29/11/2015 Sunday Politics Scotland


Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer with the latest political news, interviews and debate. Liam Fox and George Galloway discuss air strikes, and Lord Falconer talks about Labour.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 29/11/2015. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Good morning and welcome. Government issues its plan for air strikes in


Syria. We will hear from Liam Fox and the Respect party leader George


Galloway. Jeremy Corbyn is struggling to get his way over Syria


as he tries to persuade his Shadow Cabinet. We will hear from the


Shadow Justice Secretary. And the former Conservative Party chairman


Grant Shapps resigns from the government or allegations he failed


to act over bullying claims inside the Tory party. Is that the end of


the story? And coming up on


Sunday Politics Scotland: As heads of state gather


for climate change talks in Paris, the UK Government cuts funding


for new technology which could So, yesterday,


former Conservative Party chairman Grant Shapps resigned from


the Government over allegations he failed to act on claims of bullying


in the youth wing of the party. It's a complicated story,


as Giles Dilnot explains. Grant Shapps, former co-chair


of the Conservative Party and now a former minister, must wish


as his senior aide Paul Abbot Clarke once tipped for the top


by Tatler magazine unsuccessfully As a result of his behaviour


during that campaign, about which complaints were made, he


was taken off the candidates list. A girlfriend at the time declaring


he was "unfit to be an MP". In early 2014,


Mr Clarke approached the Conservatives and Grant Shapps


in particular with an idea. It was simple, bus loads of young


Tory activists to marginal seats during the 2015 general election


campaign to doorstep constituents. In the face of of unshifting polls,


the idea appealed to Conservative Central Headquarters but they


wanted to have some control over it. Grant Shapps decided not only to


back the idea, but help pay for it, and put Clarke in charge


of the operation. never met are you going to be a part


of this? -- are you going to be? Roadtrip 2015,


as the plan was called, had another motive for Clarke, to see him back


on the Conservative candidate list and perhaps he would have and this


story ended if not for the apparent suicide in mid-September


of a young activist called Elliot Johnson, who left a note, naming


Mark Clarke as someone who'd been bullying him and a secret recording


of Clarke challenging him in a pub. In the wake of Elliot Johnson's


death, lurid allegations emerged about Clarke, alleging sexual


misconduct, drugs, intimidation, blackmail and bullying connected to


Roadtrip, all denied by Mark Clarke. But August e-mail exchanges


between Mr Clarke and Mr Shapps' aide Paul Abbot show Mr Abbott was


aware of complaints Nothing was done and since Mr Shapps


gave Clarke an official Party role he has now resigned saying


"the buck stops with me". The Prime Minister says a full


internal investigation is under way. Elliot Johnson's father wants an


independent external investigation. The most serious allegations


about Clarke were made after Grant Shapps had been moved to


a junior ministerial position and Lord Feldman, David Cameron's


chief fundraiser and close friend, He says the party cannot find


nor was aware of any written If, by falling on his sword,


Mr Shapps hoped to stop the scandal spreading,


he may actually only have become The Sunday Politics panel is here.


Nick, here is the case for Shapps. He has been made a scapegoat. This


is not the end of the story. I think it is not the end of the story.


Grant Shapps did sign up Mark Clark to do this. I think it is getting


awfully close to the door of Andrew Feldman. They went -- he went to


college with the Prime Minister and organised some balls. They go back a


long way. The road trip was run out of Conservative campaign


headquarters in the run-up to the general election. Most significantly


for Andrew Feldman, he signed the for Andrew Feldman, he signed the


checks to allow the road trip to take place. We're not talking small


cheques, we are talking many hundreds of thousands of pounds.


Grant Shapps was in charge of it on a day-to-day basis but Andrew


Feldman and his sister helped the running of the road trip. What it


does is put the attention onto some of the attention onto summary the


attention would be, what did Andrew Feldman do? What did he know and


when and what did he do? What we have to remember is Baroness Warsi,


who was co-chairman, kicked this guy out of the party. Feldman was


Chairman Ben and Shapps brought him out of the party. Feldman was


back. Feldman was co-chairman and Feldman is still the chairman now.


In terms of the party, what some people were saying to me yesterday,


actually, it cannot be seen that Cameron is protecting Lord Fellman


-- Feldman because he is his friend. He has got questions to answer. I


also think that if people who are in the party feel these questions are


not being answered, and it is not an open process, loads more leaks will


come out and it will get messier and messier and messier. It is a rum do,


what was going on inside the Tory Party in its youth wing. Multiple


allegations of bullying and sexual harassment. Culminating in this


young man taking his life on a railway line. It is an appalling


thing. There is a history of unusual behaviour amongst Conservative


students going back to the 1980s when Norman Tebbit closed down the


Confederation of Conservative students. It is the most extreme


incident I have ever encountered. This is about personal behaviour.


