26/03/2017 Sunday Politics Scotland


Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer discuss the Westminster attack with Commons leader David Lidington and head of Europol Rob Wainwright. Plus Ukip leader Paul Nuttall.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 26/03/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


The police believe the Westminster attacker Khalid Masood acted alone,


but do the security services have the resources and


We'll ask the leader of the House of Commons.


As Theresa May prepares to trigger Brexit, details of


Will a so-called Henry VIII clause give the Government too much power


Ukip's only MP, Douglas Carswell, quits the party saying it's "job


done" - we'll speak to him and the party's


And coming up on Sunday Politics Scotland...


Labour prepares to discuss Kezia Dugdale's federal


I'll be asking - is the idea really a runner?


And with me - as always - the best and the brightest political


panel in the business - Toby Young, Polly Toynbee


and Janan Ganesh, who'll be tweeting throughout the programme.


First, it was the most deadly terrorist attack


The attacker was shot dead trying to storm Parliament,


one of those is still in a critical condition in hospital.


His target was the very heart of our democracy,


the Palace of Westminster, and he came within metres


of the Prime Minister and senior Cabinet ministers.


Without the quick actions of the Defence Secretary's


close protection detail, fortuitously in the vicinity


at the time, the outcome could have been even worse.


Janan Ganesh it is four days now, getting on. What thoughts should we


be having this weekend? First of all, Theresa May's Parliamentary


response was exemplary. In many ways, the moment she arrived as


prime minister and her six years as Home Secretary showed a positive


way. No other serving politician is as steeped in counterterror and


national security experience as she is and I think it showed. As to


whether politics is going now, it looks like the Government will put


more pressure on companies like Google and Facebook to monitor


sensor radical content that flows through their channels, and I wonder


whether beyond that the Government, not just our Government but around


the world, will start to open this question of, during a terror attack,


as it is unfolding, should there be restrictions on what can appear on


social media? I was on Twitter at the time last week, during the


attack, and people were posting things which may have been useful to


the perpetrators, not on that occasion but future occasions.


Should there be restrictions on what and how much people can post while


an attack is unfolding? I think we have learned that this is like the


weather, it is going to happen, it is going to happen all over the


world and in every country and we deal with it well, we deal with it


stoically, perhaps we are more used to it than some. We had the IRA for


years, we know how to make personal risk assessments, how to know the


chances of being in the wrong place at the wrong time are infinitesimal,


so people in London didn't say, I'm not going to go to the centre of


London today, everything carried on just the same. Because we know that


the odds of it, being unlucky, are very small. Life is dangerous, this


is another very small risk and it is the danger of being alive. I think


from an Isis Islamist propaganda point of view, it showed just what a


poor target London and the House of Commons is, and it is hard to


imagine the emergency services and local people, international


visitors, reacting much better than they did. And the fact that our


Muslim mayor was able to make an appearance so quickly afterwards


shows, I think, that we are not city riddled with anti-Islamic prejudice.


It couldn't really have been a better advertisement for the values


that is attacking. OK, thank you for that.


So, four days after the attack, what more do we know


The police have made 11 arrests, but only one remains


Here's Adam with the latest on the investigation.


According to a police timeline, that's how long it took


Khalid Masood to drive through a crowd on Westminster


to crash his car into Parliament's perimeter...


to fatally stab PC Keith Palmer, before being shot by a bodyguard


The public are leaving tributes to the dead at Westminster.


The family of PC Palmer released a statement saying:


"We would like to express our gratitude to the people


who were with Keith in his last moments and who were


There was nothing more you could have done,


you did your best and we are just grateful he was not alone."


Investigators say Masood's motive may have gone to the grave with him.


Officers think he acted alone, despite reports he spent a WhatsApp


The Home Secretary now has such encrypted messaging


There should be no place for terrorists to hide.


We need to make sure that organisations like WhatsApp,


and there are plenty of others like that, don't provide a secret


place for terrorists to communicate with each other.


It used to be that people would steam open envelopes or just


listen in on phones when they wanted to find out what people were doing,


legally, through warrantry, but in this situation


we need to make sure that our intelligence services


have the ability to get into situations like encrypted


She will ask the tech industry to suggest solutions


at a meeting this week, although she didn't rule out


But for those caught up in the attack, perhaps it will be


..not the policy implications that will echo the loudest.


We're joined now from the Hague by the Director of Europol,


the European Police Agency, Rob Wainwright.


What role has Europol played in the aftermath of Wednesday's attacks? I


can tell you we are actively supporting the investigation,


because it is a live case I cannot of course go into the details, but


to give you some context, Andrew, this is one of about 80


counterterrorist cases we have been supporting across Europe this year,


using a platform to shed thousands of intelligence messages between the


very large counterterrorist community in Europe, and also


tracking flows of terrorist finance, illegal firearms, and monitoring


this terrible propaganda online as well. All of that is being made


available now to the Metropolitan Police in London for this case. Do


we know if there is any European link to those who may have inspired


or directed Khalid Massoud? That is an active part of the inquiry being


led by Metropolitan Police and it is not for me to comment or speculate


on that. There are links of course in terms of the profile of the


attacker and the way in which he launched these terrible events in


Westminster, and those that we've seen, for example, in the Berlin


Christmas market last year and the attack in Nice in the summer of last


year, clear similarities between the fact that the attackers involved


have criminal background, somewhat dislocated from society, each of


them using a hired or stolen vehicle to deliberately aim at pedestrians


in a crowded place and using a secondary weapon, whether it is a


gun or a knife. So we are seeing a trend, I think, of the kind of


attacks across Europe in the last couple of years and some of that at


least was played out unfortunately in Westminster this week as well.


Mass and was known to the emergency services, so were many of those


involved in the Brussels, Paris and Berlin attacks, so something is


going wrong here, we are not completely across this, are we?


