29/06/2014 Sunday Politics Scotland


With Gordon Brewer. Andrew Neil is joined by Europe Minister David Lidington, Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan and Lib Dem Charles Kennedy to discuss David Cameron's EU defeat.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 29/06/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.


No surprise that Cameron didn't get his way at the European summit.


But does it mean Britain has just moved closer to the EU exit?


Doctors want to ban smoking outright.


or the health lobby's secret plan all along? We'll debate.


Too white, too male? We've been crunching the numbers to find out


whether Parliament's about to become more like the country.


Coming up on Sunday Politics Scotland:


Lives could have been saved if the RAF's Tornado fleet had


according to the official investigation.


And with me, as always, the best and the brightest political


panel in the business Nick Watt, Helen Lewis and Janan Ganesh.


They've had their usual cognac, or Juncker as it's known in


Luxembourg, for breakfast and will be tweeting under the influence.


He's a boozing, chain-smoking, millionaire bon viveur who's made


it big in the world of European politic.


I speak of Jean-Claude Juncker, the former Prime Minister of Luxembourg


He'll soon be President of the European Commission,


He wasn't David Cameron's choice of course.


But those the PM thought were his allies deserted him and he ended up


on the wrong end of a 26-2 vote in favour of Arch-Fedrealist Juncker.


-- on the wrong end of a 26-2 vote in favour of Arch-Federalist


So where does this leave Mr Cameron's hopes


of major reform and repatriation of EU powers back to the UK?


Let's speak to his Europe Minister David Lidington.


Welcome to the programme. The Prime Minister says that now with Mr


Juncker at the helm, the battle to keep Britain in the EU has got


harder. In what way has it got harder? For two reasons. The


majority of the leaders have accepted the process that shifts


power, it will not careful, from the elected heads of government right


cross Europe to the party bosses, the faction leaders in the European


Parliament and and the disaffection was made clear in many European


countries. Mr Juncker had a distinguished period as head of


Luxembourg, and was not a known reformer, but we have to judge on


how he leads the commission and there were some elements in the


mandate that the heads of government gave this week to the new incoming


European Commission that I think are cautiously encouraging for us. The


Prime Minister talked about those that not everybody wants to


integrate and to the same extent and speed. Let me just interrupt you.


What is new about saying that Europe can go closer to closer union at


different speeds? That has always been the case. It's nothing new.


Indeed there are precedents, and they are good examples of the


approach as part of the course and one of the elements that the Prime


Minister is taking forward in the strategy is to get general


acceptance that while we agree that most of the partners have agreed to


the single currency will want to press forward with closer


integration of their economic and tax policies, but not every country


in the EU is going to want to do that. We have to see the pattern


that has grown up enough to recognise there is a diverse EU with


28 member states and more in the future. We won't all integrate the


extent. It is a matter of a pattern that is differentiation and


integration. I understand that. John Major used to call it variable


geometry, and other phrases nobody used to understand, but the point is


that you're back benches don't want any union at any speed, even in the


slow lane. They want to go in the other direction. It depends which


backbencher you talk to. There's a diverse range of views. I think that


there is acceptance that the core of the Prime Minister's approaches to


seek reform of the European Union, for renegotiation after the


election, then put it to the British people to decide. It won't be the


British government or ministers that take the final decision, it's the


British people, provided they are a Conservative government, who will


take the decision on the basis of the reforms that David Cameron


secures whether they want to stay in or not. Is there more of a chance,


not a certainty or probability, but at least more of a chance that with


Mr Juncker in that position of Britain leaving the EU? I don't


think we can say that at the moment. I think we can say that the task of


reform looks harder than it did a couple of weeks ago. But we have do


put Mr Juncker to the test. I do think he would want his commission


to be marked and I think that there is, and I find this in numbers


around Europe, and there is a growing recognition that things


cannot go on as they have been. Europe, economically, is in danger


of losing a lot of ground will stop millions of youngsters are out of


work already that reform. There is real anxiety and a number of


countries now about the extent to which opinion polls and election


results are showing a shift of support to both left and right wing


parties, sometimes outright neofascist movements, expressing


real content and resentment at Howard in touch -- how out of touch


decisions have become. You say you are sensing anxiety about the


condition of Europe, so why did they choose Mr Juncker then? You would


have to put that question to some of the heads of European government.


Clearly there were a number for whom domestic politics played a big role


in the eventual decision that they took. There were some who had signed


up to the lead candidate process and felt they could not back away from


that, whatever their private feelings might have been, but I


think the PM was right to say that this was a matter of principle and


it shouldn't just be left as a stitch up by the European Parliament


to tell us what they do. He said, I can't agree to pretend to acquiesce.


They have to make the opposition clear that go on with reform. Are


the current terms of membership for us unacceptable? The current terms


of the membership are very far from perfect. Are they unacceptable? The


current terms are certainly not ones that I feel comfortable with. The


Prime Minister described them as unacceptable. Do you think they are?


We look at the views of the British people at the moment. If you look at


the polling at the moment, the evidence is that people are split on


whether they think membership is a good thing. I'm asking what you


think. David Cameron wants to in -- endorse changes in our interest, but


also because the biggest market is going to suffer if they don't


challenge -- grasp the challenge of political and economic reform.


