15/01/2017 Sunday Politics Scotland


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 15/01/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



It's Sunday morning, and this is the Sunday Politics.


Is the Prime Minister prepared to end Britain's membership


of the EU's single market and its customs union?


We preview Theresa May's big speech, as she seeks to unite the country


Is the press a force for good or a beast that needs taming?


As the Government ponders its decision, we speak to one


of those leading the campaign for greater regulation.


Just what kind of President will Donald Trump be?


Piers Morgan, a man who knows him well, joins us live.


In London this week: With the rail and Tube strikes bringing


I'll ask the deputy leader of Scottish Labour whether there's


any future for his party north of the border - or south.


And to help me make sense of all that, three of the finest


hacks we could persuade to work on a Sunday - Steve Richards,


They'll be tweeting throughout the programme, and you can join


So, Theresa May is preparing for her big Brexit speech on Tuesday,


in which she will urge people to give up on "insults"


and "division" and unite to build, quote, a "global Britain".


Some of the Sunday papers report that the Prime Minister will go


The Sunday Telegraph splashes with the headline: "May's big


gamble on a clean Brexit", saying the Prime Minister


will announce she's prepared to take Britain out of membership


of the single market and customs union.


The Sunday Times has a similar write-up -


they call it a "clean and hard Brexit".


The Brexit Secretary David Davis has also written a piece in the paper


hinting that a transitional deal could be on the cards.


And the Sunday Express says: "May's Brexit Battle Plan",


explaining that the Prime Minister will get tough with Brussels


and call for an end to free movement.


Well, let's get some more reaction on this.


I'm joined now from Cumbria by the leader


of the Liberal Democrats, Tim Farron.


Mr Farron, welcome back to the programme. The Prime Minister says


most people now just want to get on with it and make a success of it.


But you still want to stop it, don't you? Well, I certainly take the view


that heading for a hard Brexit, essentially that means being outside


the Single Market and the customs union, is not something that was on


the ballot paper last June. For Theresa May to adopt what is


basically the large all Farage vision of Britain's relationship


with Europe is not what was voted for last June. It is right for us to


stand up and say that a hard Brexit is not the democratic choice of the


British people, and that we should be fighting for the people to be the


ones who have the Seat the end of this process, not have it forced


upon them by Theresa May and David Davis. When it comes though dual


position that we should remain in the membership of the Single Market


and the customs union, it looks like you are losing the argument, doesn't


it? My sense is that if you believe in being in the Single Market and


the customs union are good things, I think many people on the leave site


believe that, Stephen Phillips, the Conservative MP until the autumn who


resigned, who voted for Leave but believe we should be in the Single


Market, I think those people believe that it is wrong for us to enter the


negotiations having given up on the most important part of it. If you


really are going to fight Britain's corner, then you should go in there


fighting the membership of the Single Market, not give up and


whitefly, as Theresa May has done before we even start. -- and wave


the white flag. Will you vote against regret Article 50 in the


Commons? We made it clear that we want the British people to have the


final Seat -- vote against triggering. Will you vote against


Article 50. Will you encourage the House of Lords to vote against out


Article 50? I don't think they will get a chance to vote. They will have


a chance to win the deuce amendments. One amendment we will


introduce is that there should be a referendum in the terms of the deal.


It is not right that Parliament on Government, and especially not civil


servants in Brussels and Whitehall, they should stitch-up the final


deal. That would be wrong. It is right that the British people have


the final say. I understand that as your position. You made it clear


Britain to remain a member of the Single Market on the customs union.


You accept, I assume, that that would mean remaining under the


jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, continuing free movement


of people, and the free-trade deals remained in Brussels' competence. So


it seems to me that if you believe that being in the Single Market is a


good thing, then you should go and argue for that. Whilst I believe


that we're not going to get a better deal than the one we currently have,


nevertheless it is up to the Government to go and argue for the


best deal possible for us outside. You accept your position would mean


that? It would mean certainly being in the Single Market and the customs


union. It's no surprise to you I'm sure that the Lib Dems believe the


package we have got now inside the EU is going to be of the Nutley


better than anything we get from the outside, I accept the direction of


travel -- is going to be the Nutley better. At the moment, what the


Government are doing is assuming that all the things you say Drew,


and there is no way possible for us arguing for a deal that allows in


the Single Market without some of those other things. If they really


believed in the best for Britain, you would go and argue for the best


for Britain. Let's be clear, if we remain under the jurisdiction of the


ECJ, which is the court that governs membership of the Single Market,


continued free movement of people, the Europeans have made clear, is


what goes with the Single Market. And free-trade deals remaining under


Brussels' competence. If we accepted all of that is the price of


membership of the Single Market, in what conceivable way with that


amount to leaving the European Union? Well, for example, I do


believe that being a member of the Single Market is worth fighting for.


I personally believe that freedom of movement is a good thing. British


people benefit from freedom of movement. We will hugely be hit as


individuals and families and businesses. Mike I understand, but


your writing of leaving... There the butt is that if you do except that


freedom of movement has to change, I don't, but if you do, and if you are


Theresa May, and the problem is to go and fight for the best deal,


don't take it from Brussels that you can't be in the Single Market


without those other things as well, you don't go and argue the case. It


depresses me that Theresa May is beginning this process is waving the


white flag, just as this morning Jeremy Corbyn was waving the white


flag when it comes to it. We need a Government that will fight Britain's


corner and an opposition that will fight the Government to make sure


that it fights. Just explain to our viewers how we could remain members,


members of the Single Market, and not be subject to the jurisdiction


of the European court? So, first of all we spent over the last many,


many years, the likes of Nigel Farage and others, will have argued,


you heard them on this very programme, that Britain should


aspire to be like Norway and Switzerland for example, countries


that are not in the European Union but aren't the Single Market. It is


very clear to me that if you want the best deal for Britain -- but are


in the Single Market. You go and argue for the best deal. What is the


answer to my question, you haven't answered it


the question is, how does the Prime Minister go and fight for the best


deal for Britain. If we think that being in the Single Market is the


right thing, not Baxter -- not access to it but membership of it,


you don't wave the white flag before you enter the negotiating room. I'm


afraid we have run out of time. Thank you, Tim Farron.


