publish a paper, for that to be rejected and for another paper to go and be reworked. There is only one and be reworked. There is only one and go at this. When they finally publish their full proposals they have to sure theyre going to fly and will not get shot down over night. The difficulty is youve got 27 other eu countries and they all have to give its the thumbs up. The strategy of the British Government is to try and square of the key players, jean claude juncker, Michel Barnier, emmanuel macron, angela merkel, the belief that if they are on board behind the scenes there is much more chance when the proposals are on the table and all 27 have to look at it, that they will get left off. Thats why i think you are getting this slow lifting of the veil about what the government is thinking about, the sort of softly, softly strategy, to avoid the whole proposals getting blown out the water. The bottom line is time is 110w water. The bottom line is time is now short. Sooner or later, the British Government will have to show its hand and there are signs the eu really wa nts its hand and there are signs the eu really wants us to do that quickly. Finlands Prime Minister saying it is 12 days or it is all over . Number ten saying they will not respond to these artificial deadlines and i think to be honest, most people think to be honest, most people think it is an artificial deadline, because at the end of the day, the eu are as keen for a deal as we are and the idea they willjust shut up shop at the end of september and say, thats it, we will not try any more, isjust quite say, thats it, we will not try any more, is just quite frankly, improbable. Everyone will go down to the last moment to get a deal because the stakes are so high. The finnish Prime Minister, yes, he described the urgency, may be the mounting unease in the eu at the fa ct mounting unease in the eu at the fact they have not got proposals but we are in a hardball, diplomatic negotiation and the British Government will hold back until they are confident theyve got the best chance they believe they can get to make sure their deal is going to get some sort of traction when it is published. Thanks very much, norman. Three teenagers accused of murdering a Police Officer who was killed while investigating a burglary have appeared in court. Pc Andrew Harper died after he was dragged along a road by a vehicle in berkshire in august. 0ur correspondent jon kay was in court. What happened in court . This hearing only lasted about eight minutes in all. Three teenagers appearing. Henry long is 18 years old, we can name him. Alongside him, two, 17 year olds who we cannot name because of their ages but they are all charged with murder and conspiracy to steal a quad bike. They stood up, confirm their names, address, date of births, dressed in t shirts with their arms crossed at times. It was a packed courtroom, relatives in the room as well, but it was over very quickly. They have been taken to the old bailey in london where they will appear at another hearing at 2 30pm this afternoon. There was another man, thomas king. He is 21 years old. He is charged only with conspiracy to steal a quad bike. Is charged only with conspiracy to steala quad bike. He is charged only with conspiracy to steal a quad bike. He was released on conditional bail. So all of this relates to the death of pc Andrew Harper in the middle of last month. He was 28 years old. He had only got married about a month beforehand to his partner, who described him has the nicest and sweetest man you could ever meet. Another man, jed foster, who is 20, he was arrested last month and he appeared at court a month ago charged with murder and conspiracy to steal a quad bike. That brings you up today with the latest four appearances here today. Thank you very much, jon. Now the weather with simon king. It has been a glorious start to the day but we have some cloud across scotla nd day but we have some cloud across scotland which will start to break up. We can see from the satellite imagery where it is. Elsewhere, there will be cloud floating around but its not going to spoil things too much. We will continue with sunny spells and with light winds it will feel pleasant during this afternoon. Maximum temperature is getting to 17 or 22 degrees. Clear skies and the sun now setting pretty quickly, it will turn quite chilly and with that, we can see temperatures down into single figures in the countryside, but also patchy mist and fog developing during friday morning which could be extensive during southern scotland and northern and eastern parts of england and a few of those fog patches in Northern Ireland. Cloud developing across central and eastern parts during friday. Another fine day for all of us with some sunshine and feeling quite warm. Goodbye for now. Hello this is bbc newsroom live with joanna gosling. The headlines britain has submitted some documents to the eu in writing about brexit which are described as a series of confidential technical non papers. David cameron has revealed he was so worried about scotland voting to break away from the uk, he asked for help from the queen. Lawyers forformer Prime Minister sirjohn major will challenge borisjohnsons decision to suspend parliament on the third and final day of the historic hearing at the Supreme Court. Canadian Prime Ministerjustin trudeau says he deeply regrets wearing skin darkening make up at a school gala almost two decades ago. Sport now and for a full round up, from the bbc sport centre, heres gavin ra mjaun. Good morning. Lets start with the Champions League action, involving two premier league sides. Manchester city, the happier of them. They won their opening game 3 0 against shakhtar donetsk to recover from that shock loss to norwich in the premier league last weekend. Riyad mahrez, this one from Ilkay Gundogan and gabrieljesus with the goals. Tottenham though, blew a two goal lead against 0lympiakos in athens. A harry kane penalty then this strike from lucas moura put them two up. But the greek side got one back before the break, and then mathieu valbuenas penalty earned them a point. One of the glamour ties of the night was at the parc des princes, where an under strength Paris Saint Germain beat real madrid 3 0. And to showjust how far the 13 time champions have fallen, real didnt register a shot on target all night. This time tomorrow well be getting very excited about the rugby world cup. Japan play russia in the opener at 11 45 tomorrow morning. England start their tournament on sunday. They play tonga in sapporo right in the north ofjapan, froim where andy swiss reports. Will there be a fog of gold at the end of englands rainbow . Decidedly autumnal conditions as they trained for a tournament which they are starting as one of the favourites. Four years ago, similarly high hopes endedin four years ago, similarly high hopes ended in humiliation and an early exit. But will this time be a different story . The excitement is building every everyday you get closer, obviously like i said, it is really kicking off now. Englands tournament starts here, which is normally a baseball field but can be transformed into a grass surface. This should be a simple enough start for england, they will emerge here against tonga as the overwhelming favourites. But for all their undoubted quality, there are still some questions. Their main dilemma is in the backs, who plays at centre . Will it be captain 0wen farrell, or will it be henry slade . Ready after recovering from a knee injury. You can never really tell. We like to try different combinations and all we can do is keep sparing each other on as players and keep driving each other to keep improving and whoever gets picked, gets picked. Remember the last time an england team played a world cup match here . It was when David Beckhams penalty famously beat argentina in 2002. Fast forward 17 years, the sport might be different, but they will be hoping for a different, but they will be hoping fora similar different, but they will be hoping for a similar result. Andy swiss, bbc news. Europes solheim cup winning captain, catriona matthew, says golfs governing bodies need to do more to combat slow play. Team europe beat the usa by the finest of margins at gleneagles but theres been criticism over the pace of play, with some third round matches lasting six hours. Rory mcilroy was amonsgt the critics, saying he found it hard to not get frustrated. Slow play is a problem in mens and ladys golf but i think really, i am a quick player so it frustrates me no end. The only solution is for the referees to stamp down on it, they have to start giving out a few penalties and players will speed up. Thats all the sport for now. Ill have more for you in the next hour. Thank you very much, gavin. The latest figures for people with learning disabilities and autism who are in assessment and treatment units in england have just been released, and show that 2,255 people were in hospital as inpatients at the end of august this year. The government said in 2015 it was committed to reducing inpatient numbers in england by at least 35 by march of this year. Theyve since extended the deadline to 2020 after failing to reach that target. The nhs says theyre committed to supporting people with a learning disability or autism. Leo andrades son stephen spent six years in an atu, 70 miles away from his home. Shes here now. Thank you for coming in, tell us about your sun and what happened . Stephen was sent to two different units from st andrews and northampton, he moved to the priory in clacton on sea. Two years in the first one and four years in the second one. Both were horrendous times for him. And for my family as a whole. The amount of