The parents of Elliott Johnson raised an important question of


chronology. Grant Shapps stop being co-chairman in May. Some of the


allegations against Mark Clark, some of the complaints surfaced as


recently as August. There is a deeper structural problem, which is


the Conservative Party does not have activists. They have to find them


where they can get them. Or, when summary has a reputation as bad as


Mark Clark, they end up going along with them because options are so


limited. It will not be the end of the story.


David Cameron is expected to ask MPs to approve UK air strikes


The Government thinks it now has enough support to risk a vote


in the Commons, even though the Labour Party is still unclear.


And the PM will almost certainly need Labour votes to get his way.


Mr Corbyn is still trying to rally his Shadow Cabinet and Labour MPs


He told Andrew Marr they should recognise his direct mandate


And so what I've done is what I said I would always do,


I would try to democratise the way the party does things.


Yes, I have sent an e-mail to party members, and actually,


70,000 have already replied with their views.


I don't know what all the views are, obviously, I haven't read them all,


Surely we must recognise that in a democracy, the Labour Party has


a very large membership, nearly 400,000 members, they have a right


to express their point of view and MPs have to listen to it and have to


try and understand what's going on in the minds


I've been joined by Charlie Falconer, Jeremy Corbyn's


Are you minded to support government on the subject of Syrian air


strikes? I am. Then need to be assurances, given to the House of


Commons but I am minded to support assurances, given to the House of


air strikes. The reason I am, I think Isil poses a threat to the


region and also Europe, including the United Kingdom. I believe air


strikes over Iraq and Syria are having an effect on reducing that


risk. I think it is wrong that we are participating in Syria when what


is going on is we are trying to defend the United Kingdom. I believe


the only long-term solution is there needs to be a solution to the Syrian


civil war and the bombing of cracker will not significantly contribute to


that. -- Raqqa. I believe we do not have a choice. The likelihood is


that the Shadow Cabinet will agree a collective position in this matter.


There are honourably held collective views. The Shadow Cabinet on


Thursday, they were appropriately discussing. Everybody was conscious


of the fact we have to reach a conclusion in national interests.


With an issue like this where there is agreement on the factual


material, international law, the final judgment, there is such a


difficult decision to be made, it is not surprising that our


disagreements in the Shadow Cabinet. It is unlikely that tomorrow you


will be able to agree a collective line. I think that is right. It is


unlikely we'll be able to agree a yes or no answer to the question the


Government is about to post. If it does not and there is a free vote


for this among Labour MPs, it does make it certain that Mr Cameron will


win by a convincing majority. I do not know the position. I think


everyone is weighing up the merits of the argument. The right thing to


do is for mothers of the Parliamentary Labour Party members


of the Shadow Cabinet to consider all the arguments and reach a


conclusion as to what they think is in the national interest. It is


clear that enough Labour MPs will abstain or side with the Government


to give Mr Cameron a majority, even if that are some Tory defectors. If


the position where it was whipped against by the Labour Party, that


with very significantly reduce the chances if it were a free vote. I do


with very significantly reduce the not know what the final figures


would be. Your figures sound right. Should there be a free vote? What is


the alternative given the position you are into a free vote? My own


view is I do not think this very important issue should be allowed to


be a situation that forces resignations on people. I think the


right course is, if the Shadow Cabinet cannot come to a collective


view, and I accept that maybe unlikely, probably the best course


is a free vote. That is ultimately for the leadership to decide. For an


opposition which aspires to government when you're not a


debating society. You are the opposition, the alternative


government. What would voters think if you cannot agree a collective


position on something as important as war? What the Government be


seeing is a legitimate debate. The public is like the Parliamentary


Labour Party and like the saddo Cabinet, of different views. You


need to come to a collective view. We need to know your view on this.


