18/06/2017 Sunday Politics Scotland


Nick Robinson and Gordon Brewer look at the start of Brexit negotiations and the political response to the Grenfell Tower fire.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 18/06/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Good morning, and welcome to the Sunday Politics.


Not good enough - that is Theresa May's


own verdict on the response to the Grenfell Tower fire,


but that is also what a growing number are saying about her


Having failed to win a majority, Mrs May will face a daily battle


to win the votes she needs in Parliament, which is maybe why


the new Leader of the Commons has already cancelled next year's


And Labour are claiming the Government isn't legitimate.


Have they forgotten that, despite defying


all expectations in the election, they didn't actually win?


He's back and, this time, he's not alone.


So, how in tune is David Mundell with the new Scottish intake and how


much sway are they likely to have on a beleaguered


And with me to discuss all of that and more,


three journalists who always defy expectations - Steve Richards,


Julia Hartley-Brewer, and Tom Newton Dunn.


And they'll be tweeting throughout the programme.


Theresa May's authority was already in freefall even


before her faltering handling of the appalling disaster


Yesterday she admitted the official response had not been good enough.


This morning's front pages, as well as reflecting the full


horror of that tragedy, are also full of claims


that her critics are circling and ready to pounce,


though none, as yet, have come out publicly.


Her Chancellor, Philip Hammond, was asked about the Prime Minister's


position on the Andrew Marr Show earlier.


I think what the country needs now is a period of calm while we get on


with the job in hand. We've got some very serious issues to address,


including the Brexit negotiations are just starting. Theresa is


leading the Government and I think the Government needs to get on with


his job. The you know what? I think that is what most people in the


country will think - the Government needs to get on with the day job of


Government. Get on with the day job, Tom - is that what they are saying


in private? Some are. I was at lunch with a minister on Thursday who


said, we need to get this thing sorted now because if we go one like


this with the Prime Minister without any power at all, we will end up in


a John Major situation and it will only get worse. Talking to people


this week, I don't think that is the predominant view. That seems to be


that she has to stay for the time being, at least until conference,


and possibly as far as the end of the Brexit negotiations, because


there is no real alternative, no obvious person who can come in. The


last thing they want to do now is have an unbelievably divisive


leadership contest and rip up the very thin consensus that currently


still exist on Brexit and go back to square one. Journalist in London are


now searching for whom Tom had lunch with on Thursday. Julia, is that


sustainable in public? The Prime Minister's authority was already in


free fall and she has not handled this disaster well. After the 1922


committee meeting, they said, she handled this well and can handle


this stuff. It was astoundingly poorly handled. Both practically and


in terms of PR. The question is, is she capable of changing and behaving


in a different way? Her selling point running for the leadership


was, I don't do emotion and I am steady as she goes. It has not been,


so if you don't have the touchy-feely Tony Blair David


Cameron stuff, and you don't have strong and stable, you are kind of


left with nothing. It's not that people don't want her, they just


don't want the alternative. Steve, you have studied and lived through


many of these situations that cannot go on, but often it does. For one


thing, there is a fear of an early election, where MPs will think, we


might lose our seats, so we must stop that from happening. Fear the


leadership contest by which some freakish sequence they elect another


dud. 74-79, Gordon Brown after the nonelection, and he survived several


coups. This is a hung parliament where she has lost an overall


majority, and I think there are questions about whether she herself


is ready for the mountainous, daunting assent to come. One of the


reasons that Gordon Brown succeeded and carried on, Steve, was that


other people concluded they might not be better at the big job in


hand, then the economic crisis. Is there a chance that now, for all the


criticism of her, people say, know what, she is the best handle Brexit?