Actually most attacks are being stopped. This was I think at least


the 14th terrorist plot or attempted attack in Britain since 2013 and the


only one that has got through, and that fits a picture of what we see


in France last year, 17 attempted attacks that were stopped, for


example. Unfortunately some of them get through. But people on the


security services' Radar getting through, in Westminster, Brussels,


Paris and Berlin. There is clearly something we are not doing that


could stop that. Again, if you look at what happened in Berlin and at


least the first indications from what police are saying in London,


these are people that haven't really appeared on Baha'i target list of


the authorities, they are on the edge at best of radicalised


community -- on the high target list. When you are dealing with a


dispersed community of thousands of radicalised, Senate radicalised


individuals, it is very difficult to monitor them 24/7, very difficult


when these people, almost out of the blue and carry out the attacks that


they did. I think you have to find a sense of perspective here around the


work and the pressures of the work and the difficult target choices


that police and security authorities have to make around Europe. The Home


Secretary here in London said this morning it is time to tackle apps


like WhatsApp, which we believe Massoud was using, because they


encrypt from end to end and it is difficult for the security services


to know what is happening there. What do you say, are you up for


that? Across the hundreds of cases we have supported in recent years


there is no doubt that encryption, encrypted communications are


becoming more and more prominent in the way terrorists communicate, more


and more of a problem, therefore, a real challenge for investigators,


and that the heart of this is a stark inconsistency between the


ability of the police to lawfully intercept telephone calls, but not


when those messages are exchanged via a social media messaging board,


for example, and that is an inconsistency in society and we have


to find a solution through appropriate legislation perhaps of


these technologies and law enforcement agencies working in a


more constructive way. So you back that? I agree that there is


certainly a problem, absolutely. We know there was a problem, I'm trying


to find out if you agree with the Home Secretary's solution? I agree


certainly with her calls for changes to be made. What the legislative


solution for that is of course for her and other lawmakers to decide


but from my point of view, yes, I would agree something has to be done


to make sure we can apply more consistent interception of


communication in all parts of the way in which terrorists invade our


lives. Rob Wainwright of Europol, thank you very much.


Here with me in the studio now is the Leader of the House


What did last week's attack tell us about the security of the Palace of


Westminster? It told us that we are looked after by some very


courageous, very professional police officers. There is clearly going to


be a lessons learned with you, as you would expect after any incident


of this kind. That will look very carefully at what worked well but


also whether there are changes that need to be made, that is already


under way. And that is being run by professionals, by the police and


security director at Parliament... Palace authorities, we will get


reports from the professionals, particularly our own Parliamentary


security director, and just as security matters in parliament are


kept under constant review, if there are changes that need to be made as


a result, then they will need to be made. Let's look at some of the


issues it has thrown up, as we get some distance from these appalling


events when our first reaction was always the people who lose their


lives and suffer, and then we start to become a bit more analytical. Is


it true that the authorities removed armed guards from Cowbridge gate,


where the attacker made his entry, because they looked to threatening


for tourists? -- carriage gate. No, the idea that a protest from MPs led


to operational changes simply not the case. What happened in the last


couple of years is that the security arrangements in new Palace Yard have


actually been strengthened, but I don't think your view was would


expect me to go into a detailed commentary upon operational security


matters. Why were the armed guards removed? There are armed guards at


all times in the Palace of Westminster, it is a matter for the


security authorities and in particular for the police and direct


command of those officers to decide how they are best deployed. Is it


because, as some from Scotland Yard sources have reported to the papers


this morning, was it done because of staffing shortages? I'm in no


position to comment on the details of the operation but my


understanding is that the number of people available is what the police


and the security authorities working together have decided to deploy and


that they think was commensurate with the threat that we faced. Is it


not of concern that as the incident unfolded the gates were left


unguarded by armed and unarmed, they were just unguarded, so much so


that, as it was going on, a career with a parcel on a moped at was able


to drive through? -- up career. I think we will need to examine that


case as part of looking into any lessons learned, but what I don't


yet know, because the police are still interviewing everybody


involved, witnesses and police officers involved, was exactly who


was standing where in the vicinity of the murder at a particular time.


We have seen pictures, the gates were unguarded as people were


concentrating on what was happening to the police man and to the


attacker, but the delivery man was able to come through the gates with


a parcel?! You have seen a particular camera angle, I think it


is important before we rush to judgment, and we shouldn't be


pointing fingers, we need... We are trying to get to the bottom of it.


To get to the bottom of it means we have to look at what all the


witnesses and all the police officers involved say about what


happened, and then there needs to be a decision taken about what if any


changes need to be made in light of that.


We know the attacker was stopped in his tracks by the Defence


Secretary's bodyguard, where was the armed roving unit that had replaced


the armed guard at the gate? I cannot comment on operation details


but my understanding is there were other armed officers who would have


been able to prevent the attacker from getting to the chamber, as has


been alleged it would be possible for him to do. Were you aware that a


so-called table top simulation, carried out by Scotland Yard and the


Parliamentary authorities, ended with four terrorists in this


simulation able to storm parliament and killed dozens of MPs? No, that


is the first time that has been mentioned to me. You are the leader


of the house. These matters are dealt with by security professionals


who are involved, they are advised by a security committee, chaired by


the Deputy Speaker, but we do not debate operational details in


public. I'm not asking for a debate, I raise this because it's been


reported because it's quite clear that after this simulation, it


raised serious questions about the security of the palace. Actions


should have followed. What I've said to you is that these matters are


kept under constant review and that there are always changes made both


in the deployment of individual officers and security guards of the


palace staff and other plans to strengthen the hard security of the


perimeter. If you look back at Hansard December last year, they was


a plan already been brought forward to strengthen the security at


carriage Gates, looking at questions of access. Will there be armed


guards now? You need to look not just at armed guards, you need to


look at the entirety of the security engagements including fencing.