physical, mental and verbal abuse and not to mention chemical abuse and restraint that he had was absurd. At times, i just felt like i was going to bring my sun, my sun was going to come home ina my sun, my sun was going to come home in a box. And when i say a box, imeana home in a box. And when i say a box, i mean a coffin because there were times he was so catatonic, left, it felt like he was dying. Why did he go in . You had no say in it . |j felt like he was dying. Why did he go in . You had no say in it . I had no say whatsoever. It had been arranged through the social services asa arranged through the social services as a whole. Because he had special needs . Yes and he had challenging behaviours. He had a serious incident, a head injury that was very, very serious and he nearly died. This was at a residential school. And with that came the idea that he was too challenging for them to look after and this was a special school for people like him. To look after and this was a special schoolfor people like him. So to look after and this was a special school for people like him. So you had no say in it, your son is taken a long way away from it, 80 miles away . Yes. That is challenging enough, did you know at the time what was going on in terms of the treatment, was he able to communicate with you . Stephen has a very limited language so he couldnt communicate. But much less, when we arrived, about five weeks later we started visiting him because we were told we could not visit before then. When we visited, my son was unrecognisable. In what way . He couldnt walk any longer and there we re couldnt walk any longer and there were four people dragging him along. His feet were dragging on the floor. I looked at him, he was all wet from dribbling, his mouth was almost twisted to the side, like he had had a stroke. You know, from the amount of anti psychotic drugs they had been giving him. He came towards me andi been giving him. He came towards me and i tell you, my knees buckled because i had goose bumpsjust remembering that moment. He comes towards me and he says, barely able towards me and he says, barely able to say, mummy. Comes and i am about to say, mummy. Comes and i am about to hold him and he folds to his knees. Because he wasjust to hold him and he folds to his knees. Because he was just sloppy, couldnt hold his body. So that is one sort of, that in itself is already abuse. You have described it before as like he was living in world country . He couldnt get him out . I couldnt get him out, you know, i am obviously not british, but i am so incredibly proud to be living in this country. My been here for 34 years. I see this country as my home and i come from a tiny little place. I had never heard of such a thing, you institutionalise a person for being autistic. To me, it did feel that it was that third world ca re did feel that it was that third world care that my son was having. I never realise that you could institutionalise a person with autism, because he was autistic. You have described it as being a dirty secret . It is definitely a dirty secret. Just on that, the government said a spotlight has been shone on it and the government wants to reduce the number of people in these units, but it is not hitting the targets . Units, but it is not hitting the targets . They are down 15 for the adults and then 245 for the children, down to ten. That is the figures from june. How can they actually account for these such small numbers . I know, i dont even know if this is quite correct. I am not saying that the data is wrong, but having heard from families including families of ten year olds being admitted and the nhs england says they have no such cases. But families have contacted me. There is one about to go into an institution. A ten year old. So it is absolutely shocking you are going to send this tiny, little child. Very upsetting . Very upsetting. My son was 13 stone. He came out of the First Institution at 7. 5 stone, he could no longer walk, he came out in a wheelchair. Can you imagine what it is like for this poor boy. What do you want the government to do now . |j this poor boy. What do you want the government to do now . I want them to start doing everything possible. We know the situation, we are putting money into it. Where is the money . I feel they should, if they cannot put the money in places to put homes for instance, because that is a big issue, not having a home. My children had a home. My son had a home, he always had a home. I am not saying it is possible for every family, every family is different. But there is a big percentage of families who want their children back and want them home. So why can we not do that . Thank you so much. Lets go live now inside. Parliamentary southern tree is not limited to the words or even the intent of a statute on the page. It does extend broader and it extends broader to the idea of needing a court tojudicially broader to the idea of needing a court to judicially review the executive tomorrow against standards that have been set in an act that parliament has made. It extends to the idea, very well established as lord justice hale has explained, it is in11. 1, the lord justice hale has explained, it is in 11. 1, the idea that in his parliamentary sovereignty, that parliamentary sovereignty, that parliament cannot bind its successors. What is it about . It is about the ongoing of legislation to parliament because parliamentary southern tree is not narrow as sir james argues that it is in the present case. Is there some magic then about prerogative powers that mean it is different if you have the prerogative power, judicial review is curtailed and you can go as far as does it cut across primary legislation . That is laker in 1976 which you discussed in miller number one. Prerogative power that frustrates the statutes. But you cannotjudicially review frustrates the statutes. But you cannot judicially review prerogative power against judicial cannot judicially review prerogative power againstjudicial principle and that would be very, very striking and there is no support for it. But lets think of an example, because he practice what you preach, as courts when it comes to constitutional principle. Lets take one that is applicable to the courts. The open justice one that is applicable to the courts. The openjustice principle. What is the open justice principle . That would have been quiz question number six. It is a constitutional principle and identified as such in a case called guardian, which was discussing kennedy. So let us suppose for a moment that you have gotan suppose for a moment that you have got an inferior court, i will use that Old Fashioned phrase and a judicial review. Now, lets suppose it is Non Statutory. So it is not exercising statutory powers, you cannot point to an enabling act. Arthur powers judicially reviewable against constitutional principle against constitutional principle against a matter of principle . Not only are they, but we have the authority. Guardian news itself was authority. Guardian news itself was a judicial review of the Magistrates Court and Guardian Media says in terms, and this court has very recently confirmed it in terms, rejecting attempts to distinguish the early authorities. You have accepted that constitutional principle applying to Non Statutory powers. It is neither nor there. I hope you have now got just two things i wanted you to have this money because these are points that have come up during the hearing. I hope you have got dream and if you have got dream, then you will have page 442, paragraph 41, the constitutional principle of open justice applies to all court and tribunal is exercising judicial power of the state. It is cape in my book. Sorry, that is my mistake. Have you got cape. I can remember it quite clearly. For those of you who are not there or who cannot remember it, try not to take it personally, this discussion, the principle of openjustice applies this discussion, the principle of open justice applies to all courts and judiciary. The point about the neither here nor there came from guardian if you go back two pages to paragraph 36 on page 440. If you wa nt paragraph 36 on page 440. If you want guardian, we have guardian as well. The fact that magistrates principles were created by statute was neither here though there. Guardian isa was neither here though there. Guardian is a judicial review. What about sandyford . Because guardian is a judicial review. What about sandyford . Because there has been an idea and it has been discussed and said james showed you an authority, the air centre case and try to persuade you that improper purposes isnt available for a prerogative power. I want to dress that very briefly. Sandiford is about factoring of discretion. That is all it is about. You have seen that is all it is about. You have seenin that is all it is about. You have seen in sandiford, volume three, tab 32 of the mineral authorities, lord manse was talking about no external originator, love luncheon at 83 was talking about no empowering act as the derivation of the power and the point they were making was the same point they were making was the same point that my lord, lord sayles persuaded a court of appeal, including my lady, lady adam in a case which is adopted in sandiford. It is because the Court Decides that principle of flattering or non feta ring, is necessarily linked to whether you have a statutory power. We know there is no general principle of that kind or you would not have had Laker Airways in the 19705. That not have had Laker Airways in the 1970s. That is all that decides. Now you might say that could there be other principles in public law which would also be switched off or modified and there could be. Lets ta ke modified and there could be. Lets take an example, a case that we have cited in our written submissions of checking it. It is a principle you will all remember. It is 52, tab 38 and lord bridge. I dont need to go to it because he will know it off by heart. Power is held by the executive on trust and it is not u nfettered. Executive on trust and it is not unfettered. He went on approving wade and forsyth. It can only be exercised for the purpose parliament intended when conferring the power. That bit is not going to work in a judicial review of prerogative power. He would be into Alliance Territory and he would be into sandiford territory. I am not ruling out that there might be others, but you wouldnt have a problem with the first part of that. Indeed, it is accepted and my lord, lord sales has written about it that prerogative power has to be exercised in the general interest, in the public interest. But you havent got an empowering act. The most important paragraph of sandiford is paragraph 65 in which it is said in terms, the other principles ofjudicial review remain available. 