They want her to carry the can for Brexit and everything. No one wants


the leadership, whether it is Boris Johnson, David Davis or anyone else,


unless they can ride up on their white steed and save the day. Also,


Brexit will not be the most beautiful experience. There will be


compromises and pain. A lot of people think, we will get her to


sign the ?50 billion cheque, someone else can come in on a white horse


and save the day. Bets from journalists are not a clever thing


to do, but are you all saying that you think she will survive for some


time? I think she will, but I'm not sure how long. Philip Hammond didn't


answer the question because he doesn't know either. I think she


will for some time. A week ago, I thought there would be an election


in the autumn. I didn't make a prediction of the election outcome,


so I didn't get it wrong, but I didn't get it right either. If she


doesn't screw up, she will probably last until the end of Brexit. For


the moment, thank you very much. Theresa May's failure to win


a majority after a disastrous election campaign has


left her critics returning to that famous phrase once used


by Norman Lamont to describe John Major - in office,


but not in power. Short of MPs and shorn


of her closest advisers, she now faces a disgruntled party,


an emboldened opposition, the start of Brexit negotiations and,


as we've been saying, claims that she has mishandled


a national crisis. When Theresa May finally visited


residents at the scene of the Grenfell Tower fire,


she was jeered by some residents, Many questions have been raised,


of course, about successive Governments' approach to fire


regulation, as well as the speed and scale of the official


response to the disaster. This crisis comes at a time


when the Prime Minister is still trying to construct


a Commons majority by securing the support of the ten MPs


of Northern Ireland's The DUP is demanding more funding


for Northern Ireland and is thought to want a series of Conservative


manifesto promises dropped. This means that Wednesday's Queen's


Speech, when the Government sets out its plans for the year, will -


in the words of one Controversial plans like reversing


the ban on opening new grammar schools, ending free lunches


at English primary schools, and the scheme designed to reform


social care funding are all likely to be scaled down or


dropped altogether. The Government has scrapped next


year's Queen's speech and is planning a rare


two-year Parliament say the Government


is running scared. Because, of course, what hangs over


everything the Government now does is the small matter


of negotiating our way out Well, to discuss all of this,


I'm joined by the newly appointed leader of the Commons,


Andrea Leadsom. Good morning, and thanks for coming


on the programme. The election seems a lifetime ago, but then, the


Conservative Party promised strong and stable leadership. It's not


unreasonable to say that you don't look strong or stable and there's


not a lot of leadership. The last couple of weeks have been extremely


devastating, and I think the real focus of the Government over the


last week since that awful tragedy at Grenfell Tower has been trying to


ensure that everything is being done for the victims. I know there has


been a big narrative about what could have been done better and so


on, but in truth, the Prime Minister has had a job to do, and she really


has focused on trying to make sure that the residents are taking care


of, and that's got to be the priority. Why did you go and meet


them to hear their anger and pain but she initially did not? I was


there as the new Leader of the House of Commons and had helped to arrange


an emergency briefing for MPs and peers the previous day, and it was


so apparent how desperately moved and sympathetic and distraught all


MPs were, right across the House. Which raises the question of why the


Prime Minister did not go. She had a job to do. Too busy? No, but she


needed to ensure that what the residents needed, sorting out bank


accounts, mobile phones, trauma counselling and accommodation, she


was trying to get a handle on all of that to make sure that those things


were taking care of. She issued a statement yesterday saying the


response was not good enough. The one nudges and winks from her


advisers that it was not done properly. Do you think the Prime


Minister did not get this right? I think we are all very conscious that


the support wasn't good enough in the first couple of days. Obviously,


all local councils are geared up to try and deal with the relief from


disasters such as this, but this is unprecedented, this is absolutely


harrowing, and I know that the council did everything they could


with massive support. People are furious, and with good reason. I


hear you say that you understand and you feel people's pain. The Prime


Minister was busy, the council did their bit, so who got it wrong?


Someone has to be held responsible. Absolutely right, and as I am trying


to explain, the council really... And I rang the chief executive to


try and give specific feedback from some of the residents. He was


absolutely trying to put the right people in place to deal with that.


We had a lot of feedback from community leaders. So the council


would be replaced? We are hearing talk of someone being drafted in to


replace them because they are not doing well enough. The Prime


Minister has decided to bring in very experienced civil servants to


improve and to add to the resources of the local council so that issues


can be addressed much more quickly and with greater experience and


precision, quite rightly. Part of the problem with what may have led


to the fire and what is happening now is that no one thinks anyone is


in charge. When you talk about who could is -- who keeps people save,


is it the council, the people who manage the block, is at the fire


brigade, the people who inspect the work, the Government? No one knows


who is in charge. In this specific case, the Prime Minister is now in


charge of the committee that is bringing together all necessary


resources, but I think you make a very good question, Nick - we do


need to understand better how we can ensure that this just cannot happen


again. By clear lines of responsibility. This is horrific.


Yes, all those lessons need to be learnt about if I may, there are two


aspects: Dealing with the very real, pressing, urgent needs of those


poor, absolutely horrified and traumatised victims, and then this


bigger question about who should be in charge and where the buck stops


and who should be in control. They are two separate issues. When you


hear the rage, and it is rage can I ask a personal question? Do you feel


shame as a politician? Of course. We all think, what could we have done


or should we have done? It's just unbearable. You know, this cannot


happen in the 21st century, and yet it has. If it weren't for this, this


would still be a huge week in politics, with the Queen 's speech


coming, a new parliament, and you have been appointed Leader of the


Commons, in charge of Government business. Why have you already,


almost your first act as Leader of the Commons, scrapped the next Queen


's speech, next year's, to make sure that the parliament last for two


years and not one, unusually? It happened in 2005 and 2010. It didn't


happen during the war or during other crises. It is the rate of


legislation rather than crises. There is a lot of legislation to go


through. And we're leaving the EU at the end of March 2019, so having a


two-year period in which to bring together parliament and Government


to really make progress with legislation that is essential to


making a real success of Brexit, there are some big advantages, it's


all a bit technical, but as you will know, select committees don't have


to ditch enquiries, bills don't have to be carried forward, and there


will be more Parliamentary time for scrutiny... The advantages, you


don't have to risk another Queen 's speech which you might lose. In


other words, having two years makes it just a little bit easier for the


Government to survive than it might otherwise be.


