05/02/2017 Sunday Politics Scotland

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

Theresa May pledged to help people who are "just about managing",

and this week her government will announce new measures to boost

the number of affordable homes and improve conditions for renters.

After a US court suspends Donald Trump's travel ban and rules

it could be unconstitutional, one of the President's inner circle

tells me there is no "chaos", and that Donald Trump's White House

is making good on his campaign promises.

As the Government gets into gear for two years

of Brexit negotiations, we report on the haggling to come

over the UK's Brexit bill for leaving the European Union -

and the costs and savings once we've left.

And coming up on Sunday Politics Scotland: The Scottish Secretary

David Mundell on Brexit, Article 50 and whether a second

And with me, as always, a trio of top political

journalists - Helen Lewis, Tom Newton Dunn

They'll be tweeting throughout the programme,

So, more anguish to come this week for the Labour party as the House

of Commons continues to debate the bill which paves the way

Last week, Labour split over the Article 50 bill,

with a fifth of Labour MPs defying Jeremy Corbyn to vote against.

Five shadow ministers resigned, and it's expected Mr Corbyn

will have to sack more frontbenchers once the bill is voted

Add to that the fact that the Labour Leader's close ally

Diane Abbot failed to turn up for the initial vote -

blaming illness - and things don't look too rosy

The Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry was asked

about the situation earlier on the Andrew Marr show.

The Labour Party is a national party and we represent the nation,

and the nation is divided on this, and it is very difficult.

Many MPs representing majority Remain constituencies have this very

difficult balancing act between - do I represent my constituency,

Labour, as a national party, have a clear view.

We fought to stay in Europe, but the public have spoken,

But the important thing now is not to give Theresa May a blank check,

we have to make sure we get the right deal for the country.

That was Emily Thornberry. Helen, is this like a form of Chinese water

torture for the Labour Party? And for journalists, to! We are in a

situation where no one really thinks it's working. A lot of authority has

drained away from Jeremy Corbyn but no one can do anything about it.

What we saw from the leadership contest is on the idea of a Blairite

plot to get rid of him. You are essentially stuck in stasis. The

only person that can remove Jeremy Corbyn is God or Jeremy Corbyn.

Authority may have moved from Mr Corbyn but it's not going anywhere

else, there's not an alternative centre of authority? Not quite, but

Clive Lewis is name emerging, the Shadow Business Secretary. A lot of

the Labour left, people like Paul Mason, really like him and would

like to see him in Corbyn. I think that's why Jeremy Corbyn do

something extraordinary next week and abstain from Article 50, the

main bill itself, to keep his Shadow Cabinet together. That clip on

Andrew Marr, point blank refusing to say if Labour will vote for Article

50. The only way Jeremy Corbyn can hold this mess together now is to

abstain, which would be catastrophic across Brexit constituencies in the

North. The problem with abstention is everyone will say on the issue of

our time, the official opposition hasn't got coherent or considered

policy? I love the way Emily Thornberry said the country is

policy? I love the way Emily divided and we represent the

country, in other words we are divided at the party as well. The

other thing that was a crucial moment this week is the debate over

whether there should be a so-called meaningful vote by MPs on the deal

that Theresa May gets. That is a point of real danger for Brexit

supporters. It may well be there is a coalition of Labour and SNP and

Remain MPs, Tory MPs, who vote for that so-called meaningful vote that

could undermine Theresa May's negotiation. So Theresa May could

have had troubles as well, not plain sailing for her? There is no point,

apart from lonely Ken Clarke voting against Article 50, no point in Tory

remainders rebelling. It would have been a token gesture with no

support. But there might be meaningful amendments. One might be

on the status of EU nationals... The government could lose that. There

might be a majority for some of those amendments. The ins and outs

of the Labour Party, it fascinates the Labour Party and journalists. I

suspect the country has just moved on and doesn't care. You are

probably quite right. To be honest I struggled to get Labour split

stories in my paper any more, the bar is so high to make it news.