There's lots about the security we don't need to know and shouldn't


know, but whether or not there are armed guards is something we will


find out quite soon and I'm asking you if you think there should be. If


you think the judgment is by our security experts that there need to


be more armed guards in certain places, then they will be deployed


accordingly, but I think before we rush to make conclusions about


lessons to be learned from Wednesday's appalling attack, it is


important the police are allowed to get on with completing the interview


of witnesses and their own officers, and then that there is considered


view taken about what changes might need to be made and then they will


be implemented. Let me come onto the triggering of Article 50 that begins


our negotiations to exit the European Union. It will happen on


Wednesday. John Claude Juncker told Germany's most popular newspaper


that he wants to make an example of the UK to make everyone realise it's


not worth leaving the EU. What do you make of that? I think all sorts


of things are said in advance of negotiations beginning. Clearly the


commission will want to ensure the EU 27 holds together. As the Prime


Minister has said, that is a British national interest as well. She has


been very clear... What do you make of President Juncker's remark? It


doesn't surprise me ahead of negotiations but I think if rational


mutual interest is to the fore that it's perfectly possible for an


agreement to be negotiated between the UK and our 27 friends and allies


that addresses all of the issues from trade to security, police


cooperation, foreign policy co-operation, works for all


countries. The EU wants to agree a substantial divorce bill before it


will even discuss any future UK EU relations, what do you make of that?


Article 50 says the terms of exit need to be negotiated in the context


of the kind of future relationship that's going to exist between the


departing country and the remaining member states. It seems it is simply


not possible to separate those two. Clearly there will need to be a


discussion about joint assets and join liabilities but I think if we


all keep to the fore the fact we will continue to be neighbours, we


will continue to be essential allies and trading partners, then it is


possible to come to a deal that works for all size. The


question is do you agree the divorce bill first and then look at the


subsequent relations we will have or do you do them both in parallel?


Article 50 itself says they have to run together. Do you think they have


to be done together or sequentially? I think it is impossible to separate


the two but we will get into negotiations very soon and then once


David Davis is sitting down with Michel Barnier and others and the


national governments become involved too, then I hope we can make steady


progress. An early deal about each other's citizens would be a good


piece of low hanging fruit. Is the Government willing to pay a


substantial divorce bill? The Prime Minister has said we don't rule out


some kind of continuing payments, for example there may be EU


programmes in the future in which we want to continue to participate. 50


billion? We don't envisage long-term payments of vast sums of money. So


50 billion isn't even the Government ballpark? You are tempting me to get


into the detail of negotiation, that is something that will be starting


very soon and let's leave it to the negotiations. During the referendum


there was no talk from the Leave side about any question of


separation bill, now the talk is of 50 billion and I'm trying to find


out if the British government thinks that of amount is on your radar. The


Government is addressing the situation in which we now are, which


is that we have a democratic obligation to implement the decision


of the people in the referendum last year, and that we need to do that in


a way that maximises the opportunity, the future prosperity


and security of everybody in the UK. Let me try one more thing on the


Great Repeal Bill, the white Paper will be published I think on


Thursday, is that right? We haven't announced an exact date but you will


see the white Paper very soon. Let's say it is Thursday, it will enshrine


thousands of EU laws into UK law, it will use what's called Henry VIII


powers, who of course was a dictator. Is this an attempt to


avoid proper Parliamentary scrutiny? No, we are repealing the Communities


Act 1972, then put existing EU legal obligations on the UK statutory


footing, so business know where they stand. Then, because a lot of those


EU regulations will for example refer to the commission or another


regulator, you need to substitute a UK authority in place so we need to


have a power under secondary legislation to tweak the European


regulators so it is coherent. This is weather Henry VIII powers come


in. It is secondary legislation and the scope, the definition of those


powers and when they can be used in what circumstances is something the


parliament will have to approve in voting through the bill itself. And


if it is as innocuous as you say, will you accept the proposal of the


Lords for an enhanced scrutiny process on the secondary


legislation? Neither the relevant committee of the House of Lords, the


constitution committee, nor anyone else has seen the text of the bill


and I think when it comes out, I hope that those members of the House


of Lords will find that reassuring, but as I say the definition of those


powers are something the parliament itself will take the final decision.


David Lidington, thank you for being with us.


So, Ukip has lost its only MP - Douglas Carswell.


He defected to Ukip from the Conservative Party


almost three years ago, but yesterday announced


that he was quitting to sit as an independent.


His surprise defection came in August 2014 saying,


"Only Ukip can shake up that cosy little clique called Westminster".


But his bromance with Nigel Farage turned sour when Mr Carswell


criticised the so-called "shock and awful" strategy as


Then, during the EU referendum campaign last year, Nigel Farage


was part of the unofficial Leave.EU campaign, whereas Douglas Carswell


opted to support the official Vote Leave campaign.


Just last month, former Ukip leader Nigel Farage


accused Douglas Carswell of thwarting his chances


of being awarded a knighthood, writing that,


Announcing his resignation on his website yesterday,


Mr Carswell said, "I desperately wanted us to leave the EU.


Now we can be certain that that is going to happen, I have


decided that I will be leaving Ukip."


When Mr Carswell left the Conservative Party in 2014


he resigned as an MP, triggering a by-election.


"I must seek permission from my boss," he said referring


This time, though, Mr Carswell has said there will be no by-election.


We're joined now from Salford by Ukip leader, Paul Nuttall.