Newsnight, Friday night, Malcolm Rifkind the former Secretary of


State said to me that even if the choice was to stay in on the


existing terms, he would vote to stay in on the existing terms. He


doesn't necessarily like them, but he would vote to stay in. That is


the authentic voice of the Foreign Office, isn't it? That is the


position of your department. Is it your position? Malcolm Rifkind is a


distinguished and independent minded backbencher. He's not in government


now. But that is your position. No, the position of the government and


the Conservative Party in the government is that we believe that


important changes, both economic and political reforms, are necessary and


that they are attainable in our interest and those of Europe as a


whole. Would you vote to stay in on the existing terms? That's not going


to be a question that the referendum. Really? I know that in


2017 Europe is going to look rather different to how it looks today. For


one thing our colleagues in the Eurozone will want and need to press


ahead with closer integration. That, in our view, needs to be done


in a way that fully respects the rights of those of us who remain


outside. Variable geometry, tackling things like the abuse of freedom of


migration. Those are all in the conclusions from the leader this


week and we should welcome that. Very briefly, finally, when will


you, as a government, give us the negotiating position of the


government? Will you give us what you hope to achieve before the


election or not? David Cameron set out very clearly in his Bloomberg


speech that he wanted a Europe that was more democratically accountable,


more flexible, more at it -- economically competitive. That is


all very general. When will you lay out the negotiating position? It's


not general. It is very far from general. We have seen evidence in


the successful cut of the European budget, the reform of fisheries,


those reforms have started to take effect. We have won some victories


and I'm sure the Prime Minister, as we get towards the general election,


will want to make clear what the Conservative Party position is, and


perhaps other political leaders will do the same for their party. Thank


you for joining us this morning. The harsh reality of this is that there


is a yawning gap between what the Prime Minister can hope to bring


back and what will satisfy his Conservative backbenchers. Yes, I


think the Parliamentary Conservative Party is divided into three parts,


those who would vote to leave the EU regardless, those who would stay


regardless, and a huge middle ground of people who want to stay in on


renegotiated terms. These are not three equal parts. Those who would


vote to stay in regardless are smaller and smaller. Compared to 20


years ago, tiny. But the people in the middle, generally, would only


stay in if you secure a renegotiation that will not be


re-secured. In other words, they are de facto, out by 2017 and the


referendum. This whole saga of the recent weeks has been the single


biggest economy in foreign policy under this government. That's not


what the voters think. -- single biggest ignominy. I mean the failure


to secure the target. The opinion polls show that standing up against


Mr Juncker has proved rather popular. I suggest that is not Mr


Cameron's problem. His problem is that, if in the end he gets only


because Medic changes, and if he says he still thinks that with these


changes -- cosmetic changes. And he says that they should stay in, that


would split the Tory party wide open. Eurosceptics say would be the


biggest split since the corn laws. He wants to protect the position of


coming out, and you might get that. He wants to crack down on abuse of


benefits, and he might get that. He wants to restrict freedom of


movement for future member states, and that's difficult, because it is


a treaty change. And he wants to deal with closer union, but that is


also treaty change. In the Council conclusions, David Cameron was


encouraged because it said, let's look at closer union, but it did not


say it would reform. All it said was ever closer union can be interpreted


in different ways. In other words, we're not going to change it. The


fundamental problem the David Cameron was that two years ago, when


he vetoed the fiscal compact, that showed Angela Merkel was unwilling


to help them and what happened in the last two weeks was that Angela


Merkel was unable to help him. There is not a single leader of the


European Union that once Juncker as president, and he doesn't want it,


he wants the note take a job at the European Council. But there was this


basic stitch up by the European basic stitch up by the European


Parliament that meant he was presented, and when Angela Merkel


put the question over his head there was a huge backlash in Germany and


she was unable to deliver. I understand that, but I'm looking


forward to Mr Cameron's predicament. I don't know how he squares the


circle. It seems inconceivable that he can bring back enough from


Brussels to satisfy his backbenchers. No, you can't. Most of


them fundamentally want out. They don't want to be persuaded by


renegotiations. Where it's hard to draw conclusions from the polling is


that if you ask people question that sounds like, do you like the fact


that our Prime Minister has gone to Brussels and stuck it to the man,


they say yes, but how many people will go to the voting booths and put


their cross in the box based on Europe? We know mostly voters care


about Europe as a proxy for immigration fears. In ten people in


this country could not tell you who John Claude Juncker is Angela Weir


is replacing. -- and who he is replacing.


And I'm joined in the studio now by arch-Eurosceptic Conservative MEP,


Daniel Hannan and from Strasbourg by staunch European and former Liberal


war? His declared objectives would leave Britain still in the common


agricultural policy, the common foreign policy, the European arrest


warrant, so the negotiating aims which we just heard Nick setting out


wouldn't fundamentally change anything. It would be easy for the


Government to declare war on any of these things. The danger from your


point of view as someone who wants to stay in is that if David Cameron


only gets cosmetic changes, the chance of getting the vote to leave


the European Union increases, doesn't it? Hypothetically it


probably does but we have two big things to get through first in


domestic politics before we even reach a negotiation. One is are we


going to have the United Kingdom this time next year following the


referendum in Scotland? Secondly, are the Conservatives after the


general election next year going to be in a position to pursue a


negotiation? In other words are they going to be a majority government or


even a minority government? For the sake of this morning let's assume


the answer to both is yes, the UK stays intact and against the polls


they were saying this morning, David Cameron forms an overall majority


after the election. There is a danger, if he doesn't bring much


back, that people will vote yes, correct? There is that danger and I


see a lot of the British press comment this morning saying this


could be a rerun of the Harold Wilson like negotiation of the


1970s, a bit cosmetic but enough to say we have got new terms and you


should go with it. I think what is different however, and this is


really an appeal if you like, it cannot just be left to the Liberal


Democrats and coalition government cannot just be left to the Liberal


to make this case on our Rome. A lot of interest groups across the land


will have to start being prepared to put their head above the parapet on


the fundamental - do you want Britain to remain in the European


Union? Yes or no? Are you willing to put your public reputations on the


line? We are not getting enough of that at the moment and it is getting


dangerously close to closing time. Daniel Hannan, David Cameron will


not get away with this, will he? It will be an acceptable to his party.