62 did you say . 65, miller three, tab 32. You have not got a lot of time left . |j 65, miller three, tab 32. You have not got a lot of time left . I know. That wasnt said in a vacuum in sandiford because one of the cases you had in mind was blank at number two. It is worth having in mind volume two, tab 23 of the miller bundles. Because that was the case and you have seen lord hoffmann at paragraph 35, which was about not gchq, the exercise of prerogative power under an instrument, but prerogative power to make an instrument for the British Indian ocean territories. And they argued, you will see it at electronic pages ten and 11 in the report at that case. Unanimously, the court said, lord hoffmann was paragraph 35, lord bingham 71, lord rodger at 105, lord carswell122 and not onlyjudicial review is applicable, but the grounds for judicial review are available. No good reason why not, didnt matter it was an instrument rather than an exercise of power. Lord months says no good reason and every reason why it should be. Sojust no good reason and every reason why it should be. So just because there arent suppose you had an instrument for that island that is subsequently made, which on the face of it, is a marine protected area proclamation issued by a commissioner in accordance with her majestys instruction through the secretary of state. Just suppose you had an argument that through improper purpose, there is no primary legislation or statute to reach back to. Studio day three of the Supreme Court hearing on the legality or not of suspending parliament by Boris Johnson. We arejust of suspending parliament by Boris Johnson. We are just hearing from mike fordham qc with an intervention by the counsel general for wales. Coming up next, it will be the qc load guarding a speaking in behalf of sirjohn major. We will have full coverage after midday but right now lets catch up with the weather. The weather has been fine over the last few days and it will stay fine as we go into the start of the weekend. Some changes on sunday however. Lots of sunshine through this morning. As you can see through one of our weather watcher photographs, High Pressure is in charge of the weather at the moment. Many weather fronts just around the periphery of that. We will keep the dry and settled conditions through the rest of today. There is some cloud across central and northern scotland. That will break up to give some sunny scotland. That will break up to give some sunny spells. Sunny spells elsewhere and the temperature is getting up to about 18 to 21 or 22 degrees. Through tonight, with light winds and clear skies, it could turn quite chilly, especially when the sun sets and through tonight, there could be patchy mist and fog developing especially with northern and eastern parts of england. 0n the dense side but localised and temperatures getting down to about seven to 10 degrees. First thing tomorrow morning, it could be chilly, one of those mornings where you will need a jacket. As the sun comes up you will need a jacket. As the sun comes up and we you will need a jacket. As the sun comes up and we go you will need a jacket. As the sun comes up and we go into the afternoon, you will be taking it off again because with the sunshine returning on friday, cloud across eastern areas, the midlands, northern parts, itll be a warmer day, particularly in the north east of scotla nd day, particularly in the north east of scotland and it will affect where the wind over the mountains, dries and warms and temperatures 24 celsius. It is the weekend and we have a south easterly wind and that would draw in even warmer conditions. So for saturday, a much warmer day across the board. A bit of low cloud, mist and fog vesting in the morning, that should clear away and lots of sunshine. She was moving it across the far west and south west of the uk. But the temperatures getting up into the 20s, temperatures getting up into the 205, 25, 20 6 degrees in the south east of england. I said there isa south east of england. I said there is a change on sunday and that is because we have low pressure moving its way in and that will bring in some showery rain across south western areas. For scotland, through eastern areas of england, perhaps then dry and pretty sunny for much of the day, the rain pushes its way further north and eastwards and some of the rain could be on the heavy side during sunday. It will be a little bit cooler as well, temperatures coming down by a few degrees. Across northern and eastern parts of sunshine it will feel pleasant, temperatures about 21 to 23 degrees. That is all from me, goodbye. This is bbc news im ben brown at the Supreme Court on the third and final day of a hearing into whether borisjohnson acted lawfully in suspending parliament. This morning, the court has been hearing submissions from the scottish and Welsh Governments and also a Northern Ireland claimant. In the next few minutes, lawyers for former Prime Minister sirjohn major will challenge borisjohnsons decision to Prorogue Parliament. Well be bringing you that live. Im joanna gosling, our other main stories this hour britain submits some proposals to the eu in writing about brexit, which are described as a series of confidential technical non papers. David cameron reveals he was so worried about scotland voting to break away from the uk, he asked for help from the queen. Not asking for anything that would be in any way improper or unconstitutional, butjust a raising of the eyebrow. Canadian Prime Ministerjustin trudeau says he deeply regrets wearing skin darkening make up at a school gala almost two decades ago. I shouldnt have done it, i should have known better. It was something that i didnt think was racist at the time but now i recognise it was something racist to do. Good afternoon. Welcome to bbc newsroom live. The Supreme Court is sitting for a third, and final day, to consider whether Boris Johnson acted lawfully in suspending parliament. Lets go to ben brown at the Supreme Court. Welcome. We are alive at the Supreme Court, the uks highest court. It is hearing a case that is really crucial legally constitutionally and politically for this country. It is a hearing by the 11 Supreme Court justices who are on a panel here, only the second time in its history 11 judges have sat together, to the side, effectively, whether the Prime Minister acted lawfully or unlawfully when he decided to advise the queen to prorogue or suspend parliament for five weeks. Today the Scottish Government has been making a submission in the Supreme Court, that started earlier on. Lets listen to what the lawyer for the Scottish Government had to say in protest at that decision to suspend parliament. Dissolution paves the way for a general election. It returns matters to the electorate. By contrast, and indeed there are conventions reflected in the Cabinet Office manual about the conduct of government after the dissolution and pending an election. Prorogation, on the other hand, maintains the government in Office Without the mechanisms of accountability to parliament during the period of prorogation. That was the lawyer from the Scottish Government. There is also a submission from the government, both from the Welsh Government. We heard from the lawyer of raymond mccord. Raymond mccord is a victims campaigner in Northern Ireland. His son was murdered in 1997 by the Ulster Volunteer force. His lawyer ronan lavery was arguing Northern Ireland will be more severely and acutely affected by the suspension of parliament. When one looks at the context of peace in Northern Ireland, my clients perspective, his son was murdered because of this its important to put that into context. His faith in institutions of government and parliament to protect his rights and the rights of the people of Northern Ireland and this is what he urges the court to do. Those, a flavour of the submissions weve had earlier today. The one everybody is waiting for now is what is potentially an extraordinary spectacle, sirjohn major, former conservative Prime Minister, will not be in person here but through his barrister, lord garnier qc, he will argue the current conservative Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, will argue the current conservative Prime Minister, borisjohnson, acted unconstitutionally in suspending or proroguing parliament. Lets speak to our Legal Affairs correspondent. Clive, this is, its a landmark case a nyway clive, this is, its a landmark case anyway but this moment, a former Prime Minister directly condemning and being very critical of the current Prime Minister, it