I want to be clear, that is not any reason for doing this. There are


plenty of opportunities if you want to speculate on problems for the


Government. The point about this two year Parliament is it enables us to


get the work of leaving the EU done, but the same time we have a


legislative programme to tackle the issues of inequality, lack of


opportunity, and we want to have a good run at that at this difficult


time. You have yet to unveil the deal with the DUP, I assume we will


see that tomorrow, we do, how many parts of the manifesto will have to


be ditched? There are lengthy conversations now with the DUP and


we share a number of interests in common, ensuring we make a success


of Brexit and there's no hard border between the Republic of Ireland and


Northern Ireland. They will brace against hard austerity, so some of


the tough things you're doing in your manifesto like scrapping all


meals in England for example, changing the social care system,


ending the winter fuel allowance for some people, they will go, won't


they? We don't ever talk about the Queen's speech in advance, the Queen


will make those announcements on Wednesday. I'm preparing people for


the fact that some of the things you said in the manifesto will have to


go? The issue is that we have an enormous job to do to make a success


of Brexit and we have huge ambitions for a social, domestic legislative


programme that will improve life opportunities and reduce


inequalities in this nation. Is that's a long winded way of saying


yes? We will prioritise those things. You went to the country and


Theresa May went to the country asking for a Brexit mandate and you


didn't get one, the country didn't give you a majority. As one of the


leading campaigners for Leave, does that make you conclude something has


to change? Overrated percent voted for parties who stood on manifestos


for leaving the EU so I don't recognise what you say that we don't


have a mandate for Brexit. We do. At the referendum last year and also


the results of the general election. As I say, over 80% of people voting


for parties that will respect the result of the referendum. Had on


television this morning Kier Starmer of the Labour Party saying he wanted


to stay in the customs union, in other words you may have a majority


for the headlines, but the detail there is no majority for, no


agreement on and what I'm really asking you is whether you will have


to reach out to find that sort of agreement. In my new job as Leader


of the House of Commons, it will be important to listen to all members


right across The House, but I think it is extremely clear that in


leaving the EU we will be taking back control of our laws, our


borders, our money, and that means leaving the single market, it means


giving up on free movement. It means taking back those laws, putting them


into UK law and being able to change them. If it takes time, in other


words if that is the agreed and objective but to take some time and


the Chancellor says, you know what, we need two or three years for


business to be clear, for there to be no so-called cliff edges, do you


say you have the time? The negotiation begins tomorrow. It is


going to be very, you know, strong on all sides, but certainly my


experience from talking to other EU politicians is that they absolutely


recognise the desire as we do for a strong partnership and for there to


be low tariff... I asked about time, and the reason is let's not use the


word speculation, the Chancellor on the television this morning said


time, no cliff edges, time. Where you have politicians across the EU


and the UK who share the desire for a successful outcome with lower


tariffs, zero nontariff barriers, free trade between ourselves, it


should be possible to meet the time frame. In other words no


transitional arrangements? I am extremely optimistic there is a lot


we can agree on. I am just saying to you, my expectation is there will be


a lot we can agree on and that will facilitate a smooth transition. It


is clear Theresa May will not be running as your leader at the next


general election, so when is the right time for the party to consider


who will be leading next? Before or after Brexit? That is absolutely a


statement I would reject. You cannot see into the future. We have seen a


lot of change in recent weeks and months. The Prime Minister has done


a fantastic job in bringing the country back to a good place since


she has been the leader and Prime Minister. She is determined to


continue... She might lead the party into another election. I don't look


into the future. Let's put it another way, do you think there is a


chance some of the Conservative will lead the Brexit negotiations? I


think the Prime Minister will lead the Brexit negotiations. She has led


preparations extremely well and determinedly on behalf of the whole


country. And in that two years for the negotiation, it may be in need


time to save can look ahead to who our next leader is. I think it is


unhelpful to speculate on the future in that way. We need a coming


together, a recognition that all people need to have their say, and


strong leadership that can take us forward. Theresa May with her


Cabinet are determined to provide that. Are you believed you didn't


get the job? I supported the Prime Minister. -- are you relieve you


didn't get the job? I am completely backing Theresa May as our Prime


Minister. Thank you for taking the time to join does.


Whilst Theresa May and the Government have been struggling


to deal with the disaster at Grenfell Tower, Jeremy Corbyn


was hailed by residents after his visit to the area on Thursday.