The differences with this is I do not think it will be possible. I do


not think that is surprising. That reflects the debate that is going on


in the country. The debate going on in the country is going on within


the Labour Party. If Mr Corbyn was to attempt, and he said this morning


it is his decision to whip or not. If there were a decision to whip


Labour members to vote against bombing, would that be a resignation


matter for you? I do not want to comment on that. I very much hope


any sort of resignations will be avoided. I think the position will


be we will have a further discussion on Monday and a collective you will


be we will have a further discussion be reached as to how we go forward


in relation to the progress. One Labour MP told us that Mr Corbyn's


and of this vote seems to him like a deliberate search for a fight and he


is very disappointed. I do not agree. The key thing about what is


happening now is not who sent a letter when. The key thing which the


public want us to debate is the question itself. Should we support


air strikes or not? I think the important thing about this week will


not be who said what to whom but will be where you stood on the


issue. It is one of those issues where the judgment about what was


right and what was wrong will not come on the basis of the politics of


these few days. It will come on what happens going forward. What was the


right decision? Let me ask you this. We do not have much time. Because


you are a lawyer and an expert on the Labour Party, if Labour MPs


sought to unseat Mr Corbyn, and there is some wild talk around on


that, witty automatically be on the ballot paper of a new leadership


election? I have not addressed that. It is not a moment to talk about any


sort of leadership challenge. Jeremy Corbyn is leader. He was elected two


months ago with a huge mandate. That is the position within the Labour


Party and that is where we have to address it. It can hardly be a


stable position to have a Labour leader, in such a key issue has


bombing in Syria, at odds with a huge chunk of his Shadow Cabinet


rest room at that position is unsustainable over the period. It


was absolutely clear when Jeremy was elected, there were significant


disagreements between Jeremy and others on policy. What is happening


is the Labour Party is holding together. So far.


So, once again a British government is gearing up extend military action


It's a well-trod road and the outcome has not always been


predictable, or pleasant, which is why so many are hesitant.


Ellie Price has been looking at the Prime Minister's case


for action, and what role the UK military might play.


That bomb in Paris, that could have been London.


If they had their way, it would be London.


I can't stand here and say we're safe


I can't stand here either and say we will remove the threat


that taking action will degrade and reduce that threat over time?


Absolutely, and I've examined my conscience


David Cameron says he no longer wants to outsource this sort


Britain is currently involved in air strikes against so-called Islamic


State, but only in Iraq, shown here in the bottom half of this shot.


The border, for British forces at least, is crucial.


IS, Isis, Daesh - whatever you want to call it - control or is free to


operate in swathes of territory in Iraq and Syria.


Its so-called caliphate stretches from Aleppo in Syria to


The lines on the map are relatively fluid, it recently lost control


That was down to Kurdish forces with the help of US-led air strikes.


Currently Australia, Canada and France are also flying


bombing missions over both countries, targeting IS.


According to the latest figures released on Friday,


the US and its allies operating under the banner of Operation


Inherent Resolve have conducted more than 8,500 air strikes against


Islamic State targets since the start of the campaign last year.


That's 5,580 air strikes in Iraq and 2,925 in Syria.


More than 16,000 targets have been damaged or destroyed,


including more than 4,500 buildings, nearly 5,000 fighting positions, and


The vast majority have come from US aircraft, but the RAF has run 376


They've been launched from this base in Cyprus, where


The base has also been used to carry out refuelling and


The perception out there is the question as to whether or not


the UK should be involved in the campaign in Syria or not.


The reality is we are involved in that campaign but in an inconsistent


Other countries, our allies, the Americans and French


in particular, just don't quite understand where we are up to.


The PM insists the RAF can provide specific skills


that coalition partners are keen to make the most of.


The ability to launch highly accurate Brimstone missiles.


We are very good at not killing people collaterally,


the UK, so in that sense I think us moving into Syria is good.


The sad thing is that no matter how good you are, there will be innocent


people killed but they are dying anyway because of Isil, and it's


coming to the stage where you have to move forward and do things, even


though that sort of thing happens, that cannot be


Of course Russia is also involved in air strikes in Syria,


but its support of President Assad's regime puts it at odds with


The scale of these tensions demonstrated when Turkey,


which vehemently opposes Assad, shot down a Russian plane last week.


Most experts agree that air strikes alone will not destroy the common


enemy of IS, that ground forces will be needed, but agreeing on exactly


who those forces would be, could prove the biggest obstacle to peace.