Where it does matter is now not everyone will pay huge amounts to

the -- of attention to the vote on Wednesday. But come the general

election in 2020, maybe a little earlier, every Tory leaflet and

every labour constituency will say this guy, this goal, they refuse to

vote for Brexit, do you want them in power? That is going to be really

hard for them. The story next week may be Tory splits rather than just

Labour ones, we will see. Theresa May has made a big deal out

of her commitment to help people on middle incomes who are "just

about managing", and early this week we should get a good sense

of what that means in practice - when plans to bring down the cost

of housing and protect renters are published in the Government's

new white paper. Theresa May has promised she'll kick

off Brexit negotiations with the EU by the end of March,

and after months of shadow-boxing Ellie Price reports on the battle

to come over the UK's Brexit bill, and the likely costs and savings

once we've left. It was the figure that defined

the EU referendum campaign. It was also a figure that was

fiercely disputed, but the promise - vote leave and Britain won't have

to pay into the EU are any more. So, is that what's

going to happen now? The trouble with buses is you tend

to have to wait for them and when Theresa May triggers

Article 50, the clock starts She needs something quicker,

something more sporty. According to the most

recent Treasury figures, Britain's gross contribution

to the EU, after the rebate is taken into account,

is about ?14 billion a year. There are some complicating factors

that means it can go up or down year on year,

but that's roughly how much the UK will no longer sending

to Brussels post-Brexit. But, there are other payments that

Britain will have to shell out for. First and foremost,

the so-called divorce settlement. It is being said, and openly

by Commissioner Barnier and others in the Commission,

that the total financial liability as they see it might

be in the order of 40-60 billion The BBC understands the figure EU

negotiators are likely to settle on is far lower,

around 34 billion euros, but what does the money

they are going to argue Well, that's how much Britain owes

for stuff in the EU budget that's already signed up for until 2020,

one year after we are Historically, Britain pays

12% in contributions, so the cost to the UK is likely

to be between ten Then they will look at the 200-250

billion euros of underfunded spending commitments,

the so-called RAL. Britain could also be liable

for around 5-7 billion euros for its share in the pensions bill

for EU staff, that's again 12% of an overall bill

of 50-60 billion. Finally there's a share

of our assets held by the EU. They include things like this

building, the European Commission Britain could argue it deserves

a share back of around 18 billion euros from a portfolio that's said

to be worth 153 billion euros. So, lots for the two sides

to discuss in two years of talks. They have a great opportunity

with the Article 50 talks because actually they can hold

us to ransom. They can say, "You figure out money,

we will talk about your trade. But until you've figured out

the money, we won't," so I think a lot of European states think

they are in a very strong negotiating position at the moment

and they intend to make The principle is clear,

the days of Britain making vast contributions to the European Union

every year will end. Theresa May has already indicated

that she would want to sign back up to a number of EU agencies

on a program-by-program basis. The Europol for example,

that's the European crime agency, or Erasmus Plus,

which wants student exchanges. If everything stays the same

as it is now, it would cost the UK 675 million euros a year,

based on analysis by But there are likely to be agencies

we don't choose to participate in. If we only opted back to those

dealing with security, trade, universities and,

say, climate change, it could come with a price tag

of 370 million euros per year. Of course that's if our European

neighbours allow us. I wonder if they're

going to let me in! There will also be a cost

to creating a new system to resolve trade disputes with other nations

once we are no longer part Take the EFTA Court

which rules on disputes between the EU and Norway,

Iceland and Lichtenstein. That costs 4 million

euros to run each year, though in the Brexit White Paper

published this week, the Government said it will not be

constrained by precedent Finally, would the EU get behind

the idea of Britain making some contribution for some preferential

access to its market? The sort of thing that

Theresa May seems to be hinting at are sectoral arrangements,

some kind of partial membership Switzerland, which has a far less

wide-ranging deal than Norway, pays about 320 million a year

for what it gets into the EU budget, but it's not exactly the Swiss

deal that we're after. The EU institutions hate the Swiss

deal because it is codified in a huge number of treaties that

are messy, complicated and cumbersome, and they really

don't want to replicate Theresa May has been at pains

to insist she's in the driving seat when it comes to these negotiations,

and that she's But with so much money up

for discussion, it may not be such Sadly she didn't get to keep the

car! And I've been joined to discuss

the Brexit balance sheet by the director of the Centre

for European Reform, Charles Grant, and by Henry Newman who runs

the think tank Open Europe. Henry Newman, these figures that are

being thrown about in Brussels at the moment, and exit bill of

40-60,000,000,000. What do you make of them? I think it is an opening

gambit from the institutions and we should take them seriously. We

listened to Mr Rogers, the former ambassador to Brussels in the House

of Commons last week, speaking about the sort of positions the EU is

likely to take in the negotiation. I personally think the Prime Minister

should be more concerned about getting the right sort of trade

arrangements, subsequent to our departure, than worrying about the

exact detail of the divorce settlement and the Bill. They might

not let them go on to trade until they resolve this matter. Where does

the Brexit bill, the cost of exit, if there is to be one, in terms of a

sum of money, where does that come in the negotiations, upfront or at

the end? The European Commission has a firm line on this. You have to

talk about the Brexit bill and the divorce settlement before you talk

about the future relationship. Therefore they are saying if you

don't sign up for 60 billion or thereabouts, we won't talk about the

future. Other member states take a softer line than that and think you

probably have to talk about the divorce settlement and Brexit bill

as the same -- at the same time as the economic situation. If you can

do both at the same time, the atmosphere may be better natured.

You have spoken to people in Brussels and are part of a think

tank, how Revista gives the figure or is it an opening gambit? Most

member states and EU institutions believe they think it is the true

figure but when the negotiations start adding the number will come

down. As long as the British are prepared to sign up to the principle

of we owe you a bit of money, as the cheque, then people will compromise.

What is the ballpark? You had a figure of 34 billion, that is news

to me, nobody knows because negotiations haven't started but I

think something lower than 60. Even 60 would be politically toxic for a

British government? I think Theresa May is in a strong position, she has

united the Conservative Party. You could expect coming into this year

all the Conservative divisions would be laid bare by Gina Miller. But she

is leading a united party. Labour Party are divided... Coogee get away

with paying 30 billion? We should give her the benefit of the doubt

going into these negotiations, let her keep her cards close to her

chest. The speech he gave a few weeks ago at Lancaster House, our

judgment was she laid out as much detail as we could have expected at

that point. I don't think it's helpful for us now to say, we

shouldn't be introducing further red line. I want you to be helpful and

find things out. I would suggest if there is a bill, let's say it's 30

billion, let's make it half of what the current claims coming out of

Brussels. And of course it won't have to be paid in one year, I

assume it's not one cheque but spread over. But we will wait a long

time for that 350 million a week or what ever it was that was meant to

come from Brussels to spend on the NHS. That's not going to happen for

the next five, six or seven years. Everyone has been clear there will

be a phased exit programme. The question of whether something is

political possible for her in terms of the divorce settlement will

depend on what she gets from the European Union in those

negotiations. If she ends up settling for a bill of about 30

billion which I think would be politically... No matter how popular

she is, politically very difficult for her, it does kill any idea there

is a Brexit dividend for Britain. Some of the senior officials in

London and Brussels are worried this issue could crash the talks because

it may be possible for Theresa May to accept a Brexit bill of 30

billion and if there is no deal and will leave EU without a settlement,

there is massive legal uncertainty. What contract law applies? Can our

planes take off from Heathrow? Nobody knows what legal rights there

are for an EU citizen living here and vice versa. If there is no deal

at the end of two years, it is quite bad for the European economy,

therefore they think they have all the cards to play and they think if

it is mishandled domestically in Britain than we have a crash. But

there will be competing interests in Europe, the Baltic states, Eastern

Europe, maybe quite similar of the Nordic states, that in turn

different from the French, Germans or Italians. How will Europe come to

a common view on these things? At the moment they are quite united

backing a strong line, except for the polls and Hungarians who are the

bad boys of Europe and the Irish who will do anything to keep us happy.