The leaks on this speech on Tuesday we have seen, it is interesting that


Downing Street has not attempted to dampen them down this morning, in


the various papers, do they tell us something new? Do they tell us more


of the Goverment's aims in the Brexit negotiations? I think it's


only a confirmation of something which has been in the mating really


for the six months that she's been in the job. The logic of everything


that she's said since last July, the keenness on re-gaining control of


migration, the desire to do international trade deals, the fact


that she is appointed trade Secretary, the logic of all of that


is that we are out of the Single Market, quite probably out of the


customs union, what will happen this week is a restatement of a fairly


clear position anyway. I think Tim Farron is right about one thing, I


don't think she will go into the Farron is right about one thing, I


speech planning to absolutely definitively say, we are leaving


those things. Because even if there is a 1% chance of a miracle deal,


where you stay in the Single Market, somehow get exempted from free


movement, it is prudent to keep hopes on that option as a Prime


Minister. -- to keep open that option. She is being advised both by


the diplomatic corps and her personal advisers, don't concede on


membership of the Single Market yet. We know it's not going to happen,


but let them Europeans knock us back on that,... That is probably the


right strategy for all of the reasons that Jarlan outlined there.


What we learned a bit today is the possibility of some kind of


transition or arrangements, which David Davies has been talking about


in a comment piece for one of the Sunday papers. My sense from


Brexiteers aborting MPs is that they are very happy with 90% of the


rhetoric -- Brexit sporting MPs. The rhetoric has not been dampened down


by MPs, apart from this transitional arrangement, which they feel and two


France, on the one front will encourage the very dilatory EU to


spend longer than ever negotiating a deal, and on the other hand will


also be exactly what our civil service looks for in stringing


things out. What wasn't explained this morning is what David Davies


means by transitional is not that you negotiate what you can in two


years and then spend another five years on the matter is that a lot of


the soul. He thinks everything has to be done in the two years, -- of


the matter are hard to solve. But it would include transitional


arrangements over the five years. What we are seeing in the build-up


is the danger of making these kind of speeches. In a way, I kind of


admired her not feeding the media machine over the autumn and the end


of last year cars, as Janan has pointed out in his columns, she has


actually said quite a lot from it, you would extrapolate quite a lot.


We won't be members of the Single Market? She said that in the party


conference speech, we are out of European court. Her red line is the


end of free movement, so we are out of the Single Market. Why has she


sent Liam Fox to negotiate all of these other deals, not that he will


succeed necessarily, but that is the intention? We are still in the


customs union. You can extrapolate what she will say perhaps more


cautiously in the headlines on Tuesday. But the grammar of a big


speech raises expectations, gets the markets worked up. So she is doing


it because people have said that she doesn't know what she's on about.


