06/06/2016 Scotland 2016

The SNP warn they'll vote against the Investigatory Powers Bill.

They say the UK Government's failed to make the case for such

As MPs debate new powers of mass surveillance,

the Government suggests it is willing to make concessions.

Should the Scottish Government reconsider its moratorium

And with a fortnight to go, is it riskier to Leave or to Remain?

The Investigatory Powers Bill sets out wide-ranging new powers

for the police and security services to view your internet browsing

histories, e-mails and other communications data.

Whether those powers are too wide-ranging

is currently being hotly debated in the House of Commons.

Tonight and tomorrow, MPs will have their final chance

to amend the bill before it goes to the Lords.

With deep concerns being expressed from opposition parties

and Tory backbenchers alike, there's no guarantee

that the bill will be passed, as Andrew Black reports.

Right now, our security services are telling us that the likelihood

of an attack by international terrorists on the UK is high.

And Britain isn't the only country dealing with this kind of threat.

Today, Ukrainian officials said a Frenchman who was detained last

month with a large stockpile of arms was planning mass attacks

during the Euro 2016 football tournament,

Here in Britain, the UK Government has proposed new spying laws

which it says will combat the threat of terrorism online.

The Investigatory Powers Bill will force internet service

providers to store browsing records for 12 months.

It would also give legal backing to bulk collection

And police would get new powers to hack into computers and

But, these plans have come in for a lot of criticism

including that they amount to a Snoopers' Charter.

As they were debated in the Commons today,

UK ministers say they've responded to those concerns by

providing extra safeguards to protect people's privacy.

But opposition parties, and some Conservative backbenchers,

The issues of privacy and oversight are central to our considerations

and the Government is determined to ensure the bill reflects, but

concentration on those matters. We are clear that in considering and

passing this bill, we must do more, more in respect of checks and

balances, more in respect of safeguards and more in respect of

oversight. The security and intelligence services must powers

available to them to deal with those threats. But human rights matter as

well. I conclude with that the right to privacy, the right to be left

alone, the right to have private data protected with security and

integrity, and the right to redress when things go wrong. We remain

concerned about the galaxy of some of the powers that are still on the

face of this bill and the fact that they significantly exceed what is

authorised in other western democracies. For example, the

retention of internet connection wreckers. -- records.

One of the key challenges in this bill is balancing

for privacy with giving law enforcement agencies

what they need to do the job, but there is a concern that what's

currently being proposed goes far beyond the measures that other

I don't think you will find many people who would say that the

Government or the police or security agencies should have no powers to

monitor people's activity where they suspect wrongdoing, serious

wrongdoing, where a case of terrorism, for example. But we are

talking about the bulk, mass surveillance of everyone

indiscriminately, where there is no suspicion on millions of people in

the country but they are still under surveillance.

The Investigatory Powers Bill faces a second day of detailed scrutiny

in the Commons tomorrow and further challenges for the UK Government.

With Conservative MPs among the critics, ministers may well have

to make further concessions to opposition parties if they want

In our Westminster studio is the SNP MP Joanna Cherry,

their Justice Home Affairs spokesperson.

We also asked for someone from the Conservative Party

to join this discussion, but unfortunately

no-one was available to come on this evening.