is extraordinary. It feels illegally, constitutionally, politically we are somewhat through the looking glass. Its extraordinary it feels legally. A former tory Prime Minister coming to the highest court in the land to support the allegation against the current Prime Minister he misled the monarch of the realm and undermine parliament over the way they are. We know what john major or lord garnier onjohn major behalf will say because weve seen major behalf will say because weve seen the written submission. Firstly, on the ward, thats really just a question of whether this is a matter that the court can deal with, it isa matter that the court can deal with, it is a matter that is appropriate for the court to deal with. On the written submission, he says if the court backs away from that, it will meana court backs away from that, it will mean a Prime Minister could, for instance, this a standing army, the Prime Minister could Prorogue Parliament to avoid the results of a vote of no confidence. Its that the big, if you like. Then whatjohn major does very forensically in his written submission as he goes to the issue of improper purpose, why did the Prime Minister prorogue . Forensically, he goes through each of the opportunities the government, the Prime Minister and civil serva nts the Prime Minister and Civil Servants had to swear an affidavit or swear to a witness statement saying the purpose of proroguing was for a new queens speech and new government agenda and six, in his submission, to take apart the fact that simply has not been done. He goes through all the parliamentary questions that have been put to the Prime Minister including questions from the formerjustice secretary david gauke, former attorney general dominic grieve, all asking for clarity on this point and for the Prime Minister to go beyond the limited documentation that has been provided in this case to give something more akin to a statement that it something more akin to a statement thatitis something more akin to a statement that it is true that this is why we did it, why we Prorogue Parliament. Those are the main thrusts of lord garniers submission. 0n garniers submission. On that point abbott sirjohn major effectively accusing Boris Johnson of misleading the queen, he goes into Boris Johnsons of misleading the queen, he goes into borisjohnsons repeated explanation, parliament was suspended because of the queens speech, for the government to lay out their agenda butjohn major says that makes no sense and cannot be the explanation. Lets listen into lord garnier on behalf of sirjohn major. In particular after a period of the prorogation. Secondly, because it contains clear and unambiguous allegations in evidence and supported by evidence that the reasons set out in the documents put before the court by the Prime Minister cannot be true. For example, in the introductory section of the statement, paragraph five, the last few lines, where it sir john major it says the inescapable inference to be drawn is a prorogation is to prevent parliament exercising its right to disagree with government and legislative as it sees fit. This is important because of the discussion yesterday as to whether there is an expectation injudicial as to whether there is an expectation in judicial review proceedings that the Decision Maker would explain the reasons for the decision. Whether there is or is not room for doubt about whether such evidence is to be expected in the ordinary courts, i submit it was more of this accepted by my loan at friend sirjames ed on behalf of the Prime Minister were an allegation of this kind has been made it would be normalfor this kind has been made it would be normal for there at least to be some kind of witness statement in response in this case, we made a direct allegation in evidence and reason stated in the documents do not stack up and theres been no witness statement in response no real reason provided why not. Lets meet quickly move to a brief overview the statement. In his statement sirjohn explains in paragraph nine and ten that prorogation in our constitution is used. And in practice leaves the queen with no discretion and leader of the house Jacob Rees Mogg said as much in an interview. 12 of the major statement, he addresses the significance of the distinction between prorogation, adjournment, recess and dissolution and draws from the institute of government. Paragraph 18 to 24 and particularly paragraph 23, he identifies three main reasons which have been put forward the governments documents that explains why each of them is a perfectly sensible reason for proroguing but no reason at all for proroguing but no reason at all for proroguing forfive proroguing but no reason at all for proroguing for five weeks, let alone for five critical weeks in a period in which time is of the essence. Then we go to paragraph 26 onwards, the second half of the statement. Where sirjohn identifies various pieces of evidence which suggests the decision was in fact motivated toa the decision was in fact motivated to a material extent by a desire to prevent parliament from interfering with the promise tos policies during that critical period. Prorogation is different from the solution. In his submission is my loa n solution. In his submission is my loan at friend sirjames relied on the dissolution of parliament, what he called a core example of a proroguing power before the fixed term parliaments act. He submitted there was no material difference between prorogation and dissolution so even though there is no authority suggesting the power of prorogation is not justiciabile, no authority suggesting the power of prorogation is notjusticiabile, to reply. There is a wealth of difference between the two. World of difference. Prorogation overrides parliament in favour of the executive. Its the direction of travel points and this point was brought up in questioning by lord hodge and lord kerr. The power of the solution allows parliaments to renew its mandate from the electorate, it brings the state in contact with the ultimate source of democratic legitimacy. There are ceta cea ns i democratic legitimacy. There are cetaceans i will not go to to support that. Prorogation transfers power in the other direction, not closer to the source of democratic legitimacy but further away. From the perspective of a principle of parliamentary sovereignty, first a power of the solution necessarily involves a n power of the solution necessarily involves an interference with parliaments but the principal effect of that interference is to ensure the political basis for parliamentary sovereignty remains intact. The power of prorogation also involves an interference with parliament but it is a matter purely between the organs of the state, there is no reason, we say, why it should be treated as non reviewable simply because the power of the solution was once not reviewable. What principle is therefore not reviewing the dissolution, what principle . The reviewing the dissolution, what principle . The authority reviewing the dissolution, what principle . The authority that authorities which spoke of this in the past, predated the fixed term parliaments act. I suspect because there was in the Victorian Era and before, much greater. You are watching live coverage inside the Supreme Court. You can continue watching on the bbc news channel but for now we say goodbye to viewers on bbc two. In some senses, and i dont wish to be pertinent but a lot of how our constitution has developed over time isa constitution has developed over time is a series of fudges, politically convenient arrangements. The example my has just addressed is, i suspect not one of those. We exercise the necessary polite fiction is in order to enable the constitution to work. Let me come onto permissible purposes. The defendant, the Prime Minister, repeated that poses the question how is this court to determine what is permissible and what is impermissible . He submits the decision to prorogue inevitably involves a degree of politics, at least as to timing, and how is the court to decide what is good or bad political reasoning . In our submission that misses the point. The question is not with the motive is political or it is a good or bad political reason, but whether the prorogation contravenes a legal principle. As we said in ourfirst written submission at paragraph seven,in written submission at paragraph seven, in the case of a statutory, the most obvious way of determining which properties are legitimate or illegitimate is consult the statute. But the statute or a statute is not the only source of legal rules, there are some legal principles that we submitare there are some legal principles that we submit are sufficiently important that they are a proper look to be regarded as governing the purposes for which any power may be exercised and parliamentary sovereignty is one on such principles. It requires no specific statutory underpinning. It is inherent in the constitutional order. Sirjames are submitted yesterday parliamentary sovereignty was limited to the principal its an unduly narrow plot parliament can make or unmake its own laws but we say that is an unduly narrow formulation. It is enough to make the point because parliament cannot make or unmake laws if it is not allowed to sit. Parliament does not only exercise it sovereignty through legislation. It does so through sonic papers and people, through holding the government to account on the floor of the houses of parliament, it even holds its sovereignty by the power of contempt. Holding people in contempt of parliament. You will remember the case from 1957 where he appeared at the bar of the house, also in 2016 two newspaper executives involved in