If it is an acceptable to Tory backbenchers it is because it is


working and they are reflecting what their constituents say. A majority


of people in the country are unhappy with the present terms. They can see


there is a huge wide world beyond the oceans and we have confined


ourselves to this small trade bloc. There is a huge debate to be had


about whether we could be doing better outside. It is not danger, it


is democracy, trusting people. If the only person offering a


referendum at the moment is the Prime Minister, it has serious


consequences for his party, your party, that's what I'm talking


about. I am very proud of being part of the party that is trusting people


to offer this. If he only gets cosmetic changes he cannot carry his


party. But ultimately it will not be his party, it is the electorate as a


whole that has to decide whether the changes are substantive. Everything


we have been hearing just now is about staying out of future


integration, protecting the role of the non-euro countries. People are


upset about what is going on today with the EU. They can see laws being


passed by people they cannot vote for, friendships overseas are


prejudiced, and they conceive that the European Union has just put in


charge in the top slot somebody who wants a United States of Europe into


which we will eventually be dragged into as some kind of Providence.


Jean-Claude Juncker is a Federalist, you are Federalist, why did the Lib


Dems oppose him? We shared the view that whilst you take account of what


the members of the European Parliament say, ultimately the


choice of the presidency in the commission should be the political


leaders, the governmental leaders at a national level, and that's why we


went down the route we did. It was more to do with the system than the


individual. Although I would say that you need to bear in mind, I


mean Daniel, I respect him personally and the integrity of his


views, as I think he does mine, but to dismiss the European Union as a


small trading block globally, when you have got the United States of


America, China and other countries acknowledging its importance, it is


really Walter Mitty land. Are we closer than... Daniel Hannan, are we


closer to an exit after what happened last week? Yes, because the


idea that we could get substantive reforms, gets a mythic and powers


back and be within a looser, more flexible European Union has plainly


been closed off. We have to face up to the actual European Union that


has taken shape on our doorstep. Are we going to be part of that or are


we going to have a much more semidetached, looser relationship


with it which we can either achieve via a unilateral system of power or


another way. This debate is never-ending, it is going on and on


and has bedevilled British prime ministers for as long as I can


remember. Shouldn't the Lib Dems change their stance on the


referendum yet again let's just have this in-out referendum and have it


sided one way or another? Our position remains clear. If there is


a constitutional issue put before us in terms of treaty changes then we


will have a referendum. Why not now? I am probably the wrong person to


ask because I argued and voted for a referendum on Maastricht because I


thought that was a constitutional treaty. Anything that makes the


Queen a citizen of the European Union surely has constitutional


implications. Anyway, 20 years on we are where we are and we need to


established common vocabulary. You talk about federalism. What do we


mean? Most of the people operating in the European Parliament and the


institution across the road, the Council of Europe, they mean by


federalism decentralisation of powers, not a Brussels superstate


but actually the kind of decentralisation that maintains


national characteristics and pools resources and sovereignty where it


makes sense. Mr Juncker, who is now going to be in charge of the


Brussels commission, he believes in a single EU reform policy, an EU


wide minimum wage and EU wide taxes. You said this week that you


liked the sound of Juncker federalism. Does that sound good to


you? No, and I think the new president of the commission will be


disappointed if he puts forward these views because although we only


had Hungary voting with us, I think if you go to other countries,


France, Poland, Scandinavia, they are not going to buy that kind of


menu. What they mean by federalism is the continental concept, also the


North American concept, that we can sit very happily... They have an


army, a federal police force, federal taxation. Yes, but in terms


of the political institutions which is what we are discussing here, you


can have the supranational, the European level, whilst still having


the very vibrant national, and indeed as we are practising in the


United Kingdom the subnational. A very brief final word from you,


Daniel. That is ultimately going to be the choice. The European Union is


an evolving dynamic, we can see the direction it is going in. Do we want


to be part of that? I suspect Charles Kennedy would have loved a


referendum. I cannot help but notice his party is going downhill since he


was running it. It is illegal to light up in the workplace, pubs and


restaurants. Now the British Medical Association has voted to outlaw


everywhere but not everybody at once. It would apply to anyone born


after the year 2000. In a moment we will debate the merits of those


plans but first he is Adam. There was a time when to be British


was to be a smoker. 1948 was the year off peak fag with 82% of men


smoking mainly cigarettes but it was a pipe that Harold Wilson used as a


political prop to help with the hard-hitting interviews they did in


those days. The advertisements make out pipe smokers to be more virile,


more fascinating men than anybody else. Do you thought -- have that


thought anywhere in your mind? No. It changed in 2006 when smoking in


enclosed places was banned. I would rather be inside but unfortunately


we have got to do what this Government tells us to do. I think


it is good, it is calm and you can breathe. Research suggests it has


improved the health of bar workers no end and reduced childhood asthma.


Now just one in five adults is a smoker. Coming next, crackdowns on


those newfangled e-cigarettes, smoking in cars and possibly the


introduction of plain packaging. There is still those who take pride


in smoking and see it as a war on freedom.