We are joined now by George Galloway. What should be done to


thwart Islamic State, if not British bombing, what should be done to hit


it in its heartland? Most of these terrorist attacks were carried out


by people living in the countries in which they operated, Tunisia,


France, Belgium and so on so you will not physically stop people


bombing Raqqa turning up on the streets of Paris. But the planning


involved Islamic State. There's not much logistics involved in taking


arms into a nightclub and killing innocent people. There are many


weapons in Europe, nobody is suggesting these weapons came from


Syria. I don't want to dodge your question, I must strongly in favour


of destroying Isis and Al-Qaeda as anybody else, more than the David


Cameron government or they wouldn't be tolerating a situation where


Turkey and Saudi Arabia have been supporting these people for years


and until now are supporting them. We are steeped in blog so far but it


is bloodier to go on, I promise you. What would you do? I would support


the people fighting Isis and Al-Qaeda on the ground. The wide PG


militia -- YPG militia. Give them weapons, every kind of support we


can. It is a far better way than us joining in. Do you support Russian


attacks on the anti-Assad forces in Syria? Yes, if they are coordinated


with the Syrian government's army. So do you support British attacks on


Islamic State forces in Iraq at their request of the Iraq


government? I do, and if they were coordinated with the Government that


make sense militarily, and if we coordinated our involvement with


Russia and the Is this the camera not realise that


if eating Islamic State is more important than getting rid of Mr


Assad. I do not believe that. Is utterly farcical claim in the House


this week that there were 70,000 moderate rebels armed and rebel to


take over the land. There is not 7000. If there are 700 I would be


surprised. What will happen, we will bomb territory that will then be


taken by other so-called moderate fanatic 's. The ones that as I said


to you before, only caught off half your head. Should we regard the


Russians and Assad regime as our allies in the fight against Islamic


State? Definitely. And we had the chance after the Security Council


decided, we had that chance. But that was incinerated by Allied Mr


Erdogan and the Russian air force -- Turkish air force bombing these


people out of the sky and provoking a crisis between East and West,


between Nato and Russia which was completely unnecessary and


completely contrary to any legitimate war aims. Did not still


be put together despite that? I wish that it would, I suspect it will


not. Russia is taking measures against Turkey. If we had time to


discuss that I would elaborate this point. Turkey is the source of this


problem. The Turkish border has been open to these people, they are


selling their stolen oil, billions of dollars worth. Islamic State


selling its oil to Turkey? Yes, it is being sold in Turkey, I believe


relatives of Mr Erdogan, it is then sold on to neighbouring countries.


You cannot be serious about fighting Isil while you're Nato ally is


openly collaborating with them. That is why I suspect Cameron. You


followed very closely what is going on in the Labour Party at the


moment. Does Jeremy Corbyn have an alternative to a free vote when this


comes up to a vote in the Commons? Yellow magnifier were him I would


hope the vote, because his enemies, and they are in perpetual rebellion


to overthrow Jeremy Corbyn. Five Jeremy Corbyn this is the Touraine


on which I would fight because our record on intervention in the Middle


East is so bad, the likelihood of it not going well is so high. I would


dearly is rebels to facilitate David Cameron's war. Without not rip apart


the Labour Party? Or would that be the intention? It kind of looks to


me like it is ripping itself apart. This is 1931 revisited, Mrs Ramsay


MacDonald in reverse, the leader remaining loyal to the party and the


MPs effectively joining in national government in times of War and peace


at least. If I were Jeremy Corbyn I would hope this boat and let the


Labour members pass verdict on those that trip into the lobby with Liam


Fox and David Cameron because I'm pretty sure this will not end well.


Even at the expense of ripping apart your Shadow Cabinet? You would be


ripping a Shadow Cabinet weather seems to be a majority against the


position of Jeremy Corbyn. Some of them might surprise you with their


Fidelity, but they are supporting the elected leader as the rope


supporting hanging man. The hanging man is asphyxiated in the end. What


are the chances of Jeremy Corbyn following your advice? Probably not,


listening to John Dunlop and Ken Livingstone, they are going to go


for a free vote. That will merely postpone the push. It will give Mr


Cameron in the majority and will only postpone the push against


Jeremy Corbyn. George Galloway, thank you for being with us. At this


Good morning and welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland.


As heads of state gather for climate change talks in Paris,


the UK Government cuts funding for new technology which could


And the Defence Secretary is hoping for a Commons vote on UK military


You cannot develop the first project easily without government backing.


And the Defence Secretary is hoping for a Commons vote on UK military


action in Syria this week - will he get support from Labour MPs?


As global CO2 emissions continue to rise, heads of state from around


the world are arriving in Paris for UN climate change talks, where


That comes at the end of a week in which the UK Government scrapped


a ?1 billion competition to develop the country's first plant to store


emissions instead of releasing them into the air,


UK ministers said the programme was a victim of ongoing spending cuts


needed to balance the books, but supporters of the technology say


For generations, power stations are provided it reliable and relatively


cheap way to keep the lights on. But now it seems that they are becoming


a term as dirty as the pollution they released into the atmosphere.


