02/10/2016 Sunday Politics Scotland


Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer with the latest political news, interviews and debate.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 02/10/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



This programme contains some flashing images.


We're live from sunny Birmingham on day one of


the Conservative Party Conference, where, three months after Britain


voted to leave the European Union, the Prime Minister has given


us her first inkling of how she plans to do it.


Morning, folks - welcome to the Sunday Politics.


Theresa May says she will trigger Article 50, starting the two year


process of negotiations that will culminate in Britain


leaving the EU, before the end of March next year.


So Brexit by Easter 2019 - but what kind of relationship


A Great Repeal Bill will also be voted on next Spring,


but won't be enacted until we leave, at which point EU laws will be


And what do Conservative MPs want to hear from their new leader?


Coming up on Sunday Politics Scotland: Here, Ruth Davidson says


Brexit has to create the conditions for Scotland's industries


to flourish - we'll be asking her what that means.


explore the potential rise of Sidcup Man.


So far no Great Repeal Act to get rid of the Sunday Politics Panel -


Steve Richards, Rachel Sylvester and Tom Newton Dunn.


It's 100 days since we voted to leave the EU and the clamour has


grown for the Government to tell us what Brexit would look like.


This morning, as the Tory faithful gather in Birmingham,


we still don't expect to be told what Brexit means but we do know


more about the timetable and the extrication process.


A Bill will go before parliament this spring to repeal the 1972


European Communities Act, which legalised our membership


But it won't actually come into force until we leave.


Theresa May also told the Andrew Marr Show that


Article 50 would be invoked by March of next year -


starting the two year process of renegotiation before we leave.


I have been saying we would not trigger it before the end of this


year, so that we get confirmation in place. I will be saying in my speech


today that we will trigger before the end of March next year. The


remaining members of the EU have to decide what the process of


negotiation is. I hope, and I will be saying to them, that now they


know what the time is going to be, it is not an exact date, but they


know it will be the first quarter of next year, that we will be able to


have some preparatory work so that once the trigger comes we have a


smoother process of negotiation. Theresa May, on this channel, just


over an hour ago. What do you make of it? Saggy as you said, we know


more about when but we don't know what Brexit is going to be. We don't


know how the relationship will work out, we don't know what the Prime


Minister's negotiation position will be, we haven't worked out anything


about the free market access and freedom of movement. All of the


substance. It is a significant announcement but we don't actually


know anything really big about what our lives are going to be like in


future. Is there a risk from the Prime Minister? Is there a risk


putting this before Parliament to repeal the 1972 Communities Act?


Undoubtedly. Anything you put before the House of Commons or the House of


Lords, where there is no Tory majority, let alone a Brexit


majority, risks getting amended. She runs the risk. There is also a risk


of not saying this, not having the greater appeal, which is actually a


great repeal act, when is being repealed, but she needed to throw


the Tory right red meat, and they got it this morning. There is always


the potential of a constitutional crisis. If the Lords were to dig in


over this, or even digging over Article 50, demand a vote on that,


lawyers are arguing whether you need it or not, it may not be plain


sailing when you have a majority of 12? It definitely isn't going to be


with a majority of 12. The scope for constitutional crisis is many.


Clashes with the Lords, clashes with the Commons, Scotland is still there


in the background allows a significant factor. It will always


be there, but perhaps in a different context. I don't think this will be


the trigger for a constitutional crisis. You have to admire the


elegant choreography. I was told ages ago that she knew she could not


keep carry on saying Brexit means Brexit, there will have to be new


lines. This is beautiful. We kind of knew that Article 50 was going to be


triggered early in next year. David Davis even said that. It was a fair


bet it would be before Easter. They couldn't spend the next two years


negotiating Brexit and refocusing the entire legislative programme to


spend the next two years rejigging the mountain of legislation we are


affected with. They have turned a logistical, unavoidable


inevitability into a sense of momentum this weekend. Very clever


presentation. There are going to be huge crises to come over this.