But maybe she should have resisted it. Very well, and she hasn't. The


speech is on Tuesday morning. Now, the public consultation


on press regulation closed this week, and soon ministers will have


to decide whether to enact a controversial


piece of legislation. Section 40 of the Crime


and Courts Act, if implemented, could see newspapers forced to pay


legal costs in libel and privacy If they don't sign up to an


officially approved regulator. The newspapers say it's


an affront to a free press, while pro-privacy campaigners say


it's the only way to ensure a scandal like phone-hacking


can't happen again. Ellie Price has been


reading all about it. It was the biggest news


about the news for decades, a scandal that involved household


names, but not just celebrities. They've even hacked the phone


of a murdered schoolgirl. It led to the closure


of the News Of The World, a year-long public inquiry headed up


by the judge Lord Justice Leveson, and in the end, a new press watchdog


set up by Royal Charter, which could impose, among other


things, million-pound fines. If this system is implemented,


the country should have confidence that the terrible suffering


of innocent victims like the Dowlers, the McCanns


and Christopher Jefferies should To get this new plan rolling,


the Government also passed the Crime and Courts Act,


Section 40 of which would force publications who didn't sign up


to the new regulator to pay legal costs in libel and privacy


cases, even if they won. It's waiting for sign-off


from the Culture Secretary. We've got about 50 publications


that have signed up... This is Impress, the press regulator


that's got the backing of the Royal Charter,


so its members are protected from the penalties that would be


imposed by Section 40. It's funded by the Formula One


tycoon Max Mosley's I think the danger if we don't


get Section 40 is that you have an incomplete


Leveson project. I think it's very, very likely that


within the next five or ten years there will be a scandal,


there'll be a crisis in press standards, everyone will be


saying to the Government, "Why on Earth didn't you sort things


out when you had the chance?" Isn't Section 40 essentially


just a big stick to beat We hear a lot about the stick part,


but there's also a big juicy carrot for publishers and their journalists


who are members of an They get huge new protections


from libel threats, from privacy actions,


which actually means they've got a lot more opportunity to run


investigative stories. Impress has a big image problem -


not a single national Instead, many of them


are members of Ipso, the independent regulator set up


and funded by the industry that doesn't seek the recognition


of the Royal Charter. The male cells around 22,000 each


day... There are regional titles too, who,


like the Birmingham Mail, won't sign up to Impress,


even if they say the costs are associated with Section 40


could put them out of business. Impress has an umbilical cord that


goes directly back to Government through the recognition setup


that it has. Now, we broke free of the shackles


of the regulated press when the stamp duty was revealed


150 years ago. If we go back to this level


of oversight, then I think we turn the clock back,


150 years of press freedom. The responses from the public have


been coming thick and fast since the Government


launched its consultation In fact, by the time


it closed on Tuesday, And for that reason alone,


it could take months before a decision on what happens


next is taken. The Government will also be minded


to listen to its own MPs, One described it to me as Draconian


and hugely damaging. So, will the current


Culture Secretary's thinking be I don't think the Government


will repeal section 40. What I'm arguing for is not


to implement it, but it will remain on the statute book and if it then


became apparent that Ipso simply was failing to work,


was not delivering effective regulation and the press


were behaving in a way which was wholly unacceptable,


as they were ten years ago, then there might be an argument


at that time to think well in that case we are going to have


to take further measures, The future of section 40 might not


be so black and white. I'm told a compromise could be met


whereby the punitive parts about legal costs are dropped,


but the incentives to join a recognised


regulator are beefed up. But it could yet be some time


until the issue of press freedom I'm joined now by Max Mosley -


he won a legal case against the News Of The World after it revealed


details about his private life, and he now campaigns


for more press regulation. Are welcome to the programme. Let me


ask you this, how can it be right that you, who many folk think have a


clear vendetta against the British press, can bankroll a government


approved regulator of the press? If we hadn't done it, nobody would,


section 40 would never have come into force because there would never


have been a regulator. It is absolutely wrong that a family trust


should have to finance something like this. It should be financed by


the press or the Government. If we hadn't done it there would be no


possibility of regulation. But it means we end up with a


regulator financed by you, as I say many people think you have a clear


vendetta against the press. Where does the money come from? From a


family trust, it is family money. You have to understand that somebody


had to do this. I understand that. People like to know where the money


comes from, I think you said it came from Brixton Steyn at one stage.


Ages ago my father had a trust there but now all my money is in the UK.


We are clear about that, but this is money that was put together by your


father. Yes, my father inherited it from his father and his father. The


whole of Manchester once belonged to the family, that's why there is a


Mosley Street. That is irrelevant because as we have given the money,


I have no control. If you do the most elementary checks into the


contract between my family trust, the trust but finances Impress, it


is impossible for me to exert any influence. It is just the same as if


it had come from the National lottery. People will find it ironic


that the money has come from historically Britain's best-known


fascist. No, it has come from my family, the Mosley family. This is


complete drivel because we have no control. Where the money comes from


doesn't matter, if it had come from the national lottery it would be


exactly the same. Impress was completely independent. But it


wouldn't exist without your money, wouldn't it? But that doesn't give


you influence. It might exist because it was founded before I was


ever in contact with them. Isn't it curious then that so many leading


light show your hostile views of the press? I don't think it is because I


don't know a single member of the Impress board. The chairman I have


met months. The only person I know is Jonathan Hayward who you had on


just now. In one recent months he tweeted 50 attacks on the Daily


Mail, including some calling for an advertising boycott of the paper. He


also liked a Twitter post calling me Daily Mail and neofascist rag. Are


these fitting for what is meant to be impartial regulator? The person


you should ask about that is the press regulatory panel and they are


completely independent, they reviewed the whole thing. You have


probably produced something very selective, I have no idea but I am


certain that these people are absolutely trustworthy and


independent. It is not just Mr Hayward, we have a tonne of things


he has tweeted calling for boycotts, remember this is the man that would


be the regulator of these papers. He's the chief executive, that is a


separate thing. The administration, the regulator. Many leading light


show your vendetta of the press. I do not have a vendetta. Let's take


another one. This person is on the code committee. Have a look at this.


As someone with these views fit to be involved in the regulation of the


press? You said I have a vendetta against the press, I do not, I


didn't say that and it is completely wrong to say I have a vendetta. What


do you think of that? I don't agree, I wouldn't ban the Daily Mail, I


think it's a dreadful paper but I wouldn't ban it. Another Impress


code committee said I hate the Daily Mail, I couldn't agree more, others


have called for a boycott. Other people can say what they want and


many people may think they are right but surely these views make them


unfit to be partial regulators? I have no influence over Impress


therefore I cannot say anything about it. You should ask them, not


me. All I have done is make it possible for Impress to exist and


that was the right thing to do. I'm asking you if people with these kind


of views are fit to be regulators of the press. You would have to ask


about all of their views, these are some of their views. A lot of people


have a downer on the Daily Mail and the Sun, it doesn't necessarily make


them party pre-. Why would newspapers sign up to a regulator


run by what they think is run by enemies out to ruin them. If they


don't like it they should start their own section 40 regulator. They


could make it so recognised, if only they would make it independent of


the big newspaper barons but they won't -- they could make Ipso


recognised. Is the Daily Mail fascist? It certainly was in the


1930s. Me and my father are relevant, this whole section 40


issue is about access to justice. The press don't want ordinary people


who cannot afford to bring an action against the press, don't want them


to have access to justice. I can understand that but I don't


sympathise. What would happen to the boss of Ofcom, which regulates


broadcasters, if it described Channel 4 News is a Marxist scum? If


the press don't want to sign up to Impress they can create their own


regulator. If you were to listen we would get a lot further. The press


should make their own Levenson compliant regulator, then they would


have no complaints at all. Even papers like the Guardian, the


Independent, the Financial Times, they show your hostility to tabloid


journalism. They have refused to be regulated by Impress. I will say it


again, the press could start their own regulator, they do not have to


sign... Yes, but Levenson compliant one giving access to justice so


people who cannot afford an expensive legal action have a proper


arbitration service. The Guardian, the Independent, the Financial


Times, they don't want to do that either. That would suggest there is


something fatally flawed about your approach. Even these kind of papers,


the Guardian, Impress is hardly independent, the head of... Andrew,


I am sorry, you are like a dog with a bone. The press could start their


own regulator, then people like the Financial Times, the Guardian and so


one could decide whether they wanted to join or not but what is


absolutely vital is that we should have a proper arbitration service so


that people who cannot afford an expensive action have somewhere to


go. This business of section 40 which you want to be triggered which


would mean papers that didn't sign up to Impress could be sued in any


case and they would have to pay potentially massive legal costs,


even if they win. Yes. This is what the number of papers have said about


this, if section 40 was triggered, the Guardian wouldn't even think of


investigation. The Sunday Times said it would not have even started to


expose Lance Armstrong. The Times journalist said he couldn't have


done the Rotherham child abuse scandal. What they all come it is a


full reading of section 40 because that cost shifting will only apply


if, and I quote, it is just and equitable in all the circumstances.