Is Labour properly reflecting and channelling the public's anger,


or are they exploiting it - playing political games,


I'm joined now by the Shadow Local Government Secretary and Labour's


Good morning. There is a lot of anger on the streets, much of it


understandable that other people will share, but as the main


opposition party, do you have a responsibility to calm it down


rather than turn it up? I don't think we are stirring it up, I would


hope that we have been fully responsible in reflecting the


concerns, the anxieties, the hurt and worry of those residents in


Kensington. I want to pay tribute to the community that pulls together in


the face of adversity. Can't even begin to think of the pain that


people are going through, the hurt that community is going through, and


yet they have pulled together to look after one another to do some of


the things that statutory authorities should be doing, and I


think it is right and proper that we get to the bottom of what has


happened in this dreadful tragedy, and make sure we put right


everything that needs putting right so we never, ever experienced


anything as horrific as this again. I want to talk about how that might


be done in a second. You safe Labour are coming down. Clive Lewis tweeted


Burn Neo Liberalism not People, do you think that is responsible at a


time like this? I think it is important we are measured in our


approach here. Is that measured? Clive will answer for what he has


tweeted. There is an issue here that we have had seven years of cuts to


our public services. Local authorities don't have the resources


that they need to be able to provide some of the most basic services. The


Fire Service is under resourced as well, and there are issues. This


probably isn't the time to go into them, but there are issues that need


to be resolved about how we make sure that health and safety


regulation isn't seen as a burden on business, isn't seen as unnecessary


red tape, it's about saving lives and protecting people. Your


implication, almost your statement, is austerity was the reason for the


fire. It may turn out to be true, and plenty of people believe it, but


what is your evidence for saying austerity caused this fire? I


haven't said that. I said there are number of issues here. Health and


safety regulation is one, building regulations are another. The role of


government is important in this, how local authorities are able to fund


under resourced civil contingencies emergency planning. But your leader


said if you cut local authority expenditure, the price is paid


somehow. The implication was clear that the cuts lead to the fire and


it could be that this was bad regulation, it could be that the


regulation was fine but not followed, it could be criminal


negligence, it may not turn out to be cuts at all. It could be all of


those things and the important thing is we get the inquiry. We have as


wide as possible terms of reference for the inquiry, we ensure the


residents, victims and local community have a full voice in that


inquiry and we make sure the actions which are required both that we


already know from previous incidents but also the recommendations that,


of this inquiry are acted upon. We cannot ever have situation again


where we have recommendations from previous reports that have not been


acted on by government or local government. There has been a focus


of criticism on Kensington Council but there are many Labour councils


with this kind of cladding on the residential tower blocks. Do you now


know how many it is? No, but we do know every local authority and


housing association in the country are now urgently investigating their


own housing stock and we very clearly have to know that. I have


got tower blocks in my own constituency that have recently been


re-clad and I have contacted my housing providers because I want


assurances on behalf of my constituents that they are living in


safe housing. We understand me that carried out the work in Grenfell


also carried out work in Labour run Camden so it's possible this sort of


fire, God help us that it doesn't, it might happen in another borough


and in an area where the parties opposed to austerity. Absolutely and


we have got to make sure we identify precisely which housing stock does


not meet modern requirements, does not meet the safety minimum


standards, and that we urgently put that right. We cannot ever have a


catastrophe like this again, and I have been in this job as shadow


community Secretary for four days now. It pains me to see what has


happened in Kensington. This is awful, these are human lives and we


have got to start treating people and communities with the respect and


with the humanity that they deserve. You were careful at the top to say


it's important to be responsible, what do you think the fourth of the


call for a day of rage, not by the Labour Party, the day of rage on


Wednesday and quote, the Tories have blood on their hands? I don't


associate myself with those kind of comments. I think if we are going to


do something on Wednesday it is a vigil for those people who have lost


their lives because this is a tragedy and we cannot ever have that


happen again. The reason I ask is John McDonnell, the Shadow


Chancellor, said, and I quote, I don't think this Government is a


legitimate government. Do you think it is?


In the sense that Theresa May went to the country asking for a bigger


Parliamentary majority and a mandate from the people, and she came out on


the 8th of June with no Parliamentary majority at all, so it


does raise questions about the legitimacy of this Government's


ability to put forward a programme that they stood for election on.


That is a different point. I asked a simple question: Is this a


legitimate Government? Did they win more votes and seats under the rules


and therefore is your message to anyone taking to the streets to


claim that they are not legitimate? We are a democracy, we have


elections, and the Conservatives won 42% of the vote in the election. The


Tories lost seats, and the Labour Party gain seats. We are in a


Parliamentary democracy and we will hold the Government to account for


as long as little as it survives. Why did Mr McDonnell not say what


you have said, that you will beat them in the House of Commons? He


went on to say, we need as many as 1 million people on the streets of


London. He wasn't talking about this fire, to be fair, but about a


protest planned for the start of July. He said we need a million


people on the streets of London to force the Tories out. Is that


democracy? Clearly, peaceful demonstration is part of our


democratic rights, and people feel very strongly that this Government


has lost a mandate because Theresa May went to the country asking for a


bigger majority, and the country said no. They took that majority


that she had away from her. I want to make sure we hold this Government


to account, and at the earliest opportunity defeat this Government


so that we can put into practice our positive agenda for a fairer,


better, more recall Britain that works for the many, not the few.


Thank you for joining us. Will the Government's Brexit


plans have to change following the election


after they failed to get the mandate Theresa May demanded,


leaving them with no Lots of attention has focused


on whether Britain's future does lie That makes it easy for firms


to trade within the EU, but prevents Britain


striking its own free trade deals Let's have a listen


to Labour's Shadow Brexit Secretary, Keir Starmer, and the Chancellor,


Philip Hammond, speaking earlier. Well, I think that should


be left on the table. So, we could stay


inside the customs union? We are leaving the EU,


and because we are leaving the EU we will be leaving the single


market, and by the way we will be The question is not whether we are


leaving the customs union, the question is what we put


in its place in order to deliver the objectives


the Prime Minister set out. Well, to see what two


people from the world of business make of this,


I'm joined by the former director general of the CBI and one-time


trade minister Digby Jones, and by the fund manager


Nicola Horlick. Good morning to you both. Digby,


before we get bogged down in what people should or shouldn't do in the


Government, from a business perspective, the customs union -


what exactly is it can provide does it matter to businesses? -- what


exactly is it and why does it matter to businesses? People are saying we


need to stay in the single market, but why then they say the other


words - Britain's judges don't have control over the law? The customs


union is something where you can be within a trading relationship, not


as integrated as the single market, but the big problem we will have


coming out of the single market is not tariffs, I don't think, because


that will hurt Europe, the problem is the bureaucracy, the regulatory


burden of getting goods and services across borders. Crudely, businesses


are worried about being delayed on the border by paperwork, deliberate


paperwork, perhaps, making it harder for our businesses to do business.


That is what the issue is. That is the biggest part. The other part is


that you get this sense of being in something, so that investors from


Japan, America and China who come to Britain for good reasons get the


advantage of being within this trading relationship. There are two


big downsides to it. One is that you have to pay money for it. It doesn't


come free. There is a check to write. And the second one, the big


one, in all my years at the CBI and as a Trade Minister, you find that


we are well known for trading openly around the world with good-quality


traders will stop we don't do the protectionism of America and France,


we are actually good at this. This forbid you from going around the


we are actually good at this. This world and dealing with Singapore,


America or China, or whoever. You have two at brussels do it and you


are forbidden from being part of the global economy. I think that will be


the big thing that stops things. Thank you for the moment. Nicola, in


the end, if you could get the advantages of a border that was


simple to do business across, wouldn't it make sense, as Digby


Jones says, to get out of the customs union and be able to trade


around the world freely, without waiting for Brussels to do some deal


that would take many years? The problem is, striking trade deals


takes many years, as we've seen. There are many examples likely where


the EU has been trying to negotiate something, or the US has, and it


takes years and then sometimes stumbles at the last hurdle. The


idea that we can suddenly strike our own trade deals is nonsense, in my


view. It will take years. We will be cutting off our nose to spite our


face if we shun the EU. There are 500 million people in the EU,


including Britain, so it goes down a bit if we come out. The point is, we


can trade freely with that block currently with no constraints. You


are cheering on Labour's Kia Starmer when he says, we are getting out of


the EU, but we might be able to stay in the customs union? As Digby said,


if you stay in the customs union, you cannot do your own trade deals.