Picking off the 1972 Act, putting it all into British law and


legislation, rather than dependent on Europe, that is what the


Brexiteers wanted. To that extent, she has thrown them a bit of red


meat today? Yes, but we still don't know what Brexit is going to be. But


a bit of red meat keeps you going for a while. Maybe get them through


to lunch time. Today or tomorrow? Really just today. The tactic is to


get some stuff about Brexit out, get them talking about that and then


move onto agenda she wants, domestic. What do you think? Good


luck with that! Are you reading my script coming up? It was on the


autocue, I'm sorry! Clearly, she is accessed about not making his


premiership all about Brexit. It will be, but she is desperate. She


needs to define herself away from Brexit, who is Theresa May, what did


she really believe? We have heard whispers, but the next few days as a


chance to do that. The fringe, Liam Fox is talking at two fringes. Two


opportunities for a story. David Davis as well. These two men of


great talent and potentially great ego, they will not be able to stop


themselves having feelings heard. And Boris. Boris who? I have not


seen him on the fringes. Fringe meetings have been quite dull at


party conferences recently. Because of this issue, I think people are


going to pack them out. That is where words might be said, explosive


words. We live for fringe meetings! The PM hopes her announcement


will deal with Brexit on day one so the conference can get on to talk


about other matters. But as you can see from this not


so slim tome - the conference guide- there are plenty of other issues


to talk, maybe even argue about. Our Ellie caught up with two Tory


MPs from different sides of the party before they set off,


to see what they think lies in store # Just can't wait to


get on the road again # The life I love is making


music with my friends # And I can't wait to get


on the road again...# Do you actually enjoy going


to conference? It's not as much fun


as when you're not an MP, because now people want to talk


to you and everybody But do you make contacts,


do you network? Do think Theresa May gets


nervous about conference, I think if you are performing


on a big stage, whoever you are, you ought to have a few


nerves jangling around. But she's a polished performer,


I'm sure she'll know Theresa May will also know she has


several contentious issues she needs It is perhaps not surprising,


then, that day one of We're pretty well balanced


between those of us like myself, representing constituencies


with really high levels of research, science


and agriculture, who will be very keen, but probably pragmatically


understanding that we are not going to hear everything


tomorrow, and the rest of the party who are just


desperate for information. If they don't think the deal


is going in the right way, they will want to say


something about it. I think the time frame


is pretty clear. We are going to trigger Article 50


at some point relatively That means we will get


the negotiations done a good year The rest is going to be


important meat on the bones. But, in terms of the core strategy,


Theresa May goes into this So, a unified front,


albeit perhaps fragile. But then there is the question


of grammar schools. Depends whether we hear


more about it. You know, the concept


in its one-dimensional sense, you can't have a problem


with that, can you? Giving parents choice,


giving bright children the chance But, for me, for many of us,


it has to be a package Our teachers are pretty


stressed and overworked I'm not actually sure


this is the right time. I would rather see emphasis


being put on fairer funding. Constituencies like mine have been


underfunded for decades. If you go into politics


and government scared of your own shadow, unprepared to do


anything bold or brave, I think there is no risk-free


option. Of course, people have different


views on grammar schools and it is a totemic political


issue as well. But I think if you read the green


paper, the Prime Minister has set out a very sensible,


carefully calibrated approach, The new PM also faces big strategic


decisions on expensive projects like airport expansion,


an area even her Cabinet With all these big infrastructure


projects, HS2, Heathrow, issues around fracking,


nuclear as well, I think we have got to take the right decisions


for the country, make sure Britain Each one of those is


thorny in its own right. But what I think is most important


is we look at it very carefully, That is where we all start to see


the metal in Theresa, Whilst on the one hand,


having a Prime Minister - nobody could have been more


delighted than me that we managed to cut the tax credits changes -


but having a Prime Minister that sticks to her guns,


I'm not for U-turning, How confident are you,


going to this conference, that it is all going to be sorted


and you are going to be Well, people predicted an economic


nosedive after the referendum. People said there would


be political chaos. Actually, the economy


has proved resilient. I think there is a sense of resolve


on all sides of the party on all of these different issues


to get behind this Prime Minister Last year, you got into a bit


of trouble, being quite vocal Some suggestion you weren't


a proper conservative. I think I am absolutely


a proper conservative. I think my party needed reminding


what conservative was. Our job is to help people who need


a leg up. Her opening speech in Downing Street


told me she absolutely is. Like all of these things,


we will hear more about this week. # And I can't wait to get on the


road again. # And we're joined now


by the Transport Secretary, who was a leading Leave campaigner,


Chris Grayling. Welcome back to the programme. The


great repeal act, what exactly does it repeal? It repeal the 1972


European Communities Act. It means the European Court of Justice no


longer has sway in the United Kingdom. It means the European


Commission and Parliament no longer make laws for us. As of today, in


our system, European law is supreme over UK law, and it repeal that.


Except what it does is it consolidates all existing European


legislation into British law. It would be more accurate to call it


the great Consolidation act? Is This is what I argued for during the


League campaign. The remaining campaign said you could not do it,


it will take years, it will be a disaster. My response then is what


it is now, the best way to do it is to consolidate existing legislation,


much of which we will want to keep, the environmental measures, the


workers' rights measures, what we want to do is to make sure we can


get certainty before the event and after the event, for workers,


businesses, but what the legal position will be. Over time, we have


the freedom, outside the European Union, free from the control of the


European Court, to change our legal system in the way that we want. It


does mean we would leave the EU with all of this EU law still part of


British law. Now, what would you wish to change in the aftermath?


There is a whole variety of different things we will be looking


at a change. For example, if you want a practical one, it is unlikely


that after we have left the European Union we will still be paying child


benefits to children that have never even entered the United Kingdom.


That is the kind of thing we will be free to change after we have left.


What else? Much of it we will want to keep, environmental measures, not


all that has been done in the European Union for 40 years has been


bad for Britain. How long will it take to pick all of this after we


leave? Will be down to the Government to decide... Ten years?


20 years? It will take it as long as we choose. What is right and proper


is that on the day after there is a degree of certainty for businesses.


It would not be fair for a company to be operating under a set of


rules, for there to be a cliff edge where they do not know what is going


to happen the day after. Let's make it an evolution, not a revolution. A


lot of the things you have to agree to enter negotiations mean it will


have to remain law even after we leave? This clearly the case that if


a business in this country is continuing to sell a product in the


European Union, it will have to make the standards of the European Union.


Those rules will apply. That is the same if we're selling to the United


States, the rules of the United States would apply to a business


planning to sell a product there. What happens if you lose the vote?


It is inconceivable that Parliament can look at the view of the British


public and ignore it. Parliament voted overwhelmingly for the


referendum to take place in the first place, the people have given a


mandate and I am certain Parliament will fulfil it.


What would happen? You have a majority of only 12 and there was a


majority for remain in the Commons and there is a large majority in the


house of lords. If the parliament does not seamlessly agree for what


you call the great repeal act, what would happen? Both houses are full


of Democrats and they will respect the will of the people. But we could


be faced with a constitutional crisis? We have taken the decision


to leave and parliament voted for the referendum and it is


inconceivable that Parliament would not allow that process to go


forward. If the inconceivable happen, you'd have to cores and --


call an election. Inconceivable is a bit of a stretch. Plenty of voices,


particularly in the House of Lords, would use this as a an opportunity


to thwart you. And I don't think the House of Lords will turn around and


say we should not fulfil that. There may be dissenting voices but they


will view it as a democratic mandate that we have to fulfil. Has your


party don soundings in the Commons to make sure you can get this


through? I've not been involved in that discussion but parliament will


respond to the will of the people. That's the way this country works.