We're joined now by Dr Vivienne Nathanson


from the British Medical Association who voted for a graduated ban


on smoking at their conference last week, and Simon Clark


They're here to go head-to-head. There are plenty of things which are


bad for our health, why single out cigarettes? We need some sugar in


our diets but the fact is that we need to stop people smoking as


children because if we can do that, the likelihood that they will start


smoking is very small. In no circumstances is smoking good for


you. There are lots of smokers who live long, healthy lives but we


totally accept smoking is a risk to your health and adults have to make


that decision, just as you make the decision about drinking alcohol,


eating fatty foods and drinking sugary drinks. This proposal is


totally impractical. It will create a huge black market in cigarettes


which will get bigger every year. They say this is about stopping


children smoking but there is already a law in place that stops


shopkeepers from selling cigarettes to children. This target adults so


you could have the bizarre situation in the year 3035 for example where a


36-year-old can go into shops to buy cigarettes but if you are 35 you


will be denied that, which is ludicrous. The point is that the


younger you start smoking the more likely you will become heavily


addicted. I take the point, but the point he is saying is that if this


becomes law, down the road, if you go into shops to buy cigarettes you


would have to take your birth certificate, wouldn't you? We have


no idea how the legislation would be written but the key point is that if


we can stop young people from starting to smoke, we will in 20


years have a whole group of people who have never smoked so you won't


have that problem of people who are smokers and they are now in their


20s and 30s. Or you will have a lot of younger people who get cigarettes


the way they currently get illegal drugs now. They are already getting


cigarettes illegally and we have to deal with that. We have got to get


better. The Government has not been able to stop it. We know this is


going to kill 50%... When you are 15 you think you will live for ever.


Indeed but they also do it as rebellion and because they see


adults and it is remarkably easy to buy cigarettes. Whatever the case is


for individual choice, won't most people agree that if you could stop


young people smoking, so that through the rest of their lives they


never smoked, that would be worth doing? You get 16 or 17-year-olds


who already do that. Is it worth trying? When the government


increased the age at which shopkeepers could sell from 16 to


18, we supported it. We don't support a ban on proxy purchasing,


we support reasonable measures, but this is unreasonable. This proposal


says a lot about the BMA, because this week the BMA also passed a


motion to ban the use of E cigarettes in public places. There


is no evidence that they are dangerous to health, so why are they


doing that? They are becoming a temperance society. This is not


about public health, it's an old-fashioned temperance society and


they have to get their act together because they are bringing the


medical profession into disrepute. We were having argument is about


things that people buy large accept, smoking in bars or public places,


but the real aim of the BMA was the total banning of cigarettes


altogether. This would suggest that that was true to claim that. It's


not about a ban, it's about a move to a country where nobody wants to


smoke and no one is a smoker. But it would be illegal to smoke. It would


be illegal to buy, not smoke, and there's a difference between two. So


even if I am born in the year 2000, it would still be illegal to smoke,


just illegal to buy the cigarettes? Indeed. The point being that the


habit of smoking is very strongly linked to your ability to buy, so


that is why things like Price and availability and marketing are so


important. People will flood across the Channel with the cigarettes. One


thing you will find is that throughout the world people is


looking at -- people are looking at the same kind of measures, and


different countries like Australia, they were the first with a


standardised packaging. Other countries will follow, because all


of us are facing the fact that we can't afford to pay for the


tragedy. There will be people waiting to flood the market with


cigarettes. This is nonsense. Thanks for both coming and going


"Unless we have more equal head-to-head.


"Unless we have more equal representation, our politics won't


be half as good as it should be." So said David Cameron back in 2009.


So how's it going? Well, you can judge the quality


of the politics for yourself, but we've been crunching


the numbers to find out what parliament might look like after


the next year's general election. Here's Giles.


Politicians are elected to Parliament to represent their


constituents, but the make-up of Parliament does not reflect society


well at all the parties it. In 2010 more women and ethnic minority


candidates entered Westminster but not significantly more inner chamber


still dominated by white males. Looking at the current make-up of


the Commons, Labour has 83 female MPs, the Conservative have 47 women


MPs, which is just over 47% -- and the Lib Dems have 12% of the


parties. All of the parties have selected parliaments in those seats


where existing MPs are retiring and to fight seats at the next


election, and they've all been trying to up the number of women and


ethnic minorities because discounts and can be capitalised on. A picture


tells a thousand words. Look at the all-male front bench before us. And


he says he wants to represent the whole country. Despite the jibe, the


Labour Party know they have a long way to go on the issue of being


representative. So we way to go on the issue of being


look at this particular area of lack of women and ethnic minorities.


In the most marginal, 40 have women candidates, that would mean if they


got just enough to win power, they would have 133 women, which is 41%


The Conservatives currently have 305 MPs and their strategy


at the next election is to concentrate on their 40 most


marginal seats, and the 40 seats most mathematically likely to turn


In those 40, 29 candidates have been selected


If they kept hold of their existing seats and won those 29 new ones,


they would have 56 women MPs, around 17%, and up 2% from last time.


The Liberal Democrats are fighting to hold on to the 57 seats they won


One Conservative peer who thinks the party needs to look at all options


in its female -- if its female numbers go down says element is


simply missing trick. If 50% of our population is not being looked at,


even, are we really using the best of our talent? Yes, women's life


experiences are different, they are not superior, or inferior. They are


different. But surely, those experiences need to be represented


here at Westminster. That is the Parliamentary projection for


gender, what about ethnicity? According to the last census in


2011, 13% of people in the UK describe themselves as non-white.