Welcome back to the programme. Are you happy to see the back of your


only MP? Well, do you know, I'm always sad when people leave Ukip at


a grass roots level or Parliamentary level, but I'm sad but I'm not


surprised by this. There has been adrift by Douglas and Ukip over the


past couple of years, his relationship with Nigel Farage


certainly hasn't helped, and it is a hangover from the former regime


which I inherited. I try to bring the party together, I thought I had


done that for a few months but it seems now as if I was only papering


over the cracks. Douglas has gone and I think we will move on and be a


more unified party as a result. Did Douglas Carswell jump because he


expected to be pushed out your national executive committee


tomorrow? He came before the National executive committee to


answer questions regarding issues that have come to the fore over the


last couple of months. There was the knighthood issue, the issue


surrounding the Thanet election and his comments in a book which came


out regarding Brexit. So was he under suspicion? He was coming to


answer these questions and they would have been difficult. So he did


jump in your view? No, I'm not saying he would have been pushed out


of the party but he would have faced difficult questions. What is clear


is that a fissure had developed and I'm not surprised by him leaving the


party. You have also lost Diane James, Stephen Wolf, Arron Banks,


you failed to win the Stoke by election, Mr Carswell is now a


pundit on US television, Ukip now stands for the UK irrelevance party,


doesn't it? Paul's hard us yesterday on 12%, membership continues to


rise. -- the polls had us on 12%. 4 million people voted for Ukip. Over


the summer exciting things will be happening in the party, we will


rewrite the constitution, restructure the party, it will have


a new feel to it and we will be launching pretty much the post


Brexit Ukip. Arron Banks, who used to pay quite a lot of your bills, he


said the current leadership, that would be you, couldn't knock the


skin off a rice pudding, another way of saying you are relevant, isn't


it? I don't think that's fair. I've only been in the job since November


the 28th, we have taken steps to restructure the party already, the


party is on a sound financial footing, we won't have a problem


money wise going forward. It is a party which can really unified, look


forward to the post Brexit Iraq, tomorrow we are launching our Brexit


test for the Prime Minister. If it wasn't for Ukip there wouldn't have


been a referendum and we wouldn't have Brexit. Every time you say you


will unified, someone else leaves. Is Arron Banks still a member? No,


not at this moment in time. He has been a generous donor in the past,


he's done a great job of ensuring we get Brexit and I'm thankful for that


but he isn't a member. He has just submitted an invoice of ?2000 for


the use of call centres, will you pay that? No. That should be


interesting to watch. In the aftermath of the Westminster


attack, Nigel Farage told Fox News that it vindicates Donald Trump's


extreme vetting of migrants. Since the attacker was born in Kent, like


Nigel Farage, can you explain the relevance of the remark? I


personally haven't supported Donald Trump's position on this, but what I


will say, this is what Nigel has said as well, we have a problem


within the Muslim community, it is a small number of people who hate the


way we live... Can you explain the relevance of Mr Farage's remark? Mr


Farage also made the point about multiculturalism being the


problem as well and he is correct on that because we cannot have separate


communities living separate lives and never integrating. How would


extreme vetting of migrants help you track down a man who was born in


Kent? In this case it wouldn't. Maybe in other cases it would. But,


as I say, I'm not a supporter of Donald Trump's position on extreme


vetting, never have been, so I'm the wrong person to ask the question


too, Andrew. That has probably become clear in my efforts to get


you to answer it. Let me as too, should there be a by-election in


Clacton now? Douglas has called by-elections in the past when he has


left a political party, I know certain people in Ukip are keen to


go down this line, Douglas is always keen on recall and if 20% of people


in his constituency want a by-election then maybe we should


have won. Ukip will be opening nominations for Clacton very soon.


Hold on with us, Mr Nuttall, I have Douglas Carswell here in the studio.


Why not call a by-election? I'm not switching parties. You are, you are


becoming independent. There is a difference, I've not submitted


myself to the whip up a new party, if I was, I would be obliged to


trigger a by-election. If every time an MP in the House of Commons


resigned the whip or lost the whip, far from actually strengthening the


democracy against the party bosses, that would give those who ran


parties and enormous power, so I'm being absolutely consistent here,


I'm not joining a party. It is a change of status and Nigel Farage


has just said he will write to every constituent in Clacton and he wants


to try and get 20% of constituents to older by-election. We are going


to testing, he says, write to every house in Clacton, find out if his


constituents want a by-election, if 20% do we will find out if Mr


Carswell is honourable. I'm sure they will be delighted to hear from


Nigel. There have been several by-elections when Nigel has had the


opportunity to contact the electorate we did -- which did not


always go to plan. If you got 20%, would you? Yesterday I sent an


e-mail to 20,000 constituents, I have had a lot of responses back,


overwhelmingly supported. Recently you said you were 100% Ukip, now you


are 0%. What happened? I saw Theresa May triggering article 50, we won,


Andrew. You knew a few months ago she was going to do that. On June


the 24th I had serious thought about making the move but I wanted to be


absolutely certain that Article 50 would be triggered and I think it is


right. This is why ultimately Ukip exists, to get us out of the


European Union. We should be cheerful instead of attacking one


another, this is our moment, we made it happen. Did you try to sideline


the former Ukip leader during the referendum campaign? Not at all, I


have been open about this, the idea I have been involved in subterfuge.


You try to sideline him openly rather than by subterfuge? I made


the point we needed to be open, broad and progressive to win. I made


it clear in my acceptance speech in Clacton and when I said that Vote


Leave should get designation that the only way Euroscepticism would


win was by being more than just angry natives. What do you make of


that? I am over the moon that we have achieved Brexit, unlike Douglas


I rarely have that much confidence in Theresa May because history


proves that she is good at talking the talk but in walking the walk


often fails, and I'm disappointed because I wanted Douglas to be part


of the post Brexit Ukip where we move forward with a raft of domestic


policies and go on to take seat at Westminster. Do you think you try to


sideline Mr Farage during the referendum campaign? Vote Leave


certainly didn't want Nigel Farage front of house, we know that. They


freely admit that, they admitted it on media over the past year. Nigel


still was front of house because he is Nigel Farage and if it wasn't for


Nigel, as I said earlier, we wouldn't have at the referendum and


we wouldn't have achieved Brexit because Nigel Farage appeals, like


Ukip to a certain section of the population. If our primary motive is


to get us out of the European Union, why are we having this row, why


can't we just celebrate what is happening on Wednesday? We can, but


you are far more confident that Theresa May will deliver on this


than I am. Ukip may have been a single issue pressure group ten


years ago, it wasn't a single issue pressure group that you joined in


2014, it wasn't a single issue pressure group that you stood for in


2015 at the general election, and I'm disappointed that you have left


us when we are moving onto an exciting era. What specifically


gives you a lack of confidence in Mrs May's ability deliver? Her


record as Home Secretary, she said she would deal with radical Islam,


nothing happened, she said she would get immigration down to the tens of


thousands, last year in her last year as Home Secretary as city the


size of Newcastle came to this country, that is not tens of


thousands. I think we need to take yes for an answer eventually. The


problem with some Eurosceptics is they never accept they have won the


argument. We have one, Theresa May is going to do what we have wanted


her to do, let's be happy, let's celebrate that. But let's wait until


she starts bartering things away, until she betrays our fishermen,


just as other Conservative prime ministers have done in the past.