That's what you hope. We shall see how it works. We've been told by the


Prime Minister this morning that article 50 will be triggered by the


end of March. That means that we are out by Easter 2019. Can you confirm


that those British members of the European Parliament currently in


Strasberg, there will be no more for them after this. If we have left by


the end of the two-year period. It is technically possible to extend


it. After that period, there wouldn't be EP is after that point


in 2019. -- MEPs. For Brexit to mean Brexit, the famous phrase, which is


basically tautology. It would mean the freedom to have our own trade


laws. It would mean the ability to do that? You are leading me to


answer questions about the specific legal structures. It means our own


free-trade deals? Correct. It would mean we are no longer subject to the


rules of the European Court of Justice. Also correct. And we would


have whatever control we desire over immigration? The Prime Minister has


been clear that we need to control the flow of immigration into the


country. Any of these counts as out from being a member of the single


market. So can we agree that there is no way we can remain a member of


the single market? There is no such thing as a member of the single


market. There are a number of different trading agreements within


the EU. We are effectively a member of the single market now but we


can't be after this. The question you have asked me, do we want to be


Norway, Switzerland, Canada when it comes to trading arrangements? We


want to be the United Kingdom. We are the biggest customer of German


car-makers, French farmers... I don't want to have the referendum


fight again. It seems as black as black or as White is white that if


you want all of that we cannot be a member, we can have access on terms


yet to be agreed, we will have a relationship, but why cannot you say


that we won't be a member in the way that we are currently a member of


the single market? We won't be a member of the European Union but


there is no such thing as a member of the single market. There is no


single market in services, for example. There is but it is not as


developed as goods. I believe we will end up with a trading


partnership with the European Union on terms to be agreed that will work


for both of us. Access but not membership. You cannot be a fully


paid-up member of the single market without the European Court of


Justice ruling on it and you don't want that. I don't understand your


problem. Your pre-merging -- prejudging the outcome of


negotiations. We want the best possible trading arrangements with


European neighbours and that is what we will work towards. Where


different to the other countries that have been involved in these


negotiations before. We have heard all that before in the referendum


and we wanted some clarity on what it would mean. Transport, when will


you give is the decision on runway expansion? I'm not going to set a


date today. I've spent the summer looking at the three different


options. We have three very well presented packages. The airport


commission has looked at it carefully and the Prime Minister and


I want to understand the options in detail and understand the strengths


and weaknesses of each and we will reach our decision shortly. I'm not


going to set a date on it. Shortly means in this year, surely. I don't


want to wait unnecessarily long to take the decision but nor do I want


to set a date so to to work towards that. Will there be a free vote? I


need to identify the best option for Britain and take the best possible


approach to get the support of parliament Porritt. Will there be a


free vote? Decisions have not been taken but we will do the best for


the interests of the country. Theresa May has said the options for


an expansion to Heathrow are seriously flawed. Philip Hammond has


described the Heathrow option as dead as a Norwegian parrot. Can you


be sure that the Prime Minister and Anna Chancellor will vote for your


proposal? We are looking at three options that are very new. One of


them is Heathrow. Warrant -- they are very different options to what


has been proposed in the past. They are all very well crafted proposals.


They are interesting and have potential and we need to decide.


That is why I am asking you. HS2, high-speed train, can you state


categorically it will go ahead? It's due to start construction in the


spring. The hybrids Bill Haas to continue its passage through the


house of law -- the hybrid Bill Haas to continue through its passage in


the house of lords. Will it be 2026? Will it be on-time and on budget?


The select committee of MPs said it is unlikely and will certainly be


over budget. I expected be absolutely clear and on -- expected


to be absolutely on-time and on budget. The latest estimate for


phase one, the core cast is ?14 billion but there is contingency on


top of that. How much? It is set to Treasury rules. It is always going


to be over. If you really believed in the Northern powerhouse wouldn't


this money be better spent instead of making it quicker to come to and


Birmingham from London in under 90 minutes, which you already can,


wouldn't it be better to spend the money on state of the art road links


between East and West in the north. I think we need to do both. We can't


get more freight onto rail without creating more space. By taking fast


trains off the West Coast main line which is already busy and put fast


freight trains onto the new route, you create more capacity for places


like Milton Keynes Dons Northampton, Coventry. It is about making sure we


have a transport system that can cope with the demands of the


21st-century. Thank you very much. Now, as we speak, voters in Hungary


are going to the polls to vote on whether to accept mandatory EU


quotas for relocating migrants. The country's government has been


campaigning for voters to reject the EU's proposals and has run


a highly controversial campaign, accusing migrants of terrorism


and crime - and the Prime Minister Viktor Orban has said today he'll


quit if the country votes In response to the ongoing migrant


crisis, the EU wants to establish a permanent European resettlement


programme, under which, member states must take their fair


share of asylum seekers, depending on the size of each


country's population and economy. If countries refuse,


the European Commission has proposed that they would incur a financial


penalty of 250,000 euros per person, to cover the cost of another


country taking them. Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter


Szijjarto said the plan Last year, Hungary rejected


an emergency EU plan that would have seen tens of thousands of refugees


transferred out of the country in return for accepting a quota


of almost 1300 refugees As an EU border country,


Hungary has received 18,500 In 2015, it received the most asylum


applications relative to its population of any EU state -


1800 for every 100,000 local people, though the majority of those then


travelled onwards to other Although the referendum


result will have no affect on the EU's decision,


the Hungarian government hopes the weight of public opinion


will help it resist the plans, running a very controversial


referendum campaign. For example, this poster saying


migrants carried out We're joined now from Budapest


by our Correspondent, Nick Thorpe. I understand that the polls are


pretty clear that the government will win this referendum but it


needs a turnout of at least 50% for it to matter. What indication of


turnout so far? As of 11am, turnout was just over 16% of the electorate.


We have an electrode of 8.3 million, the government is campaigning


strongly for a no vote. The government have framed the question


in such a way that it is hard to vote, yes, we do want this imposed


on us. The issue of turnout is important because the opposition


have campaigned not to vote or to spoil votes. Even if the government


wins on the numbers, if more people vote against the quotas, is it a


symbolic defeat for the government if that was to happen? Some people


will argue it would be a symbolic defeat if they don't get 50%. We've


heard that ministers are backing off the whole issue of turnout. They are


hoping for at least 3 million people to vote. Even 4 million which would


be the 50%, voting no to migrant quotas. They say that all of those


votes will give them a strong moral hand. In the words of the Prime


Minister, it will sharpen the Hungarian sword in the battles


ahead. Thank you very much. Malin Bjork is Swedish


MEP and Vice Chair of the Confederal Group


of the European United Left Welcome to the programme. The quota


system proposed already seem to be dying if the Hungarians vote the way


they are expected to today, that will kill it, will it not? I think


we should have it as a point of departure whether we have seen that


Hungary is a model in any of the fields that we want hungry -- Europe


to be. I don't think Hungary is the model. I don't think we should give


him the kind of weight that he actually claims. He wants more


weight to this referendum. I don't think we should give it to him.


