25/06/2017 Sunday Politics Scotland


Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer are joined by trade minister Lord Price, shadow cabinet office minister Jon Trickett MP and losing Unite general secretary candidate Gerard Coyne.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 25/06/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


After the Grenfell Tower disaster, 34 tower blocks in 17 council areas


in England have failed emergency fire safety tests, but not


every building that fails will be evacuated.


The government promises Britain will be a strong global


trading power after Brexit, as negotiations get under way,


we'll ask the international trade minister how.


As Jeremy Corbyn celebrates his new rock-star status


with a trip to Glastonbury, will the Labour leader


The new SNP leader at Westminster, Ian Blackford, explains why


he thinks it's only a matter of time before the Scottish Government get


And with me throughout, our own supergroup of political


pundits who'll be wowing the crowds throughout the programme,


Helen Lewis, Tim Shipman and Isabel Oakeshott.


They'll also be tweeting using the hashtag bbcsp.


First, though, the government has confirmed that over 30 tower blocks


across England have now failed an emergency fire safety test,


following the Grenfall Tower disaster in which 79 people


According to the government the cladding from 34 tower blocks


has been tested and all of them have failed the combustibility test.


The government plans to examine up to


600 blocks and claim they can test 100 a day.


The areas affected so far include Manchester, Plymouth and Portsmouth


as well as the London boroughs of Barnet, Brent, Camden


and Hounslow; all the relevant landlords and fire services


Camden has already evacuated residents from


650 flats whilst other councils have introduced interim measures such


as 24-hour fire warden patrols to mitigate the risk before


When you look at the national scale of this, this goes beyond austerity


and finger-pointing at individual councils, this is a clear national


system failure for the country. I'm surprised the response has been as


muted as it has been, and initially there was a huge response. It is


striking how every single building they test seems to fail these


regulations, so people are slightly confused about whether this is the


regulations at fault or the cladding that is at fault and I think what is


most alarming to people, the insecurity. Some people have been


told to evacuate and that is what happened in Camden and they were


told until late at night. It is difficult for people to take pets


outcome and other people have been told to stay in the commendation


that may or may not be flammable. They have put fire wardens in


instead. There is a problem that people feel this is a problem about


social housing but not all of these are about social housing, but about


the neglect to people that several successive governments have shown.


People will wonder why the building regulations allow or the building


regulations were flouted in a way that allowed so much inflammable


material to clad our buildings. If you look in other countries,


America, Germany, some of this is banned, and some people said some of


the stuff has been put up in this country has also been banned and


this shows what a disaster housing policy has been in this country for


a generation. Neither party has been able to get a grip on it. There are


several failures of the Tory council but Labour was in charge of putting


this stuff into housing associations, where the controls


have not been very good over long period, and what we need to do is


build more homes and every government announces they are going


to build more homes. Hopefully using the right material. Yes, but none of


these governors have been able to build enough homes and we have a


crisis of stock where people are put into houses like battery hens,


frankly, in places where most people would not want to take a second


look. Looking at Grenfell Tower, if that had not been clad, if they had


kept the old concrete facade committee would not have gone up in


fire. This has been a failure of government with a small G, national


and local, Labour and Conservatives. Absolutely. It is not just about


residential accommodation, hospitals might have this material, I'm


hearing, and schools. Politically the challenge for the government,


there is a huge logistical and humanitarian challenge but also the


politics of it, as you rightly say, that this isn't just something which


is linked directly to Tory austerity. The government now, the


initial shock has worn off, and the challenge for the government is to


make it clear that this is not just their direct responsibility and the


result of the Tory cuts agenda and there are plenty of Labour councils


who also have responsibility. Given the national crisis and the national


failure, the government needs to be seen to get a grip on this.


Absolutely. Most MPs would say they... Their response has been


slightly more convincing than it was early on, but there are still huge


potential for this to snowball especially if we have other


buildings, not just residential, affected. There has been a change in


the national mood, you see this in the Conservative Party. The word


austerity was barely mentioned. Philip Hammond has relaxed his


targets. Local councils bore the brunt of the cuts and they won't


take any more, there is that sense, the people are tired of that.


Indeed. OK. The Government says it will deliver


a Brexit deal which will allow the UK to become a powerful global


trading nation with the EU This morning the Brexit Secretary,


David Davis, told the BBC he was certain he'd be able to get


a good trade deal with Brussels, in part because of pressure


from businesses within the EU. I mean it's not just


the German car industry, it's Bavarian farmers,


French farmers, Italian white goods manufacturers,


you name it. The balance of trade basically


is 230 billion from us to them, They have a very strong interest


in getting a good deal, at the end of the day,


on all sides on trade. And I've been joined


by the Trade Minister Mark Price. Welcome to the programme. There are


five main national business organisations in Britain and all of


them want minimal custom checks after Brexit between the UK and the


EU, how can you do that if we are leaving the customs union? There's a


difference between the customs union and the customs arrangements. It is


not that binary, you are not either in or out, you can work which with


ever party you want, you have customs arrangements, which work to


the benefit of business. That would need to cover all of the EU? You


can't do that in bilateral business with members of the EU, it needs to


be all of them? The negotiations will be with the commission and they


will work on behalf of all EU members. I attend the trade


ministers meeting and I've been four times since Brexit, and the mood is


very positive about the relationship they want with the UK going forward.


We have frictionless trade by being in the customs union at the moment,


you can import into this country, and then they go seamlessly to the


rest of the EU because everything coming into the EU comes in on the


same terms, but if we are not in the customs union any more, how can you


have that frictionless trade? You look at Harris first of all, and at


the moment we are tariff free, but if you look at the arrangement like


the Canadian trade Guild, it is 98% tariff free, -- the trade deal. The


Canadian deal is not a customs deal. What I'm asking you is about the


stuff coming into Britain which at the moment can then go seamlessly to


the rest of the EU, and will not be able to do so if we are not in the


customs union. I'm trying to explain the preconditions for having a


customs arrangements, the first is, can tariff the parable of the -- the


first is tariff, and then at the moment we take 56% of our goods from


outside the EU. We have electronic passing of documentation and I'm


told that 96% will go through within six seconds, and so we are not a


novice to this and we all be do this with countries all over the world.