We heard from the Chancellor this morning that there was a middle


position, where we get out of the customs union but over a period of


years, to stop businesses having the worry is that you set out, there


would be some sort of transition. Are you up for that? What business


needs is certainty, boring predictability. And the next couple


of years are going to deliver precisely the opposite. Anyone who


thinks otherwise is for the birds. If it were set out as a timetable


and everyone knew that by this date, this date and this date, things will


happen, then I am up for that. We have to make sure that people


understand, and this is so important, that the European union


is big trading bloc, Nicola is right, but it is only one. This is


Asia's century, not America's or Europe's. You have Brussels marching


valiantly towards 1970. We need to hit our wagon to the world. A civil


servant used a phrase many years ago servant used a phrase many years ago


- we don't want to chain ourselves to a corpse. He said that about


Europe. The future is elsewhere, Nicola? The fact is, it is not only


a huge area with 500 million people, but it is also very prosperous. You


would have to do an awful lot of trade deals across many territories


to actually replicate what we currently have, which is free access


to a huge trade block with no constraints, and that has been


beneficial to our economy. I want to be clear that you didn't want to


leave, and you would love to reverse it now if you could, I suspect, but


do you think it is possible to get out as the people voted for, but


still have the advantages of the customs union? I think that is very.


In or out? Yes. If you look at what happened during the election, there


has been a huge thing about 80% of people voting for parties that want


a Brexit. I don't think that's true. If you look at what happened, a lot


of younger people voted who were expected to vote, and they are


certainly not in favour of leaving the EU, the single market, the


customs union or any of it. Would be, when you describe the advantages


of the customs union, many people watching with thing, and therefore


the end of your sentence would be, and that is why we should stay in,


but you want to come out - why would you take such a risk? I think the


negotiations over the next two years should be unique. We are the fifth


or sixth biggest economy on earth. We ought to have a quality


relationship with Europe for all the reasons that Nicola has said, and


she's right, and at the same time reach out to the world. If it is


achievable along with Philip Hammond's idea of feathering over


the years, it is in Europe's interests. We need humility and less


arrogance, but we have got to get there. Briefly, what is the


nightmare, the fear, if we are not in the customs union? I believe it


will be very detrimental to our economy, and also one thing: The


fact of the matter is that Germany is in the EU. Germany does seven


times as much trade with China as we do. The idea that the EU stops as


trading with other countries is nonsense. A brief last sentence,


Digby. The German example is rubbish. They dominate the EU and


they use that as a way of enhancing their competitiveness in China. What


is true, and you are right, that is coming out of the customs union done


badly willed deny us the access we have spoken of, but done well, it


will have the best of both worlds. Thank you both very much indeed.


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


Good morning, and welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland.


the Scottish Secretary is no longer alone.


I will be asking David Mundell if the new group of Tories


here can find a single voice and make their presence


And wholesale reforms to the way our schools are run.


I will be asking the Education Secretary whether it is enough


to counter the widespread perception that his government


Now, the election was great news for the Scottish Tories,


but not so much for their colleagues down south.


In fact it is largely due to the new block


of Scottish Conservative MPs that Theresa May is still maintaining


her rather precarious occupation of Downing Street.


The Prime Minister has faced furious criticism over her reactionn


to the Grenfell Tower fire and there are reports this morning


that some Tory backbenchers are plotting to remove her.


And the Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond,


who reports say would have been sacked had the Conservatives won


a handsome majority, is clearly not happy


Here is what he told Andrew Marr earlier this morning.


It's true that my role in the election campaign was not the one I


would have liked it to be. I did a lot of travelling around, I met


interesting people and heard interesting stories.


I would have liked to make much more of our economic record which I think


is an excellent one. The end result is, that in my judgment, we didn't


talk about the economy as much as we should have done.


Do you think Theresa May recognises that was a mistake?


We didn't put enough energy into dismantling Jeremy Corbyn's economic


proposals and that would have been catastrophic for the country.


I am joined from London now by the Secretary


of State for Scotland, David Mundell.


First of all, Philip Hammond is clearly unhappy with the way the


campaign was run. He said the Conservatives failed to put forward


what they see as they are advantages on the economy, failed to take


Jeremy Corbyn's deliberate economic posers, do you agree with that?


It's self-evident that in England and Wales it wasn't a is accessible


campaign. We lost seats, compared to Scotland where we fought our own


campaign and picked up those 12 additional seats.


I wish it were, themselves, they will be a full drained up as to why


the election campaign was not one that resulted in a successful


outcome. The outcome the Prime Minister had sought, which was a


bigger majority. I'm pleased, as you referenced in the opening, our


campaign in Scotland was successful. We focused directly on the issues


which were of most concern to people across Scotland.


That was taking the issue of a divisive second independence


referendum off the table. Sending a clear message to the Scottish


Government to get on with the day job.


I want to come onto the independence referendum in a moment, but first of


all, they're almost certainly is going to be a deal, a confidence to


supply deal between your government and the Democratic Unionist Party in


Northern Ireland. That will certainly involve extra money being


given to Northern Ireland a condition of the deal. Are you happy


to prove that extra money, or will you demand a separate deal for


Scotland, that it come to Scotland as well?


There are rules about funding, if there is additional funding for


unauthorised and and it is within the Barnett rules, then additional


funding will come to Scotland. That's how the system works. There


is a clearly established system in relation to the Barnett rules, they


will be followed. Talk is they will find some way of giving money to


Northern Ireland outside the Barnett rules in Scotland and Wales, and


places in England, won't get it. I be making clear that whatever deal


is agreed, or support mechanism, and it is very important we do have as


much stability as we can, as we go forward with the new minority


government. Any funds go through the appropriate, well-established


procedures, and Barnett consequential is due to Scotland,


they should be paid to Scotland. Let's be clear on this. Are you


saying, if there is any money extra given to Northern Ireland, as a


result of the deal with the Conservative Party, the Conservative


government, you will want that to come to Scotland, or at least some


equivalent to come to Scotland? I want the normal rules in relation


to Barnett consequential to apply. I won't support funding which is


deliberately sought to subvert the Barnett rules.