It is not just Hungary, is it? There are meant to be 100,000 migrants


covered by the quota system, fewer than 5% have been covered by it. It


is just not happening, whether Hungary votes for or against? No, it


is totally... But that means it is not operational, it is simply not


working. There are serious criticisms to have towards


implementing partners in this. But I do think when it comes to the


political course, Hungary is playing a very dangerous, racist and right


nationalist game. I don't think we should adapt to it. If it comes to


it, we have to be prepared to be behind those that do not want to be


the Europe that is taking responsibility globally. Let me


clarify what you mean by that. The Foreign Minister of Luxembourg has


already said that Hungary should be expelled from the European Union. Is


that what you are saying as well? No, no. You know what I think? As a


progressive politician on the left side, I do have a lot of criticisms


to the European Union. But there are planets apart from the kind of


models that Viktor Orban is trying to build, where he does not respect


human rights, laws and media freedoms, and now he attacks refugee


rights. Given all of that, let's accept what you say is true about


that, others may dispute it, but let's accept that as true, why


should Hungary remain a member of the European Union? Well, it is up


to each country that has voted to stay, and voted to become members,


voting to stay, I don't think Orban has any intention of leaving EU. I


think he wants more influence in the EU. I think he wants more influence


domestic league through the referendum and more influence in the


EU. The question the rest of the countries have to ask themselves is


if we are going to give it to him or adapt to his politics in any of


these fields he is active in? I think we should make a stand against


it. We should have political forces in other countries that have exactly


the same kind of agendas, which we don't want to see strengthened.


Isn't the problem that may be Hungary is on the trend, and you are


not? We have seem the right, some may call it the far right even, on


the march in Austria, Poland and in Hungary, even in Germany, with the


recent elections in Berlin and Angela Merkel's backyard, even


progressive social Democratic Sweden, your third biggest party is


now the Sweden, Democrats, a hard right nativist party. Why are forces


on the move, and while the forces used and four on the defensive? The


more progressive forces, I think they are growing in many countries


also, such as Spain, Ireland and other countries. It is not just for


the left, it is for the broader political spectrum to counteract


nationalist, right-wing and racist forces. We know where they lead, a


dead end. It is a challenge in the European countries. Why is Europe


going in this direction? In 2016, why are the forces of the rights so


strong? To be honest, I have to be a little bit more humble


and say are we failing people in some way? Yes, austerity policies


are not working. Inequalities have grown for over 20 years in Europe.


Of course it is a failure. We are capable of saving banks, but not


refugees. People see this. It is political failure and I think we


have to sit down and create different pacifists. What is


have to sit down and create happening now is worrying. I see


some of the political forces in Europe. -- create different


patterns. I see parties in Europe adapting to racism nationalist


voices. I think we have to be the different parties that will not


adapt to nationalist stories. They paint imaginary enemies. A huge


chunk of Hungary's public spending comes from the European Union, net


contributors like Sweden and the United Kingdom. If Hungary votes


this way, should that continue? Should we continue to bankroll it?


The way Europe and the European Union, individual members develop,


of course we should lead discussions about money and heel spending to the


respect for rule of law, the respect for human rights and the respect for


international rights that are being infringed by the Hungarian


government. Of course, we have to have such a discussion and it has to


be frank. It's just gone 11.35,


you're watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers


in Scotland who leave us now Good morning and welcome


to Sunday Politics Scotland. As the Conservatives


gather in Birmingham, Theresa May will announce


a Great Repeal Bill to end The party's Scottish leader


Ruth Davidson says Brexit must meet the needs of Scottish business,


I'll be asking her what she means and how on earth she intends


to get her way. We have had two seemingly momentous


bits of news about Brexit this morning. Theresa May says she will


trigger Article 50, the formal process that will move to not likely


to Britain leaving the EU by next March.


But that doesn't leave us any clearer about what great that


This all sounds terribly momentous, but do we really know any more about


where we're going to end up? I think we are getting more on the process


of it, but on the politics, on what brand it actually means and a strict


definition, we are not much closer today than we were a couple of weeks


ago, than we were in June. The key announcement this morning is on the


triggering of Article 50, the former all process of leaving the EU. That


will happen, Theresa May says, by the end of March, is in the UK on


course to leave the EU by April, 2019. That is down to a host of


different factors. If all EU countries decided they wanted to


extend the process, it could be for longer. It could also be shorter if


there is an agreement to that end. A bit more detail on what happens


after we leave, that greater appeal act, which ends the supremacy of


European law in the UK. All European laws would then be converted into UK


law. We will go through them line by mine, figuring out what we want to


keep and what we want to get rid of. I suspect will be some questions in


the coming days and weeks. Questions about what that means in a Scottish


context, whether Holyrood has to be consulted, whether it has a vote on


certain elements of repealing those laws, whatever happens. On the


politics, no real detail yet of what the UK Government actually wants,


the key things we will be taking into those talks with European


partners. We did get a head from Theresa May this morning, a subtle


one, that immigration and control over borders could be more important


than access to the single market. That could put the UK Government on


a collision course with the Scottish governments. Nicola Sturgeon has


made it clear that not just access the membership of the single market


is a key demand from Hollywood's in Brexit talks. The UK Government has


also been clear that it won't be negotiating in public, so in terms


of the ins and outs of what we will see, I don't think we are much


closer. The other thing is that Theresa May has said she doesn't


want this conference to be completely dominated by Brexit. I


presume the other big thing will be trying to present themselves as, we


are not the David Cameron governments, this is something


different. Are we going to see anything on this front? I expect


that his rights. Theresa May pates and tribute David Cameron when she


was on Andrew Marr's programme this morning, she also wants to set out


to run stall. She wants to make it clear that this government is hers,


taking her messages forward. Although Brexit is the reason she is


by Minister will be the dominating issue for governments, it is not the


only one she wants to talk about. If you look anywhere around this whole,


you see the message, a country that works for everyone. That was the


message when she took over in Downing Street and something we will


hear a lot more about over the next few days. Today, in some sense, is


about getting the breaks apart on the table, getting some of the


logistics out of the way. There will be a session this afternoon where


they will all give speeches on what they think could be the positives of


Brexit, but after that, I suspect by Wednesday, when we get to Theresa


May's main speech, she will want to be giving more details of the


nitty-gritty of governments, the issues she cares about, the things


she thinks will benefit the country. Thank you very much.