We should remember their priority is not economics, they are not thinking

how can they maximise trade with the UK, they are under threat. The

combination of Trump and Brexit scares them. They want to keep the

institutions strong. They also want to keep Britain. That is the one

strong card we have, contributing to security. We know we won't be

members of the single market, that was in the White Paper. The

situation of the customs union is more complicated I would suggest.

Does that have cost? If we can be a little bit pregnant in the customs

union, does that come with a price ticket? We have got some clarity on

the customs union, the Prime Minister said we would not be part

of the... We would be able to do our own trade deals outside the EU

customs union, and also not be part of the common external tariff. She

said she is willing to look at other options and we don't know what that

will be so as a think tank we are looking at this over the next few

weeks and coming up with recommendations for the Government

and looking at how existing boundaries between the EU customs

union and other states work in practice. For example between

Switzerland and the EU border, Norway and Switzerland, and the UK

and Canada. We will want is a country the freedom to do our own

free trade deals, that seems to be quite high up there, and to change

our external tariffs to the rest of the world. If that's the case, we do

seem to be wanting our cake and eating it in the customs union.

Talking to some people in London, it is quite clear we are leaving the

essentials of the customs union, the tariff, so even if we can minimise

controls at the border by having mutual recognition agreements, so we

recognise each other's standards, but there will still have to be

checks for things like rules of origin and tariffs if tariffs apply,

which is a problem for the Irish because nobody has worked out how

you can avoid having some sort of customs control on the border

between Northern Ireland and the South once we are out of the customs

union. I think it's important we don't look at this too much as one

side has to win and one side has to lose scenario. We can find ways. My

Broadview is what we get out of the negotiation will depend on politics

more than economic reality. Economic reality is strong, there's a

good case for a trade deal on the solution on the customs deal, but

Britain will need to come up with a positive case for our relationship

and keep making that case. If it turns out the Government thinks the

bill is too high, that we can't really get the free trade deal done

in time and it's left hanging in the wind, what are the chances, how I as

things stand now that we end up crashing out? I'd say there's a 30%

chance that we don't get the free trade agreement at the end of it

that Mrs May is aiming for. The very hard crash is you don't even do an

Article 50 divorce settlement from you go straight to World Trade

Organisation rules. The less hard crash is doing the divorce

settlement and transitional arrangements would require European

Court of Justice arrangements. We will leave it there. Thank you,

both. Donald Trump's flagship policy

of extreme vetting of immigrants and a temporary travel ban

for citizens of seven mainly-muslim countries was stopped

in its tracks this weekend. On Friday a judge ruled the ban

should be lifted and that it That prompted President Trump

to fire off a series of tweets criticising what he says

was a terrible decision by a so-called judge,

as he ordered the State Department Now the federal appeals court has

rejected his request to reinstate the ban until it hears

the case in full. Well yesterday I spoke

to Sebastian Gorka, Deputy Assistant I asked him if the confusion

over the travel ban was a sign that the President's

two-week-old administration There is no chaos, you really

shouldn't believe the spin, the facts speak for themselves. 109

people on Saturday were mildly inconvenienced by having their entry

into the United States delayed out of 325,000. So let's not get carried

away with the left-wing media bias and spin. Hold on, 60,000 - 90,000

people with visas, their visas are no longer valid. That's another

issue. You need to listen to what I'm saying. The people who entered

on the day of the executive order being implemented worth 109 people

out of 325. Whether people won't travelling to America were affected

is another matter, so there is no chaos to comment on. Following

Iran's latest missile tests, National Security adviser Flint said

the US was "Putting Iran on notice", what does that mean? It means we

have a new president and we are not going to facilitate the rise of one

of the most dangerous nations in the world. We are jettisoning this naive

and dangerous policy of the Obama Administration to try and make the

Shi'ite dictatorial democracy some kind of counter balance to extremist

Sunni groups in the region and that they cannot continue to behave in

the way they have behaved for the last 30 years. It is a very simple

message. So are there any multilateral alliances that Mr Trump

would like to strengthen? Absolutely. If we are looking at the

region, if you listen to what President Trump has said and

specifically to also the speeches of general Flint, his national security

adviser, we are incredibly vested in seeing our Sunni allies in the

region come together in a real coalition. The so-called vaunted 66

nation coalition that was created under the Obama administration...

There was no coalition. But we want to help our Sunni allies, especially

the Egyptians, the Jordanians, come together in a real partnership to

take the fight to ISIS and groups like Al-Qaeda. But there is not a

formal multilateral alliance with these countries. Which of the

existing, formal multilateral alliances does Mr Trump wants to

strengthen? If you are specifically talking about Nato, it is clear that

we are committed to Nato but we wish to see a more equitable burden

sharing among the nations that are simply not spending enough on their

own defence so the gentleman 's agreement of 2% of GDP has to be

stuck to, unlike the, I think it's only Six Nations that reach the

standard today out of almost 30. So he does want to strengthen Nato

then? Absolutely, he believes Nato is the most successful military

alliances. You mustn't believe the spin and hype. EU leaders now see

the Trump administration as a threat up there with Russia, China,

terrorism. What's your response to that? I have to laugh. The idea that

the nation that came to the salvation of Europe twice in the

20th century hummer in World War I and World War II, was central to the

defeat of the totalitarian... It is not even worth commenting on. Would

it matter to the Trump administration if the European Union

broke up? The United States is very interested in the best relations

possible with all the nations of the EU am a whether the European union

wishes to stay together or not is up to the nations of the European

Union. I understand that but I was wondering what the US view would be.