Let's wait until we end up still paying some sort of membership fee


into the European Union or a large divorce bill. That is not what


people voted for on June the 23rd and if you want to align yourself


with that, you are clearly not a Ukipper in my opinion. So for Ukip


to have relevance, it has to go wrong? I'm confident politics will


come back to our terms but -- our turf but there will be a post Brexit


Ukip that will stand for veterans, book slashing the foreign aid bill


and becoming the party of law and order. Finally, to you, Douglas


Carswell, you say you have confidence in Mrs May to deliver in


the way that Paul Nuttall doesn't. You backed her, you were


Conservative, you believe that Brexit will be delivered under a


Conservative Government. Why would you not bite the 2020 election as a


Conservative? I feel comfortable being independent. If you join a


party you have to agree to a bunch of stuff I would not want to agree


with. I am comfortable being independent. So you will go into


2020 as an independent? If you look at the raising of funds, what Vote


Leave did as a pop-up party... We only have five seconds, will you


fight as an independent in the next general election? Let's wait and


see. Very well! Thank you both very much.


Good morning and welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland.


Kezia Dugdale wants a federal UK but will Labour help stop another


independence referendum any time soon?


I'll be asking Scotland's only remaining Labour MP Ian Murray.


Why can't the groups tasked with tackling wildlife crime agree


And in the week of the attack on Westminster, how do


we balance our safety with civil liberties?


Mass surveillance has been proven time and again not to prevent


attacks like what happened on Wednesday. What does work is


targeted surveillance where you have someone in mind, you have a


committee that they could be doing, criminal activity, anything, but it


is targeted and when the resources go into that it is much better.


They say a week is a long time in politics and in the coming week


we're expecting some of the most significant political


On Tuesday the Scottish Parliament is expected to back a call for


And on Wednesday the Prime Minister, Theresa May, will trigger Article


50, kicking off the process of the UK leaving


The Welsh First Minister Carwyn Jones has warned of disengagement


moving from Brussels to London after Brexit has been completed.


He spoke to BBC Wales' political editor Nick Servini.


How concerned are you about the Brexit negotiations? I am concerned


because I want to make sure that the UK Government is listening and


understands that the UK is not what it was in 1972, one government and


one country but a partnership of four nations that work together for


a common purpose and that must be deflected in the UK's strategy


before it leaves. You have hinted at this engagement with Brussels could


move to London after the Brexit this engagement with Brussels could


process. Do you feel that this could result in a greater degree of


nationalism in Wales and what does it mean for Scotland? I think there


is a severe danger that if the UK Government mishandled this, that it


will pose a threat to the rest of the UK. It does not have to but it


depends how they handle it. For example, they take the view that


where power is written to Brussels, they will rest with Westminster. We


where power is written to Brussels, disagree with that, we think in


areas like agriculture, fisheries, those powers should bypass London


and come straight to Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. The


idea of a federal UK put forward by Kezia Dugdale, the Scottish Labour


Leader and yourself, will it make a difference? It will make a big


difference. The big question is the English question, England is so big,


how do you resolve the question of devolution in England? Many will ask


what does it mean for England. People in England must understand


they are part of the partnership as well and that is why this week


coming we will have the Labour Party Constitutional Convention in Cardiff


looking at what it means in the 21st century to have governments in


Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland and what it means for


English regional governments. Now, as Carwyn Jones


was saying there, some major names in Labour -


past and present, including Scottish Labour leader


Kezia Dugdale and former Prime Minister Gordon Brown -


will meet in Cardiff this week Scotland's only Labour MP


Ian Murray is in our Edinburgh Good morning. Good morning. You said


in your speech to the Labour Party, the Scottish Labour Party Conference


a few weeks ago that the SNP has absolutely no mandate for another


independence referendum. Given it says in black and white in the


manifesto that they have, what were you talking about? Well, it is quite


clear that in 2014, 80 5% of the Scottish population voted in the


independence referendum and 55% voted to remain as part of the UK.


What it said in the SNP manifesto is that they would ask for the power to


call another referendum should there be a material change in


circumstances and this is what this debate is about, it is about how the


UK manages itself any constitutional sense post-Brexit and that is what


Carwyn Jones has just said, we must deal with the English question...


But even from how you have just described the SNP manifesto, they


clearly have a mandate. The boat on Wednesday for the Scottish


Parliament comes up then and they have to get the powers to call a


second independence referendum. We should take this off the table, I do


not think that the Scottish people wanted at the moment and the polls


have shown consistently that the Scottish people do not wanted and I


think the way that Carwyn Jones, Sadiq Khan and Kezia Dugdale


talking... I understand that you do not want another referendum and I


understand you think it does not address the main issue, the point I


am getting at is that, you know, we operate in politics with the idea


that party say things in the manifesto and then get elected, they


then have a mandate to do that, you seem to be questioning that of the


SNP. Well, if it is about people going with their manifesto


commitments, surely the Green Party will not support the SNP on Tuesday


when it comes to the port in the Scottish Parliament because they had


a plethora of things in the manifesto that would trigger a


second independence referendum, one being 1 million signatures, that is


clearly not the case. There is no mandate to bring forward another


independence referendum when we have already had 85% voting just a few


years ago and what was classed as a once in a lifetime, generation


opportunity for Scotland to have independence and we should not bring


that uncertainty about the Scottish economy. That is what is important.


Should the Scottish Parliament vote on Tuesday for a Section 30 order or


another referendum, does that mean there is a mandate for another


referendum? That depends on what you look at in terms of the Scottish


Parliament's mandate. The Scottish Parliament will have voted but the


Parliament has voted in the last year against fracking, against the


SNP's Management of education, against cuts to the NHS and the


First Minister has completely ignored those. It seems only six


occasions that the government has been defeated at the Scottish


Parliament, the First Minister has ignored that. The mandate for the


Scottish Parliament appears to only suit them at certain times.