A short while ago I spoke to the leader of the Scottish


Conservatives, Ruth Davidson, who's in Birmingham.


I began by asking her how she proposed to influence the Brexit


negotiations in Scotland's interest. I have already sat down with the


Foreign Secretary and spoken in the last few days with David Davis, as


well as regular conversations with Number ten. It's important that


Scotland is my voice is heard. I'm Number ten. It's important that


pleased to see the written understanding within the UK


Government that they want to take the devolved administrations along


with them. David Davis spoke to Nicola Sturgeon last night about the


announcement today on Brexit. As the laying out of things. It's important


that we do this as a whole country and in the manner. But you have said


that you want to stay in the single market, is that still your ambition?


I think there is a misnomer about the single market but it is a binary


choice to be in or come out. It's not, it is a quotation of access. As


someone that those hidden works pretty hard to campaign to stay in


the EU as a whole, of course I want to have the maximum amount of access


to the single market. That's one of the reasons I was campaigning on the


side of a Zen. I think we heard today from the prime minister, what


we have heard from others and governments, is a real


acknowledgement that we have got to make certainty there are businesses


across the UK, for investors in the UK, to make sure they know... Just


to take one example, you talks this morning about wanting Scottish


financial businesses to have passport thing in the European


Union. This is a system whereby if you are back, for example, you


register in one European country and you have access across the EU. I


know what no suggestion that you can maintain our sporting and financial


services unless you are a full member of the single market. All I


was saying today in the papers is what people have been saying to me.


I have had people through my office over the summer and into awesome,


from different sectors in Scotland, saying the opportunities they see


from Brexit, the protections they want when we come out, because see


they issues that might affect them that you mentally. I making sure I


am plugged in as passing all about back to the UK Government. I would


expect the Scottish Government is doing the same thing and I know...


What I am suggesting to you is that it will be impossible to have passed


voting for financial services without being a full member of the


single market. There is no sign whatsoever from any of Theresa May's


ministers that they are entertaining such an idea. But again I think you


are falling into the trap that the single market is a binary choice of


in or out. It's not, it is about the levels of access we have. There has


never been a country that has left the EU before, so all of this we are


starting from scratch. There is work going on to make sure we get the


best deals in the UK, including Scotland. I know the Scottish


Government has been included in that as we go forward. All of these


things will be on the table when it comes to the negotiations. We have


heard this morning from the Prime Minister how we start moving towards


that. Would you like to keep free movement of Labour? As I keep coming


back to, I was quite enthusiastic in supporting the remaining campaign,


which included free movement of Labour, so that was one of the


things I was arguing for. Unfortunately 17.5 million people


disagreed with me. There was a wish within the country, not my wish, but


a wish within the wider UK, that there were some restrictions put on


my of this country. For me, that wasn't something I was arguing for,


in fact, I was arguing very strongly against it. That means that is going


to have to happen. How can we shape that and make sure that we get the


best Labour force to the UK? Irrespective of whether that comes


from within the EU, outside the EU, or accommodation of the two. Before


we move on, can I suggest a nice celebratory party conference


sentence for you to say, given what is in the papers this morning? How


about saying, I have confidence in Boris Johnson? I have always had


confidence in the role of the Foreign Secretary. That's not the


same as saying my sentence! I suggested you say, I have confidence


in Boris Johnson. We know you love the poster Foreign Secretary. I sat


down with Boris, we had a very good meeting, he is taking the role


incredible is seriously. He speaks five languages and has worked in


Brussels. He was born in America. In terms of cost conditions for the


job, he has got them in spades. He is applying himself to the job. I


think that shows a real will. He is wanting to engage with the Scottish


Government, adding to engage with Scotland to make sure... Why won't


you say the sentence? I have confidence in Boris Johnson! Why


won't you say it? I have confidence that like I have more confidence in


him now that I have sat down with him than I had before. That's


ambiguous! If you want to say and what happens in the Brexit


negotiations, why shouldn't there be a formal sabre Nicola Sturgeon? Her


party was elected as the government of Scotland. Your party wasn't. She


might have some input but she does no right to say that some of the


things you want M financial passport and has to be in the deal. As I


said, there is a full acknowledgement from the UK


Government 's that the consultation will go one with the Scottish


Government. David Davis spoke to Nicola Sturgeon last night. He has


already sat down with Mike Russell, the Minister Nicola Sturgeon has put


in charge of the negotiations on behalf of the Scottish Government. I


think there has to be an understanding that this was a UK


wide vote. The UK is the member state. Foreign affairs is reserved


to the UK. Even Nicola Sturgeon acknowledged that before the


campaign because she was down in England is on TV debates in England


speaking to people across the UK about the boat we were all taking


part in. The bottom line here is, there is a bottom line here, if


Theresa May's governments ignores your views on Brexit and what you


would like to see and ignores the Scottish Government's views and


implements Brexit, there is absolutely nothing, for example, if


they implement the hard Brexit that Liam Fox once, there is absolutely


nothing either you or Nicola Sturgeon can do about it. This is


just blather. The prime minister has been clear about that just this


morning, that she is not talking about a soft Brexit are hard Brexit


but getting the best deal. That has to be a bespoke deal because this


has never happened before. I country has never left the EU. We will be


making sure it negotiations start from Britain's best interests. But


this isn't about my will Nicola Sturgeon's will this is about the


will of 17.5 million across the United Kingdom. I wasn't one of


those people but there were 1 million people in Scotland were.