I cannot conceive of any High Court judge, for example the Lance


Armstrong case or the child abuse, saying it is just as equitable in


all circumstances the newspaper should pay these costs. Even the


editor of index on censorship, which is hardly the Sun, said this would


be oppressive and they couldn't do what they do, they would risk being


sued by warlords. No because if something unfortunate, some really


bad person sues them, what would happen is the judge would say it is


just inequitable normal circumstances that person should


pay. Section 40 is for the person that comes along and says to a big


newspaper, can we go to arbitration because I cannot afford to go to


court. The big newspaper says no. That leaves less than 1% of the


population with any remedy if the newspapers traduce them. It cannot


be right. From the Guardian to the Sun, and including Index On


Censorship, all of these media outlets think you are proposing a


charter for conmen, warlords, crime bosses, dodgy politicians,


celebrities with a grievance against the press. I will give you the final


word to address that. It is pure guff and the reason is they want to


go on marking their own homework. The press don't want anyone to make


sure life is fair. All I want is somebody who has got no money to be


able to sue in just the way that I can. All right, thanks for being


with us. The doctors' union,


the British Medical Association, has said the Government


is scapegoating GPs in England The Government has said GP surgeries


must try harder to stay open from 8am to 8pm,


or they could lose out on funding. The pressure on A services


in recent weeks has been intense. It emerged this week that 65


of the 152 Health Trusts in England had issued an operational pressure


alert in the first At either level three,


meaning major pressures, or level four, indicating


an inability to deliver On Monday, Health Secretary Jeremy


Hunt told the Commons that the number of people using A


had increased by 9 million But that 30% of those


visits were unnecessary. He said that the situation


at a number of Trusts On Tuesday, the Royal College


of Physicians wrote to the Prime Minister saying


the health service was being paralysed by spiralling demand,


and urging greater investment. On Wednesday, the Chief Executive


of NHS England, Simon Stevens, told a Select Committee that NHS


funding will be highly constrained. And from 2018, real-terms spending


per person would fall. The Prime Minister described


the Red Cross's claim that A was facing a "humanitarian crisis"


as "irresponsible and overblown". And the National Audit Office issued


a report that found almost half, 46%, of GP surgeries closed at some


point during core hours. Yesterday, Mrs May signalled her


support for doctors' surgeries opening from 8am to 8pm every day


of the week, in order to divert To discuss this, I'm joined


now by the Conservative MP Maria Caulfield -


she was an NHS nurse in a former life - and Clare Gerada,


a former chair of the Royal College Welcome to you both. So, Maria


Caulfield, what the Government is saying, Downing Street in effect is


saying that GPs do not work hard enough and that's the reason why A


was under such pressure? No, I don't think that is the message, I think


that is the message that the media have taken up. That is not the


expression that we want to give. I still work as a nurse, I know how


hard doctors work in hospitals and GP practices. When the rose 30% of


people turning up at A for neither an accident or an emergency, we do


need to look at alternative. Where is the GPs' operability in this? We


know from patients that if they cannot get access to GPs, they will


do one of three things. They will wait two or three weeks until they


can get an appointment, they will forget about the problem altogether,


which is not good, we want patients to be getting investigations at


early stages, or they will go to A And that is a problem. I'm not


quite sure what the role that GPs play in this. What is your response


in that? I think about 70% of patients that I see should not be


seen by me but should still be seen by hospital consultants. If we look


at it from GPs' eyes and not from hospital's eyes, because that is


what it is, we might get somewhere. Tomorrow morning, every practice in


England will have about 1.5 GPs shot, that's not even counting if


there is traffic problems, sickness or whatever. -- GPs shot. We cannot


work any harder, I cannot physically, emotionally work any


harder. We are open 12 hours a day, most of us, I run practices open 365


days per year 24 hours a day. I don't understand this. It is one


thing attacking me as a GP from working hard enough, but it is


another thing saying that GPs as a profession and doing what they


should be doing. Let me in National Audit Office has coming up with


these figures showing that almost half of doctors' practices are not


open during core hours at some part of the week. That's where the


implication comes, that they are not working hard enough. What do you say


to that? I don't recognise this. I'm not being defensive, I'm just don't


recognise it. There are practices working palliative care services,


practices have to close home visits if they are single-handed, some of


us are working in care homes during the day. They may shot for an hour


in the middle of the data will sort out some of the prescriptions and


admin -- they may shot. My practice runs a number of practices across


London. If we shut during our contractual hours we would have NHS


England coming down on us like a tonne of bricks. Maria Caulfield,


I'm struggling to understand, given the problems the NHS faces,


particularly in our hospitals, what this has got to do with the


solution? Obviously there are GP practices that are working, you


know, over and above the hours. But there are some GP practices, we know


from National Audit Office, there are particular black sports --


blackspots in the country that only offer services for three hours a


week. That's causing problems if they cannot get to see a GP they


will go and use A Nobody is saying that this measure would solve


problems at A, it would address one small part of its top blog we


shouldn't be starting this, as I keep saying, please to this from


solving the problems at A We should be starting it from solving


the problems of the patients in their totality, the best place they


should go, not from A This really upsets me, as a GP I am there to be


a proxy A doctor. I am a GP, a highly skilled doctor, looking after


patients from cradle to grave across the physical, psychological and


social, I am not an A doctor. I don't disagree with that, nobody is


saying that GPs are not working hard enough. You just did, actually,


about some of them. In some practices, what we need to see, it's


not just GPs in GP surgeries, it is advanced nurse practitioners,


pharmacists. It doesn't necessarily need to be all on the GPs. I think


advanced nurse practitioners are in short supply. Position associate or


go to hospital, -- physician associates. We have very few


trainees, junior doctors in general practice, unlike hospitals, which


tend to have some slack with the junior doctor community and


workforce. This isn't an argument, this is about saying, let's stop


looking at the National health system as a National hospital


system. GPs tomorrow will see about 1.3 million patients. That is a lot


of thoughtful. A lot of activity with no resources. If you wanted the


GPs to behave better, in your terms, when you allocated more money to


GPs, part of the reforms, because that's where it went, shouldn't you


have targeted it more closely to where they want to operate? That is


exactly what the Prime Minister is saying, extra funding is being made


available by GPs to extend hours and services. If certain GP practices


cannot do that, the money will follow the patient to where they


move onto. We have no doctors to do it. I was on a coach last week, the


coach driver stopped in the service station for an hour, they were


stopping for a rest. We cannot do it. Even if you gave us millions


more money, and thankfully NHS is recognising that we need a solution


through the five-day week, we haven't got the doctors to deliver


this. It would take a while to get them? That's my point, that's why we


need to be using all how care professional. Even if you got this


right, would it make a difference to what many regard as the crisis in


our hospitals? I think it would. If you look at patients, they just want


to go to a service that will address the problems. In Scotland for


example, pharmacists have their own patient list. Patients go and see


the pharmacists first. There are lots of conditions, for example if


you want anticoagulants, you don't necessarily need to see a doctor, a


pharmacist can manage that and free up the doctor in other ways. The


Prime Minister has said that if things do not change she is


threatening to reduce funding to things do not change she is


doctors who do not comply. Can you both agree, that is probably an


empty threat, that's not going to happen? I hope it's an empty threat.