We have clear rules about funding of different parts of the United


Kingdom, those rules will need to apply.


And if the funding falls within Barnett consequential is, then it


should come to Scotland. They raise other funding, that has


been the case over a period of time in Northern Ireland, which looks at


the special circumstances of Northern Ireland and, particularly,


the Belfast agreement, Good Friday Agreement, which would not be


subject... OK, but the problem with that, the


problem with that... The problem with that is that many people would


say, look, we accept extra money should go to Northern Ireland


because of the history on the troubles, that's not what we're


talking about here. We are talking about money being given to Northern


Ireland simply so that your government can do a deal with the


DUP just a year in office. That's not the same thing. Money


which goes to Northern Ireland will be the subject of the rules that


currently apply in relation to Barnett consequential is.


I'm not going to support just giving money to Northern Ireland. I'm going


to support funding which, in which, the usual rules and requirements


apply. Therefore, if the Barnett consequential supply money will come


to Scotland. But you worry powerful bloc now, the


Scottish Tories. You're not just David Mandel, the only Conservative


MP, you're stepping into the shoes of Malcolm Rifkind, Ian Lang, they


would have been in, saying, Prime Minister, I'm sorry, you can't do


this in Northern Ireland. You've got to do something by us,


even if it's by the back door. We're not doing anything by the back


door in Northern Ireland or in Scotland. What we are getting is


rules, applicability of rules, that are well-established in relation to


Barnett consequential. We, the Conservatives, me, in my period as


an MP over 12 years, I stood up to retain the Barnett Formula, against


a whole lot of opposition from other parts of the United Kingdom, in


particular in the SNP at some point in their history. The Barnett


Formula is an extremely good deal for Scotland...


Can Theresa May look forward to you having a quiet word?


I often have, in my time, Sue David Cameron's premiership, sue Theresa


May's premiership had a quiet word with the Prime Minister about issues


of importance to Scotland. That's what I'm going to continue to do --


through Theresa May's premiership. I believe are doing to the rules of


the Barnett Formula is in Scotland's best interests.


Given a result of the election I assume your government will continue


to refuse a section 30 order so that the Scottish parliament can organise


an independence referendum. Yes? Absolutely. We were very clear about


our position, it would be unfair to the people of Scotland, and against


the principles of the previous referendum to go ahead... In your


food... To go ahead with a referendum until a process is played


out. In your view should there be no independence referendum before, at


least until before the next Scottish elections in 2021?


I don't see that the Brexit browsers will have played out by then, I see


that the people of Scotland sent it to Mr John B SNP a very clear


message in last week's General Election. With a cataclysmic


performers of the SNP compared to the 20 15th General Election. They


want that threat of an independence referendum taken off the table.


Nicola Sturgeon should not be in denial about that.


She should wake up, smell be costly, and be clear with the people of


Scotland, as members of her own party on indicating, and take the


threat of the table. We don't waste so much time and effort talking


about an independence referendum. Many people who voted Conservative


in Scotland, as you know, who might not normally but Conservative,


precisely because they don't want another independence referendum.


They may well want something a little bit more definite from you on


this. After all, Nicola Sturgeon cannot decide whether they would be


an independence referendum before the next Scottish elections, but


your Party can. Things could change, but at least till then? I do not


think I could be more clear. I do not see any circumstances where


there will be an independence referendum before the 2021 Scottish


parliament elections. It is up to Nicola Sturgeon to take the issue


off the table. She was the one who was calling for it a few hours after


the Brexit referendum. She has had her vanity photographs taken signing


a letter demanding an independence referendum. What people need to do


note is get on with the important job for Scotland is to get the best


of the deal for Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom in the


Brexit negotiations. Ruth Davidson said the whole nature of Brexit


needs to be reopened that there should be cross-party discussion on


this. Will that happen? There has already been cross-party discussion


in relation to Scotland. There has been a very accepted dialogue with


the Scottish Government. I have been in touch with them since the


election. I am committed to carrying on that dialogue. If we can work


together, the United Kingdom government and the Scottish


Government, that is the bases where we will get the best possible deal,


the strongest basis of which we can enter negotiations. Ruth Davidson


said she wanted them open Brexit. What is different to that than the


Brexit that Theresa May was proposing in her speech at Lancaster


house? And what way is it different? What we want to have is a Brexit


which is focused on the outcome, the outcome which delivers the best


possible result. When Ruth Davidson says she wants an open Brexit, she


means exactly the same thing as the Prime Minister said? That is not


what I said. She was making clear that as we move forward, we want to


have an inclusive approach to the Brexit negotiations. In what way


would be different? What we want to do is quick forward, but


unfortunately in Scotland, we have got bogged down in the Constitution


and the fate of another independence referendum. Although the Scottish,


and for a very constructive document. I am just asking what is


different from the Brexit proposed by Ruth Davidson and that proposed


by the Prime Minister. My responses that in Scotland we get bogged down


in the constitutional debate with the threat of another independence


referendum and although that was a lot of good work and good ideas and


thoughts in the document Scotland's place in Europe, it was ultimately


centred on an ideological basis and recovered a separate arrangement for


Scotland, which did not stack up. When Ruth Davidson say she wants an


open Brexit, if that is the same as Theresa May, does that mean the


Scottish Conservatives are committed to no single market, no customs


union and no European Court of human justice? The Scottish Conservatives


are committed to leaving the European Union. That is the result


of the Fort taken across the United Kingdom. The things you are


mentioning things that follow from leaving the European Union. We


cannot be a member of the single market. What we are looking. Please


let me finish. We are running out of time. We want the best possible


access to the single market and we want to take on board the issues and


concerns that there are in Scotland about ensuring we have the workforce


that our economy needs, seasonal labour unskilled labour. We want to


take on the issues which have been raised in Scotland and with


Scotland. Ruth Davidson said there could be changes in the offer going


forward. Could you give me one of them? The offer was not set in stone


because... Just give me one change. These negotiations start tomorrow.