Storing that pollution, known as carbon capture, has been hailed as a


solution to the problem. The process involves piping the carbon dioxide


produced by places like coal power stations offshore where it can be


stored in the space left by a former oil or gas field. The North Sea's


massive CO2 storage potential means Scotland could be at the forefront


of this technology. In 2013 project at Peterhead power station by Shell


and SSE was named as one of two preferred bidder is anyone billion


pound UK Government contest to develop carbon capture. It shows


that the UK's leading in the low Carbon challenge to tackle climate


change and get clean energy. But this week the UK Government


announced it was scrapping that support as part of its spending


review, and some argue that is bad news for the chances of getting


carbon capture up and running. You cannot develop the first project


easily without government backing because any first project is usually


much more expensive than follow-on project because you are over


designing and overengineering, and that is why that government help of


the billion pounds is needed. To not venture down this path when it is


clearly shown that carbon capture and storage is by far the best


financial benefit to the whole economy, to not venture down that


path is negligent, naive and also deceitful in the way it has been


done. We have been here before. Ministers delayed stand accused of


bungling and incompetence over the cancellation of a project to fight


global warming. In 2007 BP abandon plans for a carbon capture plan at


Peterhead, blaming Westminster delays. A similar plan for Longannet


in Fife went the same way four years later when ministers failed to reach


a deal with power companies. And in September, an energy firm abandoned


its stake in a project to store carbon dioxide mixed its plant in


North Yorkshire. That came after a government decision to cut renewable


energy subsidies. And while carbon capture has the ability to


dramatically reduce emissions, environmental campaigners are


cautious about something which continues the burning of fossil


fuels. Carbon capture and storage may have a role to play, but we do


not know. We do not know how commercially or technically


efficient it will be. Do not know how long-term trust can be developed


in the reservoirs into which CO2 would be injected, how long it would


stay there. That we are happy to see the research happen. Now that the UK


has pulled the plug on that, we need to be very clear that Scotland's


future potential, our ability to get back on track and start meeting


those climate change targets is based on building a low carbon


infrastructure and rolling out -- ruling out the burning of fossil


fuels. What chance is there of carbon capture coming to this


country? Following the announcement this week, one of the partners in


the Peterhead Project, Shell, said that without its funding its


proposals were not viable for no. And that presents another project,


because if coal power stations begin closing because they cannot cut CO2


emissions, we need to find another way to keep the lights on. UK


ministers want to see a move away from coal towards gas-fired power


stations, although they still see a potential role for carbon capture.


As for the now-defunct Willian Penn support fund, that has been put down


to a need to balance the government's looks. -- the ?1


billion aboard fund. Ministers will attend climate talks in Paris next


week. As they discuss how to tackle the problem, the world's CO2


emissions continue to rise. We asked the Secretary of State for


Energy and Climate change, Amber Rudd, and the Minister of State,


Andrea Leadsom, for an interview, The Department of Energy and


Climate Change told us the decision to cut funding for CCS was a fiscal


one, announced by the Chancellor. We also asked the Conservative Party


for an interview on this issue But I'm pleased to say we are joined


from Stornoway by the SNP MP Angus MacNeil, who's Chair


of Westminster's Energy and And in the studio, the Scottish


Greens' Patrick Harvie and the former Labour MP and Shadow Energy


Minister Tom Greatrex, who's now Angus, can I start with some factual


questions to you. It is unfortunate but do not have anyone from the


Government here, but this was not announced by George Osborne, it was


not even in the Redbook documents, it was in an announcement to the


stock exchange which came after the Chancellor sat down after his Autumn


Statement. Have you received the new committee any explanation as to why


this decision has been made? None whatsoever. It looks again like the


government is fairly chaotic, one hand does not know what the other is


up to. Only a few days before Amber Rudd had a speech there was no


mention of this. It was not in the Autumn Statement, I went to the


House of Commons library that evening with one of the researchers


trawled through the documents and could not find anything. I should


point out for viewers who are perhaps not familiar with the


language of government documents, for the Department of energy to tell


us in an e-mail that this was a fiscal decision made by the


Chancellor, I don't know if you agree, but it seems to me that is as


close as you will ever get to a government department saying, we did


not necessarily agree with it and it had nothing to do with us! Correct,


and would not be the first time, I do not think the new much in the


Department, the story was first leaked to the Daily Telegraph of the


intention is to cut support for onshore wind. If Scotland was


independent it would never vote to be governed by this lot. What next?


Who can have any trust in them? They are as slippery as seaweed. Before


we get on to the substance of the issue, arguably this is a very


unconservative thing to do. One of the things you want to do surely is


respect contracts. I am not here on behalf of the Conservative Party.