We trade with 163 countries around the world, we are not building from


no experience and no base. We have a place that we are working from. To


do it sector by sector could take a long wire which is maybe why the


Chancellor is now talking about a transitional period for single


market access may be membership, and the customs union, how long a


transition period are we looking at? Who knows. We will see how we get


on. One year, two years? Who knows. From the European and UK perspective


we want a smooth transition and this is what trade ministers are saying


across Europe, this is not just a British desire. I have heard


interviews with several European parliamentarians who say they want


to move to a smooth transition and they would like a period of time to


do that if we can't do that inside the initial period. Will we be able


to make free trade deals with countries outside the EU in this


transition period? We have a host of arrangements at the moment, but it


is not that simple. With the EU we are party to about 40 trade deals by


the time we go, and we will work with those countries to transition


them. But in the transition period, can we make a free-trade deal with


America or China? Can we do that? We have set up nine working groups at


the moment with 15 different countries and what we are working


through is how do we make sure when we leave the EU that the current


arrangements that we have are carried forward, Liam Fox last week


was in America and there are 20 agreements with America. We can talk


about the current trading relationship, how do we make things


better for our businesses in those countries in the way that customs


work and the way their businesses are handled and then we can start


thinking about how do we shape a future deal. In a transition period,


can we strike a free-trade deal with a third party? No, we can't. We


can't sign or negotiate. During the transition period? This is during


the two-year period, but in the transition period that depends what


we agree with the EU. Businesses want tariff free trade to continue


between the EU and the UK. What indications have you had that the EU


will agree to this? Businesses who want tariff free trade to continue.


Between the UK and the EU. In all the discussion that I've had with


trade ministers, and I've spoken to them all over the last year, there


is a great appetite to impose tariffs where none exist today and


as I've mentioned, the Canadian deal is 98% tariff free but also today,


what we have said, we will make sure that for the least developed


country, 48 of them, we give them preferential access to the UK, no


tariffs or rotors, and there's another group of countries that we


give reduced access to as well. What about tariff free trade between the


EU and the UK? I think they will be keen to give us that. But no yes,


despite all these meetings. We have got to sit down and negotiate, but


the spirit is a good one. People in Europe want to get into a good place


with us, why? Because the trade surplus with the UK is... I know all


the reasons. Euro France only runs a surplus with four countries and we


are one of them. So the indications are good? Yes, around the world,


since Brexit, I visited 31 countries and I've met with 70 ministers and I


have seen this. Let me come onto immigration. Businesses have also


called for a flexible system of skills and Labour, so what system do


you imagine? You have heard from the government that we don't want to


harm our economy, and in Europe we have heard very loud and clear that


people want to be able to source the right people for their businesses.


What will the system be? Tomorrow the Prime Minister is going to make


an announcement. That is about EU citizens already here, but what will


the broad principles be under which people from the EU can come here to


work? That will be in the paper that will be set up, we have the


immigration bill coming forward, but we don't want to harm the UK


economy. What is the priority? In your manifesto you had a policy of


reducing net migration to the tens of thousands, so what is the


priority, hitting Matt Targett or a system that meets the flexible needs


of the economy? -- that target. It is a difficult call. I would say


meeting the needs of the economy are hugely important. What is more


important? The part of the jigsaw that is missing is what happens to


the shape of the Labour force in the UK as we move into the digital


error. The British consortium have said they will need 900,000 fewer


workers in retail in ten years' time in every industry is being reshaped,


and to take a point in time and say this is right... I'm asking for a


general principle, what is more important, hitting the target or


keeping immigration that is flexible to the economy? If you asked me as a


businessman, for 30 years, I would say it is through the success of


business and the success of our economy that we can afford the


social services that we want. As a government minister we need to work


through over the course of the next 2-3 years, but Bill through


Parliament and decide where we get to, we have said there is a target


of tens of thousands, and my personal view, given the digital


changes, that is a perfectly reasonable target for us.


