darin is the rain hello, you're watching afternoon live — i'm simon mccoy. today at two: demands for the recall of parliament — after scotland's highest civil court rules its suspension was unlawful. we, as politicians, are calling for parliament to be recalled so we can get on scrutinising what this government is up to. if it were to be the case that the government had misled the queen about the reasons for suspending parliament and the motives for it, that would be a very serious matter indeed. indeed, in my view, it would then be at the moment for mrjohnson to resign. as more migrants are spotted trying to cross the channel — there i in it's claimed people smugglers use threats about brexit to pressure them to make the perilous journey. changes to immigration rules will allow overseas students to remain in the uk for much longer

after they graduate. coming up on afternoon live — ben has all the sport. england have confirmed in the last 30 minutes that jason roy has been dropped for the final ashes test against australia starting tomorrow. ben stokes is not fit to bowl, so in comes chris woakes and sam curran. remember — england must win at the oval to level the series at 2—2, and avoid a first home ashes defeat in 18 years. reaction from both camps at 2:30pm. thanks, ben. darren has all the weather. we have some sunshine developing more widely across the uk, also some tropical air, we will look at what that means later on, also looking out of the rain in spain which is mainly falling in majorca. thanks, darren. also coming up — what happens if you fall asleep in a self—driving car? we sent our technology correspondent, rory cellan—jones, to find out.

hello, everyone — this is afternoon live, i'm simon mccoy. just when you thought the brexit crisis couldn't get even more complicated — scotland's highest court has ruled it was unlawful for the borisjohnson to suspend parliament. judges at the court of session in edinburgh overturned an earlier ruling, saying they were unanimous in their belief that the prime minister had been motivated by the "improper purpose of stymying parliament." a small number of mps have returned to the green benches of the commons — posting pictures on social media. it's just been confirmed the case will goes to the uk's supreme court on tuesday next week, but labour has called for parliament to be recalled immediately to discuss the situation. the government said it's disappointed by the scottish ruling, and that the prorogation

of parliament had been "legal and necessary." our scotland correspondent, lorna gordon, reports. applause parliament has been suspended for less than two days. the decision to shut it down proved controversial. now it has been ruled unlawful, with all threejudges in a court in edinburgh ruling that the suspension of parliament was motivated by what they call the improper purpose of stymieing parliament. this opinion expresses the view that the advice given by the government to her majesty the queen to prorogue parliament from 9th september to 14th october was unlawful and that therefore the prorogation itself was unlawful. the case was brought by more than 70 parliamentarians who had argued that suspending parliament was an attack on democracy and an abuse of power. they are now calling for parliament to be recalled. this is a unanimous decision by scotland's highest court that the prorogation of parliament

by borisjohnson was unlawful and as tommy sheppard, one of my co—petitioners, has pointed out, now every moment that parliament remains prorogued british government are breaking the law, so we as politicians are calling for parliament to be recalled, so that we can get on scrutinising what this government is getting up to in relation to brexit. that call, to allow mps back into parliament to sit, echoed by scotland's first minister, who said that the prime minister's behaviour had been outrageous and reckless. that means in my view parliament should be recalled immediately. and i would call on the prime minister to do the right thing, bring parliament back from its unlawful prorogation and allow that important work of scrutiny to continue. labour welcomed the judgment. normally, judges do not go into this space which is about the motivation of politicians for their decisions that they make so i can only assume

that the judges felt the evidence against borisjohnson was overwhelming and therefore they found that he acted unlawfully in shutting down parliament. thejudges did not hold back, and a summary of the judgment, lord brodie said that the prorogation was up egregious case of a clear failure to comply with generally accepted standards of behaviour of public authorities. lord drummond young said the government had failed to show a valid reason for the prorogation, and the only inference that could be drawn, he said, was that the uk government and the prime minister wished to restrict parliament. if it were to be the case that the government had misled the queen about the reasons for suspending parliament and the motives for it, that would be a very serious matter indeed. indeed, in my view, it would then be the moment for mrjohnson to resign, and very swiftly. the government has said it is disappointed and will appeal. so while, for now, parliament sits empty, the focus

remains on the courts, with that appeal at the supreme court due to start next tuesday. lorna gordon, bbc news, at the court of session in edinburgh. with me now is our assistant political editor, norman smith. at nine o'clock this morning, it all seems rather peaceful. have things got from bad to much, much worse for borisjohnson now? got from bad to much, much worse for boris johnson now? not quite yet. they have certainly got bad, but they have the potential to get near catastrophic because bad, in the sense that the judges use the very strong language about mrjohnson, questioning his motives, accusing him of telling lies and not being straight with parliament and why he was proroguing parliament. but this has the potential to get cataclysmic lay dreadful for has the potential to get cataclysmic lay dreadfulfor him has the potential to get cataclysmic lay dreadful for him if the supreme court on tuesday to uphold the of

