26/03/2017 Sunday Politics Scotland

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.