We're trying our best. People like me in my profession, the seniors in


our profession, are really trying to pull up morale and get people into


general practice, which is a wonderful profession, absolutely


wonderful place to be. But slapping us off and telling us that we are


lazy really doesn't help. I really don't think anybody is doing that.


We have run out of time, but I'm certain that we will be back to the


subject before this winter is out. It's just gone 11:35am,


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. Both Kezia Dugdale and Jeremy Corbyn


want to relaunch their respective bits of the Labour Party -


but will the public I'll be speaking to


the deputy leader of The head of the BMA tells us the NHS


is approaching system breakdown. And new rules to stop


the concentration of betting shops But is it enough to stop


problem gambling? After being relegated to the third


party in the Scottish Parliament, Labour have been looking


to rebuild their support. But with the negative headlines


about the party down south and the party up here struggling


to gain a hearing from its former supporters, is there a future


for Scottish Labour? With council elections coming up,


it's rather an urgent I'm joined now by the Deputy leader


of Scottish Labour, Alex Rowley. Can I just ask you something quickly


about this Constitutional Convention idea that you'd got -


is this going to be set up now? Yeah, Jeremy Corbyn is in Scotland


this week, it he will be setting out his view in terms of a UK


constitutional convention. The Scottish Labour Party will input


constitutional convention. The into that. We've said we need to


look at, not Scotland, but the rest of the United Kingdom, so yes, that


will come forward. He did an interview with Andrew Marr


this morning, and he said, we're going to be continuing with


discussions in Scotland next Friday, we're setting up a constitutional


convention, is that when we get towards the general election, we


will be in some degree of consensus. It was Labour who set up their


Constitutional Convention in Scotland which led to the Scottish


parliament. What is clear is that the UK constitution is no longer in


line with where Government right across the UK is.


I thought it was an idea that you might do a few won an election. But


you say this is great to be set up in your starting to plan for it?


Absolutely, we will be asking other political parties, and Jeremy Corbyn


will say some thing about that. This is the approach that Labour took to


set up a Scottish parliament, to set is the approach that Labour took to


up and all Haydn party convention and for the wider society.


This would be up in morning when? Jeremy Corbyn will speak for himself


later in the week, the discussions within Scottish Labour is that we


need to get that convention up and running as soon as possible.


OK. Jeremy Corbyn said this week he was not wedded to free movement of


labour, something you don't seem to agree with? Emily Thornley said this


morning, Labour wouldn't die in a ditch for it?


There is concern right across the United Kingdom in terms of


immigration. What politicians should learn is that we should not run away


from that discussion or debate. What I and Scottish Labour has said is


that, in Scotland, economic migration has been good for


Scotland. Looking ahead, we need to have economic migration in Scotland.


Having that discussion about post-Brexit, what is the best way


forward, what we're saying, the migration for Scotland is actually


something our economy needs. So if Nicola Sturgeon and the


Scottish Government try to get some sort of control over immigration as


part of a deal in Brexit, you would support them?


We need to see what Theresa may has to say this week. We need to see


what the Brexit deal will be on the table. Scotland had input into that


discussion. In principle, it you wouldn't mind


Scotland having some sort of control over immigration?


We know we're going to be leaving the European Union, we don't know


what that deal will mean, it may mean there is some kind of


immigration policy. We need to look at what Scotland's interests were,


and how best Scotland but that our interests of forward in terms of


economic migrations, which we need in Scotland.


You wouldn't, in principle, be against Scotland having some sort of


control over immigration? We can look at that. There was a


group of MPs last week suggested that may be possible. We need to be


clear that, in Scotland, we do need to have more people coming to work


in Scotland. Economic migration has been good for Scotland. It is a


necessary step, moving forward. We need to have up policy which best


suits Scotland within the United Kingdom.


The news agenda has been dominated by the speech from Theresa May where


it is said she's good at wind policy that means that Britain leads the


single market and customs union. Do you support the Scottish


Government's efforts to get some, I don't UK deal to get the UK to stay


in the single market, or failing that, Scotland to remain?


I feel in the best interests of the United Kingdom we need to remain in


the single market. Failing that, we need to look at the options for


Scotland. We need to recognise that our biggest market is the rest of


the United Kingdom. Sure, but I'm not arguing about


independence, I'm asking you whether you support the efforts to get a


deal for Scotland? It would be best have a balance we


can achieve both. We have said to the Scottish Government we will work


alongside them to get the best deal possible for Scotland within the


United Kingdom. You said in July last year, you


wouldn't be opposed to having another independence referendum. If


that still your view? We get caught up too much in the


question of referendum. We just had Brexit, we need to regret the best


deal, going forward, for Scotland in the United Kingdom.


But the Scottish Government has said it is highly likely?


We need to listen to the Scottish people, since Brexit, poll after


poll has shown the Scottish people don't want another referendum now.


I use an you've change your mind? No, what're singers we need the best


possible deal for Brexit, and we can do that by ruling out the


possibility of a referendum within do that by ruling out the


the lifetime of this Parliament, so you can see what the best deal for


Scotland, coming out of the European Union.


Let me reiterate to you what you said, you said, I would not oppose


another independence referendum. I accept that the SNP were clear and


there is manifesto that the Scottish parliament would have the right to


hold one it was a change in circumstances since 2014, such as


Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will?