Good evening, Joanna Cherry. You are saying the SNP MPs will not support

this bill at its third reading in Parliament tomorrow, why not? Well,

the SNP supports the idea that law enforcement and the security

services should have necessary and proportionate powers to fight

serious crime and terrorism. But we also believe those have to be

balanced with Civil Liberties, in particular the right to privacy, and

also people's writes to data security. We simply don't believe

that this bill has got the balance right. But the Government is

offering extra safeguards on privacy. Is that not enough? No, the

Government has offered an overarching privacy clause, which

both the SNP and Labour had asked them to put into the bill. But there

are numerous other asks which the SNP has demanded which have not been

answered. And these are asks in order to make the bill in accordance

with European law and -- under the jurisprudence of the European Court

of Human Rights and to bring us into line with what is done in other

countries. There are aspects of the spell which the SNP would like to

support because they reflect powers that are already in force but it is

the new powers in the bill that concern us, the powers to scoop up

everyone's internet connection wreckers, the bulk surveillance

powers, powers to scoop up everybody's medical records in bulk

for the security services to go through. We believe that

surveillance should be targeting and based on suspicion and it should not

be based on some sort of Dragnet approach, which is what the

Government are trying to do. Do you reject completely the case for

reviewing the operational case for the bulk powers that are in the

bill? I was on the bill committee and I explained in detail about the

Government's current operational case, being inadequate unless the

SNP wanted bulk powers removed from the bill because there was no

adequate operational casemate. The Government have accepted their

operational case is inadequate and said they will put it to independent

review. But it was only this afternoon during debate that they

told us exactly what they were proposing by way of an independent

review. I'm not still entirely clear as to what the remit of that review

will be. I would like the independent review to look at the

experience in the USA, where there has been very much a move against

bulk powers, both as being overly intrusive but perhaps more

importantly, ineffective. It is a difficult balance to design

legislation that protects privacy and also keeps the public safe. Do

you accept that such a bill is absolutely necessary? I have already

said the SNP believe that the law enforcement and security services

should have necessary and proportionate powers, but those

powers have to be in accordance with the law and have to recognise the

right of the citizen to privacy and the necessity to keep data secure.

There are legitimate fears that these powers go ahead, the security

of all our personal data will be compromised because if the good guys

are able to hack into our computers and hack into our data security

systems, that weakens them so the bad guys can get in after the

Government and that is a concern which has been expressed widely by

companies in the technical sector and also by communications service

providers. We have another day of scrutiny tomorrow, another chance

for more concessions from the Government. Are you simply upping

the ante here, or are you serious that you will vote against it? We

are serious about voting against it. I see no prospect of the Government

giving into our key asked. -- are key asked. I have not had the

courtesy of a reply from the Government but it is quite clear,

given the limited time that we have today and tomorrow to debate the

bill that we will only be able to put a handful of our amendments to a

vote. There seems to be an attitude on the Labour benches that this

considered be left to the House of Lords. But what the SNP think is

that it is the democratically elected House of Commons who should

sort this out. The House of Lords is not accountable to the public.

Wagyu, Joanna Cherry. -- thank you. It's almost a year since

the Scottish Government announced a moratorium on genetically modified

crops being grown in Scotland. The move widened a policy divide

on the issue with the Conservative

Government in London. But was it a decision

based on good science? Last month, a US study found no

evidence of risks to human health Well, earlier this was all under

the spotlight at an event organised I'm joined now by co-author

of their report on GM foods, Professor Jim Dunwell,

and from Salford by Liz O'Neill Welcome to both of you. Professor

Dunwell, the question tonight was, should GM be on the table? Should

it? I think it should and I think the great majority of people who

came to the meeting this evening or of that opinion, probably out of the

100 people -- 100 or so people who attended, but 10% disagreed and 90%

agreed. Liz, you are not convinced, why not? Liver-mac I was certainly

not going to be convinced at that event. Our campaign is the umbrella

campaign for a campaign against GM crops. The reason we do not want GM

crops or GM food is because we want everyone's food to be produced

responsibly, fairly unsustainably. The GM we have at the moment does

not work towards these values. It works against them. What about the

actual science? Is any scientific evidence that it is as harmful?

Bigger-mac there is scientific evidence that there are harm is

being done by the GM crops that currently exist. They may not be

specifically to do with the actual process of GM. The only GM crops

that successfully grow are causing what the National academies of

science report itself referred to as major agricultural problems. Some

really unbalanced reporting of this, this American report, but they have

got some serious agricultural problems but somehow that is not

making it into the UK press. Professor Dunwell, what about these

severe problems? Think that is a gross exaggeration. Looking at the

consensus view that has come out of many decades of growing GM crops,

there are a few examples of the disadvantages in terms of herbicide

resistant weeds, but that is nothing to do with the characteristics of

the GM crop itself, it is something to do with the methods used by those

farmers. It has been a commercial success, it has been a great

economic success. It herself people not just in the developed world but

also, if you go to parts of Asia, where GM crops are being grown, it

has been a life-saver for the economy of some of those countries.