Labour currently has 16 MPs from black, Asian or minority


backgrounds, with just over 6%. If they get the extra 60 seats, that


figure goes up to 26, it was sent off their party. The Tories


currently have 11 black ethic minority candidates, or 4% of the


party. The biggest and next 29 seats, it would mean 14 black and


ethnic minority MPs, again putting them on for percent. The Lib Dems do


not have any black or ethic minority MPs, if they managed to cling on to


the current number of seats they would have two, giving them a


proportion of 4%. If they lost the 20 most vulnerable seats, it would


go back down to zero. But even if you change the mix of gender and


ethnicity in Parliament, would it solve the problem? Probably not.


Only 10% of us have gone to a private, fee-paying school. 33% of


new MPs in 2010 dead. A quarter of all MPs went to Oxford or


Cambridge. Only a fifth of us went to any university. There is a huge


disillusion in this place which has summoning people -- so many people


who do not look like us. They cannot communicate in a way that we can


relate to. If you look at turnout, at the moment, if you are an


unskilled worker, you are 20 times less likely to turn out and vote.


That is getting worse and worse at every election. That is the key,


evidence does suggest that if a party reflects the society it exists


within, it is more likely to get the votes they also badly need. -- they


all so badly need. It is just about time for Sunday


Good morning and welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland.


An official investigation into a head-on collision of


two RAF Tornados over the Moray Firth in 2012 concludes that


an on-board collision warning system would have saved lives.


A sledgehammer to crack a nut - that's how one critic describes


the Government's policy to give each youngster a named person


We have a look at the history of the TV political debate.


Air accident investigators have concluded that if


an on-board collision warning system had been fitted to the RAF's fleet


of Tornados, it would have saved lives when two of the jets crashed


The BBC understands the finding is contained in


a highly critical and long awaited report into the accident, due to be


published tomorrow by the Military Aviation Authority ahead of the


Our Westminster correspondent Tim Reid has this exclusive report.


