18/06/2017 Sunday Politics Scotland

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.