And I accept that the majority of people in Scotland had made clear


time and time again since that referendum, since the European


referendum, that we should take another referendum off the table for


now, and should be looking at getting the best deal possible for


Scotland within the United Kingdom. But you don't contradict that the


SNP have the right to hold one? Not a contradiction, but we should


listen to the people of Scotland. Poll after poll, and indeed on the


doorsteps, I was on the doorsteps of Fife yesterday, campaigning, and


people are saying that we should not have another referendum. We should


find out what the best way forward is for Scotland as part of the


Brexit deal. Kezia Dugdale said on this programme


in September 2015 that she didn't want to shut down debate in the and


collected Labour members and is politicians should be able to


campaign for independence there is another referendum. Is that still


the case? What the Labour Party in Scotland


are saying is that we should take the question of referendum off the


table for this Parliament. But there is another one, and Nicola


Sturgeon says it is highly likely. If I'm a Labour MSP, can I campaign


for independence? What we're saying is that there are


two polar opposite is being presented. The SNP want


independence, which we don't believe would be in Scotland's best


interests. But Kezia Dugdale says Webber MSPs


will be able to campaign for it? If I'm Labour Party member, will I be


allowed to campaign for independence?


In February, we will go to conference and put forward an


alternative to both those point of use, which will be that we need to


move forward and Scotland needs to remain part of the United Kingdom,


reject independence, reject the status quo in Westminster and go for


a more federal system. We're going to be asking our conference...


But if I'm a Labour MSP remember, can I campaign for independence?


I would expect Labour members and MSPs to support the position our


conference takes on fabric. So they don't come to favour


independence, you're not allowed to campaign for its?


I would expect MSPs to endorse the position our conference takes in


February. We're Democratic party. You've had dozens of positions on


independence, both you and Kezia Dugdale, over the past 12 months. At


one point, Kezia Dugdale said you might even vote for independence.


You're oh over the place. What we need is an alternative to


the status quo in Westminster. Can you understand the public


thinking you aren't part of the debate?


We are looking towards a position on as federal setup. I would expect


that if that's Labour Party policy is decided on their break, that MSPs


would support that policy. So they can to campaign for


independence. Would expect them to support party


policy. We will put forward a proposal, in fabric, for a federal


approach to the United Kingdom. If you want to get back on the


agenda for Labour in Scotland, there are things you to sort out. The


Scottish Secretary, David Anderson, wonderful chap I'm surely years,


represent a constituency in Newcastle. Is that a satisfactory


state of affairs? The first thing we need to do is


have a clear policy on the constitution.


Is it acceptable that Labour's shadow Scottish Secretary is from


Newcastle? As the result of a general election


will be lost all but one seat in Scotland, we don't have that


position. We are in that position because we have not been consistent


on policy on the constitution. That is the first and we need to address,


and we will address it at our conference and debris, where we set


out very clearly our position on the constitution.


But if you're all going to come together, wouldn't be more sensible


for Ian Murray to rejoin Jeremy Corbyn's team?


That is the matter for those two gentlemen. We are where we are and


in a situation we are in. We've got one MP in Scotland, and it is for


that MP and the leader of the party at UK level to decide if he is bound


to be part of that Shadow Cabinet. Banca very much.


This week the Health Secretary Shona Robison will make a statement


to MSPs about the delay in the opening of a network


The issue prompted some lively exchanges at last week's


But, after weeks of headlines detailing problems at NHS


hospitals in England, what is the state of


Just before we came on air, I spoke to Dr Peter Bennie, who's the chair


You have spoken about how spending on the health service has stagnated


since the financial crash. Politicians say it has increased in


real terms. I assume what you mean is that that may be true but it is


not increasing in a way that the demand of the services increasing?


Yes. The requirement that health service has is at least 4% increase


just a standstill, that is primarily because of the cost of drugs and the


cost of new technology. Factoring also that as each year goes by, the


population grows and multiple illnesses and we do not have the to


keep doing everything we are doing now. But realistically in current


times, 4% per annum increase is just not going to happen. That is at


least the case that since the austerity policies from the UK


Government came into place in 2010, health service across the UK has


felt the brunt of that, yes. What is the solution to this? If you give


focus to the health service and its current situation, and where other


services are being cut more than the health service even further. First


and foremost we want politicians across all parties to be honest


about this. If you look at the recruitment position, we're running


vacancies right across the country, urban, rural, GP and we are fed up


with a mantra that says coming from the government we have more doctors


than ever before. The point is we need more again in order for people


to provide the service that people require. So why are you fed up? It


is true that there are more doctors than ever before. Because that court


is not relevant. The relevant question is do we have enough


doctors? Do we have enough nurses, do we have enough staff out of the


health service to provide the care that people need? At present we do


not. Because that goes up year on year. Is the problem that we are not


training enough doctors and nurses to get the numbers even if the money


was there or what? Training in some areas of the health service


need to improve. But for doctors we are training enough and we are going


to train more and their own initiatives to try and increase the


intake from the poorer sectors of society as well. All of that is


good. But the jobs themselves need to be more attractive than they are


at present. What does that mean? It means if you take general practice


for instance, right now general practitioners are stretched to


breaking point and a lot of what they're doing is work that could and


should be done by other members of the community staff, but that staff


isn't there. Now the government is working with the BMA with no real be


casting of primary care so that general practitioners are doing much


more of the complex care for patients in the community and the


more basic tasks are being done others. But the funding has to flow


to provide those extra staff in order to do it will stop that makes


the GP job far more rewarding and effective and we think it will


improve recruitment. Ayew simply saying, give us more money. Order


using money coming into the NHS could be spent on a better way? What


using money coming into the NHS we are saying is if there isn't


substantially more money then we want all politicians to open up an


honest debate with the public about what the hell services going to be


doing, because it cannot be doing everything it is trying to do now.