We want to ensure the rates of European Union citizens in Scotland


and the European Union -- the rest of the United Kingdom. Thank you


very much for joining us. This week, the Scottish government


announced its latest move Basically, the idea


is to give more powers It has been welcomed


by members of the profession, but the council umbrella group Cosla


says the plan will erode local So, how much resistance


will there be? Education is the Scottish Government


's top priority. Closing the attainment gap between those from


the most prosperous and most paved areas as the priority. The Education


Secretary decided that giving more power to the schools is the way


forward. Under the plan, headteachers will have


responsibility for raising attainment. They will get more


powers to choose stealth, choose curriculum content and have direct


control over more school funding. How has this gone down with the


profession? One headteacher says the hope that bureaucracy will be cut. A


lot of educationalists can come from any background and not have a lot of


understanding. What works best in schools is that there is a


completely of management above the school that you have to address as


the headteacher and that can often undermine the job you're trying to


do. One education experts said more power for the teachers is a good


thing. But he urges caution. They are in position to do things better.


We tend to do it better than politicians and bureaucrats. It


could lead to improvement, but teachers are extremely busy people.


We cannot create new curricular directions as the policy directs


them to. The neat advice and support. That is in this proposal is


that while a low headteachers to do innovative things. But politicians


are involved and education as a hard-fought topic as we saw during


questions to the First Minister. The First Minister has taken teachers


are involved and education as a hard-fought topic as we saw during


questions to the First Minister. The First Minister has taken teachers


were granted for years. Whenever we come forward with policies and ideas


and initiatives to address these challenges, all the Labour Party


does is oppose them. They hate of the biggest kitchen union says he


hopes there will be less of that tape of conflict in the future. We


need to get the consensus around Scotland. We need the political


parties working together as to how best to support schools. This is


part of a wider strategy in education. How long will it take


before changes produce results. I am joined obeying the Education


Secretary. Try and explain some of this.


Well, joining me now from Dundee is the education


Can the headteachers hire teachers and also fire them? They would have


to go through the normal process of performance management and address


issues of teachers of the one not satisfactory. In all the proposals,


the local authority would remain the employer. They headteacher would


have to collaborate with the individual local authorities to do


that. In simple terms, if I may headteacher, I think someone is not


up to it, I do not want them in my school, because I have new


responsibilities over performance, can I get rid of them? You would


have two discussed that with the local authority and go through the


normal employment rates. It is important that we give headteachers


the flexibility and opportunity to take the rate decisions within


schools to make sure we can best meet the needs of young people. All


evidence indicates that the course of the delivery to the education,


the better for the young people involved. You want to give


headteachers more control over a greater proportion of the school


budget. You want to go beyond the pupil equity fund. What proportion


do you think should be under the direct control of the headteachers?


We will discuss with the profession. What is your view? We will undertake


a consultation on that. The lesson aged the juice in funding is that we


are seeing a very interesting set of examples where teachers have the


flexibility to tackle directly issues the fees within their own


schools. The likes of speech and language therapy which enhances


communication ability at the very early stage in the education,


investing in link workers, and in some other standards literacy and


new Morrissey. The key point is that different approaches on the table


will go to different parts of the country to ensure that young people


are enhanced by the interaction with the education system. All the big


teachers at the disposal? There was some aspects of the London challenge


in this. With the "To send at the request of local authorities on


themselves, if a school is underperforming, could the Saint


teachers in to retrain the ones already be? This has to be a true


collaborative. We want to bring together the best expertise we have.


Could the intervene? The other to support the delivery of education in


schools. I want schools to be able to determine what support they


require. These regional collaborations will bring together


our experts from within the Inspectorate of education Scotland.


In the London challenge, what happened was that of the school was


identified as underperforming, there were centralised teams not to ask


get -- act against the teachers, but to integrate and retrain them. I am


curious as to whether these regional bodies would be able to do that. It


is not an abstract concept. It will be practical support available to


schools across the country to enhance performance. The heart of


the reforms is a relentless look at improving the education system. We


really identify problems, the schools will be asked to improve.


Whatever the problems, I want every school in the country to be able to


access a quality resource to improve performance. It currently does not


exist in every part of the country. I want to make sure that available.


In the document you produced, you point out that local authorities


have different modes to spend on pupils. Sometimes within the local


authority, you see some areas which need higher spending on not getting


it. I am not sure how any of the proposals could address that. I


think the diversity in terms of education in Scotland, from rural to


urban, large to small, it's difficult to establish a national


funding approach. That's why want to make sure we have the maximum


flexibility available and sustainable within the system.


We will consult on those issues... How does that work? You say again in


your document, the headteacher's Charter, they could be a Scotland


wide approach to funding. Bringing consistency to the way local


authorities run schools. But alas the money you give to local


authorities is ring fenced I don't see how that can possibly work? At


the moment they can decide that it's more important to spend that money


on social care, for example, or the past apartment?


The steps we have taken on the first Epsom this direction. We put in


greater discretion in greater flexibility over the use of


resources. How we build an pubertal funding will be the subject of the


next element of our reforms. -- pubertal funding.


I want to move up speed, and with pace, to make sure that we have, in


place, the regional collaborations that could enhance performance. And


meet the needs of young people. You said the last time you were on


this programme you would produce a battery of targets, several at


least, by which the electorate can judge whether any of this does


anything to improve the education system.


Do you still intend to do that? We've done that already and will


continue to focus on these things. We are publishing, school by school,


the performance of young people at various teachers and education. That


will be published every year based on teacher judgment deployed in our


schools. There is a transparent approach to assessing education in


Scotland on the widest data ever available. That's really important,


to show our young people have the best chance to succeed.