Business says what they really need is clarity. One year after we voted


to leave, what clarity have you brought to these issues this


morning? That is a very good question. I think we have set out


the principles. You cannot tell me the principles of immigration, the


principles on which the customs union will operate, or the economy


or hitting a target will be more important for immigration. The Prime


Minister has set out what we intend to achieve. Through the Queen's


speech will bring a different bills that address these issues. They will


be there for Parliament to discuss, there will be consultation papers


and business can be involved with that. We will be consulting and


there will be a vote. That is process. I'm afraid we have run out


of time, but that is processed. What you want us to do is to be able to


say this is definitively what we will be able to get, but there are


two site. If I was buying a business in Waitrose, I couldn't tell you


what the outcome would be. I was simply asking what the Government's


aim was. That has clearly been set out by the Prime Minister. Thank


you. Jeremy Corbyn confounded his critics


in the general election, increasing Labour's share


of the vote and securing So will the Corbynistas use


the result to strengthen Our reporter Emma Vardy


has been finding out. Enjoying superstar


status at Glastonbury. Since when did being


a politician become this cool? Do you know, politics is actually


about everyday life. It's about all of us


and what we dream and what we want and what we achieve and what we want


for everybody else. # Staying out for the summer,


playing games in the rain It's looking like the summer


of love for Jeremy Corbyn. As he basks in his post-election


glow, well, as much as you can bask So, is all that bitter infighting


in the party a distant memory Jeremy will stay the Labour leader


now as long as he wants to do so. He's come back from the dead


in terms of the predictions and so he will remain Labour leader


for as long as he wants. Let's recognise that another world


is possible if we come together. Former Corbyn critics like John Mann


MP have been eating humble pie. The big issue for Jeremy now is,


is he going to hold his people in and stop any factional battling


in the Labour Party, and there are people on both


sides of the old divide in the Labour Party who love nothing


better than internal wrangling. Or is he going to consolidate his


position and bring the Labour Party together and be a potential


Prime Minister in waiting? The centrist Labour group Progress


which had been associated with some of Corbyn's harshest critics says


now the party is more In the general election,


the Labour Party worked together, Labour MPs put their strongest foot


forward in getting re-elected in their seats the national campaign


pulled through and party staff We have shown that when we pull


together we are a strong force. # Staying out for the summer,


staying up for the summer #. Before the election,


a number of party rule changes had been up for debate as pro and


anti-Corbyn factions looked for ways So has all that now being kicked


into the long grass? Any attempts to try and undermine


Tom Watson as deputy leader, appoint a second deputy leader,


attack the party staff, change the party rules,


will show the public out there that the Labour Party is more


interested in itself rather But will also put at risk that


unity, that is fragile and quite frankly now,


is led from the top. The way in which internal


hostilities would recommend The way in which internal


hostilities would recommence would be if there was a return


to some of the sectarianism that we So if there were attempts


to deselect MPs and councillors, those MPs and councillors


are going to fight If there are attempts to cross


a limited number of policy red lines on things like Trident renewal,


again that would cause And if there are attempts to change


the rule book of the party in a way that just gives blatant partisan


advantage, then again it would cause divisions to re-emerge,


but there's no need for them to do On policy and personnel, the ball


is in Jeremy Corbyn's court. There will be a debate


at conference, though, on what some are calling


the McDonnell Amendment. A rule change that would lower


the number of nominations needed Those on the left of the party have


been accused of plotting to make it easier for a left-wing candidate


to stand for leadership to succeed I think that opinion at conference


is finely balanced on that. Because the elections


for constituency delegates seem to be on a knife edge


between the left and the right. We will know the outcome of those


around the 9th of July And then it all depends


on the attitude taken by a couple of the big unions like


the GMB and Unison, about this proposal than Unite


and the more left-wing unions are. Meanwhile, here at the Jeremy Corbyn


supporting Momentum HQ, they believe there could be another


general election within six months and are remaining


in full campaign mode. We're going to be targeting


new marginals and we're going to be training thousands of activists


in those marginal constituencies and we going to be developing


new technological platforms to make it easy for people to get


involved in the election. Safe to say, they're


feeling rather vindicated. Many of those who were bitterly


opposed to Jeremy Corbyn have eaten their words


and have apologised. Look, in the general election


campaign, we campaigned for all Labour candidates


in our target seats and marginal seats, irrespective of where they


stood in the past on Jeremy Corbyn. We helped win seats for candidates


who supported Progress, just as hard as we helped win seats


for those who had always supported Jeremy and that's the way


we are going to carry on. Well, I think that will last


till the next election because we all want to


win the next election. # Staying out for the summer,


staying out for the summer #. For now, he's the man of the moment,


but is this performance the peak of his popularity, or the precursor


to Labour winning power? Before the general election


was called, a proxy-battle for the future of the Labour party


was played out in the election of the general secretary


of Unite, the union, The incumbent, Len McClusky,


who had put his weight behind Jeremy Corbyn,


faced a challenge from Gerard Coyne, who was seen to be the Labour


moderates' choice. Gerard Coyne narrowly lost,


and this week he was sacked from his Unite position


as a regional secretary. Good morning. You say you have been


the victim of a kangaroo court and a short trial, what do you mean by


that? After 29 years' service with the union I found myself dismissed


for a trumped up charge that related to the election but was about


nothing that relates directly to my role as a regional secretary so it


showed to me that defence now cannot be tolerated inside Unite and that's


a very concerning situation. The union says you were sacked for


misuse of data during the leadership election campaign. You say it's


because you have the audacity to challenge Len McCluskey. What's the


evidence to support your side? The independent body appointed by the


union to oversee the election this week produced a report that said in


relation to the data issue there was no evidence I breached any rules and


no evidence I breached the election guidance so actually the union's own


independent body has exonerated me this week. You said "It's beyond


parody that I is a 30 year member of the Labour Party should be accused


of harming Unite Labour relations by Len McCluskey's chief of staff..."


What do you mean by that? The investigation and the decision


reached actually shows a much more concerning element about the


involvement in the campaign and election that reflects badly in


terms of his position as a member of the Communist Party and the sort of


quite frankly Stalinist approach to the treatment I have received. So


actually it was a show trial I endured recently and I don't believe


I have received a fair process at all. And in this, in your words show


trial, did this Unite leadership regard you as an enemy of the


proletariat? The truth is they were very keen to see the descent and the


different vision I have got for Unite which was focused on our


members and protecting them in a difficult set of circumstances. They


wanted to stamp out that voice which was one which was articulated in a


different way for the union to go in the future. But you had lost. Yes


but on a very small majority, and there were thousands of Unite voters


that didn't have a chance to vote, which is why I'm now mounting a


legal challenge to the election results and we are going to make


sure it is rerun and given the opportunity to those members. So you


think you have a claim in law? To put a ten point claim into the


certification Officer, that has already gone in challenging the


result on ten individual counts as to how it was not properly run in


the first place. Do you have confidence in the certification


Officer in that process or do you think you might end up in the High


Court? If the certification Officer doesn't rule in favour of what I


think is a strong case coming have to ask the question what is this


certification Officer for, in that case I will be considering the High


Court. If you are right about the way you were treated, what does it


say about British trade unionism in the 21st-century that you can be


sacked by your union for standing up to the boss? I expect to have a


robust debate in a democratic election and not to be punished for


it. I did engage in what was quite an interesting debate through the


election campaign, but I've also served the union the 29 years and


for most employees if they have had that length of service, some


consideration would have been given to that. But Len McCluskey has been


re-elected leader, Jeremy Corbyn now rules the Labour Party unchallenged.