Until Mr Trump, EU foreign policy was quite consistent in wanting to

see the EU survive, prosper and even become more integrated. Now that

doesn't seem to be the case, so would it matter to the Trump

administration if the EU broke up? I will say yet again, it is in the

interests of the United States to have the best relations possible

with our European allies, and whether that is in the formation of

the EU or if the EU by itself suffers some kind of internal

issues, that's up to the European nations and not something we will

comment on. Listening to that answer, it would seem as if this

particular president's preference is to deal with individual nation

states rather than multilateral institutions. Is that fair? I don't

think so. There's never been an unequivocal statement by that effect

by the statement. Does he share the opinion of Stephen Bannon that the

21st century should see a return to nation states rather than growing

existing multilateral ways? I think it is fair to say that we have

problems with political elites that don't take the interests of the

populations they represent into account. That's why Brexit happened.

I think that's why Mr Trump became President Trump. This is the

connected phenomena. You are obsessing about institutions, it is

not about institutions, it's about the health of democracy and whether

political elites do what is in the interests of the people they

represent. Given the unpredictability of the new

president, you never really know what he's going to do next, would it

be wise for the British Prime Minister to hitch her wagon to his

star? This is really churlish questioning. Come on, you don't know

what he's going to do next, listen to what he says because he does what

he's going to say. I know this may be shocking to some reporters, but

look at his campaign promises, and the fact that in the last 15 days we

have executed every single one that we could in the time permissible so

there is nothing unpredictable about Donald Trump as president. OK then,

if we do know what he's going to do next, what is he going to do next?

Continue to make good on his election promises, to make America

great again, to make the economy are flourishing economy, and most

important of all from your perspective in the UK, to be the

best friend possible to our friends and the worst enemy to our enemies.

It is an old Marine Corps phrase and we tend to live by it. Thank you for

your time, we will leave it there. Doctor Gorka, making it clear this

administration won't spend political capital on trying to keep the

European Union together, a watershed change in American foreign policy.

Theresa May has made a big deal out of her commitment to help people

on middle incomes who are "just about managing", and early this week

we should get a good sense of what that means in practice -

when plans to bring down the cost of housing and protect renters

are published in the Government's new white paper.

The paper is expected to introduce new rules on building

Communities Secretary Sajid Javid has previously said politicians

should not stand in the way of development, provided all options

Also rumoured are new measures to speed up building the 1 million

new homes the Government promised to build by 2020,

including imposing five-year quotas on reluctant councils.

Reports suggest there will be relaxation of building

height restrictions, allowing home owners and developers

to build to the height of the tallest building on the block

without needing to seek planning permission.

Other elements trialled include new measures to stop developers

sitting on parcels of land without building homes,

land banking, and moving railway station car parks Underground,

The Government today said it will amend planning rules so more

homes can be built specifically to be rented out through longer term

tenancies, to provide more stability for young families,

alongside its proposed ban on letting agent fees.

And the Housing Minister, Gavin Barwell, joins me now.

Welcome to the programme. Home ownership is now beyond the reach of

most young people. You are now emphasising affordable homes for

rent. Why have you given up on the Tory dream of a property owning

democracy? We haven't given up on that. The decline on home ownership

in this country started in 2004. So far we have stopped that decline, we

haven't reversed it but we absolutely want to make sure that

people who want to own and can do so. The Prime Minister was very

clear a country that works for everyone. That means we have to have

say something to say to those who want to rent as well as on. Home

ownership of young people is 35%, used to be 60%. Are you telling me

during the lifetime of this government that is going to rise? We

want to reverse the decline. We have stabilised it. The decline started

in 2004 under Labour. They weren't bothered about it. We have taken

action and that has stop the decline... What about the rise? We

have to make sure people work hard the right thing have the chance to

own their home on home. We have helped people through help to buy,

shared ownership, that is part of it, but we have to have something to

say to those who want to rent. You say you want more rented homes so

why did you introduce a 3% additional stamp duty levied to pay

those investing in build to rent properties? That was basically to

try and stop a lot of the speculation in the buy to let

market. The Bank of England raised concerns about that. When you see

the white paper, you will see there is a package of measures for Bill to

rent, trying to get institutional investment for that, different to

people going and buying a home on people going and buying a home on

the private market and renting out. You are trying to get institutional

money to comment, just as this government and subsequent ones

before said it would get pension fund money to invest in

infrastructure and it never happened. Why should this happen? Is

already starting to happen. If you go around the country you can see

some of these builder rent scheme is happening. There are changes in the

White Paper... How much money from institutions is going into bill to

rent modular hundreds of millions. I was at the stock exchange the other

day celebrating the launch of one of our bombs designed to get this money

on. There are schemes being... There is huge potential to expand it. We

need more homes and we are too dependent on a small number of large

developers. -- to launch one of our bonds. You talk about affordable

renting, what is affordable? Defined as something that is at least 20%

below the market price. It will vary around the country. Let me put it

another way. The average couple renting now have to spend 50% of

their income on rent. Is that affordable? That is exactly what

we're trying to do something about. Whether you're trying to buy or

rent, housing in this country has become less and less affordable

because the 30-40 years governments haven't built in times. This white

Paper is trying to do something about that. You have been in power

six, almost seven years. That's right. Why are ownership of new

homes to 24 year low? It was a low figure because it's a new five-year

programme. That is not a great excuse. It's not an excuse at all.

The way these things work, you have a five-year programme and in the

last year you have a record number of delivery and when you start a new

programme, a lower level. If you look at the average over six years,

this government has built more affordable housing than the previous

one. Stiletto 24 year loss, that is an embarrassment. Yes. We have the

figures, last year was 32,000, the year before 60 6000. You get this

cliff edge effect. It is embarrassing and we want to stop it

happening in the future. You want to give tenants more secure and longer

leases which rent rises are predictable in advance. Ed Miliband

promoted three-year tenancies in the 2015 general election campaign and

George Osborne said it was totally economically illiterate. What's

changed? You are merging control of the rents people in charge, which

we're not imposing. We want longer term tenancies. Most people have

six-month tenancies... Within that there would be a control on how much

the rent could go up? Right? It would be set for the period of the

tenancies. That's what I just said, that's what Ed Miliband proposed. Ed

Miliband proposed regulating it for the whole sector. One of the reasons

institutional investment is so attractive, if you had a spare home

and you want to rent out, you might need it any year, so you give it a

short tenancy. If you have a block, they are interested in a long-term

return and give families more security. You have set a target,

your government, to build in the life of this parliament 1 million

new homes in England by 2020. You're not going to make that? I think we

are. If you look at 2015-16 we had 190,000 additional homes of this

country. Just below the level we need to achieve. Over five...