Westminster should not be blocking, however, another referendum in


Scotland, but the timing of that and when it should happen is the key


component. Jeremy Corbyn was interviewed by Robert Preston this


morning. He said of the timing that it could not be worse and implied


that his position seems similar to that of Theresa May's which is I am


not ruling out a referendum, it should not be entirely blocked by


Westminster but you are not having one at the moment. Presumably on


this issue, you and Jeremy Corbyn would agree with each other. Our


position is exactly seen as the majority of the Scottish people who


do not want another independence referendum. We are also saying that


if Brexit is going to bring uncertainty to the country, which


undoubtedly it will and studies have shown it well in terms of the


economy, in terms of the way that post-Brexit Button looks, we should


not compound that uncertainty with another independence referendum that


has been made clear by the Fraser of an -- which has been made clear by


the Fraser of Allander Institute last week that that would certainly


be the case. If there is another referendum at some point, what


should be on the paper? There was some talk actual conference that


perhaps your idea of a federal duty or some variant of it should be on


perhaps your idea of a federal duty the ballot paper. Actually, the


discussions are much more nuanced than that in terms of where we


currently are in this particular process. We will have to speak in


Wales, we will have Carwyn Jones, Kezia Dugdale, Gordon Brown, the


Shadow Welsh Secretary Christina Rees, Andy Burnham who is standing


in Manchester, another candidate in Merseyside and a host of people in


England who will be looking at how we should plan the constitutional


settlement in the post-Brexit Briton, that is an incredibly


important step forward because breaking up the UK is not in the


best interest of either the UK or Scotland, so we need another


formulation of pixels forward as to what a post-Brexit Briton looks


like. This is an exciting way to do it and it is great that Kezia


Dugdale has brought this forward and that everyone else has bought into


it but we have to develop that process as to what it means and let


people into that process, which is very important. I come back to the


point, would you support having that, what you have just described,


whatever comes out of it, as an option, if there is another


independence referendum at some point? It is too early to say on


this particular issues, this is a process that will run through all


for a fairly medium to long term period of time because it is about


having a People's Convention, letting the people into this process


as to how they want a post-Brexit process to be governed. It could


look at the voting system, a very clear way of looking at a


post-Brexit Briton. This is not just a Scottish issue, this is about


dealing with 85% of the country which is England and making sure


that Scottish devolution, demolition and Wales and Northern Ireland all


come together under an agreement. I understand that on Tuesday they will


decide regards whether they should be another referendum but it does


not necessarily mean but if you want independence or not. It is too early


to have that kind of discussion, I am not sure whether the Section 30


order discussions will include any other option other than EDS or No


vote, or to remain or leave. We need to concentrate on what we can offer


the Scottish people in terms of, and also the English, Welsh and Northern


Irish people, in terms of what this agreement means. It is people coming


together in Wales next week and there is a fundamental


transformation of the way that the UK works, we are coming together to


discuss what works best for the regions and nations of the UK to


make sure that a post-Brexit Button works for everyone and that the four


nations work together as a family. If what you have just described to


us is to be credible as an alternative to the proposals of the


SNP, there must be some credible prospect of a Labour government


coming along to implement it, whether it be at Westminster or


Edinburgh or both. You seem so disunited at the moment. Again, when


Jeremy Corbyn was here a few weeks ago, it took him a few days to get


the lines right on your attitude to a referendum, you tweeted out, and


you get -- you did not just tell us can ever made you what our position


is, you said why he would not be joining Jeremy Corbyn's Shadow


Cabinet, he has given a good example, he is destroying the Labour


Party. How can anyone watching this take seriously the right gear that


Labour will deliver a federal Britain when you cannot even be


civil to your own party leader when he is addressing your own party


conference? You have to look at what is happening next week, the entire


Labour families coming together the Shadow Welsh Secretary is meeting at


the UK level. Kezia Dugdale, Carwyn Jones, they are all coming together.


Why did you send that that tweet? The Labour family is coming


together... But why did you send out that tweet? Jeremy Corbyn has


clarified his position with regards to what he said... You said he was


destroying the Labour Party, is he destroying the Labour Party? I have


destroying the Labour Party, is he consistently said, Gordon, on your


show and many others that the public decide who the leaders are of


political parties because they decide at the ballot box and that


elections and the approval ratings of Jeremy Corbyn are not


particularly positive and he has to come forward but the strategy, along


with his colleagues in parliament in the Labour Party. I look forward to


seeing that the strategy of which these discussions of a federal


post-Brexit Briton are part of that strategy because it is equally


exciting time to look at what powers the regions and nations of the UK


can get. This is the basic problem that you have, I'm afraid. Saying


that you would encourage Jeremy Corbyn to come up with the strategy


is not the same thing as saying, as you said at the time, he was in


Scotland addressing a conference. This man is destroying the Labour


Party. Well, he got it wrong and he has clarified his position. We are


on the same page now in terms of where we are for our attitude to a


second independence referendum and I cannot understand why they cannot


get into a conversation about positive this federal agenda could


possibly be. The entire Labour families coming together, it is


unprecedented, next week in Cardiff, to look at what we can do in terms


of the constitutional settlement across the whole UK post-Brexit.


That is the entire family coming together with the positive strategy


for the future that Jeremy is driving forward with members of the


Shadow Cabinet being represented. That is a positive unifying thing


that we can take forward with great enthusiasm and I am delighted that


Jeremy is back. This sounds wonderful. I assume you will now


agreed to become shadow Scottish Secretary? I have not agreed that


and I would have to have a long conversation with Jeremy Corbyn.


and I would have to have a long Would you consider it? Of course, I


have never ruled that out. But we must look at the big issues and I am


involved in these processes such as federalism, I will win the Scottish


Labour Party Conference and having working" Carwyn Jones, Gordon Brown


and John Prescott on taking some of this forward with Kezia Dugdale. We


are all involved in this particular process, the semantics in terms of


where we are going post-Brexit are minor in terms of the fact that we


have an exciting opportunity post-Brexit. We will have to leave


it there, thank you for joining us, Ian Murray.


But Holyrood's Environment Committee says that an alarming distrust


were tensions between some groups on the Partnership For Action


The SNP MSP Graeme Dey is the committee's convenor


and I spoke to him just before we came on air.


First of all you have written this letter to Roseanna Cunningham saying


you are concerned about protecting wildlife because the various groups


involved don't seem to get on with each other or agree with each other.