We simply do not have the resources in terms of the people and the money


in order to do that. So there will have to be some treatments could not


be carried out on the NHS? There are various different ways to look at


it. And the first step is to move away from the impression that the


government tries to give that things are OK just now. Because they are


not. And where are they not? As I missing earlier, we simply do not


have enough staffing and enough financing. To do everything the


health service needs to do. We are stretched pretty much to breaking


point just trying to keep things going. If you take the situation


with consultant vacancies, we have consultant posts vacant for over six


months that are advertised that cannot be filled. What happens when


that is that all of the other staffs, consultants another doctors


and nurses, are taking on more work to trying keep things going. The


majority of staff in the health service are working way beyond what


they're supposed to be doing just to keep things running. And that reads


to personal breakdown and eventually leads to system breakdown. What does


that mean? If you say you are leads to system breakdown. What does


stretched to breaking point. What a system mean in the NHS? In effect


what we are concerned about is that we will not real to recruit to the


vacancies that we have. In fact the opposite, doctors will choose not to


work in the health service and go abroad. It means that the system


cannot do what it has to do, we cannot look after patients in a safe


way. We are not at that point at the moment, but it is moving towards


that. We have to leave it there. Thank you very much indeed.


Here to discuss are two MSPs from Holyrood's Health Committee.


For the SNP, Ivan McKee, and in our Edinburgh


studio is Miles Briggs, from the Scottish Conservatives.


Ivan, system breakdown sounds pretty alarming. Yes. You also heard the


doctor saying the government is working with the BMA to move forward


to resolve issues. The whole premise is that health expenditure has to


rise to keep in pace with demand. The SNP Government has committed


?500 million more than inflation over this government which more than


any other government has committed to than in the election. That is the


reality, we putting resources. So he is wrong to say that? We are putting


more resources than. We recognise that as part of the issue. He says


but as things stand at the moment, things are stretched to breaking


point and could be a system breaking point in the NHS, so they cannot


take care of patients safely. The government is working with the BMA.


You are not addressing the point. Let me finish. We have put more


resources and, we have committed ?500 million more than inflation


more than any other party. We are also addressing the issues round


about the health of the Seo/ Raqqa service. Which is what the BMA asked


for us, to prevent that preventative side of things to be more effective.


The shift to primary care which is imported and the integration of


health and social is critically aborted. There are a number of


things that are happening as well to make it more effective. System


breakdown, do you find that alarming. What we have heard from


Ivan is what the BMA have been complaining about, ministers are


dictating what they think they should be doing. We need to have a


wider discussion here. It is clear our health service in Scotland is


struggling. Last week the city that Ivan represents, they had to turn


away expectant mothers. We should be working across Parliament to resolve


these. That is why we are forcing ministers to come to Parliament next


week to tell us why trauma centres across Scotland have been delayed


for three years. Nothing you are saying addresses Peter Bennie's


point about system breakdown. You are not proposing to put any more


money in by the Conservatives than the SNP are. We have said that we


want to see that commitment. GPs are the first line in the health service


and for two long they have been undervalued. You are talking about


diverting existing money. While both of you are saying sounds like


fiddling at the margins, whereas Doctor Bennie is saying is there is


a potential serious crisis. If we'll look at the facts around this, since


2010 the UK Government have increased health spending around the


health service. Yes, what you're doing what Ivan dead. Peter Bennie


said he was fed up about hearing about what politicians were doing.


-- Ivan did.. We know we have an ageing population. That should not


be a problem but an asset. How we look at redesigning services across


Scotland to meet that challenge. That is something we have been


putting ideas forward. The Scottish Government is not taking those on


board. Do we need to have at some point, we put significant income tax


significantly to pay for the needs of the NHS, or we say, look, we


cannot do, the NHS cannot do everything it is expected to do. The


debate is going all the time, there is lots going on to reshape the


health service and move it forward. The SNP committed to fit ?500


million. It is the fact that we have committed to increase the 11% then


spend on primary care is all GPs have got that money. We have already


committed to do that. We have done those things. In terms of reshaping


the health service, that debate is going all the time. The reshaping of


health and social is moving apace in Scotland. The refocus on primary


care. The agenda around preventative Scotland. The refocus on primary


spend which we talk about every week is critically important. From both


of you, Peter Bennie said that the system are stretched to breaking


point and that if this continues, he says we're not there but we could


have a system breakdown. He says that what that means that the NHS


will not be to care of patients safely. It is more money which we


are doing. It is more doctors and nurses, which we are doing. And it


is reshaping the health service. There is no magic one tier. There


are a number of things that need to be done here. What are the BMA


worried about? You pressed him on that. He said yes the government is


working with the BMA to move this forward. We have agreed and signed


up to 11% that we asked for. We are taking significant steps to recruit


more doctors and nurses. In the last ten years since the SNP in


government, numbers have troubled. You have just given us a number of


what the Tories in London have been doing. Do you think the BMA are just


Daft and do not understand all these wonderful things that politicians


are doing further? Not at all. This is where the debate should start.


Our health service does not depend on the SNP government. It depends on


the people who work day in, day out to deliver it. We want to make their


life easier. That is crisis point that the BMA are warning about is


coming about because of the demands in health service and how our health


services are managing to court. We are finding out every single week


units which are not performing as well as they should be. Across


Scotland how our health service and our workforce planning has been


designed. Have not had a work force plan for ten years under this


government, so how can we work out what health professionals we need


and how we deliver health across what health professionals we need


Scotland? We will need to leave it there. Thank you both very much.


Councils are about to get new powers from Parliament to tackle concerns


about betting shops opening multiple outlets and


The rule change aims to make it easier for local authorities


to reject future applications if they want.


But the bookmakers body says the industry operates responsibly,


under tough regulation, and supports local economies.


Our reporter Andrew Black has been to West Dunbartonshire,


which has Scotland's highest concentration of betting shops.


Gambling became my be all and end all and it was the most important


thing in my life. I gambled all my money and it was my mother's


birthday and I could not buy her a gift. The guilt and remorse really


hit home. Bob is gambling addict. It started off with the odd punt on the


football and horses became something started off with the odd punt on the


much worse serious. I ran my own business at the time and I should


have been there since eight o'clock in the morning. But I had not left


work until six o'clock that morning. I would sleep till 12 in the day and


at 12 o'clock I would go to the I would sleep till 12 in the day and


bookmakers again. I would be there until closing time or until I lost


my money. Then I would go back to work and work through the night. And


then the same routine perpetuated itself. So, yeah, it got bad. In


Clydebank, there is concern is about bookmakers. This town is an West


Dunbartonshire which has the highest number of betting shops per person


in Scotland. Here we are in Clydebank town centre. To give you


an idea of the concentration of bookmakers shops in the area, here


is one of my shoulder. A second one just ran the corner,


another just round the road. Up all of these within 100m of each other.