country. Just below the level we 2015-16. You were probably looking

at the new homes built. Talking about completions in England. That

is not the best measure, with respect. You said you will complete

1 million homes by 2020 so what is wrong with it? We use a national

statistic which looks at new homes built and conversions and changes of

use minus demolitions. The total built and conversions and changes of

change of the housing stock over that year. On that basis I have the

figures here. I have the figures. You looking I just completed. 1

million new homes, the average rate of those built in the last three

quarters was 30 6000. You have 14 more quarters to get to the 1

million. You have to raise that to 50 6000. I put it to you, you won't

do it. You're not looking at the full picture of new housing in this

country. You're looking at brand-new homes and not including conversions

or changes of use are not taking off, which we should, demolitions.

If you look at the National statistic net additions, in 2015-16,

100 and 90,000 new homes. We are behind schedule. -- 190,000. I am

confident with the measures in the White Paper we can achieve that. It

is not just about the national total, we need to build these homes

are the right places. Will the green belt remain sacrosanct after the

white paper? Not proposing to change the existing protections that there

for green belts. What planning policy says is councils can remove

land from green belts but only in exceptional circumstances and should

look at at all the circumstances before doing that. No change? No. We

have a manifesto commitment. You still think you will get 1 million

homes? The green belt is only 15%. This idea we can only fix our broken

housing market by taking huge swathes of land out of the green

belt is not true. We will leave it there, thank you for joining us,

Gavin Barwell. It is coming up to 11.40.

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland, who leave us now

Good morning and welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland.

Is the Scottish Government's strategy for staying in the single

I'll be asking David Mundell, the Scottish Secretary.

And is an advert inviting foreign investment to Ireland

This week the Scottish Secretary will be in Brussels

as the legislative process to trigger article

David Mundell was the only Scottish MP to vote for the motion in last

Tomorrow the bill moves to the committee stage.

David Mundell joins me now from London.

Why are you going to Brussels this week? As part of the preparations

for the negotiations beginning on Brexit. I'm going to explain to a

lot of Scottish interests based in Brussels for the UK Government's

approach is. Particularly on what we have been doing regarding indigenous

stakeholders in Scotland. Are you taking part in negotiations with the

European Union as such? There is a great diaspora from Scotland and

Brussels. The resource that a lot of Scottish interests they are pursuing

Scottish interests in the EU. We want to know what the UK

Government's approaches to these negotiations. We are not beginning

the negotiation process. That will happen when Article 50 is triggered.

This week, we passed the bill which will allow that process to begin. It

will be in Parliament this week for committee stage. Amendments will be

brought forward. We hope we are now in a position to move forward with

the Prime Minister's timetable two treble Article 50 by the end of

March and that is when the formal negotiation process will begin. The

substantive bill on coming out of the European Union, not the bill to

trigger Article 50, you said that would need to be subject to a

legislative consent motion in the Scottish parliament and of the

Scottish Parliament didn't pass it, there would be very serious

consequences. What did you mean? Whatever setting out was there are

several pieces of legislation which will be required to see as leave the

EU. The first, as the Supreme Court determined, will be the bill to

trigger Article 50, hopefully and act by the end of March. We will

then have to set a new arrangements for our relationship with what was

the EU, our relationship with what was EU law. The first thing the

great repeal bill will do is to try and bring the body of EU law back

into Scots law and other legal systems in the UK so that at five

minutes after midnight the day we leave the EU, there isn't a gap in

the legal system. It will also abolish or repeal the European

Communities Act. The other thing it will do is look at how we repatriate

powers which are currently exercise in Brussels to the United Kingdom

and whether they come to Westminster or pilot come to Scotland or whether

there is some sort of mix. Because it's likely that bill will impact on

the powers and responsibilities of the Scottish parliament, then my

anticipation is that would be subject to the legislative consent

process in the Scottish parliament, unlike the Article 50 bill which is

a reserved matter. Should a Scottish parliament say they don't like any

of these Brexit things and say they are not going to pass it, what are

these serious consequences? My priority is to ensure we get

agreement on the Scottish Parliament for that they'll. That's why I will

focus about when the bill comes forward. If we left the EU and the

legal system that we previously operated under in relation to the

various rules and regulations that apply to so many things in relation,

for example, to the environment, didn't apply any more and was

effectively a gap in the law, that would be a very serious situation.

That's what the bill is about remedying. I hope and believe it

would get support in the Scottish Parliament. Your comment about very

serious consequences, do you mean just in the sense that the Scottish

parliament would not have done what you have just described in terms of

homologated law from Europe into Scots law? Or do you mean very

serious consequences for the whole of the UK? In particular, serious

consequences for Scotland if we were not able to ensure the body of

European law as currently exist and applies in Scotland did not come

into force immediately when we left the EU. I think there is widespread

agreement on that. That's what we want to ensure we achieve. What I'm

about is working closely with the Scottish Parliament, with the

Scottish Government, to make sure we can get agreement on the great

repeal Bill. That is not about whether or not we leave the EU, it's

about having sensible and proper arrangements in place when we do.

And I'm sure that MS peas and stakeholders right across Scotland

will understand the importance of that piece of legislation. Will

bring it forward in a White Paper to allow for discussion and debate

ahead of the bill being introduced in the Queen's Speech. I expect

there to be significant engagement across Scotland in that regard.