Explain briefly if you could, what the problem is? This is not a new


problem. Essentially there is attention and suspicion among some


of the groups, we need to work together to this issue. The point


the committee is making is that they need to be prepared to call operate


more fully with each other and Police Scotland. But the RSPB is one


organisation that has admitted it is not following the protocols that are


agreed. It is quoted in your letter, is that lets say a raptor is a


legally killed or trapped, they are not going to go straight to the big


house as they put it and say, we are investigating theirs. Because it


would alert, it could have been the egg house that was responsible, it


could alert them that the courts of the raptor. They see, call operate,


could alert them that the courts of yes, but up to a point? Yes. On one


level you can understand where they are coming from. But this language


and approach is not helpful. The way we have worked up until now hasn't


addressed the problem. The protocols are there to help bring about the


change. The danger of course is if the RS PPE persist with this


approach, you may find that the landowners, the gamekeepers use this


as a reason or excuse to walk away from it all. That would be


unhelpful. We are not just pointing the finger at the RSPB. If you look


at the SGA, the landowners. It is great we are seeing more condemning


as such activities but we need more cooperation with Police Scotland,


proactive wobbler oration to move forward on this. If I was the RSPB,


I would say that is all very well. But what you are saying that just


because the landowners and gamekeepers agree to have meetings,


that means we should not investigate them properly. That is not what we


are seeing that at all. This is an unacceptable practice. They do not


want to alert the people who made quite possibly have been


responsible. That is what they are saying. That is the point they make.


The question here is how do we move forward. What do we need to tackle


this? There are a lot of additional resources needed to the Police


Scotland and Crown Office to get raptor prosecution. There is a lot


of other wildlife crime, a lot of different types. The point the


committee is making, and it may be simplistic on one level, we cannot


have this constant tension and battling between these sectors. We


did appear to be making progress and a year, 18 months ago. We appear to


be taking a step back now. There is no point interesting, we need to


work together. Is it just the RSPB or are there other bodies at odds


with each other? I think the kind of tension around raptor persecution is


the main area of difficulties. We have seen, for example, as well,


Scottish badgers have had an issue with Police Scotland whereby they


would assert that there were 40 claims in a particular period but


yet only five have been recorded as such. However, those two groups,


Police Scotland and Scottish badgers are


working together very well since the committee have been session in last


year. I think there is a will there amongst most of the stakeholders to


work together and work with Police Scotland. I think everyone wants to


tackle those, I think we need to have a different approach. I accept


the point is that the RSPB are making and you are making today,


what else do we need to do to move forward with this? Something like a


third of alleged wildlife crime is in fact poaching. Many people, again


as you acknowledge and the letter, many people will see that as a claim


against property. It has nothing to do with wildlife protection. It is


whether the salmon is Cobb I approach which would otherwise be


cot by a gamekeeper. -- cot by a butcher. Wildlife crime is wildlife


crime. I think it is indicative of the challenges that are faced in


crime. I think it is indicative of tackling these issues. This figure


for 2014-15, 121 poaching claims. 58% of those resulted in a


conviction. I think the point there is the is where you have a good


example of cooperation between Gillies and Police Scotland. These


are difficult crimes to address and that


is why the best approach we have got is


everyone working together. And the public drawing attention to police.


One of the groups which is tasked with preventing wildlife


Its head of investigations is Ian Thomson and he's


RSPB has welcomed many initiatives brought forward by various Scottish


governments. We are a long-standing partner and one of the founder


governments. We are a long-standing members. What he is getting at is


that you admitted before his committee that you have not be the


protocols that were laid down by this pause organisation. To be


honest we are being represented there. There is a satellite protocol


that says that if a bird goes down, the organisations monitoring that


animals should have ordered. But it was saying that you might be


informing landowners who were responsible. What the protocol is a


dispensation as the circumstances of our bird disappearing or at all


suspicious, FA board goes down in suspicious


circumstances, what the protocol says is that landowners should not


be informed. We are following the protocols to the letter, so I am


actually disappointed that the committee have got the impression


that we are doing otherwise. What is it you think that they want you to


do? I think they want us to follow the protocol. The protocol is


currently up for review in that it was written back in 2013 and all the


Paws partners on the group have submitted their comments to the


secretariat and we will discuss what the actual protocol needs changed.


But the protocol clearly states that when the board goes down, the first


thing that should happen is that the police must be notified. We are


running out of time. Is this problem, particularly with birds of


prey, is it getting worse or better in your view because the data seemed


to be unclear for reasons that remain somewhat mysterious? We


should not be too fixated on a body count, what we have to go back is


the population surveys and the science. That is very clearly


the population surveys and the showing that over the extensive


areas of uplands, particularly in areas managed for intensive crows


shooting, boards like the golden eagle, hen harrier and the red Kite


continued to do very badly. It is difficult to establish annual trends


because the strands are finding a dead bird are very minimal. -- the


trends. We will have to be it there, thank you for joining us.


Time to look back, and forwards to the next seven days,


Now before we speak to our guests, the terrorist attack in London


on Wednesday has inevitably dominated the week's news.


It comes just a few months after the UK Government gained


enhanced spying powers in the form of the Investigatory Powers Act.


This morning the Home Secretary said that messaging


With the pressure on to prevent future attacks, where does


the balance now lie between security and civil liberties?


A ruthless attack right at the heart of our depth -- democratic


institutions. It took just a few minutes for one man armed with just


a car and a knife to demonstrate just how vulnerable our cities can


be. Hundreds of people witnessed the events, including this journalist


who was attending a security conference. We were half way through


the afternoon session, indeed, one of the speakers at that precise


point in time was talking about the radicalisation process ironically,


when the proceedings were interrupted and we were ushered Stal


Mr by armed response police officers. David reports on conflicts


around the world, he has said that a number of fatalities from terror


attacks in Western Europe remain small and although he thinks it is


correct to look at civil liberties with a fresh eye, he is wary of the


UK following some other countries' leads. In Europe, in Western Europe,


many governments such as France and Belgium, the greater controls there


at the moment and yes, there has been a lot of opposition amongst the


population towards those increased controls. In other parts of the


world it is a lot more heavy-handed. We are talking about places like


Turkey or further afield into the Middle East itself. In an era of


European peace, few countries have been left untouched white terrorist


attacks. This was the attack on Glasgow Airport ten years ago.