Andrew Murray, who you say mounted the show trial against you, was a


key part of Jeremy Corbyn's election campaign. It does look like you've


lost on all fronts. Jeremy did exceptionally well in the general


election campaign, he got young people involved, and it's not about


a left or right issue in terms of the party, it's about where the


party goes. My fear is that the way I've treated will start to give an


influence in the Labour movement or generally in the Labour Party that


starts to look like purges are acceptable. If Labour does that, the


electorate will never forgive them for an internal battle rather than


being the effective opposition they need to be. Are you saying that what


you believe happened to you could happen to other people now in the


Labour Party itself? I think there is a real danger of that. The


reality is the very people involved at the top of Unite, involved in the


disciplinary process with myself, they are influential figures in


Labour and part of my campaign is that Unite is too intrinsically


linked with the top of the Labour Party and ready to be focusing on a


much stronger industrial agenda for the future. If you have been a


member of the Labour Party for 30 years. We have now been dismissed


from your job is regional secretary I think in the West Midlands area?


That's right. Have you heard from the Labour leadership on this issue?


I haven't, and in terms of the leadership it would be nice to hear


from them because we lost seats in the West Midlands, we should have


felt onto, where working-class vote did not stay with Labour and it's


important we reach out to and engage with those communities and make sure


they support Labour in the future. Gerard Coyne, thank you for being


with us. I've been joined now from Leeds


by Labour's Jon Trickett, Welcome to the programme. Jeremy


Corbyn says he wants to unite the party behind him, so why didn't he


use the Shadow Cabinet reshuffle to do just that? First of all, why


would he change a winning team? We did a very good election campaign,


if we did not -- even if we did not quite get over the line. The Shadow


Cabinet worked very hard to get their result, but there are


vacancies and they were used to reach out and we have brought in the


man who stood against Jeremy not that long ago in a tough battle for


the leadership. I think that shows a leader who is reaching out, but also


wanting to make sure that he keeps a winning team. That is a reasonable


decision for him to make. What do you say to Gerard Coyne, Labour


member 30 years, who believes he has been purged from the Unite union and


that could be about to happen to Labour moderates in the party? There


will be no purge. We want everyone together, what is remarkable is,


when the so-called coup happened last year, when the PLP turned


against Jeremy, our poll rating collapsed and as soon as the party


reunited for the election the poll rating began to increase and that is


a lesson for everyone. The lesson has been learned by all of us and we


will work together as United party moving forward, but what should be


clear to everyone, we cannot go back to the Labour Party as it was


previously. He had got to move forward with Jeremy in the direction


in which he has laid out for the party and the country. What do you


say to Paul Mason, former journalists. -- former journalist.


He said to Blair writes that if you want a centrist party, this is not


going to be it for the next ten years -- Blairites. He said you have


got to form your own party. He did look a bit excitable when I saw a


piece by him on the internet, but the centre of gravity, it has


changed in politics, and what was the centre is no longer the centre.


The idea that a country should be run for a few at the expense of the


many is one which I think has been largely destroyed in this election


campaign. The centre has moved and the party has recognised with the


new centre is and we now need to unite and begin to roll out the


changes. There are many which need to be done on Jeremy's agenda. I say


this to the party committee of Jeremy and the leadership the tools


and he will finish the job -- the party, give Jeremy and the


leadership the tours. If they want a more centre-left party, they are not


going to get it? They should follow Paul Mason's advice? If they want


that. We have heard many of them repenting on their sins in the last


couple of days. That is another matter! LAUGHTER


They have recognised there are new ways of campaigning we have got to


listen to young people and see how they organise, but also our politics


has changed as a party and it has resonated with the country. Gerard


Coyne spoke about working class voters. I began writing about the


problem with working class voters in 2005 at the height of the Tony Blair


years and the party has more work to do in those communities and across


the country to win the trust of everybody's so that we can serve


them in government. Working-class voters swung to the Tories in the


last election, middle-class voters went your way. There has been a


problem with manual workers for some time, I don't need to be told about


that, I'd been writing about it for ten years. I was a building worker


for a while and we have got more work to do to regain the trust of


these people, but some of the proposals will work for those people


and we have got to bring them back in. Do you back the left wing move


to lower the threshold of MPs needed to stand for the leadership? We will


see where we get to, I'm in favour of democratising the Labour Party.


Are you in favour or not? We will see where we get to. It has been a


long-running debate. Do you think the threshold for anyone who wants


to run for leadership should be cut to 5% of MPs? I'm not going to


express my view at the moment, but when there is a leadership election


it is important that every tendency within the party is represented on


the ballot paper. And the rule that prevents a section of the right or


the left or the centre from being on the ballot paper is a bad rule. That


is an argument for lowering the threshold. We have got to look


carefully at how we conduct leadership elections and that debate


will be had. That far left figure we had in that film there, he said the


Corbyn way of doing things is a successful way, and that is


suggesting that you join the Corbyn bandwagon, you don't try to change


it, that's the way forward the Labour Party? All parties have


different points of view, and so is the Labour Party. You test ideas in


action and what happened in the general election showed the idea


that Jeremy has had and are successful, we have more than


doubled our size. Over 600,000 members. You lost the third election


in a row. We got the highest share of the vote, the largest number of


votes. No, you didn't. The Tories did. I haven't finished my sentence.


Labour has received since 1997. You lost. Of course, and that is why I


have said you we have got to work harder to build confidence in people


especially working people in our politics and the way we are going.


Can I clarify the Labour position on Brexit? Jeremy Corbyn and John


McDonnell has said the Labour position is to leave membership of


the single market, so why have over 50 Labour politicians signed a


letter to the Guardian in favour of membership of the single market?