the phone hacking scandal were held in contempt for telling untruths to a parliamentary committee. And in march of this year at mr Dominic Cummings was held in contempt of parliament. Forfailing cummings was held in contempt of parliament. For failing to come before the culture, media and sport committee. The relevant question we submit, is the power being exercised ina way submit, is the power being exercised in a way that materially impedes parliaments in a way that materially impedes pa rliaments ability to in a way that materially impedes parliaments ability to discharge its functions in the way it considers important or appropriate. Sirjames submits any prorogation involves a n sirjames submits any prorogation involves an interference with parliaments involves an interference with pa rliaments function but involves an interference with parliaments function but is it true it is immaterial interference but is it eight material interference . If its for a very short period there is no material interference, if it comes when there is no particular present lodge of the business, no time crucial critical deadline outside the parliaments control, anything which Parliament May wish to do during the period of prorogation can equally be done during the new session, if necessary with retrospective effect. So it is prevented from acting in the short term. Ultimately it can still do what it wishes to do. My lords, sir james submitted this issue would involve the court in a series of impossible questions, how long is too long, what is reasonable and unreasonable. 0ne too long, what is reasonable and unreasonable. One could make the same submissions about other areas of the law, negligence, concept of proportionality, and so on. The law recognises standards which it may not be possible to lay out mechanically in the abstract in a way that covers all possible permutations but which it is possible to apply to a given case. Cani possible to apply to a given case. Can i quickly turned to political motives. The defendant has relied upon two examples of prorogation is that it said were done for political gain and therefore illustrate prorogation for political gain is legitimate of power. He cites the case in 1948 when there were three sessions in quick succession in order to amend the 19 Parliament Act into the 1949 act. As lady hale and lady arden also commented that was legislation passed in order to facilitate the work of the democratically elected house and it had the overwhelming support of that house, as we see in our written submissions in paragraph two in the second set. Sirjames said thats the frustration of parliament as a whole. Wrong, it was not. It was an exact compliance with the 1911 act. The Parliament Act 1911 provided the bill had to be passed in three successive sessions within two yea rs. Successive sessions within two years. Thats precisely what the parliament in 1948 dead. Nothing donein parliament in 1948 dead. Nothing done in 48 frustrated they will of the house of lords and it was very much in accordance with the will of the commons. The second example referred to in a tweets by nikki da costa in july referred to in a tweets by nikki da costa injuly before she came into government, 14 days before she came into government, touched upon gently by my learned friend sirjames is the prorogation in 1997 at the end of thejohn the prorogation in 1997 at the end of the john major the prorogation in 1997 at the end of thejohn major parliament. It was suggested he had prorogued for a base political reasons. Again wrong. I have not got time to take you to the facts on it but if the court would look at the documents which are appended to a statement youll find a letter from are appended to a statement youll find a letterfrom lord heseltine to the times which completely cuts that off and destroys the factual basis off and destroys the factual basis of that. If anything, the fact the allegation was made that the prorogation fort that was controversial, suggests it would have been regarded as an impermissible use of the power, in other words, it runs entirely contrary to sirjamess submission. Why should the court stopped the prorogation when parliament has an opportunity to do what it wants . Sir james submitted there is no need for the court to intervene because the defence relating to the hilary benn bill and shown it can legislate when it wants to. As lord sales already made the point theres only so much Time Available but there are two further reasons we submit white that no answer. Firstly, the reason there are no answer. Firstly, the reason there a re processes no answer. Firstly, the reason there are processes for considering and developing legislation is because legislation generally benefits from scrutiny. Legislating in a hurry leads to the old cliche what is the lot that Parliament Passes when its often in a hurry, the law of the unintended consequence. Secondly, it not the amount of Time Available but when that time is. Events may develop between now and the 14th of 0ctober develop between now and the 14th of october and Parliament May wish to legislate in early october in a way could not have foreseen in late similarly, lord keen submitted the courts should not step in where parliament could have prevented the prorogation but did not do so. Well, its not at all obvious we say, parliament would have been able to prevent the prorogation. There is the requirement for the queen to consent, weve seen thats from erskine may and mr oneill, that could have been withheld. Even if the queens and central required parliament could simply have been prorogued before any bill made it law. The logic of the justiciability would the court would have nothing to say about that despite it being an obvious frustration of the will of parliament. As also suggested, parliament could have passed a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister, a suggestion taken up by my learned friend, that would not have addressed the voice of the prorogation. Probably would have made matters worse. We would have lost parliament, parliament would have lost up to 14 days in deciding whether another person could form an administration. 0r whether another person could form an administration. Or it could have led to the dissolution of parliament in which case the whole thing would have had to start again. Time and the risk of wasting it when time is very the risk of wasting it when time is very scarce, the risk of wasting it when time is very scarce, is something i think this court should take account of. Lord wilson yesterday asked the start question, if we cannot control whats going on, who can . It seems to me these are, i think lord sales also dealt with the question, the danger of politicising the queen, these points are aspects of a broader submission that this court should not intervene in decisions to promote because they involve matters of. The obvious response to that is the recently caught the political matters alone is because they are subject to political control the reason the courts leave political matters alone. If the body that would exercise that control has been prevented from acting. We identified several examples of exercises of the power of prorogation which would frustrate political control but in a nswer to frustrate political control but in answer to that point, sirjames relies on two other possible types. Practical constraints, he talks of the need to vote money to pass the Armed Forces Act. As we point out in a second written submission at paragraph seven, was controls all meet the fundamental obstacle they depend for their effectiveness on the premise that placing a Higher Authority on the orderly running of the country than on the achievement of his political goals. All it would ta ke of his political goals. All it would take is a Prime Minister who is happy to see funding for Public Services lapse or for the Armed Forces Act to expire in order to achieve his goals and the controls would be useless. We submit it would bea would be useless. We submit it would be a strange constitution that protected against a conscientious but not against a reckless one. The prospect of the sovereigns ability to refuse consent for prorogation. The short answer is if the courts should not interfere because it is too political, thats all the more reason why it would be wrong for the sovereign to be required to step in. The reason is that the government have given in this case, as i mentioned, in sirjohns evidence explains is relevant to the decision to provoke, put forward by the government, explained by the should be prorogation but they dont in any way address the reasons why it must be for five weeks. There are two things must obviously missing from the 15th of august da costa briefing paper to the Prime Minister. First, while there is an attempt to explain the 14th of october would be appropriate for the queens speech and therefore for the session to end, for the prorogation to end, there not attempt to explain why Early September would be an appropriate date for prorogation to begin. A point drawn out by lloyd lord kerr yesterday. The logic of the briefing is consistent with the decision to prorogued on the friday before. The inference must be there must be another factor that meant the Decision Maker wanted to select that prorogation to begin much earlier. In the absence of any suggestion it was recognised the prorogation might be controversial. Taken in isolation, that might not be surprising. What is necessary to consider the offer as lord wilson pointed out on the first day of this hearing, this is a person who several weeks before writing this briefing paper which gives the impression that the decision is entirely