29/10/2017 Sunday Politics Scotland

Morning, everyone.

I'm Sarah Smith, and welcome

to The Sunday Politics,

where we always bring you everything

you need to know to understand

what's going on in politics.

Coming up on today's programme...

The Government says

the international trade minister

Mark Garnier will be investigated

following newspaper allegations

of inappropriate behaviour

towards a female staff member.

We'll have the latest.

The Prime Minister says she can

agree a deal with the EU and plenty

of time for Parliament to vote on it

before we leave in 2018. Well

Parliament play ball? New evidence

cast out on the economic and

environmental case for Heathrow

expansion.

And on Sunday Politics Scotland:

missed targets, longer waiting Yeah,

times and rising costs.

missed targets, longer waiting

times and rising costs.

That was Audit Scotland's

diagnosis of the NHS.

I'll be speaking to Shona Robison.

All that coming up in the programme.

And with me today to help make sense

of all the big stories,

Julia Hartley-Brewer,

Steve Richards and Anne McElvoy.

Some breaking news this morning.

The Government has announced

that it will investigate

whether the International Trade

Minister Mark Garnier broke

the Ministerial Code

following allegations

of inappropriate behaviour.

It comes after reports in the Mail

on Sunday which has spoken to one

of Mr Garnier's former employees.

News of the investigation

was announced by the Health

Secretary Jeremy Hunt

on the Andrew Marr show earlier.

The stories, if they are true,

are totally unacceptable

and the Cabinet Office will be

conducting an investigation

as to whether there has been

a breach of the ministerial code

in this particular case.

But as you know the

facts are disputed.

This is something that covers

behaviour by MPs of all parties

and that is why the other thing

that is going to happen

is that today Theresa May

is going to write to John Bercow,

the Speaker of the House of Commons,

to ask for his advice as to how

we change that culture.

That was Jeremy Hunt a little

earlier. I want to turn to the panel

to make sense of this news. This is

the government taking these

allegations quite seriously.

What

has changed in this story is they

used to be a bit of delay while

people work out what they should say

about it, how seriously to take it.

As you see now a senior cabinet

member out there, Jeremy Hunt, with

an instant response. He does have

the worry of whether the facts are

disputed, but what they want to be

seen doing is to do something very

quickly. In the past they would say

it was all part of the rough and

tumble of Westminster.

Mark Garnier

does not deny these stories, which

is that he asked an employee to buy

sex toys, but he said it was just

high jinks and it was taken out of

context. Is this the sort of thing

that a few years ago in a different

environment would be investigated?

Not necessarily quite the frenzy

that it is nowadays. The combination

of social media, all the Sunday

political programmes were ministers

have to go on armed with a response

means that you get these we have to

be seen to be doing something. That

means there is this Cabinet Office

investigation. You pointed out to us

before the programme that he was not

a minister before this happened. It

does not matter whether he says yes,

know I did this or did not,

something has to be seen to be done.

Clearly ministers today are being

armed with that bit of information

and that Theresa May will ask John

Bercow the speaker to look into the

whole culture of Parliament in this

context. That is the response to

this kind of frenzy.

If we do live

in an environment where something

has to be seen to be done, does that

always mean the right thing gets

done?

Absolutely not. We are in

witch hunt territory. All of us work

in the Commons over many years and

anyone would think it was a scene

out of Benny Hill or a carry on

film. Sadly it is not that much fun

and it is rather dull and dreary.

Yes, there are sex pests, yes, there

is sexual harassment, but the idea

this is going on on a huge scale is

nonsense.

Doesn't matter whether it

is a huge scale or not? Or just a

few instances?

Any workplace where

you have the mixing of work and

social so intertwined and you throw

a huge amount of alcohol and late

night and people living away from

home you will have this happen.

That

does not make it OK.

It makes sexual

harassment not OK as it is not

anywhere. This happens to men as

well and if they have an issue into

it there are employment tribunal 's

and they can contact lawyers. I do

not think this should be a matter of

the speaker, it should be someone

completely independent of any party.

People think MPs are employees of

the party or the Commons, they are

not.

Because they are self-employed

to whom do you go if you are a

researcher?

That has to be

clarified. I agree you need a much

clearer line of reporting. It was a

bit like the situation when we came

into the media many years ago, the

Punic wars in my case! You were not

quite sure who to go to. If you work

worried that it might impede your

career, and you had to talk to

people who work next to you, that is

just one example, but in the Commons

people do not know who they should

go to. Where Theresa May might be

making a mistake, it is the same

mistake when it was decided to

investigate through Levinson the

culture of the media which was like

nailing jelly to a wall. Look at the

culture of anybody's job and the

environment they are in and there is

usually a lot wrong with it. When

you try and make it general, they

are not trying to blame individuals,

or it say they need a better line on

reporting of sexual harassment,

which I support, the Commons is a

funny place and it is a rough old

trade and you are never going to

iron out the human foibles of that.

Diane Abbott was talking about this

earlier.

When I first went into Parliament so

many of those men had been to all

boys boarding schools and had really

difficult attitudes towards women.