That is not exactly where we are. We are taking the view that we need to


have access to all of the tariff rearrangements which exist within


the customs union and the single market. What is the policy on


membership? Let me finish. It is important to answer the question. I


will give you a full answer, and the answer is, we are not wedded to any


particular institutional framework, we are pragmatic about it. We will


see how the negotiations go. We do not have to do one thing or another


in terms of institutional relationships but we need a Brexit


which works for jobs and growth and also for the protections which


working people have also how that comes remains to be seen. I was


asking for clarification. Is the Labour policy to remain members of


the single market or not? Alp policy is to secure all of the rights which


exist, tariff free access, within the single market and the customs


union, and we are not saying that a particular institutional form is


something we've always ourselves to at this stage. Are you for or


against remaining members of the single market? It is not a question


of four it is about securing the best possible arrangement for our


economy and working people -- it is not a question of for or against.


The labour MP Clive Lewis said Thatcher economic dogma was to blame


for Grenfell Tower, but we know many tower blocks have been clad in the


same material by Labour councils, was that also the fault of


Thatcherite economic dogma? It is very difficult to say exactly what


happened, and I worked in the building industry for many years and


I know the regulations were very tight. It now looks as though


something happened with the building regulations. And apart from that, we


can't say exactly what lies behind this. By Tory and Labour councils,


that is my point, both parties have questions to answer. Yes, but the


government have sat on the recommendations, like the


recommendation of this printer systems, they have sat on those


documents for years. -- sprinkler systems. Do you think all parties


should stop trying to make political capital out of what is effectively a


national disaster? And tried to get to the bottom of a system explained


the and try to do better regardless of the party? Yes, everyone should


do the same. The sooner we get the results of the inquiry the better,


but if there are decisions which can be made sooner than the public


inquiry they should be made and implemented. Jon Trickett, thanks


for joining us. Good morning, and welcome


to Sunday Politics Scotland. The SNP's Westminster leader,


Ian Blackford, says Scotland So, how exactly does he propose


to help secure a place Michael Gove has called it


"a sea of opportunity", but is leaving Europe necessarily


good news for all those And in a week where those Brexit


talks finally got underway and Thersea May received an early


rebuff from Donald Tusk, I'll be getting a Brussels'


insider's view on the trials ahead. The SNP don't have their problems


to seek after the election. They lost 21 seats and some leading


figures in the party have accepted that their call for a second


independence referendum didn't do them any favours -


they've still to make clear whether they will continue


to demand another referendum. But the party sees


an opportunity with a minority It's now demanding that the Scottish


Government should have a place But how do they plan


to achieve that? I'm joined now by the new SNP leader


at Westminster, Ian Blackford - he's the man who succeeds


Angus Robertson, who lost his Usually not the Scottish Government


involved in the direct negotiations, can we clarify that? Do you want


negotiations with the joint ministerial committee or are you


saying that you want a place at the table in Brussels in the


negotiations? Bye what has to happen is that there has to be a meeting of


the ministration in Edinburgh and hopefully the administration in


Belfast as well. It's important that the government recognises that the


devolved into ministration need to be involved. We are asking that the


Scottish Government be represented wary are. -- where we are. She


Theresa May got a bloody nose, she got defeated in the a minority in


the Commons. We accept that the United Kingdom is coming out of the


EU, but we wanted treaty to represent the interests of Scotland.


I think that there is an indication that people do not want to lose the


access to the single market. White on your idea of negotiations, I'm


sure you're British government will say yes we will have joint meetings


with the ministerial committee. An actual involvement in the talks in


Brussels, they may possibly say no, we're not doing that it will all get


too confusing. What do you do in that case? What pressure can you


exert? I think the government has to recognise its position. It is a


minority. But we are trained to do is seek a compromise that goes back


to a document published by the Scottish Government in December. We


haven't actually had a formal rejection. We need to say to the


government, look you got a responsibility to try and bring the


devolved nations of the UK together. We respect the position of the UK


Government and respect the decision that was taken to come out of the


EU, but we are equally tried to make sure that our demand to remain in


the single market, for the different problems of defending an Arsenal


interest in Scotland and the jobs and living standards is important. I


think people in the country want that and the government of the


United Kingdom should recognise that. If you did get your idea of


Scottish representation in the next round of talks in Brussels, along


with the rest of the bridges negotiating team that macro British


Darts Organisation team prop Tom presumably you would request in


advance. One thing the government would find intolerable is if


representatives from Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland who were


disagreeing with their negotiators? I think there is a way of fashioning


that and that is the position that the government had never taken. We


are seeking a compromise with the UK Government in the interest of


Scotland and to extent with the people of the United Kingdom as


well. We need some humility, it is very clear that that the country


want to be represented and that the only thoughts and that they have a


say in these territories? One bit of pressure you could apply is to


threaten to vote against a legislative consent motion for the


Great Repeal Bill. The problem with this that the Supreme Court has


already decided that Scotland can stop that Bill and can't stop


Brexit, it's not much of a threat? Nobody is threatening anything at


the moment. The important thing is that we now know that there is going


to be a motion that will have to come from the Scottish Parliament.


What we are saying to the government is let's work together and affect a


compromise that respect your position and respect ours, as well.


It's about trying to behave in a responsible manner, recognise a


mandate we have from the people of Scotland and staging the UK


Government, would you have to do is do the right thing. Acknowledge the


position that you do not have this position for a hard Brexit. The UK


Government says it wants to main trade with Europe, so do we, our


point is that has to come through access to the single market and the


customs union. Many other people, not just on the SNP, but in wider


society and people who have been elevated to the last of that the


House of Lords have liquidate the Scottish Government must be rest


presented. I think that must be respected. In your new role you have


said that the SNP group at Westminster would be happy to bring


down the Tory government at any time. Are you really? When I have


said is that we have a job to do to represent the people of Scotland.