the scottish court, because in such circumstances, everyone i spoken to thinks that mrjohnson would have no option but to recall parliament, not to do so would be unlawful. parliament would then be recalled, the only way boris johnson parliament would then be recalled, the only way borisjohnson could seek to send it packing again would be to put down a motion for a parliamentary recess. i think it's pretty clear that parliament would vote to reject that, to scrap any recess, cancel party conferences, carry on sitting through september, three october, right up i do at the october 31 deadline. if you look at how mps have already constrained and pushed boris johnson how mps have already constrained and pushed borisjohnson around when it comes to brexit in just one week, if they are therefore five or six weeks, they will drive the brexit agenda. borisjohnson will, in effect, become their prisoner, he will be shackled to the will of

parliament, deprived of majority, having eroded trust, you will pretty much be helpless, it seems to me, and unable to do anything unless parliament gives it a explicit authority. downing street saying that parliament will remain pro road pending the decision of the supreme coat next tuesday, in the meantime, ican imagine coat next tuesday, in the meantime, i can imagine great pictures been taking outside the doors of the house of commons by mps. there had been a smattering of mps going into the commons chamber, symbolically, to say, i am sitting here. putting that up on twitter. later today, we may see a whole clutch of mps reassembling in the chamber. but for constitutional purposes, parliament is not sitting, it is prorogued until that appeal hearing on tuesday, the legal process has to follow its course whatever individual mps may say. plenty of

mps are saying never mind the legal constraints, borisjohnson has a model and a political obligation to recall parliament ahead of that setting. going back to the stakes for setting. going back to the stakes foer setting. going back to the stakes for mrjohnson, it is notjust the fa ct for mrjohnson, it is notjust the fact that he risks being brought back to parliament as a sort of humbled and weekend prisoner of parliament, he also risks the possibility of real pressure building for his recognition. we have auditing a little bit of luck today with figures like dominic grieve, ed davey, saying that the scottiesjudgment grieve, ed davey, saying that the scotties judgment implies, it's grieve, ed davey, saying that the scottiesjudgment implies, it's not explicit, but it clearly implies that boris johnson explicit, but it clearly implies that borisjohnson has misled the queen —— scottish decisionjudgment. if the supreme court in any way endorses the suggestion that mr johnson has made liz the queen, then

the pressure for him to stand down really well build so the stakes are huge depending on what the judges decide on tuesday. thank you for joining us. dr sam fowles is part of the legal team advising the group of mps behind the successful action in the court of session today. he's with me now. you have a big smile on your face. we have worked very hard to put together a strong case and we think we presented it well and the court came to the right decision, yes. what about the argument that prorogation should not be ended till at least the supreme court has had its hearing next tuesday? that is wrong. the court is a court of jurisdiction for all of the uk. the court made its order and said that the order to prorogue parliament is i'iow the order to prorogue parliament is now and void, meaning it did not

exist. meaning as far as the law goes, parliament is not pro—road. what we can't do, in some circumstances, that make what they can do is say nothing is done until that appeal is decided, the court did not do that in the situation. as faras did not do that in the situation. as far as the law is concerned, prorogation is void. there are those that say that prorogation can only be enacted by the queen under the advice of the government, not by the courts, but that doesn't matter because you're think that didn't happen miss indeed we are saying that. we have only seen part of the judgment of the scottish court saying that when at the executives at in saying that when at the executives atina saying that when at the executives at in a way that is so contrary to the constitution and it so undermines it as this, then the courts do have jurisdiction. what about the argument that the summary of the courts opinion does not quash the decision to prorogued

parliament, but only that the advice was unlawful, so therefore, it has taken an was unlawful, so therefore, it has ta ken an extra was unlawful, so therefore, it has taken an extra step you? the summary is different from the order. what a court will do on a complex case like this is it will sort out its reasons and decide, in principle, what the answer is. then it will say, based oi'i answer is. then it will say, based on that answer, what is the order to be made? that is what takes effect in law. the order in scotland today said that the order in council is void because the advice was unlawful. anything flowing from a void order cannot exist as a matter of law. how unusual forjudges to look at us and come up with words like slimy and, in terms of what the prime minister that was trying to

do? —— signing. prime minister that was trying to do? -- signing. that is not unusual at all. as public lawyers, that is what we do. there are a number of ways that the decision taken by the executives they might be billed unlawful by courts. one of the thing to see all the time is that that might be for something as non—headline making as one immigration decision or it might be the prorogation of parliament, you see judges saying that you have to exercise your power is in good faith, if you do not, then you have exercised them unlawful unlawfully. there are those mps already in the chamber taking selfies. what you're saying is that they should be in there because parliament is still technically sitting? that is exactly what i'm saying. of course, it is up to parliament to decide what was to do in the situation. who does it