Politicians have a choice. This is important. They have a choice to


make. Even if it went against them, as it did with me. I was a strong


supporter of the remaining campaign. You either go off and a half or try


to make this work and implement the will of the people. I'm working hard


to sit down with people from across the sectors, across Scotland, what


they need and what they want out of the European Union. By making sure I


am doing my darndest to make that happen. There are clearly very


different views within the cabinets. Some, like Philip Hammond, or


perhaps closer to your review. People Fox are not those to your


view. You think Parliament should be given the decision, maybe not on


Article 50 but at some point Parliament should have the right to


say, we like Visteon we accept it or we don't? I will refer you back to


the prime minister's interview this morning, when she started laying out


the process that is involved and how Parliament is involved in that. The


first of the repeal act that she unveiled today which shows the


continuity that is going to happen after the day we do that. That gives


stability to businesses. There will be other stages in this, too. I


won't run through all of them today and we probably don't even know all


of the stages. The idea that Parliament will be bypassed is a


misnomer. As matters stand, if Parliament doesn't have a right to


vote on the final package, if Liam Fox kept his way and is a hard


Brexit, I know it's hypothetical but let's say there is, as matters


stand, there is no formal process by which members of Parliament could


vote against that. I think there also has to be an understanding that


members of parliament voted by 6-1 to make this decision, the decision


of the individual people of the UK. 6.5 million, more than in any other


democratic lives were that we have ever had... I'm not suggesting


Parliament should be able to overturn the referendum, but they


should have the right to veto a final deal. If you were suggesting


it is a yes or no, they could leave it, there is a suggestion you are


saying that Parliament would be able to override the will of the UK


people. Either that or I am misunderstanding the question. What


I'm suggesting is if Liam Fox, for example, gets his way and we leave


the EU and operate by WTO rules, this seems to be no point at which


Parliament can say, we don't want bad, we agree with Ruth Davidson, we


want is to have some relationship with the single market, to have some


free movement of Labour. The like. The Minister has put that


to one side. This will be a bespoke agreement that includes free


movement of people and access to the single market and all of these


issues that we will discuss that he has already stated on the record


Julia and before today that there will be a role for parliament in


that process. The first one that we talked about in terms of the


timescale was... Did I misunderstand you, at you just said that to reason


they made it clear that whatever agreement she comes to will include


a free movement of labour? What I said was that negotiations will


include the free movement of labour, they will include access to the free


market, she said all of this this morning. On another subject, Damian


Green the Work and Pensions Secretary announced that benefits


retest for the chronically ill would be scrapped. Do you welcome that? I


do, these are tests that were brought in and architected by the


last Labour government who hired the company who is doing them, we have


seen that there are significant problems with how they are carried


out and personally I am pleased that when people have either degenerative


conditions that they do not have to keep going back and we are able to


make sure that there is medical grounds for that. Do you think they


should follow-up by scrapping the Bedroom Tax? I think that is a


decision for people in the other parts of the UK, obviously we have


our own settlement here. Would you like to see them scrap the Bedroom


Tax? I think there is a difference in terms of the way I would have


done it if I had read them I would have got it in as a kind of late


entry thing so it did not affect people who were already in the hole


but for people who regulated goods to social housing because of course


this already existed for housing benefits in private rented


accommodation is so I would have though it's differently to how it


was permitted. It does not exist in Scotland, if you support devolution


you have to let people in other parts of the UK make their own


decisions just as we expect to be able to make our own decisions here.