Brexit is of course a clear priority. The second thing of course


is that there is no authority for posterity. One of the things that we


are hearing is that there is likely to be a deal for Northern Ireland


and if there is investment in Northern Ireland, which I would


welcome, that Scotland's interest is properly defensive. Tee defended.


Defended. How happy to bring them occurring in question are -- the


Tory government? If the Tories are acting against a piece of Scotland


and we would look at that at the time. But let's make sure that we


can get effective opposition to government that we can challenge the


austerity in general and if we can do the things I think we will have


something that the people of Scotland can celebrate with us. Can


expose my the SNP did not vote to bring down the last Tory government?


Well, we had a ridiculous situation where there was known need for an


election at that stage. We pointed that out. It really was about the


Conservatives looking out of the own interest and that spectacularly


backfired. We are not going to go against the mechanism that the


Tories put in place. Even though we've lost seats, I'm delighted that


we are still the largest party in Scotland, the Conservatives in the


Westminster love to be in the position that we are... I'm sure


they would, but the point is, when even the Tories voted to bring down


the Tory government, the SNP didn't you have stained? -- abstinent. The


Tories about than ever in their own interest. Many Labour MPs didn't. At


the end of the day it was the Tories try to seek a narrow party advantage


for themselves but it didn't work. It was a foolish thing to do and a


game played at Westminster. The second independence referendum,


people have said that that has played a role in the reduction of


seats that you mentioned. What do think the SNP should do about that


now? Nicola has made it very close that she is going to... She is


consulting within the party now. I've been engaged in discussions


with nickel and others and we will wait and see and other First


Minister Israel to give a judgment. -- is rated a dozen. What is


important is that we are going into negotiations. When you saying is it


every other member of the European Union and Scotland should be able to


have their say of the final exit the bracket. So you think that the SNP


should still say... Use of the SNP should still say that this would be


a second referendum customer once Nicola has reflected on the election


results, of course we will come forward with our proposals and


proposition on how we will move forward, both on the syllabus at --


on Brexit and posterity. -- austerity. It does seem rather


peculiar and ensure some of your critics with a ludicrous that as the


leader of the Scottish National Party, at Westminster, that you can


answer simple questions on of all issues the process of getting


independence for Scotland? What I'm doing is concentrating on the job


that I have along with my colleagues in Westminster which is can the


upper Scotland -- standing up for Scotland. It's making sure that we


get the offer Scotland on Brexit, challenging honours 30 -- on


austerity. But I have said we will make a judgment based on what has


happened in the election campaign and we have a strong message that we


can take forward for the people of Scotland. The SNP is the party of


Scottish independent, more than ever. But we must do more than ever


is protecting Scottish interest in Brexit and make sure that there is


an alternative to austerity. So, the policy from audio just said is to


leave the idea of an independent referee and on the table... Hang on,


you said earlier on... That they should never... I'm focusing on the


short-term opportunities... So the policy is not to talk about it? What


they said is that Nicola will reflect that and in due course that


she will come out and say what the position of the SNP government is.


We will have to leave it there, Ian Blackford, thank you very much.


This week's Queen's Speech was pretty short by anybody's standards.


Lacking a majority, with much of her election


manifesto shredded and, at this point, without even a deal


with the DUP to support her, Prime Minister Theresa May has


decided that her two-year parliamentary programme should


One of those bills that was announced concerned fishing -


it will aim to set out a new way of regulating the industry.


That may prove a slippery task, because not everybody


In Peterhead on Friday, the UK's new Environment Secretary Michael Gove


was treading carefully. He discussed the future of fishing post Brexit.


As the country charts a new course, that is one bit of EU legislation


the keen Brexiteer is happy to throw overboard. The Common fisheries


policy has been an environmental and economic disaster, devastating for


the industry, especially here. It also meant we have not been able to


manage fish stocks to ensure the renewable resource is replenished


for the future. Many in the industry agree with him on the common


fisheries policy, but not all. The EU provides access to a huge market,


particularly for creel fishermen on Scotland's West Coast. This is a


very high premium shellfish. Some of them are concerned the valuable


trade might start to dry up. This week's Queen's Speech included a new


fisheries Bill, but there is precious little detail about how


that will support fishing communities. They will want the


backbone of the country, but have faced declining. -- they were once


the backbone. Glasgow's Briggate, used to be big Fish market.


Scotland's fishing industry is still going strong, though much reduced.


Its leaders say that they want a place at the top table when Brexit


The Fisherman Association represent 60% of the fishermen on the


coast,... It is generally happy to say farewell to the EU, but wants


its members to be at the heart of any new policies. People were making


decisions in Brussels that could affect small communities, but they


probably didn't realise how much it was affecting these small


communities, and I think now we have a chance to change that, at that in


the future both Westminster Government is a Scottish


governments, regardless of who is in charge, will involve fishermen in


going forward. The industry's members may sometimes want different


things. Any new policies have to recognise that. Then, of course, it


is not just about profit. There is also the environment. Fishing is a


very complex business, and you have the inshore fishermen governed by


rules set within the United Kingdom prematurely, and bigger offshore


vessels primarily working within rules of the common fisheries


policy. Of course there will be differences between those groups.


What is really take bid key is that whatever the outcome of the


negotiations, the fishing industry has the highest credentials. Fish


stocks, jobs and export markets. As the sun sets, government and


industry have a long journey ahead. Well, to discuss some of those


issues in more detail are Bertie Armstrong,


the chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation,


and Chris Williams, project leader in fisheries and marine environment


at the New Economics Foundation. Bertie Armstrong, can I ask you


about how you think fisheries should operate? There has been a lot of


political rhetoric about some people saying that all controllable


fisheries should come to Scotland after Brexit, and others saying that


bits of it should be with London and bits should be with Edinburgh. From


a fishing point of view, would you want everything default, or are


there aspects of the fishing industry that would be better run


from the UK? The whole question is much more simple than that. The sea


of opportunity represented by this needs to have five seconds of


information. When we joined the Common fisheries industry, everyone


did as much as the good, and that was due to common access to water


is. When it became a downward spiral of overfishing and had to be limits,


the opportunity was sheer dot proportionally with what your track


record was when you've finished everywhere as hard as you like. So,


60% of our fish leave with non-UK fishing nations, which needs fixing.