logistical, was writing in the spectator on the 29th ofjune, thatis the spectator on the 29th ofjune, that is in your papers, about the possibility of a Prime Minister running down the clock in the lead up running down the clock in the lead up to the mid october European Union summit in describing prorogation as a nuclear option. We dont buy the suggestion from lord keen the woman who wrote the article in latejune had a different character or mental state to the woman who wrote the briefing paper and he was closely advising the pro minister once he had taken office. Let me quickly deal. You are more artless out of time. You are more artless out of time. You are more artless out of time. You are more artless out of time. You started early. However we might i think indulge it with your two minutes. However we might i think indulge it with your two minuteslj however we might i think indulge it with your two minutes. I would be very grateful. I really am on my last few submissions. We say there is credible prima facie evidence of the reasons on the documents are not true and complete. Theres been no evidence produced to rebut that, there has been requested to provide that information. In those circumstances, it would, its very difficult not to infer the reason is any evidence which could be given would be highly adverse to the Prime Ministers case, the inference in any normal circumstances that would be readily drawn. We submit that inference is all the more justifiable in the circumstances, where there is recent evidence of the downing street press office having been misleading in its announcements, i give the example at paragraph 20 and 21 of these. The 24th of august 2019 in response to reports the Prime Minister was considering prorogation a spokesman said they claim the government is considering proroguing parliament in september to stop mps debating brexit is entirely false. That is technically consistent with the Prime Ministers case but as a denial to the reports prorogation was been considered its not the whole truth. Whatever its intent its effect was plainly to mislead. We know that because it missed out even a member of the cabinet, the culture secretary. We note the day after that the defence secretary gave the game away with the interview of him in the papers. In other words, its not a case were statements made other than through the formal process ca n other than through the formal process can be taken to be the whole truth and nothing but the truth at theirface value. Finally, im grateful to you, sirjames referred yesterday to the risk of cross examination is one reason the premise that might have been relu cta nt. Premise that might have been reluctant. In our experienced applications for cross examination are rare and successful ones are even rarer. If the court did grant an application to cross examine the Prime Minister it only could be done if the court was satisfied there is sufficiently serious prima facie case the evidence is true. If the evidence is credible is no risk of cross examination being successful. If it was not it would be odd if the premise that could insulate himself from challenge by deciding to put. I apologised for going over my time and for gobbling. I hope throughout my submissions you been able to gather what ive been on about, broadly. According to the timetable, the court is now due to adjourn until tpm when we will look forward to hearing from you, lord keen. There we are, the latest session of the Supreme Court on this third and final day of these hearings, where the 11 Supreme Court justices, final day of these hearings, where the 11 Supreme Courtjustices, you can see them standing as they prepare to file out of court for their lunch adjournment, they are having to decide whether or not the Prime Minister acted lawfully when he advised the queen to suspend parliament for five weeks to Prorogue Parliament. That was lord garnier, you arejust Prorogue Parliament. That was lord garnier, you are just hearing Prorogue Parliament. That was lord garnier, you arejust hearing quite an extraordinary spectacle because sirjohn major, he is representing sirjohn major, he is representing sirjohn major, the former conservative Prime Minister, who is effectively accusing the current conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson, of acting unconstitutionally and wrongly corroding parliament. Lets talk about whats just been going on with doctor stefa n about whats just been going on with doctor stefan phil from the university of oxford, and another legal expert who has been following legal expert who has been following legal proceedings. What did you make of what is sirjohn majors case against borisjohnson to mark very much in keeping by what was said by the made on behalf. So strong on the law, arguing from principle, taking us law, arguing from principle, taking us to some extreme examples to tease out what the principles are and then apply them to prorogation to find out if this was lawful and by those submissions, they think it was illegal. He said Boris Johnsons explanation about why they suspended parliament, all about the queens speech, this made no sense and cannot be the expo nation. In other words, he is pretty much accusing mr johnson of misleading everybody . We had some quite strong written submissions read by his qc to the court, asking them to look at the interviews, the evidence, look for the motivation. Look for the motivation that is trying to frustrate the centre of principle. In court we have seen a response to the principles, wonderful back and forth on the idea of a dissolution of parliament. The dissolution of parliament is what happensjust before a general election. Parliament no longer sets. If dissolving parliament is simply the same as corroding parliament, but in a wonderful mind, from what we heard from sirjohn majors lawyer was, no, when we dissolve parliament it is to Bring Parliament closer to the people with a general election. With prorogation, we are moving it further away, by taking away the parliament. This is the essence of the case against the Prime Minister, he was denying parliamentary scrutiny and sovereignty . Exactly, there is the argument put forward by there is the argument put forward by the government to say, when you think about parliamentary sovereignty it is about the legislative supremacy of parliament and that parliament is supreme law maker which can choose to make and unmake any law it wishes. The good point made in the submissions now, it requires some thought and time. You need to be able to sit and discuss to make and unmake the laws and hastily crafted laws are not good laws and Parliament Must be able to sit as well and this is part of this principle. Part ofjohn majors argument is if you letter minister just effectively suspend parliament, where does it end . You might have a Prime Minister who wa nts to might have a Prime Minister who wants to disband the army and he can do that with his prerogative powers . Exactly, pushing to the principles of the rule of law. If there is a legal power, there must be limits to that legal power. He is asking the courts to say that, there are limits to executive power and we must limit this executive power. The other thing john major in his written submission said, what borisjohnson was effectively trying to do was to deprive parliament of a voice and that was motivated he said, by his political interest. The question of motive was addressed by sirjohn major, but the question is whether thejudges will take major, but the question is whether the judges will take it into account . Or if they think the motive is the most important element of this. They may think motivation is important and we should try to figure out what the Prime Minister was thinking when he was prorogue in parliament. But they might also think, it doesnt matter, we should be looking at the affect and effect is to silence parliament, whether it might or might not have been the attention of the Prime Minister. We have had three days of this now and we are waiting for the supreme justices to make their ruling, it could be by the end of the day, tomorrow or next week, we dont know. If they do find against the Prime Minister and say it was unlawful, what are they saying, parliament has to be recalled . We have had a government submission saying that if is the case and parliament is recalled, the parliament might just Prorogue Parliament is recalled, the parliament mightjust prorogue it all over again . We havejust parliament mightjust prorogue it all over again . We have just got submissions from government lawyers. Imagine the scenario if the advice was found to be unlawful and do what then . What the government lawyers are saying, you should give a declaration but also reasoning as to why it is unlawful. In one very important point, they say if you find it unlawful, but not for the reason the amount of time, five weeks, it leaves it open to the Prime Minister as to when he should call back parliament. What they are saying very strongly, you should not consider a quashing order, a mandatory order, you must do this. That would stray into very difficult territory of the court ordering government to do something. Territory of the court ordering government to do somethingm territory of the court ordering government to do something. It will be fastening to see what happens. Thank you for being here once again and picking through what has been said ina and picking through what has been said in a more enthralling submissions here at the Supreme Court. Really exploring the grey areas, if you like, between the constitution, the unwritten constitution, the law and politics in this country. That is the latest from the Supreme Court, back