There are big questions that we will be talking about in my speech about


social justice, because there are lots of new powers over benefits and


welfare coming to the Scottish Parliament, we will be doing a lot


of discussion and investigation into how we can use them to help the most


vulnerable in Scottish society. In publishing a paper today that shows


some of the things we can already do with the powers we do have so it is


not just topping about the symptoms of poverty... I understand what


you're saying. You seem to be suggesting that he would quite like


them to scrap the Bedroom Tax at least as it stands. What I'm seeing


is I would have brought it in in a different way but it is a decision


for people in other parts of the UK. I would like to talk about the paper


we wanted, it is important that as an opposition we don't just say no


to the government but that we also suggest improvements and


alternatives. One of the things we're looking at is how we can


intervene Elliott upstream to some of the big issues that cause poverty


or vulnerability in our society, like addiction and family breakdown


and how we can use the power of the Scottish Parliament already has two


address that. We will let you get off. I am sure Boris John was to


have copy the view now is that you have more confidence in him than you


had before. Than ever before, yes. It could be a problem with


the software or an administrative misunderstanding but either way it's


causing farmers a lot of heartache. European Common Agricultural Policy


payments in Scotland are in chaos leaving some without their


subsidies, others with stop-gap loans and the Scottish Government


in danger of facing a serious Joining me from our Inverness studio


is the SNP MSP Stewart Stevenson, who sits on the Rural


Economy Committee, Stewart Stevenson, you are supposed


to pay money to farmers to the common agricultural policy and you


make a mess of that and to compensate you give them loans as


you make a mess of that. He could not make this up. The important


point is that following the difficulties that have been with the


IED system which have been acknowledged, that we put in place a


way in which farmers can make sure they have money in the bank to keep


their businesses going, and every single farmer has had the


opportunity to take a loan. I believe a tiny handful have chosen


not to. The bottom line is in the circumstances of the difficulties in


the system, we have made sure that we have addressed the financial


needs of farmers and nature that they have money to keep their


businesses going. I think that is the right approach in these


difficult circumstances, which the government has absolutely


acknowledged stem from the IT system that we are responsible for. They


are not responsible for computer glitches? This has been a shambles


from start to finish, ten months on the still 576 farmers who have not


been fully paid from last year, what we have got to understand is that


even with giving a loan out for 80% of what they are entitled to hand


the government said they will deliver it next month, that is one


of before they should get all the money, so they will only get a loan


of 80% next month, we must remember that 30% of farmers have an income


of less than ?10,000 per year and with 80% of the subsidy, they are


not getting ?6,000. That is a heck of a lot of money not to get when


you are entitled to have it and there has been one disaster after


another. I am astonished that this so-called computer glitch, it is


costing ?117 million so far and it has been a complete shambles from


beginning to end. What we want to do is call the government minister to


Parliament next week and I will race is on the business bureau on


Tuesday, with support from other business managers, to have him make


a statement because we cannot have the system go on. Nobody is taking


responsibility. It is about responsibility, isn't it? There are


not huge numbers of people involved here and it is all very well saying


it is a computer glitch but isn't it the responsibility of good


government not to make excuses like that and to intervene where the


problems emerge and to get it sorted out? Perhaps one can understand if


it was a computer glitch this was all for just not paying the CAP


payments but when you can't even make the loan payment which are


supposed to replace the cap payment you can make, it is not good enough


just to say it is all about technology. I am most certainly not


saying it is all about technology and nor am I shedding the


responsibility that there is for the IT system and its failure to work.


The contractors have let the government down but ultimately the


government has to address that, but let's be clear, there is money in


every farmer's bank account from the Scottish Government. By the job of


October we are expecting the last of the applications from farmers to the


end and I think it is worth looking at what the National farmers union


themselves said in the middle of September on the subject, they


continued to say that it is unsatisfactory from the IT system


and they said that the government has taken the action necessary to


make sure that the rule economy is supported by money from the


government and they have welcomed that. -- the rural economy. That is


the right response when you have a difficult situation with our IT


system that you nonetheless make sure that money is getting to


farmers bank accounts and that is what the government has done.


I take your point about the incomes of farmers, but we are topping about


subsidies here and if people are getting 80% of what they would


otherwise get, I mean OK, it might not be ideal but it is hardly that


big a deal is it? It is a huge deal especially for the third of farmers


whose income is less than ?10,000, and then not getting ?6,000. How


many farmers are we talking about in that situation? One third of them,


30% of the 80,000 so well over 6000 farmers. The point I'm here is this


subsidy system is a ridiculous system we have at the moment, the


average subsidy per farmer to farm business is ?31,000 on average. The


farm income on average is ?23,000, sold most farmers actually make a


loss and if they did not have the subsidy they would have a negative


income. It is a ridiculous system. ?3 million goes to one farmer under


the scheme, it is a stupid system and the person responsible is


furnished viewing. -- Fergus Ewing. What is it you want Stewart


Stevenson and his colleagues to do? You're complaining but what


precisely what then to do? What I want them to do is make sure that


the actual systems that they have run properly, but more importantly I


have said several times to Fergus Ewing and Stewart on the committee


as well has heard me say this, but what we should be doing is looking


to renew the system. When we leave the EU the entire responsibility for


this falls on Fergus Ewing's shoulders and they said to him in


four years' time you will have the responsibility to pay this money out


of farmers in subsidies and the subsidy system we have now is wrong.


We have one farmer getting ?3 million in subsidies well one third


of farmers are not less than ?10,000 that he will not do it. I have asked


them to set up a committee of specialists to look at the options


for the future and he is burying his head in the sand. This is indicative


of the whole process we have seen with cap payments. It will go on to


the future. You're shaking your head Stewart, presumably the Scottish


Government will set up given Brexit and all the rest of it, you are


going to set up the kind and all the rest of it, you are


committee that my grumbles is calling on? You'll have to. 100 days


after the Brexit forward we have no answers from the UK, and very little


can proceed until we get some but what I'm hearing from Mike rumbles


is an indication that he wants to abolish the subsidy system


altogether. How on earth is that going to help those farmers who are


under a living wage? What he is -- that is what he's saying and that is


not what this government is doing what the government also doing is


addressing the requirements of the large farmers... And failing. And


ensuring the most active farmers get the money. I'm sorry to cut you off


but we are pressed for time. Let's go back to our top story today


and we're joined by the Scottish minister for Brexit


negotiations, Mike Russell, Mike Russell, what do you make of


these two announcements to has made today about the repeal legislation


and triggering article 50 by March next year? Neither take as much


further forward, there has to be read your legislation, it is the


only way you could have done this and everyone has an honour for a


while. The only question was the timing of the legislation.


Repeatedly the UK Government has said that the first part of next


year will have article 50, the reader may knows that March is in


the first part of next year so that is not take as much further forward


either. Do you feel from the discussions you have been having


that you are any clearer as to what Brexit will actually mean? We have


had Ruth Davidson of the programme talking about how she would like to


see some relationship with the single market, she supported free


movement of labour and she wants to see passport in for financial


services. And he had any indication that any of these things are


possible? Ruiz has become a born-again Brexit fan, she has


kissed and made up with the Brexit is, and I do not think we are much


further forward in terms of the port and issues for the people of


Scotland in the area of outstanding now. We don't all about free


movement of labour or the people who are here presently will be allowed


to stay. That is a vitally important and could be decided today. That


announcement should have come from the Tory party conference because it


would have said some people's minds at rest. The Scottish Government is


being clear about what it wants to see, what we are not hearing back


any preferences but we are hearing a lot of things being rolled out by


rumour and there have been a lot of worries about passports. That is


vital for jobs in the private sector in Scotland. Today's announcers are


designed to pacify the Tory right wing. There has been much


consultation between the British and Scottish Government over Brexit and


you have been involved in some of that but the fact is, or is it, do


you have any formal rule? Do you have any ability to see on any


issue, look, this is important for us the Scottish Government, that has


to be part of any Brexit steel. Or do you feel that on anything you say


that the British government will just say thank you very much real


advice no thank you. We're too early to say definitively what the


situation is. Those meetings are continuing and there is another


plenary meeting this month. There is some small print in the government


announcement today which seems to imply that we will be asked in the


announcement today which seems to devolved administrations for the


ideas and views, that is not consultation and is certainly not be


to reason a full engagement and involvement that she promised. So we


have to keep arguing for a pressing for an insisting upon the


involvement of the Scottish Government and the other devolved


administrations in the meat of these matters. What do you mean by that?