That is the sea of opportunity. And the return of control and


sovereignty, which will happen automatically, will be the advantage


that comes to the entire fishing industry. I get that, what I am


asking you is whether what you have just described would best be done


entirely, I do not think anyone doubts that some control over


fisheries will come to Edinburgh, but is it a good thing if all of it


does? Or are there aspects that would be better if there were rules


for fishing boats that were the same across the UK. There are two macro


levels of government, one of them as day to day management which is


devolved already and will stay default. The big bit is the


international negotiations for fishing opportunity. We're talking


about 1 million of mackerel, half a million tonnes of herring and so on.


A really big or producing industry. Those negotiations on the


international stage, and of scores international stage, and of scores


-- of course Scotland's interest must be protected. When we're


talking about mackerel or blue whiting, on the international stage,


you would expect Scotland to lead and have a veto. If you're talking


about channel cod or place in Seoul, it would be ridiculous for the


Scottish voice to be in charge. -- plaice and sole. There are already


established things in place. But we need to make sure the right voices


at the table speaking for the right thing. We will not tolerate a


constitutional arm wrestle, when one is not required. It is obvious how


this should be organised, with the majority voice speaking on behalf of


that Scott, and the minority voice speaking on behalf of the other. Are


you concerned there may be a free for all? For all the criticism of


the common fisheries policy but cod stocks have recovered dramatically.


Is the danger that once Brexit happens, whatever the international


agreements are, that there will be some sort of free for all? Yes,


there are a few different things to say. The first is that over the last


decade, as you rightly identified, lots of the Northern stocks are


improving and I over the last ten years, the UK large-scale fleet is


the most profitable in Europe, running at 15% years ago, by 2014


they reach 35%. It is astounding and a success story in large part


because of our shared management within the common fisheries policy.


There is also a risk of overfishing when individual countries that do


not have a shared management planning sure there are quarters.


The final point is one that relate to the earlier point about


differences in the industry. He's very correct in identifying the


large pelagic stocks of the North of Scotland that represents a big sea


of opportunity for his members but he also correctly identifies that in


the English Channel there is a sea of risk for small-scale fishermen


not own the rights. They represent three quarters of the fishing fleet,


but they are scrapping it out for 1.5% of the quota. So they are


concerned that fair distribution of quarter has devolved. Those same


small-scale fishermen are very highly dependent on exports, as your


piece identified, especially shellfish, to France, Italy and


Spain, and they are concerned about the impact of tariffs and other


things. Bertie Armstrong, what is venting your members doing what they


have done in the past after breakfast and fishing out of the


sea? That is dismissive, -- in the past after Brexit. That is


dismissive and insulting. The Scottish fishing fleet has never


been smaller, and the reduction in stocks is to do with sacrifices


among the fleet. It has happened in spite of the common fishing policy.


There is self-interest in that. Why on earth would we wish to destroy


the means of only if lewd? The simple answer is it has happened


before. The Canadians wiped out their own cod stock. Yes, but look


at the record of the Scottish fishing industry over the last


decade. You will see an entirely different position. It is not one


hacking through lessons of history, it is solid evidence of what


happened over the last decade and a half. So, the distribution of stocks


between -- catching opportunity between sectors is a source of


debate, which will continue. The important point to note is the will


be more opportunity for distribution. Chris Williams,


briefly, I think he has conceded there will be international


negotiations, which will largely be with the EU because of its EU boats


that want quotas in these waters. How will that work? Something like


80% of Danish fish are caught in UK waters. They will lose their jobs if


we didn't negotiate some deal with them? It is fair to say that there


are lots of European countries that fish our waters, they are landing


four times UK vessels within Audi exclusive economic zone. But if we


were to man that additional 650,000 tonnes of ourselves, do we have the


capacity to catch it and process it and market it? Those are questions


Bertie will probably have the answer to. Briefly, Bertie. Yes, we have


the capacity to catch. The law will change, and with the greatest regret


and sympathy for Danish colleagues, what will happen to them will happen


to us -- will be what happened two hours after excellent. The


sovereignty of the resource changes so they are losers and winners. That


is the consequence. The winners will sustainably be us, in the United


Kingdom. Having said that... Sorry, we have to leave it there.


Well, it's been quite a week in Europe.


The long-awaited Brexit talks finally got underway,


but there was a lukewarm response to Theresa May's summit proposal


I'm joined by Brussels' watcher Ryan Heath for his take


on events so far and a look at what lies ahead.