Being brought ashore, the wreckage of a collision between two Tornado


jets over the Moray Firth in July 2012. The accident happened in misty


conditions but investigators believe fatalities would have been avoided


if the collision warning system, for years delayed or cancelled by the


MOD, had been fitted. The aircrew died in the accident and the fourth


was seriously injured. A long-awaited report by the Military


Aviation Authority makes 50 recommendations, it says a new


on-board one in system which was only approved months after the crash


must be operational as soon as possible. Campaigners say they will


step up their calls for a fatal accident enquiries to get to the


full truth. The report is particularly critical of the


procurement processes within the MOD, it talks of smoke and mirrors


over costs of delaying and cancelling the system, which is only


due to become operational in the Tornado fleet by the end of the


year, but which is still not fitted the Typhoon aircraft, which are also


based at RAF Lossiemouth. I'm joined now by the SNP defence


spokesman, Angus Robertson, the House of Commons Defence Select


Committee, and joins us from London. And as Robertson, this report is


expected to say that lives could have been saved, had a collision


warning system been installed. What is your reaction to that? Well, I


think that has long been the view of experts, people who understand their


worthiness, but for it to be confirmed this report, and we are


still waiting for the final text, it would be a damning indictment on the


approach that the Ministry of Defence takes to the safety of


service personnel. It raises very serious questions about the


decision-making process, which recommended the installation of a


collision warning system in Tornado aircraft in the 1990s, yet they are


still not installed. It also raises questions about why no


recommendations have yet been made for the installation of a collision


warning system on board Typhoon aircraft, which are operating at


present in Scotland. This is not new, we lost far too many people in


that accident and serious issues were raised about MOD airworthiness


management then. This is not a new story, and it really does make a


case or a fatal accident enquiry, so the MOD and people who make


decisions within the MOD, like Liam Fox, have to answer for the delays


in installation of collision warning system is, indeed for its


cancellation at one stage. Our service personnel's lives, their


safety, must come first, always. It does seem extraordinary that the


installation of a collision one exist on Tornados was recommended 14


years before this accident happened. Yet, based on her not been


installed. That is right, they should have been installed. And it


should have happened a long time ago. The big problem is, people have


to make decisions on what they can afford. I would love to see far more


money spent on defence. Too much of our defence policy is done sort of


on the cheap. I would very much like to have seen a collision warning


system put on the Tornado and indeed on the Typhoon. We have not had the


result of this report yet, so I assume that what you see may be the


truth, but I have not read it. But if it is someone who points the


finger and says, if we had a collision warning system on this


aircraft, this might not have happened, I totally endorse that. We


require a collision avoidance system on all our aircraft. But Tornados is


one thing, it seems one thing -- it seems extraordinary that the Typhoon


aircraft, the next generation aircraft, they are not even


installed on that. They are not just desirable on civilian aircraft, they


are Monday on civil in aircraft that carry more than 20 passengers, yet


we have these multi-million pound fighter aircraft that have not


bothered to put them on. I agree. All I am saying is, frankly, we are


in a martial profession in the Royal Belfast, and sometimes risks are


taken. The people in the RAF do what they can with the equipment they


have. It is a political decision, as do resources. And I agree with


Angus, perhaps we should have put these collision warning systems on


our craft a long time ago. But then my question is, what do we not put


on the aeroplanes? Someone in the RAF who understands it much better


than us next the decision on priorities. I do not know what the


priorities were. Angus Robertson, I presume there is an economic case


for these things, because there is the tragic loss of life in the 2012


incident, but without sounding callous, these particular


Eurofighter is, these cost millions of pounds each, it would surely be


cheaper to put something in them that would stop losing that


multi-million pound investment. I think it needs context, we must


understand that there are families, friends and colleagues who are


watching programmes like this, they have not seen the report but what


they are about to be able to read is a detailed account of how their


loved ones died. It is going to be extremely distressing for them. And


everybody was my first thoughts need to be in that context. The point you


raised about the value, the cost, both of equipment for the Tornado or


the Typhoon, and the crew who have gone through years of training and


have experience, that has cost a lot as well. All of this does beg the


question, why is it that we would send some of our most highly trained


service men and women, using some of the most expensive equipment that


the RAF has at its disposal, regularly into exercises and


low-flying, into operations, without a collision warning system, when we


know it has been recommended for such a long time? Bob raises a


question about the decisions that are made, and he is right, it would


be very difficult decisions. I completely agree. But when it comes


down to people's lives and people's lives being put at risk, or when we


know that air proximity examples, when planes come close enough to


collide, they happen on a very regular, they occur very regularly


in Scottish airspace and the rest of the UK, when we know there are


issues about the amount of engineering personnel who maintain


the highest safety standards, given we know all this, and we also know


that the recommendation to install a collision warning system was


followed by decisions that slowed that down and at one stage stopped


it, that was on Liam Fox's watch, all of this makes the case


overwhelmingly for a fatal accident enquiry so the conclusions of this


military and the -- military of poverty report are to conduct --


Military Aviation Authority report are taken in detail. I should point


out, we did ask Liam Fox to appear on the programme today, but he was


unavailable. Angus Robertson,, you talked about the need for a fatal


accident enquiry, think one of the organ as you will face, possibly


tomorrow, is that -- one of the arguments you will face, if this is


as critical as we are led to believe of procurement policy in the Royal


Air Force, people will say, there is no need for a fatal accident


enquiry, we have already got it, in effect. If that were the case, there


would have been no need for justice -- for the judge to conduct a


coroner's inquest into the loss of the Nimrod aircraft. There are many


other examples that we know of. The loss in the Mull of Kintyre of the


helicopter, which was followed by a fatal accident enquiry. We need to


get to the bottom of this, people's lives were lost, millions of pounds


worth of equivalent was lost and the decision-making systems in the MOD,


it appears, have broken down. We need to understand this so it never


happens again. We cannot ask our service personnel to put the lights


on the line then lose it, because basic safety equipment was not


installed in aircraft. Bob Stuart, would you agree that there needs to


be a fatal accident enquiry following the publication of the


report? I do not know, to be honest. I have not seen the report or the


recommendations. But I do know one thing, the Royal Air Force and the


Ministry of Defence will be taking note of what it says. The idea that


we would not try and put urgently collision avoiding systems on all


our fast jets seems to me strange will stop if it is not immediately


done. But the problem is, we have got to make decisions on priorities.


Can I point out that these very gallant young men, all of them, were


doing their very best to fly as well as they could, to man their


equipment as well as they could, but the equipment they had, they had to


fly. They do not have a choice. No blame on them whatsoever. We all


feel, as Angus and myself and everyone watching this programme


does, how tragic the result was. But everyone, like myself and everyone


in Parliament, really wants us to fly as safely as we can, but these


aeroplanes and these aircrew are there to defend our country and


sometimes they have to take risks in training, which is what they were


doing. How A key support for families or big


brother gone too far? That's the debate surrounding the Scottish


Government's named person policy. Brought in under the Children and


Young People Bill earlier this year, the policy gives every Scot under 18


a designated person responsible for their well being. That person isn't


a parent or relative but someone from the public sector. Some


charities have welcomed the move as a step towards greater child


protection, others feel parents' human rights are being infringed.


Next month opponents will see a judicial review of the measure.


Megan Paterson has been exploring the debate. The visit from the


health visitor finds this baby happy, healthy and progressing well.


But his health visitor serves another purpose, she is his named


person, assigned by the government to monitor his well-being. Every


family is different, every family dynamic is different as well. It is


really a matter of making relationships and building on that.


There is trust each way between the families and hoping you are giving


them the help they are looking for in their child's's development up to


the age of five. It has made a great difference. In the hospital he was


taken to special care, we were in longer and when we came home it was


good to have somebody. I was nervous because he had been encamped,


special Kier that I was doing everything right. The decision was


taken to roll out this system across the whole country. The Christian


Institute have mounted a judicial review funded by members of the


public. It gives huge powers to named persons to advise and talk to


children without the parents even knowing about it or without their


consent. The same state bodies will be involved in looking for all these


families where there is no issue at all. Instead of actually finding


that needle in the haystack actually making the haystack much bigger.


That will find it much more difficult to get to that vulnerable


child. They still have to respect family rights. Health visitors or


teachers will usually take on the role of named person, people the


families already know but some people feel it will be to the


conflict of interests especially when children get ill. We saw our


son's health decline quite rapidly and he was being forced to attend to


school, we took the health professionals at their word that


this was the thing to do, to keep him any routine, get him up and not


let him rest. When we saw his health deteriorate rapidly we stepped in.