In terms of the Scottish view of this, it is only right that farmers

in Scotland and the rest of the UK should be given the opportunity to

at least test some of these things. It is not to say that GM crops are

the only answer, but to disregard them and say they have no place in

the future of agriculture I think is a mistake. Liz, you were shaking

their heads. The phrase major agricultural problems was from the

National academies of science, the very report the Royal Society is

trumpeting everywhere. I am not exaggerating anything. The only GM

crops that are currently being grown are those herbicide tolerant

crops... That is not quite true. The only crops being grown at any skill

have one or both of those characteristics and both have been

implicated in serious problems. Yes, it is the trait that is the problem,

that is what GM currently is. It is the great that causes the

problem -- trait. What you're seeing is disingenuous and not scientific.

I do not think it is scientific to disregard evidence. Most scientists

rely upon evidence. The evidence says if these crops are regulated

securely and safely, which they are, then there is no proven evidence to

human health or the environment. There may maybe theoretical economic

disadvantages to be taken into account but we will only get to the

answer if we allow farmers or experimenters to do more trials.

Without the trials we will not get to the position of having evidence

so I would rather rely upon evidence rather than speculate about

theoretical risk. Do you think of a moratorium on growing GM crops is

wrong? I think it is wrong to prejudge the issue. I'm not saying

that GM crops will be grown on a large scale but if farmers do not

have a chance to see the evidence in the field then in the future of the

agricultural productivity can be threatened. We should give people

the opportunity to use benefits and draw conclusions. It is one of many

breeding methods and I think it is a mistake to disregard that potential.

Why not? The report we keep referring to does say there is no

substantiated evidence of risks to human health or the environment. We

have given it a try. We had the biggest trial of GM crops that has

ever happened was done in the UK and the government concluded it did not

want to grow them. There is also nothing stopping Scottish trials of

GM crops under controlled conditions. This is about commercial

growing, a completely different issue. I would like to pick up on

the constant use of the science. There are many reasons to object to

GM crops. Patenting is one. These are sidelined in discussions. There

is a lot to be concerned about. Regulation should be based on

scientific principles which are quantifiable and then it is for the

public to say whether they buy these products. Once GM food is in the

chain, consumers to not have a choice in the end. So it is not just

about science. There are products in the UK already with GM ingredients,

and consumers by those. They are imported at the moment. It is also

extremely difficult to buy animal products that have not come from

animals that were fed GM crops because that does not appear on the

label and that is where the vast majority of GM crops go to. Where it

is labelled as an ingredient, there are a few on sale. Where it is not

labelled, it has become so commonplace that supermarkets are

telling us they cannot get hold of enough GM free feed. This idea that

choice can be retained once it is in the food chain is a fallacy. There

is no evidence that eating animal products, eggs, milk, meat, that

comes from imported soya beans has any effect on human health. Is that

the only reason I am allowed to object to something? Because it

might kill me? It might not kill you. It is the emotive nature of

comments such as that. You seem to be implying that the only reason I

am allowed to object to it as if I think it will kill me. I don't think

it will kill me, I think it is against my effect 's. We -- ethics.

We will have to leave it there. Just over two weeks to go

until the referendum and just two topics of conversation

on the campaign trail. But one theme both campaigns

are running with is risk. Just before we came on air,

I spoke to our political correspondent, Nick Eardely,

who is in Strasbourg So, Boris Johnson talking today

about the risk of remaining. It's the Remain campaign that's

so far been associated with this kind of strategy,

isn't it, Nick? It has been a central pillar of the

Remain campaign so far but I think what Boris Johnson wanted to do

today was emphasise he thinks there are risks to staying in the EU which

outweighed the risks of leaving. The central crux of this argument is

immigration. Vote.Leave and Boris Johnson think immigration will be

key. He said the biggest challenge the UK faces in the coming years is

an increased population fuelled by immigration. But leave macro -- vote

to leave ... Here is Boris Johnson talking earlier.

In a controlled system they would be able to keep their promises to the

electric and it is no good time after time for everybody standing up

saying we will get immigration down to the tens of thousands when they

simply do not the tools to do it. So is the Remain campaign avoiding

the immigration question completely? I think they would argue they are

not avoiding it completely. David Cameron said last week that his

government had not achieved what it wanted on immigration and that he

didn't think there was a simple answer like leaving the EU to

solving it. The issue he wants to talk about is the economy. He was

back on that subject today, joined by Harriet Harman of labour, Tim

Farren of the Lib Dems and Natalie Bennett of the Greens. In some ways

that was reminiscent of the independence campaign. Different

parties putting their differences aside and arguing that on this issue

there is more that unites us than divides us. For Harriet Harman,

workers' rights. For Natalie Bennett, environmental protection.