What do you think, we know the reaction in Europe has been pretty


half-hearted to the individual -- the initial proposals on


citizenships. More broadly, what approach are they taking at the


moment. The key strength beer has is it as being very united, which is


something that is in short supply on the British side of the


negotiations. Soak in Brussels people were annoyed at the way she


offered the citizenship discussions. They did not expect her to come


through the side door whether it. But they have united position, and


the UK seems to be more defining its ability to be strong, to host seeks


it it can be or its position can be, rather than havoc mobilises the


country behind it. So people here in Brussels are comfortable at the


moment, but frustrated at the way the UK Government is handling the


situation. The British government keeps saying, David Davis has been


on television this morning, saying people in Europe, they want to do a


free trade deal, they want to do a tariff free deal with us, they want


to let us have access to Europe, and for them to have access to the UK


with the minimum of hassle. Are those the vibes in Brussels, that


everyone cannot wait to accommodate the United Kingdom? It is not quite


that they cannot wait to accommodate the UK, but they realise that the


economic interest is interest in doing the deal. The UK is


fundamentally correct that assessment, but EU is also to take a


hit if it means preserving the single market and it means sending a


lesson to others who might want to leave. The UK could be the victim of


the EU willing to stick to its guns. But hopefully they are willing to


compromise and both sides are willing to simply put common sense


positions at the table, rather than a wind loss situation. Unless all


the discussions that year about trading goods, but Britain is


largely a trait -- a service industry. If there are parallel


willingness to negotiate free access for British services along with


goods? That an excellent point and, yes there is the great dirty secret


of the EU is that it treats the single market as it sacred cow. The


EU defines itself as being. It doesn't really exist much for the


services sector, so the single market is a bit of a myth. It has to


do it via service trade deals because it doesn't exist


independently of the trade deal. So there is a strong interest to keep


on a centrist track and they would just like to have a stable


government to negotiate with and they want to know that the UK is


going to be there in six months or problems time. That is where if the


UK can provide an front there can be a deal. Ryan Heath, thank you very


much. I have to just bring some sadness that it's just been


announced that Gordon Wilson, the former SNP leader, has died. He


passed away earlier in hospital. He was leader of the next SNP from 1979


to 1990. And as a regular guest on this programme. Time now for a look


at the week ahead. With me now are author


and journalist Katie Grant, who's alongside Sunday Times columnist


and former SNP strategic communications director,


Kevin Pringle. wrote Kevin that is sad news about


good and Wilson, who will be less. Very sad indeed, my condolences to


his family. I first worked with the SNP way back in 1989 and Gordon was


the leader. He held that seat of Dundee East on the way through the


1980s and very well many ways and untypical seat, and urban seat. He


kept the party going through difficult times and three better


times that lay ahead. Scottish life is a huge amount of Gordon -- to


Gordon so today huge condolences to his family. , I imagine you didn't


agree with much he said, Katie, but nonetheless he was always great fun


and he was never shy of sticking a bard into the consensus when he


fancied it? No, that will certainly be missed, so I do think that


Scotland has lost somebody whose name will remain in the history


books. We've lost, yak, I'm sorry about that. It seems we don't have


many people who can do those sort of barbed things and make a point and


get away with it. He was held in regard, right across parties, wasn't


he? Some of his views, on things like same-sex marriage, were perhaps


not in tune with the consensus in Scottish Parliament, but,


nonetheless, he was regarded as not just good fun but as a serious


thinker. And he was a serious thinker, wasn't he? He was, he was


sometimes criticised for being a bit too moderate, but I always notice


that within the party that he was always prepared to take a punt on a


radical position if he thought it was justified and woodwork. The best


example... It was a good tradition. As we got to hear, Kevin, Nicola


Sturgeon is supposedly thinking long and hard. It used to be your job to


do that, what would your advice be? What she should do about the second


independence referendum? She does when thinking in that is right. I


think that retaining a choice of independence is the right position.


I think we're looking at the time scale at the moment. I think


Scotland is in a better position than most of the rest of the UK...


The timetable is crucial, if Nicola was to say, look were not going to


go until the mid-20 20s. We'll stand in the next election and put it to


discuss people then that's one thing, but to suggest that they


might have a referendum before the next Scottish election before 2021,


that leaves and open to the accusation that they are just


obsessed with the independence. It leaves open the issue of choice.


Scotland had voted substantially to retain, as Northern Ireland, these


two project the UK have a democratic choice... 60% voted for parties who


had Britain at the top of their manifest didn't they? Eye you can


look at the fact that the SNP you deliver the fact that the SNP and


the majority of seats in the Scottish Parliament last year, but I


think Nicholas stood to put the issue in the context of choice --


Nicola Sturgeon will want to put it in the context of choice. The


locations are Brexit, when they come clear at the end of the


negotiations, or potentially through to the actual exit itself, as we


speak that timescale is very unclear. These things will only


become clear as the negotiations go on. And in the UK wide programme I


heard them talking about the trade act that are not really giving any


exits antlers on that Young antlers on that. Is any sustainable pension,


because of course Rick Davis is going to say aha? I would say that


that is just like Ian Blackford trying to enter the question. Once


the locations are Brexit become clear, which will probably become


clear in the short term, job losses in the UK. The prospect of an


independent Scotland departing from the UK is B even less attractive.


Hang on, I know you against independence but you can't expect


Kevin to be against independence. The question is whether it is now


necessary for the Scottish Government to take that threat, or


opportunity as they would say, off the table in order to start


haemorrhaging votes. Because, you won the election, a 21 seat last,


and as John Swinney has accepted, the referenda in business was part


of that. Do they need to stop the haemorrhaging? Well, I suppose it


comes along on many different levels. In order to stop the


haemorrhaging of votes, it's not just about Brexit, it's about the


domestic record. They do need to concentrate on the day job. I'm just


saying that as a general thing, if you want to stop haemorrhaging


votes, you need to stop really concentrating an independence


referendum them and DJ job. Anyway referendum them and DJ job. Anyway


-- D-Day job, they got themselves into a position where they have to


talk about the referendum when they that Italy is profitable thing. Were


easy to an MP was hanging on by tender hundreds and some of them


are, what you say to them? I think we have to say that after Brexit


it's increasingly attracted to have that choice. It's fundamentally


about the choice of the people to decide the future and I think that


is a popular position. That's the same position that they had before


the election? I think they will find that the timescale is different and


it is an attractive proposition of itself. Sadly that all the time we


have for this week. I'll be back next week, until then, goodbye? .


MUSIC: Spring from The Four Seasons by Vivaldi


Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer with political news, interviews and debate. Andrew talks to former Unite leadership contender Gerard Coyne, discusses international trade after Brexit with trade minister Lord Price, and looks at the future direction of the Labour Party with shadow minister for the Cabinet Office Jon Trickett. The political panel consists of Helen Lewis of the New Statesman, journalist Isabel Oakeshott and Tim Shipman of The Times.

Download Subtitles