The named person makes that extremely difficult for parents to


do now because you have an extra layer of bureaucracy that makes it


difficult for the parents to have the final word on the ear of their


children. -- care of their children. At the moment people already have


information where there are concerns about a child. This is about


coordinating it and making sure the best use is made of the information


for the care of the child. Most people will not need to use the


named person in the way we go to the doctor. We do not use the doctor


every day or every week but we go when we need them. We do not know


when children or families may become vulnerable and need extra help but


it is important that when this happens the children have a named


person to go to to get the extra help or advice they need. With the


campaign against named person stepping up over the summer the


roll-out seems far from trouble-free. I am joined by the


Minister for young people and the Conservative Gavin Brown. Proponents


of this legislation are seeking a judicial view. -- review. They have


asked you not to finalise the bill until a decision is made on the


legal probe cess, are you prepared to do that? We are very clear we


want to give children the best start in life. We are confident this goes


through all the requirements to go through Parliament, it has already


had royal assent as well. We see no reason to delay unless any good


reason comes forward which we do not believe their Es. So you will go


ahead? Implementation is in 2016. It has received support through the


consultation and we are absolutely clear this complies with all the


legal requirements that legislation needs. The argument for having a


named person for every child, it is the every that seems to be the bone


of contention, is that you never know which child will need help,


that has some force, does it not? If you have universal provision for


every person in Scotland between the age of zero and 18 it means you are


expending resources on people who do not want it and do not need it. The


money cannot be spent twice. The money that could be targeted on our


most vulnerable is being spent on people who do not want it so I think


it has the danger of being very inefficient. It is bending money on


an enormous bureaucracy that does not help every single child. --


spending money. I do not agree. It is about getting help for a family


or child as early as possible. A named person could have access to


the medical records of a child, isn't that correct? This does not


interfere with parents rights at all. Couldn't they have that access


without the rights of the parents being considered? It is help for


families with everyone being brought on board. If the named person is not


satisfied with the response of the parent they could have access to the


medical records of the child without the parent's consent, is that


correct? We are sharing information in a proportionate way that makes


sure we have the best interests of children at the very heart of


decision-making. Be honest and is to the question I have just asked is


yes, in certain circumstances the named person could have access to


information like that. Where the person feels that the children's


safety is at risk they may have access but they live their robust


framework to make sure this sharing of information is done in a robust


and appropriate way. It could be access to private information about


a child without the consent of the parent of that child. It provides a


consistent framework. Do you think there is a question of parental


rights here? Of course there is. These are the fundamental


practicality issue. You are disrupting the autonomy of the


family, moving the balance towards the state and away from parents. In


many circumstances parents know best, the state does not know best,


it does not have an unblemished record in this area. Responses came


back from many organisations that their was very little consultation


with parents. That is not true. There are a huge number of people


and organisations already responsible for children in


Scotland. What precisely is added by having a named person for every


Child? It is about embedding good practice. If you are correct that it


is not the gross infringement of the rights of parents, what does it do?


The leader of the Conservative group in the Borders said this does not


interfere with parental rights. If you have the teacher who is a named


person, that teacher could have access to private medical records of


the Child. The parent of that child is concerned and if that teacher at


the child another named person could have access to private information


on their child in an infinite gene, isn't there something slightly east


German about this? Though, because it is about embedding good


practice. This reduces bureaucracy, allows professionals to intervene


where families most that need require additional support. It saves


money. It is about wider reform to make sure we get help to families


who need it and require it, with children who require it in a timely


way because the cost to the public purse of not doing these things is


if problems escalate into crises. That is something we want to avoid.


This supports parents. In response to what parents have to what parents


have told as they want through this parenting strategy. It has been very


much done in consultation with parents. Thank you very much indeed.


In a moment we will be looking at the history of TV political debate


but first, the news. Good afternoon. Air accident investigators have


concluded that if an onboard collision warning system had been


fitted to the RAF's fleet of Tornados, it could have saved lives.