come down to? that is some debate about that. certainly, we have had to respond to the situation rather quickly, this morning. as i see it, if the speaker wants to conduct business, business can be conducted. so who uses, right, everybody, back in here at three o'clock? the government has not tabled any business, so at the moment, they don't have anything to talk about.|j suspect don't have anything to talk about.” suspect they have! officially, they haven't. in order to conduct business in parliament, you need an order paperand business in parliament, you need an order paper and you need to decide what the business of the house is going to be. obviously, at the moment, there is nothing on the order paper. that is a matter for the speaker, for parliament to decide internally. i would like to bea decide internally. i would like to be a fly on the wall at balmoral, because you're also arguing that the queen has been misled? nasa satellite what we are saying the

points to. —— that is certainly what we are saying the evidence points to. this decision was made well before any of us found out before it, ata before any of us found out before it, at a time when the government was saying we it, at a time when the government was saying we are it, at a time when the government was saying we are absolutely not going to prorogued, will not even think about it. our case is that the evidence points but they were thinking about that, and they were thinking about that, and they were think about that because they wanted to avoid parliament scrutinising it. next tuesday, the supreme court in london is bringing together all of these cases, if it goes against borisjohnson these cases, if it goes against boris johnson that they, what then? i don't want to comment on the politics, that is a matter for the politicians! the outcome we are looking for is that the supreme court upholds the decision of the court upholds the decision of the court of session, i think that must be the right way to go constitutionally, talking about

broad principles for a moment, rather than getting into the technicalities, if you have an executive that whenever parliament gets a little inconvenient for it canjust say, gets a little inconvenient for it can just say, go gets a little inconvenient for it canjust say, go on holiday for a bed, guys, cool off, then you do not live a democracy. thank you for joining us. labour's deputy leader, tom watson, has said the party's priority must be a new referendum on brexit rather than a general election, and said labour must campaign unequivocally to remain. in a speech he warned that a snap poll might not break the current deadlock at westminster. his comments are in contrast to those made yesterday by the leader, jeremy corbyn, who said labour would offer a fresh referendum after the next election, with a "leave" option on the ballot paper. here's our political correspondent, ben wright. this is labour's official brexit spokesman trying to keep a divided party speaking with one voice going in the same direction. sir keir starmer told the tuc conference the only way forward was another referendum after the next election. remain should and will be on the ballot paper, along with a credible

option to leave. we need to ask people a basic question. after three years of failure by this government, do you want to leave on the terms on offer, or would you rather remain? sir keir starmer says labour should then campaign to remain in the eu butjeremy corbyn hasn't been so clear. contrast that with the stance of the labour's deputy leader, tom watson, who prefers a referendum before any general election and once labour‘s commitment to the polls to be clear. we should unambiguously and unequivocally back remain. we should back remain not for electoral or tactical reasons, but because it is the right thing to do for the country at this time of greatest crisis, since the second world war. a political crisis that has put jeremy corbyn's party in a bind,

pulled between the many labour—held constituencies that voted to leave the european union, and the majority of labour party members who want to remain in. there's also a group of labour mps here who oppose a second referendum, want to back a brexit deal in parliament, and get it done. and today there was this slapdown of tom watson from one ofjeremy corbyn's big trade union allies. now and again tom pops up from where he has been hiding and comes up with something instead of supporting his leader. and i don't know why he does it. earlier this year, two parties with starkly different but very clear messages on brexit came first and second in the european elections. the lib dems now say if they formed a government, they would cancel brexit and stay in the eu. while the no—deal backing brexit party is targeting tory and labour voters. you've got up to five million people out there who voted brexit,

who voted forjeremy corbyn's the labour party in 2017 who have been completely betrayed by the labour party completely let down. the manifesto pledge has been broken in every way. soon labour will meet for its annual conference where divisions of a brexit may flare up again. with only 50 days until brexit are set to happen and with a general election around the corner, there is little time to firm up its line. a total of 86 migrants were picked up by the border force after crossing the channel in small boats yesterday. it's believed to be a record for a single day. calm conditions at sea and a threat by the french authorities to evict migrants from their makeshift shelters may have caused the increase. our correspondent simonjones is in ramsgate, where some of the migrants have been taken. we are hearing today of other attempts? two more boats today, rather surprising because the calm conditions have gone. overnight, the weather got much worse, it's really windy out in the channel, but despite that, to group set off from

