15/01/2017 Sunday Politics Scotland

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.