Three airmen died when two jets crashed off the Caithness coast in


July 2012. The Military Aviation Authority is due to publish a long


awaited report into the accident tomorrow. The BBC understands the


report is highly critical of the Ministry of Defence, which for years


repeatedly delayed and cancelled the fitting of a collision warning


system to the aircraft. The Treasury has claimed that Scottish Government


plans to increase borrowing under independence would be incompatible


with retaining the pound. The First Minister said initial borrowing


would boost the economy and allow a sustainable cut in the deficit. He


added that Scotland would start out being more prosperous per head than


the UK, France or Japan. Danny Alexander said that boosting


borrowing to fund higher spending would set Scotland on a different


path from the rest of the UK. You cannot both have massive extra


borrowing and ensure that currency union will take place. We have to


accept that they will not be a currency union. They are not being


transparent and open with the people of Scotland about their alternative


plan. And, it's the second day of the Bannockburn Live festival,


marking the 700th anniversary of the famous battle. Hundreds of actors


are recreating the 1314 military encounter in which Robert the Bruce


defeated the forces of Edward the Second. Musicians and comedians are


performing over two days with more than 40 clans gathering for the


occasion. Despite initial concern over slow ticket sales, organisers


said yesterday's event sold out. The weather forecast now with


Christopher. Generally a better day today compared with yesterday. Some


sunshine developing but also the risk of one or two showers, and


regularly down the south of the country. Feeling cooler where clouds


are thicker. This evening and overnight the showers will tend to


feed. And when exactly do you do it,


if you decide to do it? TV debates are a big worry


for politicians and the scrutiny is even more intense and instantaneous


in the age of social media. Just when your campaign is going


well, one clanger can give Timing is crucial too - when do


you decide to meet for battle, and Andrew Kerr takes a look back


at debates of the past. And this was a common 1960, when


campaigning changed for ever. More than 60 million Americans tuned


in to watch the first ever televised debate between the two tank --


candidates running for presidency. I know what it means to be caught, I


know what it means to see people who are unemployed. This party has


produced Harry Truman, which supports and sustains these


programmes I discussed tonight. Tanned and relaxed, JFK looked


confident, compared to the shifty looking Nixon. TV viewers thought


Kennedy had one, the radio listeners thought it was a close call in the


race for the White House. In the last presidential election, there


were three debates of varying formats. We welcome President Obama


and Governor Romney. President Obama lost the first one, it was probably


a draw in the second, and he won the final. These were key staging posts


in the campaign. Popular with voters, even more popular with the


media. These debates are embedded in popular culture. The renowned


presidential series the West When she was the effort that goes into


reparation. Why did you nominate him? Bite me, that's why. So, these


debates are part and parcel of political life in the US. And even


Scottish campaigns. In 2011, the main party leaders gathered in Perth


ahead of the Holyrood election. Voters had their say and the rough


idea was given when a possible referendum could be held. Tonight,


who do you want to be your next Prime Minister? It was not until


2010 that the UK party leaders could show off their wares in this type of


forum. All tracked by the so-called war as voters expressed their views.


These dates can so often provide an unexpected boost to those struggling


to make a challenge. -- so-called war. -- worm. A word to the wise, it


was not the debate, but there was an audience. And DV cameras were


running. All right! We're all right! After that performance, act


normally, don't be overconfident, and do wear a decent tie.


Now it's time to have a look at what's happening in the week ahead.


the Political editor of the Herald, Magnus Gardham,


and Stephen McGinty from the Scotsman.


Let's start with this story about Danny Alexander having written a


letter, very stern one, but plans the Scottish Government have for


increasing spending, should they get a Yes vote in a referendum and


saying, hang on, that is not the same as the austerity programme,


therefore not only can you not have a currency union, but it sure was


you that you don't really believe you're going to get one. It is


interesting that Danny Alexander has picked up on this. The SNP set out


their borrowing plans, it is the case that they would burrow billions


of pounds between 2016 and 2019, would amount to 2.4 billion alone,


in order to boost the economy and move away from austerity. Danny


Alexander has said, that is exactly the kind of policy divergence which


took -- which would put some pressure on a currency union that it


would be unsustainable. You might ask, why has he written a letter,


given he has already ruled it out? But I think it is a sign that a


currency union is not going to go away, the issue is not going to go


away throughout this referendum campaign. Magnus is saying why did


he write the letter? I suspect the politics of this is the dimension


that he was to say, hang on, it only is this incompatible with a currency


union, but in my view as Danny Alexander, you realise that, or you


would not be saying this. He is effectively trying to make the point


that the currency union has not been agreed, it is a major problem for


the SNP, though -- that is the way it is being viewed by many people


and he is time to drive that point home. Scottish Government would say


that a better economic strategy than anything you whatever, with. The


Treasury are constantly saying this is our predicted spending, this is


what we're going to do, and then the future happens and you revise it. It


will be interesting to see in the future whether this will invariably


change. And whether it is on a par with what the SNP want to do anyway.


A quick comment on the Tornados story. It does seem, it surprised me


on a looked into this, that even the most advanced next generation


aircraft in the RAF, as of now, do not have these collision warning


system is installed. It is a very alarming finding. Clearly we will


have to wait until tomorrow to hear more from the MOD to see what they


are saying in response to that. In the meantime, I think it is hard to


say a lot more than it is good that the report has finally been


published, it is good for the families, obviously, and I think


taking up from what we heard Angus Robertson saying, I can see pressure


for a fatal accident enquiry beginning to grow. I think it is


tragic that it happened and it must be very galling for the families.


The fact that a collision warning system was suggested in the 1990s


and nothing happens, the loved ones are now dead, it could have been


avoided. I think it is tragic for them, and it is crucial that the MOD


continue the roll-out of the system. The Armed Forces are featured in a


very different way on the front pages of the papers. This is


allegations that David Cameron was politicising Armed Forces Day by his


speech and so allegations that leaflets are being circulate it by


the MOD through the services which take a position on the referendum.


It is interesting. He clearly said he was not going to politicise the


day, it should be a neutral day, but politics will invariably come into


this. This could be one of the last ones, and he used the opportunity to


make a point. I think there was criticism of it, I was at the event


yesterday and this book is an ex-soldiers afterwards and one of


them wait -- made the point that this was the one day people come


together and celebrate the Armed Forces and it was wrong for the


Prime Minister to play politics with that day. What did you make of it? I


am in two minds. Given the weight of symbolism around Armed Forces Day,


out of me thinks it would be rather odd if the Prime Minister had not


made a passing reference to the referendum. Another part of me


thinks, given the weight of symbolism around Armed Forces Day,


was it really necessary? What it does show is the heightened


sensitivity around the referendum issue, and woke the type any


politician who is contemplating politicising the Commonwealth Games.


This thing about the leaflets, there are allegations from both sides that


the Government is being used inappropriately. If Government is


being used in a properly, both of them, we are seeing huge spending on


the White Paper, huge spending on the Scotland Office leaflets. We


will have to leave it there. That's all we have time for, I will be back


at the same time next week. Until then, goodbye.


With Gordon Brewer. Andrew Neil is joined by Europe Minister David Lidington, Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan and Lib Dem Charles Kennedy to discuss David Cameron's EU defeat. Also should there be a complete ban on smoking?

Download Subtitles