The world has moved on and

middle-aged women are less likely

than middle-aged men to believe that

young research are irresistibly

attracted to them. We have seen the

issues and we have seen one of our

colleagues been suspended for quite

unacceptable language.

That is a point, Jarrod O'Mara, a

Labour MP who has had the whip

suspended, this goes across all

parties.

The idea that there is a

left or right divide over this is

absurd. This is a cultural issue. In

the media and in a lot of other

institutions if this is going to

develop politically, the frenzy will

carry on for a bit and other names

will come out over the next few

days, not just the two we have

mentioned so far in politics. But it

also raises questions about how

candidates are selected for example.

There has been a huge pressure for

the centre to keep out of things. I

bet from now on there will be much

greater scrutiny of all candidates

and tweets will have to be looked at

and all the rest of it.

Selecting

candidates is interesting. Miriam

Gonzalez, Nick Clegg's wife, says

that during that election they knew

about Jarrod O'Mara and the Lib Dems

knew about it, so it is difficult to

suggest the Labour Party did not as

well.

There is very clear evidence

the Labour Party did know. But we

are in a situation of how perfect

and well-behaved does everyone have

to be? If you look at past American

presidents, JFK and Bill Clinton,

these men were sex pest

extraordinaire, with totally

inappropriate behaviour on a regular

basis. There are things you are not

allowed to say if you are feminists.

Young women are really attracted to

powerful men. I was busted for the

idea that there are young women in

the House of commons who are

throwing themselves at middle-aged,

potbellied, balding, older men. We

need to focus on the right things.

When it is unwanted, harassing,

inappropriate and criminal,

absolutely, you come down like a

tonne of bricks. It is not just

because there are more women in the

Commons, it is because there are

more men married to women like us.

We have to leave it there.

As attention turns in

Westminster to the hundreds

of amendments put down on the EU

Withdrawal Bill, David Davis has

caused a stir this week by saying

it's possible Parliament won't get

a vote on the Brexit deal

until after March 2019 -

when the clock runs out

and we leave the EU.

Let's take a look at how

the controversy played out.

And which point do you envisage

Parliament having a vote?

As soon as possible thereafter.

This Parliament?

As soon as possible

possible thereafter, yeah.

As soon as possible thereafter.

So, the vote in Parliament...

The other thing...

Could be after March 2019?

It could be, yeah, it could be.

The...

It depends when it concludes.

Mr Barnier, remember,

has said he'd like...

Sorry, the vote of our Parliament,

the UK Parliament, could be

after March 2019?

Yes, it could be.

Could be.

The thing to member...

Which would be...

Well, it can't come

before we have the deal.

You said that it is POSSIBLE that

Parliament night not vote

on the deal until AFTER

the end of March 2019.

I'm summarising correctly

what you said...?

Yeah, that's correct.

In the event we don't do

the deal until then, yeah.

Can the Prime Minister please

explain how it's possible

to have a meaningful vote

on something that's

already taken place?

As the honourable gentleman knows,

we're in negotiations

with the European Union, but I am

confident that the timetable under

the Lisbon Treaty does give time

until March 2019

for the negotiations to take place.

But I'm confident, because it is in

the interests of both sides,

it's not just this Parliament that

wants to have a vote on that deal,

but actually there will be

ratification by other parliaments,

that we will be able to achieve that

agreement and that negotiation

We are working to reach

an agreement on the final deal

in good time before we leave

the European Union in March 2019.

Clearly, we cannot say

for certain at this stage

when this will be agreed.

But as Michel Barnier said,

he hopes to get a draft deal

agreed by October 2018,

and that's our aim is well.

agreed by October 2018,

and that's our aim as well.

I'm joined now by the former

Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary

Benn, who is the chair

of the Commons Brexit Committee,

which David Davis was

giving evidence to.

Good morning.

When you think a

parliamentary vote should take place

in order for it to be meaningful?

It

has to be before we leave the

European Union. Michel Barnier said

at the start of the negotiations

that he wants to wrap them up by

October of next year, so we have

only got 12 months left, the clock

is ticking and there is a huge

amount of ground to cover.

You do

not think there is any point in

having the vote the week before we

leave because you could then not go

and re-negotiate?

That would not be

acceptable. We will not be given a

bit of paper and told to take it or

leave it. But the following day

Steve Baker, also a minister in the

department, told our committee that

the government now accepts that in

order to implement transitional

arrangements that it is seeking, it

will need separate legislation. I

put the question to him if you are

going to need separate legislation

to do that, why don't you have a

separate bill to implement the

withdrawal agreement rather than

seeking to use the powers the

government is proposing to take in

the EU withdrawal bill.

If we stick

to the timing, you have said you do

not think it is possible to

negotiate a trade deal in the next

12 months. You say the only people

who think that is possible British

ministers. If you do not believe we

can get a deal negotiated, how can

we get a vote on it in 12 months'

time?

If things go well, and there

is still a risk of no agreement

which would be disastrous for the

economy and the country, if

things go there will be a deal on

the divorce issues, there will be a

deal on the nature of the

transitional arrangement and the

government is to set out how it

thinks that will work, and then an

agreement between the UK and the 27

member states saying, we will now

negotiate a new trade and market

access arrangement, and new

association agreement between the

two parties, and that will be done

in the transition period. Parliament

will be voting in those

circumstances on a deal which leads

to the door being open.