But is that an aspect of this? People will not necessarily have


much sympathy with big oil companies, but the fact is they have


sunk money into this and at the last moment have been told, that does not


matter, this will not happen. Firstly, this is not new, the


Treasury antipathy towards carbon capture and storage goes back, when


the company pulled out of Longannet, and again that ?1 billion was moved


away from the Department of Energy and Climate Change. Technically it


has not sat there. One of the things they have said this week is that


they want to start a competition for these new generation modular new


clear power stations. Irrespective of whether you think that is a good


idea, if you are energy company, you might be thinking, I will not invest


money in this because they could do what they have just done with carbon


capture. Absolutely. Just a few weeks short of the announcement of


which of the two final project would win the competition, to then cut it


away like that, quite apart from the merits of carbon capture technology,


it sends a very bad signal to potential investors and is on top of


a range of similar moves in other areas, and you can have debates


about the merits of individual technologies, but the overall


message it sends an terms of energy investment is very poor, and for the


UK, our position which was very good in terms of energy investment, is


deteriorating over time because the risk factor of sudden political


change is so high, and in the Conservative Party manifesto they


referred to ?1 billion for carbon capture and storage, and less than


six months later it has gone. Patrick Harvie, are you not very


keen on this? On carbon capture in principle? We are very keen, we are


happy to see the research happen. Have never been convinced anybody,


including government, should take that as it promised that the


technology will be deployable on any set timescale. And both governments,


Scottish and UK, have made the assumption they can design energy


policy with that expectation that CCF will be available. You will have


been in favour of the condition going ahead, of companies trying to


develop this, but you do not want governments of any description to be


forecasting by me change emission cuts on the basis of technology


which has not been proven? To be building in plans of new fossil fuel


power generation on the assumption they can then bolt on CCS at some


future point. We have never known that would be a guaranteed


possibility, it is certainly something we should be researching,


something we should like to develop and find out what potential it has.


But now that the Government has pulled the plug, it may happen in


the long-term, it will not be short-term availability, so we need


to rule out fossil fuel generation capacity. The other thing is that


George Osborne wants to close coal-fired power station but once


another generation of quick to build these power gas generating power


stations. And in the short term that can reduce emissions. Over a


long-term trajectory... You might disagree with that decision to go


ahead, but given that that decision has been made, would it not make


more sense, would it not be even more important to try to get CCS to


mitigate the emissions from this new generation of power stations?