Continuing engagement with the Scottish Government. We've already

had serious discussions with them about that. The Scottish Government

has produced this paper about what it wants out of Brexit, which is

basically to stay in the single it wants out of Brexit, which is

market. It said unless it gets that, it will hold are very likely to hold

another independence referendum. To do that, it would need authorisation

from the British government. Michael Fallon seemed to imply this week

that the British government would not give that authorisation or at

least not before Brexit Ossetians have finished. He said, we have no

plans to help them hold a second independence referendum. Do you

agree? The Scottish Government should forget about holding another

independence referendum. I understand you don't want one.

Should the British government withhold one? Polling is

overwhelmingly clear that another referendum would be a very divisive

event. Will your government withhold authorisation? I have set out many

times previously on this programme and others, the issue is not about

whether there could be another independence referendum, of course

there could be. That is a process issue. As you indicate, as the

Scottish Government indicated in their own White Paper consultation,

that would require the agreement of the UK Government and legislation at

Westminster. The argument remains, should there be another independence

referendum? And that's where the debate needs to be and I'm

absolutely clear that there shouldn't be another

absolutely clear that there referendum. You're completely

avoiding the issue here. Let's take a step back. I don't understand why

I'm avoiding the issue. Further to be another independence referendum,

there would have to be agreement between the UK Government and the

Scottish Government. Should the UK Government give that agreement?

There is not currently a proposal on the table, but I don't want to have

the sort of process argument that the SNP luxuriate in. I won't have

the argument about whether or not there should be another independence

referendum. I believe firmly the answer to that question is no. It

would be extremely divisive. The people of Scotland have already made

their decision. What they want is to see the two government working

together to get the best possible deal for Scotland as we negotiate

with the 27 other members of the EU. This week, everyone from Nicola

Sturgeon down words was tweeting about Michael Fallon's remarks which

you won't address. Michael Fallon implied, forget it when it comes to

a second referendum. You know perfectly well that cannot be a

second referendum unless your government approves it. On this

programme, you have previously implied that you should not stand in

their way. Will you repeat that should the Scottish Government

organise another referendum, the British government will not stand in

its way. I don't understand how I'm not making the position is clear as

it absolutely is. There would require to be agreement between the

two government, between the Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament,

for another referendum to proceed. There is not currently a proposal on

the table for another referendum. That's why I think the focus of the

argument has to be on whether there should or should not be another

referendum. You said this 50 times. It is a process issue. The people of

Scotland are clearly don't want one and that's what we need to continue

to debate about. I'm not afraid of and that's what we need to continue

another referendum because I think it's pretty clear that the outcome

would be the same. But I dread it because I think it would be a

divisive and seriously unpleasant event. I don't think people want to

see that. They want to see the two governments working together at this

time to get the best possible deal for Scotland and the rest of the UK

as we leave the European Union. I think that sentence will get into

the Guinness book Of Records. Let's do some role-play. I'm Nicola

Sturgeon. I say, I know you don't want another independence

referendum, but we've decided were having one. Winnie need a permission

of the UK Government to have that. Is your answer yes or no? Firstly,

it's a matter for the Scottish Parliament to determine. It's not a

matter for the Scottish Government. If there is to be another

referendum, it would proceed on the basis, as set I've set out

repeatedly during the course of this interview and previously, on an

equivalent of the Edinburgh agreement. The two government is

reaching agreement. But there's not a proposal on the table and

therefore the debate shouldn't be about the process issue, which is

what the SNP love to have, about whether or not there could be

another referendum, the issue is should there be another referendum?

The answer to that is absolutely and categorically no. The people of

Scotland have voted decisively. We have

run out of according to all polls, people do not want another

referendum, the note would be divisive and unpleasant. Instead,

they want to get on with the decision that was previously made.

We have run out of time. I wanted to ask you one very brief question. The

Scottish Government's proposal is to stay in the single market by

Scotland becoming a member of the European free trade agreement. While

remaining part of the United Kingdom. Is there any possibility

whatsoever of that happening? It's not impossible, but I believe that

it is better to proceed on the basis that the Prime Minister set out of

getting access to the single market for the whole of the United Kingdom

with a free-trade agreement. I don't see the evidence to suggest that

Scotland needs or would benefit from a differentiated agreement, but my

mind is open and with intensified discussions to look at that. Thank

you. How do you regenerate Scotland's

former industrial areas? Cumnock in East Ayrshire thinks it

may have hit on a winning formula. It's similar to many former mining

areas which are grappling with how to reinvent themselves

for a post-industrial age. With most of the country's

population in towns not cities, the Government is keen to see

collaboration between residents and organisations lead to new life

in the places where most of us live. John McManus has been

to East Ayrshire to find If a is the story for mining

communities across Scotland. Digging coal brought a rich seam of jobs,

but scarred the landscape. Then the jobs dried up, now towns across east

Ayrshire are wondering how to reinvent themselves and do the same

time tackle deprivation and unemployment. It is remarkable,

isn't it? In 2007, Prince Charles acquired land here. Outline planning

permission was given for several hundred houses with reports this

would be an eco-village run on sustainable principles and built by

locals. But so far, only a few dozen houses have been completed. A

spokesman for the Prince said he it will be grown organically and

slowly, but could not say how many homes were planned for the next

phase. Locals have identified a new source of ideas. They want to

revitalise it partly on green principles. One idea is to use this

river to generate hydroelectric power and jobs. It is low-down on

the valley many rivers run through it, so you have a unique opportunity

that you harness hydroelectric power. You can put solar panels on

many buildings. We've got a brand-new campus we have built, so

you have got a huge amount of different green energy sources that

you could use. Consortium of organisations may provide the

start-up funding. It could be payback time. The surrounding area

has actually been what has power to Scotland and indeed the UK. We have

taken a lot of coal out of the ground. There was a lot of these

places around Scotland and we need to be looking at how to future proof

the economy and these areas. Eco-towns are unusual, but not

unknown. Freiburg in Germany has won awards for its aggressively

integrated low-carbon housing and transport. Come that may not be the

new Freiburg, but plans are already afoot to place solar panels on shops

like these. On the shopping centre that will soon spring up here and a

proposed newsgroup could be powered by biomass from crops like this one

in the nearby Dumfries house. The challenges as with hundreds of other

towns they are trying to regenerate, how to get local people involved in

the plans, and to get them to take ownership of them as well so they

have a real stake in making sure that the town succeeds. Over coffee,

two residents tell me this is a five-year plan. It is important for

the local community to be involved in the decision-making. We have went

some way towards that, we have a 60.6 return rate in the service that

we did. Part of that was real community engagement, it is about

communication. We have found that the most important thing is sitting

across from Sunbury having a cup of tea, talking about what we're doing

like now. -- talking across from somebody. With other kids growing up

and experiencing Cumnock, it is giving us the same kind of chances

we had growing up. Working towards the future really. Cumnock could

help the Government to meet its climate change targets in the future

and transform itself. Close by, you have got very successful trip to the

Mac towns that have reinvented on a theme. Your back Castle Douglas was

a similar size, that is now the food capital of the south of Scotland.