That are clearly things that are fully devolved matters within


Scotland, the fishing industry is one and agriculture as even talking


about is another one, there are huge issues in education and the


environment, issues that the Scottish Government deals with


anti-Scottish ballad deals with. We have to make sure that we are


involved in the negotiations of those matters, we can be a gushy. We


are not hearing that so we have to have a structure up to Article 50


that develops Are you saying you want to veto or


that you won the Scottish Government to be involved in the act one


negotiations with the EU? Well, there are issues which are issues


for the Scottish Government and not issues with the UK Government. A


piece of legislation such as what Theresa May is promising, this great


repeal act, will require the approval of the Scottish Parliament.


A legislative consent motion will be required. The Scottish Government,


Scottish Parliament, has a formal role better. We need to make sure we


are in there discussing these matters, because on what we are


hearing so far, the matters of great importance, three movements, a whole


range of matters on education and environment... It doesn't make me


think our vital interests are being protected. Will you vote against the


repeal bill in the Scottish Parliament? There is presently a


majority against it. We have had three votes in the past three weeks


on European matters and all have been in favour of the single market.


And against what appears to be the current position of the hard


Brexiteer 's who were pushing Theresa May is trying to force her


into the camp. At the present moment, that would appear to be the


case. Thank you very much for rushing to join us. Now it's time to


look at what is coming up in the I'm joined by Andy Maciver,


who is a former head of communications for


the Conservatives, and is now Director of the PR


firm Message Matters. And by the journalist and writer


Katie Grant. There was great kerfuffle a few


months ago when Nicola Sturgeon suggested that the Scottish


Parliament could perhaps block Brexit by refusing to back a motion.


From what Mike Russell suggested, it looks like this situation has arisen


quicker than we thought. I thought it would be much more equivocal


about bad. It's a very difficult situation to decide what to do about


that particular motion. I'm not convinced that they actually well.


It's a very delicate balance of them. He said they probably would.


Yes, I'm quite surprised by that. I'm not sure that's what Nicola


Sturgeon would've said. The delicate bouncers standing up for their


interests, the interest of the voters, but also doing what appears


to be the right thing by the UK. And helping the will of the UK people


into practice. It's a difficult one. If Mike Russell does what Mike


into practice. It's a difficult one. Russell as suggested, I'm sure the


British Parliament can override that, but it is something of a


concert usual crisis. If you got the Scottish Parliament saying, see that


repeal bill? No. There would be a constitutional crisis and I don't


know how it would be resolved, but the Scottish Government needs to


remember that... I was voting remain but over 1 million Scots did vote to


leave. They need to be aware of Scotland as a whole and not just of


their... I know most Scots voted to remain, but we didn't buy every


single Scot. The Scottish Government in these negotiations needs to


represent the whole of Scotland are not just their own narrow interests.


But they can say we're representing that they would say, you can never


represent all the people, all the time, and over 60% voted to stay in


the EU, so we are presenting the people of Scotland and not just SNP


support. Is going to be very difficult because they will ban had


to sell bad as somehow being a positive when it will look like a


large negative. Everybody knows that we are in the UK and the UK voted to


leave, so it is a difficult thing to sell. The Scottish rural and saying


they're going to veto it and therefore what happens next? The


race debate over whether the legislative consent motion is


actually required. Some constitutional experts say it would


not. It's worth noting that not everybody would agree that the


legislative consent motion is required. You can sense of


frustration. In a sense, I'm not sure if it's fair to say that David


Davis looks but all this talk of how sure if it's fair to say that David


she will be making sure Boris Johnson does this, that and the


other and will stand up for Scotland. In a formal sense, neither


the Scottish Government nor Ruth Davidson, nor indeed members of


the Scottish Government nor Ruth Parliament, seem to have any formal


role in this. If they have, we don't know what it is yet. I think the


fact that we don't know what it is yet his person to the debate. Ruth


Davidson has been a lot stronger than a lot of people in sticking to


her guns as what you might call a soft Brexiteer. I think Mike Russell


was probable quite unfair on her in saying she was a born-again


Brexiteer. I Dabiq she is. -- I don't think she is. If anything, the


soft- hard line which is unhelpful. It will be negotiation based on


individual circumstances. The trouble is, it's all becoming a bit


Clintonesque. Bill, not Hillary! It depends what you mean by social


market. For example, on this issue of past voting or financial


services, asset managers in Scotland, by having a business set


up in one European union country, you're automatically allowed to do


business in other. I have not heard any suggestion that it would be


possible to keep that without, and let's get away from talking about


what the supermarket means, but without accepting the European Court


of Justice, free movement of Labour. I've never had any suggestion. It's


a very confusing issue because is a difference between regulation and


trade. The past porting issues regulation issues, not trade issues.


Membership of the single market is also different from access to the


civil market. In all of these discussions and debates that you


see, it's very difficult to get into that level of detail and difficult


to understand what is actually being sad. I'm not sure that's entirely as


the case. I've seen some arguments that suggest that past porting is


possible based on it being a regulatory issue, if the regulars


re-routing in this country is exactly the same as in EU countries


which it might be. On a slightly different subject, we are talking


earlier about how Theresa May will want this party conference about the


size that this is no longer the David Cameron government. This isn't


the Bollington club running things any more. Do you think it's


important for her to do that, because Labour will see, and they


ran a party with a broadcast after their conferences week saying,


actually, this is just the same old Tories. I think it will happen


anyway. She has a different manner from David Cameron, she is a woman.


Brexit, which is obviously a failure in some ways of David Cameron, is


written all over the conference whatever she tries to say about


domestic... And they've already said they will get rid of George Osborne.


IDC has already made... It's a bit lame of Labour to say it's just a


continuation of the same old, same old. It's clearly not. Nothing that


Theresa May has done or said have looked like a continuation. I think


that's a bit of a lame argument. I think her manner is also different.


She's much more formal, is used to meet she speaks in a different way.


She's not as Pali, there won't be so much chilling. Thank you both


I'll be back at the same time next week.


Download Subtitles