The build new capacity you would need CCS. I would challenge the


Scottish Government to rule out any additional fossil fuel power


generating capacity and I would welcome it if they would give that


clarity. And yes, I know the SMP would like to try to convince the


government to change its mind on this. If you are going to have a new


generation of gas-fired power stations you might as well try to


mitigate the emissions but do you think you can win over the committee


to Europe edition? I have a feeling that yes, the committee will be open


to move towards that position. It is hard to speak for the committee


itself. The chairman of the committee on climate change has said


at the fifth cabinet budget launch on Thursday morning that to achieve


the 2030 targets will be difficult and it is an issue with this ending


of this project so abruptly. Tom's point was very good, the government


are leaving huge uncertainty on onshore wind, the left uncertainty


on solar, now there is uncertainty on carbon capture and storage. The


problem is for investors. Some are calling to the Republic of Ireland


to invest because of the feel of what is happening in the UK. This is


the second time Peterhead has lost carbon capture and storage. Alistair


Darling pulled the plug on an earlier project one decade ago. You


are no longer an MP just getting at an opinion, you are cheered of this


committee. What will you ask your committee to do about this if


anything? At the moment the committee is having an investigation


into investor confidence. We did not think it would be involved with the


investigation at the outset, carbon capture, but we think it will be. We


will be hearing from Shell during this and will have them what this


means for their confidence and investing in energy issues and


energy projects on the word of the UK Government. It is not for me to


guess what they are going to say but I think it is obvious they will not


be happy. Tom, is Patrick Hardy's point well made that what


governments tend to do is assume these technologies will work then


build that into their emission forecast? Carbon capture has not got


any rear so far. It has in other places. In Canada and shortly in the


US. The lazy operating dash there is operating a carbon capture plant in


Saskatchewan. And it is another one similar to the project outside the


competition in Grangemouth. Even our clients for carbon capture in China


so the technology does exist. If it is the and being utilised why do we


need a competition to see if the competition is feasible? The


complexity comes with, you can capture the carbon, stored the


carbon, we are in a strong position in terms of depleted offshore being


able to store it. The transport can be complex depending on where you


are in different sites. What is it that has too been open? Let's


imagine Peterhead got this. It is a gas-fired power station taking gas


from the North Sea and presumably can pump CO2 into empty wells. What


is it that is not proven in the technology that is up and running


that would have to be proven now? The one in Canada, it has been less


than one year that it has been in operation and the one in the S -- US


has been less than a year. They are parallel to the UK competition but


there are different requirements that have to be satisfied. There


will be value coming out of the competition as it is running in


terms of the detailed feed studies that are running and there are


potential projects in the UK outside of the UK competition. We would all


agree the technology is not developed to the point with it as


commercially available. What I find but, I would like to see the public


sector and community sector take more ownership of this energy


system. There needs to be consistency and clarity. We are


running out of time. The panellists talks starting this week, Copenhagen


was pretty much a wash-out in the middle of the financial crisis. It


was overhyped. Do you have any greater hopes for Paris? I know we


still have time to make a radical deal which leaves the bulk of our


fossil fuels in the ground where they have two stay. Whether I am


hopeful on not, I struggle. You struggle with hope? Angus, the same


question to you? I think we're Paris is going at the moment, their


intended contributions, it is not far enough but we get it hopeful is


that the Americans and Chinese are together. My only problem is the


American Senate and the Republicans. Again, very briefly, Tom? Since 2000


and 966 countries at the climate change act or equivalent and I think


it also aligns with people's domestic issues in China and Africa


and places like think there is more scope for an agreement than the was


in Copenhagen. It is a problem. To be discussed further. Thank you very


much indeed. Now, the Defence Secretary Michael


Fallon confirmed this morning that he's briefed some Labour MPs in


an attempt to win their support for Mr Fallon told the Andrew Marr


programme that the government would like to hold a vote on


the issue this week but that it did Meanwhile the Labour leader Jeremy


Corbyn has defended his decision to publically declare his opposition to


action before the Shadow Cabinet He has not yet decided whether


to allow his MPs a free vote. I'm joined from London by the


Labour MP Stephen Kinnock, who's also Parliamentary Private


Secretary to the Shadow Business Stephen as was discussed this


morning, he has gone to see individual MPs, has he come to you?


He has not come knocking on my door, I have been an Studios, maybe


Michael has been trying to get through to me. Which way would you


be inclined to vote? I am not convinced by the case of the PM. I


agree we need to eradicate the modernist death cult that is Isis


but we have to do that with a ground offensive. We will not be able to do


that if we are discarded -- distracted by a real bombardments. I


viewed the PM has put the cart before the horse. Let's get the


politics right. We must get a regional force in place, taking Isis


out, then I will be more than happy to support that initiative but as


things stand I am not convinced by the case of the PM. I am planning to


vote against unless the PM comes forward in the next hours with some


much cleaner proposal in terms of getting a ground force together


which will be taking Isis out. -- much clearer. You have been making


out the problems with the strategy of the PM but we do not consider an


argument that the damage to the international coalition emerging


against Isis, it should they be a vote in the House of Commons against


action, should trump some of the reservations you have. They are not


necessarily incompatible with what David Cameron is planning to do, he


would say he probably agrees with you in all this? I think we have a


once in a generation opportunity now to bring the Russians and Iranians


to the table. We are making real progress on Vienna full op adding


more on this from the Earth to that distracts from the most promising


pieces of this jigsaw puzzle which is that we could start to build a


corporate coalition which takes the platform to take Isis out. I


understand absolutely we need to make a gesture towards our brothers


and sisters in France and to show solidarity, I do not actually think


putting the cart before the horse is the best way to do that. This is not


just an issue about Syria but it has become an issue about the Labour


Party. What would you like to see Jeremy Corbyn do? Should he have a


wet vote for your possession or should she allowed a free vote? --


whipped. He should have come out within 24 hours of the PM statement


to say he was not persuaded and to ask for a free vote. It is a matter


of individual conscience, and extremely complex issue. A lot of my


colleagues in the Parliamentary Labour Party are examining their


consciences. It is not party political in the nature of Trident.


I think we absolutely have to be whipped on Trident and I am in


favour of maintaining a nuclear deterrent but on this issue which is


on the immediate and complex decision on what to do in Syria, I


think it is right it is an individual vote. I know we were


whipped on Iraq and Libya but we have two say we have learned from


Iraq and Libya and Afghanistan and therefore there is a case for an


non-whipped vote on this occasion. This is not just about what Labour


MPs do next week but about a credible party of government. If you


wearing power now with Jeremy Corbyn as leader and the Conservative


backbencher put forward a Private members motion for military action


the House of Commons might well vote in favour of military action and the


PM would be against it. That is what the public would see, these people


all over the place. I have said part of this is a matter of conscience, I


am also a realist about party management and the fact of the


matter is it is very tough for Jeremy Corbyn. As an MP he is


somebody who voted against the wet 550 times himself. His ability to


whip the party, let's be realistic, call a spade a spade, it is very


difficult for him to get the cohesion cause of his track record


as an MP and that is a factor. I am realistic about that. I also think


that is one of the reasons the PM is bringing this so quickly, Jeremy


Corbyn has not had an opportunity to prepare a cohesive and coherent


platform. We have got to get over this up and Corey eight cohesive


Parliamentary Labour Party, it is deeply cohesion for credibility.