Further rundown, you have got this contest artists capital and then you

have got the nation 's boot capital. Why can't Cumnock come together and

be Scotland's first sustainable town?

Phil Prentice, ending that report by John McManus.

What will Britain look like outside the European Union?

Of course, a question we can't answer yet.

But the agency in Ireland which bids for foreign direct investment has

put out its latest advert where it appears to be directly targeting

investment which might have previously been destined for the UK

We are 4.75 million. We are any number of tech -based enterprises.

We are 33% under 25. We are last 353. We are the one English-speaking

country in the Eurozone. We are home to 15 of the world's top 25

financial services companies. We are at 12 half percent corporate tax

rate. We are 100% committed to the EU.

Does this pitch threaten Scotland or is it a wise move

by the Irish Government ahead of the UK leaving the Europe?

Well joining me now from London is the News Editor of the Irish Times,

Mark Hennessy and in our Edinburgh studio is Judith O'Leary who's

Mark, I dare say I know these adverts are put out all the time,

but there is thinking going on in Dublin, isn't there? About how it

could attract particularly finance companies that might otherwise go to

the UK or perhaps even ones that are in Scotland or England. Yes indeed.

Certainly, we have two protect foreign investment that we have got

the next chapter of that investment. What you saw there is a very

professional piece of work and it is being pushed out quite strongly by

the IDA, but from the Irish point of view Brexit is the biggest foreign

policy challenge that we have faced in half a century, if not more. And

there are opportunities for us being the last English-speaking country

left in the European Union, once the United Kingdom has gone.

Unfortunately, this is Premier League politics. If Britain is going

to put itself out of the game, then other countries are going to see if

they can take part of that cake and we do have certain advantages

because of time zone, because of education standards, because of

largely an Anglo-Saxon business model in terms of very similar

thoughts to Britain on regulation and a whole variety of other issues.

There are opportunities. But the reality for Ireland is we would

prefer if you haven't decided what you did. Because you have, we have

to take advantage of it. We will come under the downside of it in a

moment, to your knowledge, our people in Ireland, the IDA and other

places, going to cases like New York and saying look, we are the best

place now for you to come to? Yes, we are doing that. All elements of

the Irish political system is doing that. That isn't just a question of

trying to take flesh off the bone of the United Kingdom. It is also to

prevent damage being sustained by the Irish Republic because we have

so many people who are absolutely unaware of the fact that Ireland is

an independent country and it isn't still part of the United Kingdom. We

are being caught in the crossfire. If you go to Southeast Asia and you

ask people in China and elsewhere what their knowledge is of the

political structures of the British Isles, in its geographical sense,

you will find that there is zero knowledge and we have two emphasise

at every possible opportunity that we get that Ireland is a stand-alone

country, that it is a member of the European Union and it is not going

anywhere. Could you can be sure whilst the Irish are trying to

emphasise our attractiveness to foreign direct investment, you will

find people on the continent who are making exactly that same run to

Silicon Valley and elsewhere and saying, well, the Brits gone are

gone, so you have to be careful of the Irish. We have to make sure we

don't get caught in the crossfire. What is the feeling on business

here? Are you worried about what the Irish or the French or the Germans

are getting up to? I think we need to concentrate on what we have got

here. We have a very, very strong and robust market. Really,

businesses in Scotland are very and robust market. Really,

confident of the future. They know that they have to make decisions

themselves and take their future into their own hands and they are

doing that. Ireland is looking to support what it is doing for its

economy, but it is remembering that Britain is very important to the

Irish economy. Surely Scotland would be affected? Let's say there is no

deal on this issue called passport in for financial firms, which would

mean that if you are a financial firm as I understand in Britain, you

will have to set up these inside the European Union in order to take

advantage of the single market. Presumably, there would be companies

in Scotland, investment management companies and suchlike, that Mark's

friends in the IDA can come to an sake, you will have to set up in the

European Union. If you're going to do that, why don't you set up an

office in Dublin? Absolutely, it is compelling. Ireland being the

English speaking country in the EU. I can see why that is an attraction.

We mustn't be afraid that fossil Ireland and Scotland are very good

friends, as we saw in the rugby yesterday, there is every special

relationship there. Countries do need to leave Scotland and being the

EU country, then perhaps Ireland's good place for them to be and we

should really work at that special relationship to make it work for

both companies. Using to be accepting that there may well be a

case for financial companies in Scotland to leave here. -- you seem

to be. That is a decision for the Scotland to leave here. -- you seem

company. If they feel they need to be in the EU, the may have to take

that decision. We can't impact that. What we can do is make sure that we

make the best possible case for remaining in Britain and there are

benefits of being here. They're obviously huge benefits of being in

the European Union, that is what they would not be allowed to do.