The Prime Minister wanted to return to the central plank of economic

uncertainty he believes would come from leaving the EU.

Add those things together, the shock, uncertainty, trade impact,

you put a bomb under our economy. And we would have lit the fuse

ourselves. The economy and migration are some

issues which will be discussed here in Strasbourg with the parliament

meets. We will be discussing with MEPs what they think the future

holds be it in or out of the EU. Here to discuss that and some more

of today's news is Kirstein Rummery, Professor of Social Policy

at the University of Stirling, and Stewart Paterson,

political correspondent It is good to see you both. Sticking

with the EU debate at the moment, what do you think of Boris Johnson's

strategy? I think he has pursued a strategy whereby people are supposed

to trust his charisma and his view of things. I think both sides have

been using evidence in a useful analogy of how not to use evidence

from an academic perspective because they have been very picky about what

kind of evidence they use but I think he has nailed his colours to

the mast and tried to persuade people to trust his version of

events. This particular slant today, talking about the risks of

remaining, will that play well with voters? That's what they have to do,

focus on the arguments of the other side and not just their own. We saw

that in the Scottish referendum and we are seeing the same tactics,

politicians being selective with the facts. I suppose with so-called

project here it was all about the risks of leaving during the Scottish

independence referendum. Is it clever to turn it on its head, the

risk of staying? The propensity of older voters is to guide the EU,

which is interesting, because they tend to be more conservative and

more into the status quo. Boris is plain that cleverly because he is

speaking to the core constituency of voters who are likely to want to

leave the EU by appealing to their fears about risk. We keep hearing

that the voters want more facts, does that mean they want more

certainty? They want more information. If they look to either

side of the campaign, Boris Johnson are David Cameron, they are looking

in the wrong place for facts because they will get the facts according to

either side of the campaign. The big one for the Leave campaign is that

we sent ?350 million to Brussels. It is true to an extent but some comes

back. And on the other side, 400,000 jobs lost in the service sector. But

that is based on one forecast from one economic model and it is whether

you believe that model or forecast. I think it is about how people trust

the personalities involved rather than their interpretation of the

data. A new report from the Bank

of Scotland says nearly a third of the UK's oil and gas firms plan

to cut more jobs this year, with the slump in the price of oil

continuing longer than expected. The stabilisation of the oil price

and the cuts already taken and further efficiency gains sought, we

should hopefully see that turnaround and more investment decisions coming

back and hopefully present an industry much more resilient going

forward. When they talk about efficiencies and a more resilient

industry, further human side of things, the workers, that can often

mean more casual jobs, a more challenging place to work.

Efficiencies means job cuts more often than not, lower wages, the

same in the oil and gas industry. It affects other people as well, not

just oil and gas industry, but people who are affected by that, and

it can take longer for that to come back. If there is an upturn then we

will have to wait longer for the economy, the wider economy to pick

up. A lot of bad news for people directly employed in the industry

but other companies in the supply chain as well. And it shows the

danger of having an economy focused on one key sector, which has always

been an issue not just for the Scottish economy but UK wide. To

continue to rely on oil and gas, fossil fuels, is diverting attention

from where the long-term planning and environmental and energy

planning should be, unsustainable growth in other sectors. It would be

interesting to see whether this is an opportunity to invest in more

sustainable environmental energy. I would suspect not because the

returns would be seen so long-term that it would not be in the policy

interest of one particular government. We haven't today it was

said it was ridiculous the Scottish Government would ban shale gas

exploration. We had the vote last week where the SNP MSPs abstained

from the vote to ban fracking. Whatever they decide, they have the

majority in parliament to do it. If the decide to extend the moratorium

into a ban, they can do that. Or if the wants to allow it. But also the

party membership wants to see fracking banned completely.

Just as we dare to believe summer is actually here,

it's all change again tomorrow, with the Met Office issuing

a weather warning of potential "torrential downpours"

across the country tomorrow afternoon.

I guess we were gloating about having better weather than England

for a while. And London saying it must be terrible because we get the

better weather and it is supposed to trickle down. Will we have to get

used to big changes in weather? Business as usual. Character

building. I'm back again tomorrow

night, usual time, so do