Nobody knows what's going on. It is no secret that the mood music has


changed from Europe. Life does go on but we are aware of Iraqi threat.


Our cities are full of memorials to the armies that fought the battle is


for Britain over the centuries. But fighting that takes place within our


cities is often unexpected. Despite the shock of sudden violence, we


should try to keep things in perspective, says this philosopher.


I think the amount of focus that has been put on attacks like the


Westminster attack, which although, of course, very serious and the


profound tragedy for those involved and for the families of those


involved, involved a man killing four people and I think it is


important to get that into proportion. And we should take a


lesson from past security clamp-downs, such as in Northern


Ireland. It was internment, for example, that much I do know and


that seems like a serious violation of civil liberties and the points


that I have made... But they did it work, that is the point? It is not


clear to me that it did work. I think that actions such as that


contributed. It is very hard to know what the counterfactual is, in other


words, it is difficult to know how things would have turned out had


that not been done. It can seem obvious to some that it did work


because potentially dangerous people were put behind bars but that is not


all that we need to take into account in a sensible assessment as


to whether it works, the effect it would have had on the Republican


national population in Northern Ireland would also need to be taken


into account. One of the government's current weapons in the


fight against terrorism is the Investigatory Powers Act, dubbed


this diverse charter. It became law three months ago along for Bolt


interception of private communications. The public are not


aware of is ramifications see some campaigners. Mass surveillance time


and again has been proven to not prevent attacks such as what


happened on Wednesday. What works is targeted surveillance where you have


someone in mind, you have activity that they are doing, it could be


criminal activity, anything, but it is actually targeted and when the


resources go into that it is much better. Campaigners have launched a


legal challenge to the enhanced by powers of the government but they do


not know just how much public support they can tap into.


So, with me this week is the former Labour MP


Gemma Doyle and Richard Walker, the founding and consulting


Gemma you were in Parliament when this happened, please tell us about


it. Yes, I was about to walk out of Carriage Gate through the turnstile


when I saw smoke, which I assumed was perhaps an explosion in


Westminster Tube because that will it look like it was coming from. I


stopped with my colleague to see what was actually happening and then


saw people running and screaming. Then the commotion at the gate,


which was the attacker coming through. He was armed with knives.


Were you one of the people who was effectively kept in the area for


several hours? Indeed, we heard, because of how close we were to


Carriage Gate, we did not have a particularly good view and when I


heard the gunshots I assumed it was an attacker with a gun, so I took my


colleague and ran into the building and did not stop and told the... And


be gotten into the chapel, because I thought it would be safe. Parliament


moved over to Westminster Abbey and came out about eight o'clock that


evening and I just have to say how enormously grateful I think all of


us who were in the building that the are two PC Keith Palmer, who stood


in front of a man with two knives and prevented him from getting any


father. My condolences are with his family. Richard, the debate this


morning is now turning to one about what could have been done, if


anything, to stop this. Particularly the suggestion that the Home


Secretary, Amber Rudd, who said earlier that these things like


WhatsApp, which may be that Khalid Masood perhaps used before the


attack, they are encrypted, she is suggesting that there should be some


sort of access so that we know what is going on, what do you make of it.


That is correct, but you do not want to impose Draconian measures on


members of the public or undermine the democratic society and that we


do the work of the terrorists for them. We must make sure that the


rights of people to privacy are protected and I think while there is


absolutely a case for maybe allowing security forces to look at some


messages, I do not think it is a valid argument to allow Evelyn's


messages to be open to slippers, for instance. I do not think that is the


way to go, that is a dangerous development. Gemma Doyle, what do


you think, I did a quick poll in the office and many of us your views


WhatsApp, you can share messages, that is why they do it, she messages


in groups, but is there an argument for saying that should not be


encrypted with the kind of extremely high security that is currently


used? I think the security services should have access to all of the


communications that they need to be able to keep us safe. The real


challenge and the thing that our security services are very, very


good at is disrupting networks and stopping attacks before they happen


and many people actually are surprised that we have not had an


attack like we saw this week in recent years and that is because of


how good our security services are at stopping these attacks. But to do


that they need to have the powers to look at things like services like


WhatsApp. I use it, lots of people use it and I want the police and our


security services to have those powers. Quick change of subject, the


vote on independence in the Scottish Parliament this week. I was not sure


what Ian Murray was saying, he seemed to suggest that because


partly because the Greens had it in the manifesto and have not followed


other things that it was not legitimate. Clearly does not come as


a surprise to anybody that the Green Party are supporters of


independence, they were in the first independence campaign. But the


argument is that they did not have it in the manifesto and the


entitlement for the -- the entire admin for the SNP is that the debt


habit in the years. I think it is utterly unreasonable to argue that


they do not have a mandate for this. The SNP have huge support for a


referendum. It is in their manifesto, they have huge support in


the country and it is ridiculous to suggest there is no mandate for it.


Gemma Doyle, your party, your ex-party, it will have to get its


act together. Ian Murray is treating one minute that Jeremy Corbyn is


destroying the Labour Party then trying to claim that it is all


absolutely fabulous because they are having a meeting in Cardiff, that


seems more Monty Python than serious politics, is it not? It is still my


party, just to clarify and Ian Murray is a huge asset to the Labour


Party in Scotland, whether he is the Shadow Secretary of State or not.


Look, there is no doubt there have been challenges to what Jeremy


Corbyn had said. But the point is that, insults like this, he did not


have to put out that street, he could have just said, this is our


position. People like Ian Murray will not have said something like


that likely, there is a problem with the Bidisha in the Labour Party at


the moment. Unfortunately we are out of time.


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


Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer discuss the Westminster attack with Commons leader David Lidington and head of Europol Rob Wainwright. Plus Ukip leader Paul Nuttall talks about Douglas Carswell about quitting the party. Panellists include Janan Ganesh from the Financial Times, Polly Toynbee from The Guardian and Toby Young from The Spectator.