I'm sure you'll be disappointed if I let you go without asking you about


a second independence referendum. We've got lots of people saying,


look, come on, we've got to shelve this, at least until the 2021


elections. Do you agree? The first thing I want


to say is that the publication of the education proposals on Thursday


demonstrated we are getting on with the day job, contrary to what the


Secretary of State for Scotland was saying.


One more sentence. Obviously, it will take time to reflect on the


outcome of the election. But our proposal always was that an


independence referendum would only be appropriate when we had the


outcome of the breakfast negotiations. People in Scotland can


make an informed choice. People want you to say it's off the


table. We want stability. Our proposal was


that we would have this referendum, if we have the end of the Brexit


process. We will consider proposals in the light of the election.


When do you think the end of the Brexit browsers will be?


The Prime Minister has told as it's two years away from the triggering


of Article 50. That's been admitted by the UK Government. We set out


proposals on the basis of that commitment.


Thank you very much indeed. And time now for a look


at the Week Ahead. I'm joined now by the Karen Lindsay,


editor of liberal Democrat voice. and Paul Hutcheon,


Investigations Editor All is not well from what we have


heard this morning, Paul. Philip Hammond's comments that he wasn't


happy with the role he was given in the election, so on and so forth,


rumours of plots, what do you think is happening?


I think the wheels are coming off the bus. Obviously, Brexit


negotiations are about to start. This is the key thing facing the


Government. I think they are being pulled into different directions on


that subject. You've got people like Philip Hammond Andrew Davidson, who


are making noises about a softer Brexit, whatever that means, using


their muscle. their muscle.


-- Ruth Davidson. It didn't sound soft in Philip Hammond's words.


Yes, he recalibrated it so its focus towards the economy. If he did tweak


it, I think it would face a backlash from some of the committed


Eurosceptics and backbenchers. But just a broader point.


I remember John Major's comments, lurching from crisis to crisis, this


is a John Major style government times ten. But through the hellish


filter of social media. I'd be amazed if Theresa May was still


Prime Minister by the end of the year.


Would you be good macro I can't... I think the Conservative Party are in


a mess regardless of who is leading them. What fascinates me is the


position of the Scottish Tories. Two weeks ago they were defending


the rain laws and the hardest Brexit. Now they are talking about


this open Brexit. Of course the focus should be on the economy.


It wasn't clear what the difference was. Are these Scottish Tories going


to flex their muscle and work without other moderates across the


Parliament to protect our economy and protect jobs.


I'm not seeing evidence of that yet. Education, I was just talking to


John Swinney about that. He's got all these detailed proposals, the


problem he's got, is that communal, this isn't a motorbike, this is


shifting an oil tanker. They don't have the time to shift an oil


tanker. On one level I can understand why


he's doing it. Their top domestic priority is


closing the attainment gap. But under the status quo they would


rely your and 32 different local authorities to do that job for them.


It's clear he doesn't trust councils, so this rethink, this


restructure, is about centralising control. But, I think the point I


would make... But, clearly, some of these ideas,


some of them are from Tony Blair's book on education. Some of them are


similar to things the Tories have done in England. Our grubby, they


don't have the courage or convictions. Blair went to the


education system like a dose of salt. They sacked head teachers,


said, right, we won't stop until we got demonstrable evidence. Things


didn't improve, but it's not quite as radical here.


It's not as radical as what Michael Forsyth did in the 90s or Tony Blair


did in the last decade. The point I would make is its run councils to


headteachers. Recently, he's giving headteachers the legal


responsibility close the attainment gap.


The point I'd make is that they are not sociologists. There is no


consensus on why the attainment gap exists.


There is no consensus. That's the difficult one to shift. You could


argue that they get the ability of students to read up fairly quickly,


but getting the attainment gap down, that's hard.


We know what works. We know that a dedicated pupil premium is closing


the gap in England. That was one of our ideas. But even


that was an element of a whole load of different things.


But also, what matters on the ground, is the number of teachers


and support workers in schools. We've seen figures this week that


showed there are fewer support workers in schools than in 2007.


That is massive. They have a huge role in the


classroom. I just want to ask you both about independence referendum


to. John Swinney's line seemed to be, I don't know, can we talk about


something else, but I won't take it off the table.


Is that sustainable? I think they just need to take it off the table


now, for the rest of this Parliament, but a motion to the


Parliament but everyone votes on, that's it. Out of the way. Two


thirds of people in Scotland rejected the idea. That's what it


was about peer. The problem with that is there are a


lot of people passionately supporting the idea of independence.


If the SNP turned around and said independence was on the back burner,


they will be very happy. They are in a bind. If they pursue


the second independence referendum plan it's likely they will lose


support in terms of Hollyrood and get kicked out of office. But if


they ditched Indyref2, they'll probably puncture the we love the


yes movement. They can't win regardless. If you were in their


shoes, which has got the greatest risk?


They should probably partied for a fuel use and make the best of


Brexit. Ben is the... They could park it until 2021, then


run on a platform, saying, if we win this will have another referendum.


But the risk is they could haemorrhage more support.


She should have been much shrewder after the Brexit Road. She was too


quick at the traps. Public opinion has moved against the SNP. If she


was shrewd and she should wait to see where public opinion is.


We have to leave it there. I'll be back at the


same time next week.


Nick Robinson and Gordon Brewer look at the start of Brexit negotiations and the political response to the Grenfell Tower fire. With Commons leader Andrea Leadsom, shadow local government secretary Andrew Gwynne, crossbencher Lord Digby Jones and fund manager Nicola Horlick.

Julia Hartley-Brewer, Tom Newton Dunn and Steve Richards are on the political panel.

Download Subtitles