The local planning chairman says that makers target less well off


areas. I don't doubt that areas like


Clydebank that have highly levels of deprivation are not able to say that


they aren't feeding on the honourable. That's my opinion.


Traditionally, bookmakers have found it easy to open a location at a


premises previously used by a bank on the grounds that provide a


financial service. Councils are considering new powers for


applications in their own right. West Dunbartonshire Council says it


will use those powers to stop bookmakers opening up, whether a lot


they wanted. Each application will be taken on


its merits, the likelihood is that there is a good likelihood that they


would not be allowed within town centres.


Are a betting shop starting poor areas?


Betting shops open in areas with high footfall undermanned. Since the


2008 crash, where we had a lot of High Street names go bust, we had a


situation where bookmakers made from secondary locations into prime, town


centre, High Street locations. In doing so, they brought a vibrancy to


our town centres, they brought jobs and investment into error


communities. They are providing business rates. The number of


bookmakers across Scotland has actually been a decline in recent


years. If you look at the estate today, computer 1970s, it has almost


halved. With lost 300 shops across the UK in the last year. Many of


them small operators. The betting industry says it's


already heavily regulate it and promotes responsible gambling.


Meanwhile, councils like West Dunbartonshire says they're not


opposed to betting shops out right, but say there's an important balance


to be struck. If you're affected by gambling


and would like more information, you can contact the Gamblers


Anonymous Scotland helpline It's time to look back at the events


of the past week and see what's And my guests this week


are the political editor of the Press Association Scotland,


Katrine Bussey and Tom Gordon who's Scottish political


editor at the Herald. Let's start with Labour. Katrine,


the idea that Kezia Dugdale, that you can be a Labour MSP or a member


and campaign for independence as there's another referendum, that


since gone out the window? It does with Alex Rowley's comments,


yes. Basically, you'll do what we decide at party conference. In a


way, it's good to see a clarity of message coming from Labour. I'm


thinking about how they've had also serve opinions on independence in


the last year or so, and recently Jackie Smith tweeting about the


importance of clarity, saying it's like a good underwear. You don't


want to wave it around, but you miss it when it's not there.


I think the idea, when Kezia Dugdale may the initial proposal, was to say


I think the idea, when Kezia Dugdale we want to be open to everyone and


we realise that a lot of were people who vote Labour, voted yeah to


independence. We might have the benefit of clarity, but the media


price to pay as well. There might be, and it is a work in


progress for Labour at the moment. They're putting together this


constitutional framework together, and progress will continue in that


quite quickly. Maybe, as Jeremy Corbyn says, by the time the next


election comes around, they will have a package to pitch to voters.


What are you policy of you will do what you are told?


It is difficult for Labour, a number of the candidates they had in the


election openly voted for Yes at the election, and they were slapped


down, as part of the Broadchurch that Labour had. Since then, there


been a problem with so many people freelancing.


If that is the case that the party conference decides against test


welcome he didn't suggest that, but let's assume it will,


-, will Labour candidates Bay that instruction, do you think?


It won't be long before the next Holyrood or general election comes


to the test. Labour are groping their way towards a position. The


SNP and Conservatives are unified on their possessions. Labour, with


people and virtually every camp, or trying to arrive at a solution.


The problem they have is that it would involve devolution in England.


John Prescott tried that, not the wanted it. Jeremy Corbyn was talking


about this morning. You need that English bets, to get a


constitutional settlement for the entire UK?


Libertad Gotze been banging on about it for decades and it hasn't come to


pass. -- Liberal Democrats have been. The solution may never come to


pass, but it may satisfy them politically in the short term.


The problem they have, when it comes to nationalists, you can do better


than the Scottish Nationalists. When it comes to unionism, the Tories


have that stitched up. The Tories have defined themselves


as the party of the union. The cool as the party of the union. The cool


-- the clue is in the name, as Ruth Davidson would say. Labour have


flip-flopped a bit. Brexit, Tom, if any of the stuff


we're been hearing about all morning is true, about what Theresa May is


going to say, this is not been focused on, but she's effectively


saying to Nicola Sturgeon, you can just forget it?


It does sound like that. She said the Conservative conference she


wouldn't sign up to the ECG, she would prioritise immigration control


over freedom of movement. All those things are the last thing that


Nicola Sturgeon once to hear. So it looks like Theresa May, the small


quotes we have from the speech, are talking about one nation will stop


and people who were on the Remain side coming together and putting


that behind them. So what do you do? Do you say we'll


have a second referendum or do you fudge it a bit?


It makes it very hard for Nicola Sturgeon to avoid having a second


referendum. He had this very specific example in the SNP


manifesto about what would trigger a second referendum. Theresa May is


going to deliver an effectively big slap in the face to her plan, the


colour sturgeon and around and say, the conditions were met from our


manifesto, the conditions we have two endured are intolerable, and a


thinker and troops want it to happen.


This is getting tighter and tighter happen.


issue, isn't it? The other side is presumably the SNP aren't


entirely... There was talk last year they wanted 60 present in the polls


for six months or so. The old line, you don't have a referendum in less


you're absolutely certain you can win it. But like they can't be


certain? Nicola Sturgeon might find herself


painted into a corner. She came at very strongly and quickly after the


European referendum and said, this makes another independence


referendum highly likely. But since then, there has not been the shift


in the polls she might perhaps have hoped to have seen.


Let's briefly mention section 40, Andrew Neil was talking to Max


Mosley, are you concerned about it? We have very little time.


TA are very concerned about it, they have made a submission to the UK


Government warning about the chilling threat this poses, it is an


expensive unnecessary injustice. All journalists have to be concerned.


The Herald not taking part? Where are not for it. It is a


charlatan's charger, you get punished for telling the truth. It's


outrageous. And they would convince the Herald


to change its mind. We are very firmly against it.


Thank you. I'll be back at the


same time next week.


Download Subtitles