05/02/2017 Sunday Politics Scotland


Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer with the latest political news, interviews and debate. Guests include Gavin Barwell MP, Charles Grant and Henry Newman.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 05/02/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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.


Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer with the latest political news, interviews and debate. Andrew is joined by housing minister Gavin Barwell MP who talks about the government's plan to increase housebuilding in England and protect people who rent their homes. Plus Charles Grant from the Centre for European Reform and Henry Newman from Open Europe. Donald Trump adviser Sebastian Gorka discusses President Trump's first two weeks in the White House and Ellie Price reports on the negotiations to come with the EU over Brexit. On the political panel are The New Statesman's Helen Lewis and journalists Isabel Oakeshott and Steve Richards.

Download Subtitles