to the studio. The government has responded to a suggestion by the finnish Prime Minister that the uk has twelve days to submit written brexit proposals, or be left with a no deal withdrawal. Confidential documents that reflect the ideas the uk has put forward on brexit have been shared with the eu, the uk government says. Lets get more details on this now, heres our political correspondentjessica parker. Hello, jessica. They are saying they are non papers, quite technical language they are using to describe these, explain what it means . Welcome, non papers. What are non papers that have been submitted to the eu . They are like discussion documents. They are not formal, legal proposals, they are ideas being put forward by the uk government in terms of what they see asa government in terms of what they see as a possible solution for finding a brexit deal. Just on whether this was in some way a response to the comments overnight from the finnish Prime Minister, i am given to understand from government sources, they categorically say it is not the case. These proposals were submitted in the last week, it is not in response to those comments over night where pressure was added onto the uk government to submit some firm ideas. In terms of what is in these non papers, probably written on bits of paper, we are not sure, they are described as confidential. It is probably likely to be around this issue of the backstop, how to find an alternative solution to the controversial idea that the uk government dont like, how to keep the irish border free government dont like, how to keep the irish borderfree and government dont like, how to keep the irish border free and flowing. How much furtherforward the irish border free and flowing. How much further forward does the irish border free and flowing. How much furtherforward does it ta ke how much furtherforward does it take us in the process . It will be interesting to see the reaction over the next few days from eu politicians. They have voiced frustration at lack, as they see it, of documents formally being submitted to brussels. What i understand what has been going on over the last few weeks, there are documents floating around, just not necessarily case that uk negotiators have left those documents there. In terms of where this takes us next, there is a fisher level talks will be taking place today and tomorrow, and as well tomorrow, the Eu Commission confirmed earlier this morning in fact, that stephen barclay, the brexit secretary, will be having a meeting with michelle barnier, the eus chief negotiator tomorrow. Presumably they will be looking at those paper, non papers. It is like monty python. Thank you very much. David cameron has revealed for the first time how he sought the queens help during the Scottish Referendum of 2014, admitting he suggested to one of her private secretaries that she raised an eyebrow over the question of independence. Speaking to the bbc in the new two part series, the former Prime Minister says he approached the queen fearing he could lose the vote which would see scotland leaving the union. The queen later spoke to a well wisher of her desire for people to think very carefully about their future. 0ur deputy Political Editor john pienaar reports. No 19,000. The moment in 2014 David Cameron realised the union was safe, for a time anyway. The Referendum Campaign for Scottish Independence had been defeated. Everybody happy . Yes, thank you. Are we running . But now, David Cameron has told the bbc how, after a startling opinion poll suggested most scots wanted independence, the queen hinted openly at her concern, and how he had a hand in it. I remember conversations i had with my private secretary, and he had with the queens private secretary, and i had with the queens private secretary, not asking for anything that would be in any way improper or unconstitutional, butjust a raising of the eyebrow, even, you know, a quarter of an inch. We thought would, you know, make a difference. Although the words were very limited, i think it helped to put a slightly different perception on things. The convention is that the queen keeps and is kept clear of politics. It is bound up in the current controversy about brexit, where it touches the role of parliament and the Prime Minister. It is the biggest stitch up. 0n borisjohnson and brexit, mr cameron is blunt, saying the man who is now pm expected the leave campaign to lose, but hoped to gain by backing it. In the end, i think, ultimately he put what was good for his political career ahead of what he actually thought was right for the country. So more secrets, secure until now behind this door, out in the open. More tension, more controversy as if there is not enough already to be getting on with. John pienaar, bbc news. I can speak now to dennis canavan. He was chair of yes scotland from 2012 2014, the organisation representing the parties, organisations, and individuals campaigning for a yes vote in the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum. He joins me now from our studio in glasgow. Thank you forjoining us, what is your reaction to the comments that have now come from David Cameron . M is absolutely reprehensible that Prime Minister David Cameron should have tried to use the queen as a political pawn to try and get a particular result in the referendum. He uses the euphemism, raising an eyebrow, but i think it is quite clear he was lobbying the queen to try and get support for defending the United Kingdom, rather than having an independent scotland. What is also reprehensible to my mind, is the queens response. Apparently the queen went to church and said to a passer by, words to the effect, you have to think very carefully about your future. That is have to think very carefully about yourfuture. That is royal speak have to think very carefully about your future. That is royal speak for lets defend the union. I think it is absolutely reprehensible. I think it will backfire on the clean and on the new unionist case. The next time we have a new independence referendum, which will be sooner rather than later, the queen will not have any credibility, whether she is raising an eyebrow, or telling people to think carefully or otherwise. Do you think the queens intervention would have made a difference . He was talking about what was happening at the time and said there was a sunday times poll on the 7th of september which put the yes campaign ahead which led to a mounting sense of panic in downing street. He said he was staying at balmoral at the time and he said it hit him like a blow to the solar plexus. The campaign was ahead, but didnt win in the end of the poll sometimes get it wrong, so what do you think the impact of the queen may have had . You think the impact of the queen may have had . It would not have made any difference to the eventual outcome. I dont know. The queens intervention would have made no difference whatsoever to people like me. But to people of the royalist persuasion who were slithering between voting yes and voting no in that referendum, perhaps a sufficient number of them might have been swayed by that. Because the remark on her way to church or out of church was widely reported in the various media and it is interesting to note the queen obviously had her feelings on the matter, because David Cameron elsewhere, is quoted as saying, when he was on the line to tell her majesty about the result, her majesty purred down the line and that says it all. result, her majesty purred down the line and that says it all. I think some comments are coming through from nicola sturgeon, which i am hoping to be able to have a look at. Not got them at the moment but i will see them in a moment. He said he regrets, the comment where he said the queen purred on the phone and he apologised to her. He said the context at the time was alex salmond was going around saying her majesty would be a proud moniker of an independent scotland. Would it be better all round if the queen wasnt brought into these things, or is it naive she shouldnt be and then obviously shes supposed to rise above it but she will have her own views . I think it would have been better if the queen had not been dragged into politics at all. It is very similar, in some respects, to the situation regarding the prorogation of parliament, which is being considered by the Supreme Court as we speak. Really, the queen must feel very embarrassed about being dragged into political controversy. She has been there as the monitor, i am not a great defender of the monarchy, i am a republican, but the queen has been there and seen a lifetime of many, many Prime Ministerial career is coming and going and she must be absolutely shocked that recently the convention seems to have been broken, whereby Prime Ministers or ex Prime Ministers are diverging things, private conversations and so on and writing their memoirs about dialogue with the queen. The queen is entitled of course, to have used like any other human being, but the great unwritten british constitution says the queen should not publicly make pronouncements on political matters. Particularly controversial matters. Particularly controversial matters. Thank you very much, chair of the Advisory Board of yes scotland. Comments just through from nicola sturgeon. She has been speaking at first ministers questions and she was asked by the scottish green msp Patrick Harvie if it could be trusted the queen would not, once again, be invited to intervene in a vote of the sovereign people . She said that the comments from David Cameron, the revelation say more about him than they do about anyone else and they demonstrate the panic in the heart of the uk government during the referendum