northern france. the first group was picked up around half past one up this morning by the border force, then a second bout was picked up. we have some pictures from the helicopter we can show you. that bout had actually started sinking when it was found, we understand that was 13 people on board, including a mother and a baby, and one man had to be airlifted to the hospital because he was in a bad condition. unusually, that bout was brought back here to ramsgate because it was so choppy out at sea, it was what that is the safest thing to do for people on board. what about the claims that are being made that those doing this, the criminal gangs behind is, are using brexit as an argument to persuade people to make this perilous journey now? another example of how brexit seems to be affecting everything and cries. we spoke to one politician who represents the calais area, and

he said that he has heard that the criminal gangs behind these attempts are saying to the migrants that they need to across the channel now, before the end of october, because if brexit happens bentley borders could much tighter. there are potentially also other reasons too, one might be the weather, up until today, it has been unusually mild, very calm in the sea, so there has been a desire to get across the channel before winter weather sets in. on top of this, it has said there is going to be an eviction of there is going to be an eviction of the makeshift shelters in calais, as pa rt the makeshift shelters in calais, as part there are still around 1500 migrants sleeping rough in france, the authorities say they are going to make people out of those areas, away from their tents, that might also be another impetus for people trying to get over. that is potentially why we saw record numbers yesterday in a single day. why last month we saw record numbers for a single month, 336 people put

up for a single month, 336 people put up by for a single month, 336 people put up by uk authorities, more than the entire total for last year. one of the key immigration controls introduced by theresa may when she was home secretary, to allow international students to stay in the country for longer after they graduate — has been scapped. the new policy will give foreign students two years to find a job in the uk, rather than the current limit of four months. tom symonds reports. it's a universities u—turn. after seven yea rs, during which foreign students finishing their studies faced a relatively quick exit from the uk after four months, but not any more. it is important that they then have time in which to apply for roles, to wait for a programme to start, for example if it is a graduate programme. so i think it is a good balance now giving them two years. and obviously in the hope then that at the end of that, if they are in roles

which are important to the uk economy, they will be able to apply through the appropriate work route to be able to stay on even longer and continue to contribute. but they had two years — until 2012. when home secretary theresa may's obsession became cutting overall migration. with annual net migration still at 183,000 - we have a way to go. we are being too generous to foreign students, she said. boris johnson's announcement today is all about attracting foreign scientists, no mention of getting immigration down. it has pleased his recently departed universities minister, who campaigned for this change. a small improvement in the family atmosphere, perhaps. as for universities, they were delighted. we have been holding ourselves back by presenting a visa policy that is not really competitive with the other major economies that attract international graduates. so i think we have been tripping over our own feet, and the announcement today really

allows us to get out there and make sure those students who want an absolutely outstanding higher education also have the opportunity to gain a bit of work experience alongside that. but there is a concern that foreign students will not be spearheading scientific breakthroughs to benefit britain, but instead will be working here stacking shelves. they should be going back, many of these young students, back to the countries that have sent them here with a view to acquiring skills and education that is required in their countries, not to stay on here and do anyjob that happens to come along. but the government hopes to introduce the new policy for students starting their courses next year. tom symonds, bbc news. amanda harvey from new york state completed a masters at the university of lincoln and then moved to london for a job, she couldn't get a visa so had to go back to the us. what happened then? basically, we we re what happened then? basically, we were in the process of switching from my student visa to a work visa,

no one really tells you how u nfortu nately no one really tells you how unfortunately long the process is to switch, basically, in that for once, we we re switch, basically, in that for once, we were not able to switch over and i had to come home because my student visa expired. am i right in thinking that there was a company who wanted to employ you, they would have sorted this out but there wasn't enough time? yes, i had gotten a job in november in london, we we re gotten a job in november in london, we were working to wards switching over so my company had to get a licence to sponsor me, they got out, they were just waiting on the paperwork and it took ages and i had to come home. how did that make you feel? really upset because i love england, that's why wait for my degree and i wanted to continue living there and i continue my life that i had started and i got it ripped out from underneath me because the process just didn't go fast enough. at that stage, you were allowed to stay here legally for a

few months, the proposal is that it changes to two years, that presumably would have made huge difference? if i would have had that two years, difference? if i would have had that two yea rs, i difference? if i would have had that two years, i would probably still be living in london and everything probably would have gone through and i probably would have started my life and had it two years, it would have been ample enough time to do all the switching of visas. are you aware of any of your friends that i shall put off the idea of coming to the uk because there was not this ability to stay on after they had graduated? yes, a lot of people graduated? how brave i visa i wanted

to to i you—iéwantfih alec 00:27:05,997 --> 4294966103:13:29,430 to to i you—figment ages. ilec