Able to not vote for divided parties. We are where we are now and


because of Jeremy Corbyn's track record as a serial disregard of the


whip he is finding it particularly difficult. Get over this. We need to


see some coherence coming in in the New Year and what is critical as


well are our results, in the elections next year. It amounts to


say we would like to be a credible alternative party of government but


just not now? I am being realistic about where we are in the


Parliamentary Labour Party and the fact of the matter is that the track


record of Jeremy Corbyn does make this difficult. We have two bill


that coherence. We have got to build it going into the Scottish, Welsh


and London elections next year particularly. We are a party of


government. The only way we can put our policies and values into


practice is by being in government. We are not a protest movement. Let's


see how it looks in Scotland, Wales and London and then we can start to


look like that party. According to your party you have got to stop


looking like a protest movement before the election, you have four


or five months at most. Because the prime minister has


brought this rapidly, and because of the big issues I have just outlined


over Jeremy Corbyn's track record, but also because this is a matter of


individual conscience. And look at the Tory party they are divided as


well. Less divided on us numerically, but their whips have


two get people who are uncomfortable with this boat to have their arms


twisted. That is not the case with the Labour Party at the present


time. Thank you for joining us. Time now to review the events


of the week and look to what's Joining me is political editor


of the Scottish Daily Mail, Alan Roden, and the historical


novelist Sara Sheridan. On Syria, Alan, what do you make of


what Stephen Kenedy has just said -- Stephen Kinnock has just said. And


is on the saying, we're not serious as a party but I hope we will get


serious soon. Or am I misinterpreting? You are right, they


are a protest movement at the moment, and I don't think that is


going to happen for a long time to come. Labour have already lost a


by-election. I think Scottish Labour now they have already lost that


election. Labour is a party which is out of step not only in Westminster


but also with its voters. And that is what has really happened. There


is a split between left and right, and actually the Parliamentary


Labour Party... Which part of the argument be taken out of step with


the voters? I think the Parliamentary Labour Party as a


whole is far too far to the right. Mostly reporters are further to the


left, and that is traditionally where Labour comes from. On military


action in Syria? Look at the marchers yesterday stop. The remark


is all over the UK. Is that not the point with Jeremy Corbyn


supporters? The mistake a few thousand people on a march with the


mood of the country. No I don't think so, if you look at what is


going on, is a one-upmanship about going to war, let on, that is the


easy option, but it does not work in the Middle East for a long time


now. America has been bombing for 18 months in Syria and it is not


working. We can discuss the merits endlessly, but this issue of which


part of the Labour Party that a step with the public, what is your view?


The public is divided on the issue, the opinion polls show that. Jeremy


Corbyn is in touch with his membership not with the wider


public, and that includes Labour voters, people who are maybe not


active in the party but have voted for the party and now deserting the


party. Lets be devils advocate because you are both criticising the


Labour Party. The counterargument would be to say that it is good that


the Labour Party and Conservative Party are having opened


discussions. Look at the SNP. There has been not one member of


opposition from the SNP. Nicola Sturgeon was saying only a few days


ago she wanted to hear David Cameron's arguments. Are we supposed


to believe that spontaneously all 54 SNP MPs and all their members in the


Scottish Parliament just agree completely with the opposition? That


would be completely unnatural, wouldn't it? We have not heard a


murmur of opposition. Yes, but the Labour story is a much more


compelling. I'm playing devils advocate, but Labour would say, we


cannot disguise the fact we are divided, at least we're having an


open debate. Look at that lot, there is no debate all. Labour tried this


with the Trident debate at the conference, they said we have open


views. But the public do not want parties that are divided. Look at


the SNP, they have rigid discipline. People voted for them in


their droves. The SNP will have people who are against bombing but


they will not speak out because they are strongly with. Fine changes the


other issue we have been discussing today. Sara, do you have any hopes


that Paris might be more... Copenhagen just was a disaster. We


live in that hope, that it might work. The point about Copenhagen, it


did not just not achieve things, it contributed towards taking the issue


off the agenda for five years. Bill Gates is heading to Paris this week


and he's bringing his pocketbook. What the Conservatives have done in


taking this money away from the project that they were going to fun


for carbon capture has set a very clear message. I think the


Conservatives are lining up for a magical solution very sharply down


the line to say," we could do fracking instead!" Which is what


they would like. Who would much rather have that. Out of the


arrogant -- part of the argued it would have is that you have


gas-fired power stations therefore it is less important to have carbon


capture and storage. Pulling that money is an idiotic move at the same


time as saying, would it not be good if we have private investment? There


is Bill Gates with his pocketbook ready and open for business in Paris


next week, and they have kind of loan at. Alan, you said the public


is divided over military action in Syria. What about climate change? Is


there a sense promote people that it has just gone away, disappeared as


an issue? I think it is an issue. Not as big an issue as politicians


like Patrick RB would say it is. In Paris things will be put forward, it


will not be legally binding, you cannot force governments to do


things. And hundreds of thousands of tonnes of carbon dioxide will be


produced from the conference, which seems ludicrous. But going back to


carbon capture, it is an easy political decision for the


Chancellor to make to cut that. I'll be back


at the same time next week.


Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer with the latest political news, interviews and debate. Andrew discusses the disagreement within Labour's shadow cabinet over Syria with Lord Falconer and air strikes with Liam Fox and George Galloway. On the political panel are Janan Ganesh from The Financial Times, Beth Rigby from The Times and Nick Watt from The Guardian.

Download Subtitles