five years ago. She went on to say support is rising for independent scotland and another independence referendum. But first the headlines. The Supreme Court hears from lawyers for former Prime Minister sirjohn major who is challenging borisjohnsons decision to suspend parliament. Britain has submitted some proposals to the eu in writing about brexit which are described as a series of confidential technical non papers. And David Cameron reveals he was so worried about scotland voting to break away from the uk, he asked for help from the queen. The canadian Prime Ministerjustin trudeau, is under fire after a photo emerged of him in brown face at a fancy dress party in 2001. The picture shows him dressed up at an arabian nights themed event at an academy where mr trudeau had worked as a teacher. He has apologised and said he now realises his actions were racist. I take responsibility for my decision to do that. I should not have done it, i should have known better. I didnt think it was something that was racist at the time but now i recognised it was something racist to do and i am deeply sorry. Three teenagers have appeared in court, charged with the murder of pc Andrew Harper in berkshire last month. The photographs contain flashing images. Henry long, whos 18, and two seventeen year old boys, who cannot be named because of their ages, are charged with murder and conspiracy to steal a quad bike. The defendents have been remanded in custody to appear at the old bailey this afternoon. Pc harper died after he was dragged along a road by a vehicle just a month after getting married. BroadcasterJohn Humphrys has presented his final edition of the bbc radio 4s today programme. His departure brings to a close his 32 years on the flagship show, during which time he built a reputation as a tenacious interrogator of politicians. John humphrys gave his Closing Remarks at the end of todays programme, in which he thanked his employer, his fellow presenters and colleagues, and all those who hes interviewed over the years. But he saved his final thanks for all his listeners. Far more important than anything else, my thanks to you, to the vast numbers who have written over the years, sometimes to give me a pat on the back, often to give me a kick up the backside for getting it wrong or for being out of touch. Youre always right. Well, nearly always. I am amazed at the loyalty you have shown this programme. You really are the backbone of our country. You care about our democracy. I know that from all your letters and e mails. Its an Old Fashioned thing to say, i suppose, but i really do feel i have got to know you over the decades and you are decent people. Im more proud than i can say that you have put up with me for so long. Thank you, all of you. And i do hope you keep listening. Today matters for tomorrow. And if thats a rather corny way to end my years on the programme, well, so be it. The bbcs director general, lord hall, said that while a lot has changed since the two started working at the brand new Television Centre many years ago, a lot has also stayed the same. Finding the ways in which we can engage people through interviews, through ourjournalism, in the stories that matter, is the Common Thread that has run straight through both of our careers. I think now. I am optimistic, i think there are more ways in which we can engage people with the debates that matter, the stories that matter, than when you and i wear in the Television Centre many, many centuries ago. I just want to say a big thank you to you on behalf of all of us, the people who have loved working with you, the people who have put up with you at times too, a very big thank you, and i also want to say, all the things you reading the paper, you are also someone who handles interviews with people who have been through traumas or disasters or have something they want to get off their chest but they dont know how to do it, with amazing sensitivity. I dont know if that was back to aberfan and, being the first person. Is it . I suppose they all play a part in the way you behave, but anyway that is very kind of you. Thank you very much. Thousands of people are rescued around britains coasts every year after getting into trouble in the sea. But why does a trip to the beach often lead to people taking risks . 0ur reporter lucy fishers been finding out. 0n the run. A man has been spotted 200 metres out and battling big swell. Hed been caught out by strong currents at gwithian, near hayle. Jump on and and lie there like its a surfboard, yeah. 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 so i was a bit worried about them so i swam out after them. Have they come back and now have they . Yeah, theyve gone between the flags, where they should be, yeah. Many rescues involve families and children, but theres one group most at risk by far. Data shows men are the victims of the majority of coastal deaths last year, particularly young and middle aged men. I think a lot of time its because they think their abilities are better than they are. They will say no, im a good swimmer ill swim where i want. They might be a good swimmer in the pool but they dont actually know how the sea is, its such a raw and kind of natural environment. Do you get a lot of people that dont listen to you . In general you get a lot of people that dont listen to you. 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 tourists versus home behaviour and it proves that people on holidays before more risky on holidays perform more risky behaviour than at home. You feel like 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 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. Why has it happened . Is it a statistical fluke . Perhaps just so many people are utilising the coastline of devon and cornwall and the fact people may bejust doing things that they wouldnt otherwise do. One of the things we discovered is, some of the swimming fatalities that weve had have been on nonlife guarded beaches. While we were filming, the jet ski was sent to help look for a man who had been reported in the water just just round the headland, off an unlifeguarded beach. Tragically, in that case, a body was picked up by the lifeboat. A sobering reminder of the dangers of the sea. If you think that something is wrong. 0ne else or yourself, dont wait until you confirm that, ring 999 and ask for the coastguard. Lucy fisher, gwithian. And you can see more on this story in inside out south west, available now on the bbc iplayer. Now its time for a look at the weather with chris fawkes. For many, clear blue skies to take us for many, clear blue skies to take us through the rest of the day with plenty of sunshine a offer. Scenes like this to start the day to wales and little change of this this afternoon. A few patches of cloud towards the dover straits coming onshore from time to time. More cloud in scotland, particularly around the central belt and it can be rather stubborn. 0therwise most of us keep the fine, dry, sunny u nsettled of us keep the fine, dry, sunny unsettled conditions and light winds. It will feel pleasant in the sunshine. Top temperatures getting up sunshine. Top temperatures getting up to 20 degrees in belfast, 22 in london and a bit fresher when we have some of the onshore winds along the coastline for example, western scotland. Overnight we will keep the clear skies and that means it will bea clear skies and that means it will be a cold night. Mist and fog patches around as well. Perhaps some of them developing towards dumfries and galloway, the moray firth and a few down towards the welsh marches as well. Temperatures in towns and cities between seven and ten, but cold in the countryside, down to about 2 degrees in the coldest spots. Any morning mist and fog will clear away and we are looking at a fine, sunny day. The only exception is across the far north of scotland, where in shetland we will have cloud for much of the day and perhaps in sunshine breaking out the afternoon and temperatures more widely climbing into the low temperatures. 0n into the weekend, the wind. To turn more to a south easterly direction so we will drag some warmerair direction so we will drag some warmer air from direction so we will drag some warmer airfrom france. Direction so we will drag some warmer air from france. Temperatures for many will be rising but with onshore winds around some of the eastern coast of scotland, north east england and perhaps here it will feel a bit fresher on the coastline itself, but inland there will be some reasonable temperatures. We are looking at highs of 24 celsius the london and cardiff, so one for the time of year. Where we have the onshore winds, temperatures will be kept a few degrees cooler than that. We will see some changes in the weather picture through sunday although starting off with some sunshine across the north and east of the country, we are looking at some rain arriving in the south and west. Temperature wise, ahead of the front, looking at temperatures getting up to 23 in norwich and hull, but turning cooler in the south west. Sirjohn major says the reasons given by Boris Johnson for proroguing parliament cannot be true. A lawyerfor the former Prime Minister told the Supreme Court that the suspension was motivated by mrjohnsons political interest in closing down parliament ahead of brexit. Sirjohn says the inescapable inference to be drawn is that the prorogation is to prevent parliament from exercising its right to disagree with the government. The government says if the court rules against the Prime Minister, well have all the latest from here at the Supreme Court. And the other main stories this lunchtime. The government sends the eu confidential documents that