Quite. We took that decision when we voted for the Brexit vote. That

decision has been taken and we are faced with the outcomes of that and

we have to work to make the best possible case for remaining here. Of

those companies decide that they do need to live, then perhaps Ireland's

good place for them to go and we should maybe perhaps think that that

is a good opportunity for us to develop that relationship going

forward. You have referred, marked, to other countries trying to get

into the act. I know Paris is making a big pitch for it. I suspect

Frankfurt as well. Is the feeling in Ireland that you are well placed to

compete with them? I think the French in particular seem to be

putting a lot of effort into this. The French are and so are the

Germans and Milan. All of the indication so far is that Ireland

will benefit from the transfer of some financial operations. We saw

last week the week before when some financial operations. We saw

Barclays said they are putting an operation in Dublin. That is 150

people, not 1500 people and that I think will be the most likely

outcome. That UK City of London based companies will do the minimum

necessary to set up our sporting operations in other EU states,

whilst they keep much of their operation in London simply because

it would be too difficult to transfer it. There will be elements

that disappear completely. The City of London is going to lose jobs.

Will it be a basket case at the end of London is going to lose jobs.

of this? No. Not in the short term. London may not get new products,

financial products, as they develop, but how any of the existing ones

will they lose? There is a wealth of experience and talent in London that

doesn't want to go and live in Frankfurt. What about the other side

of this? You talk to the beginning about opportunities. Is there a

feeling in business in Scotland that there is huge opportunities are

coming out of the EU? Yes, it is massively destructive, but there are

other markets such as China and India that we need to go for now. In

a business community in Edinburgh people are taking their destiny in

their own hands and I think people are just saying, well, it has

happened, we need to move forward and we're going to do so with gusto.

There is a lot of support here for businesses who want to work out with

the EU and as I say, China and India present ready strong opportunities

for us here. We will have to leave it here. They very much.

Now it's time to review the week gone by and look at what's happening

in the next seven days on the Week Ahead.

Joining me this week is the Columnist Kevin McKenna

and the Writer and Journalist Katie Grant.

Just before we talk to the peer review, let's have a little look at

something which has been happening in America.

Now, on Friday a Seattle based judge, James Robart,

imposed a national temporary halt to President Trump's travel ban.

I find the court should and will grant the temporary restraining

order. Well, this morning, the US

Appeals Court has delivered another A judge in San Francisco rejected

the government's request The Appeals Court has given

the Trump administration until the end of

tomorrow to respond. Kevin, we have been having

discussions in the office based on an understanding of the legal system

which is not very much. This seems to imply it's all me a stay until

tomorrow and the court has said to both sides, the administration and

the states which brought the action, come and give us some evidence and

we will have a think about it. There's two ways of looking at this.

As you said, you could see this is yet another blow to Donald Trump.

People like me looking in from the outside would say, why was this not

predicted? Why was this not part of the model for his first 100 days

that something like this might have happened? The other way of looking

at it is perhaps this is exactly what he wanted to happen. He claims

to be clearing out the swarm. And the swamp seems to be middle-class

people and judges and he wants to reach the people. I don't think

Donald Trump accepts that he lost the popular vote by almost 3 million

people. It's a high risk strategy. These judges are courting the

constitution saying the president is not above the Constitution. That is

one of its great strength is. There are people trying to get back to the

United States who had been blocked. They have 18 hours. They will be

busy online buying air tickets. I think this is part of Donald Trump's

strategy that trade and immigration were big reasons why I want and

therefore the travel ban is what the people want. Whether we think that's

true or not, how do we know? We didn't even predict that he would

win. He would say he is simply implementing what he said in his

campaign he would do. He's implementing a restricted version of

what he said. He is indeed. I think that's one of his great strengths.

We see so many politicians, particularly over Brexit, rambling

on where nobody really knows what's going on. In America, with Donald

Trump, he's doing what he said he would do in all his manifestos and

in his inauguration speech. We can hardly say we didn't know this and

squint happen. I think he is appealing beyond what he sees as the

establishment, in which he includes the judges, he is appealing beyond

them and he is imagining, whether it is true or not, that people will be

within. Only time will tell whether that is true. But I think it's

worrying you might get a stand-off between the president and the

judiciary. When well that ends? That's where maybe the American

people will see that they don't really know where this will go

either. We were talking to David Mundell about Brexit. They are

suggesting that it would be disruptive for the Scottish

Government to have one during Brexit negotiations. Is that a reasonable

position? Both sides on this are reasonable. I think Nicola Sturgeon

must rather want a block on the referendum because it makes her look

like Westminster are stopping them from doing what they want. They talk

about the people of Scotland, but they don't really know what the

people of Scotland want. It is disastrous for them to have another

referendum and they lose in present circumstances, it couldn't really be

more propitious. There is a lot of grandstanding going on. The business

community are already looking beyond Brexit. It's unclear whether there

is a mass of people in Scotland wanting to have another independence

referendum. What's your view on that, Kevin? Would it be reasonable

for the British government to say that the people need to see what we

negotiate regarding Brexit? I think that's a reasonable position. The

only problem is I don't think even Theresa May or anyone in the British

government knows when Brexit negotiations, and by that I mean all

the trade negotiations are going to follow, how much scrutiny there will

be by Parliament, not just on trickling Article 50, but what it

might look like. David Davis has said there might be a second

referendum to allow the British people to scrutinise the aspects of

our separation from Europe. I get that. On the other hand, Nicola

Sturgeon, as we have just heard, she leads and Independence party. She

has said on four different occasions that the hopelessness and chaos of

the British government's attitude and conduct over Brexit leaves -- is

beginning to leave her no option but to hold an independence referendum.

To come back to something that David Mundell said. He said there is no

popular mandate for this. Over the last three years, there has been a

UK election and the Scottish election where the SNP and the Green

Party have got overwhelming support. You backed independence. If you are

running the place, would you hold another one? I would hold another

one. I wrote in a column a few weeks ago, I was docking about 2019. My

problem with waiting too long, and I think Nicola Sturgeon ideally would

love to see what the implications and the fallout from Brexit was

before she holds one, but there is never an ideal time to have a second

independence referendum and there is such a thing as waiting too long and

the window beginning to shut. Would you hold off, if you were Nicola

Sturgeon? I would hold off, but then you are in danger of things coming

from the left field, about which we know nothing. Thank you very much.

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