But we would

be outside the EU at that point, so

how meaningful can vote be where you

take it or leave it if we have

already left the EU? Surely this has

to happen before March 2019 for it

to make a difference?

I do not think

it is possible to negotiate all of

the issues that will need to be

covered in the time available.

Then

it is not possible to have a

meaningful vote on it?

Parliament

will have to have a look at the deal

presented to it. It is likely to be

a mix agreement so the approval

process in the rest of Europe,

unlike the Article 50 agreement,

which will be a majority vote in the

European Parliament and in the

British Parliament, every single

Parliament will have a vote on it,

so it will be a more complex process

anyway, but I do not think that is

the time to get all of that sorted

between now and October next year.

Whether it is before or after we

have left the EU, the government

have said it is a take it or leave

it option and it is the Noel Edmonds

option, deal or no Deal, you say yes

or no to it. You cannot send them

back to re-negotiate.

If it is a separate piece of

legislation, when Parliament has a

chance to shape the nature of that

legislation.

But it can't change

what has been negotiated with the

EU?

Well, you could say to the

government, we're happy with this

but was not happy about that chukka

here's some fresh instructions, go

back in and...

It seems to me what

they want is the maximum access to

the single market for the lowest

possible tariffs, whilst able to

control migration. If they've got to

get the best deal that they can on

that, how on earth is the Labour

Party, saying we want a bit more,

owing to persuade the other 27?

We

certainly don't want the lowest

possible tariffs, we want no tariffs

are taught. My personal view is

that, has made a profound mistake in

deciding that it wants to leave the

customs union. If you want to help

deal with the very serious question

of the border between Northern

Ireland and the Republic of Ireland,

the way you do that is to stay in

the customs union and I hope, will

change its mind.

But the Labour

Party is simply saying in the House

of Commons, we want a better deal

than what, has been able to get?

It

depends how the negotiations unfold.

, has ended up on the transitional

arrangements in the place that Keir

Starmer set out on behalf of the

shadow cabinet in August, when he

said, we will need to stay in the

single market and the customs union

for the duration of the transition,

and I think that is the position,

has now reached. It has not been

helped by differences of view within

the Cabinet, and a lot of time has

passed and there's proved time left

and we have not even got on to the

negotiations. -- there's very little

time left.

On phase two, the labour

Party have set out six clear tests,

and two of them are crucial. You say

you want the exact same benefits we

currently have in the customs union

but you also want to be able to

ensure the fair migration to control

immigration, basically, which does

sound a bit like having your cake

and eating it. You say that you will

vote against any deal that doesn't

give you all of that, the exact same

benefits of the single market, and

allowing you to control migration.

But you say no deal would be

catastrophic if so it seems to me

you're unlikely to get the deal that

you could vote for but you don't

want to vote for no deal?

We

absolutely don't want a no deal.

Businesses have sent a letter to the

Prime Minister saying that a

transition is essential because the

possibility of a no deal and no

transitional would be very damaging

for the economy. We fought the

general election on a policy of

seeking to retain the benefits of

the single market and the customs

union. Keir Starmer said on behalf

of the shadow government that as far

as the longer term arrangements are

concerned, that should leave all

options on the table, because it is

the end that you're trying to

achieve and you then find the means

to support it. So we're setting out

very clearly those tests.

If you

were to vote down an agreement

because it did not meet your tests,

and there was time to send, back to

the EU to get a better deal, then

you would have significantly

weakened their negotiating hand

chukka that doesn't help them?

I

don't think, has deployed its

negotiating hand very strongly thus

far. Because we had a general

election which meant that we lost

time that we would have used for

negotiating. We still don't know

what kind of long-term trade and

market access deal, wants. The Prime

Minister says, I don't want a deal

like Canada and I don't want a deal

like the European Economic Area. But

we still don't know what kind of

deal they want. With about 12 months

to go, the other thing, needs to do

is to set out very clearly above all

for the benefit of the other 27

European countries, what kind of

deal it wants. When I travel to

Europe and talk to those involved in

the negotiations, you see other

leaders saying, we don't actually

know what Britain wants. With a year

to go it is about time we made that

clear.

One related question on the

European Union - you spoke in your

famous speech in Syria about the

international brigades in Spain, and

I wonder if your solidarity with

them leads you to think that the UK

Government should be recognising

Catalonia is an independent state?

No, I don't think so. It is a very

difficult and potentially dangerous

situation in Catalonia at the

moment. Direct rule from Madrid is

not a long-term solution. There

needs to be a negotiation, and

elections will give Catalonia the

chance to take that decision, but I

am not clear what the declaration of

independence actually means. Are

they going to be borders, is they're

going to be an army? There will have

to be some agreement. Catalonia has

already had a high degree of

autonomy. It may like some more, and

it seems to me if you look at the

experience here in the United

Kingdom, that is the way to go, not

a constitutional stand-off. And I

really hope nobody is charged with

rebellion, because actually that

would make matters worse.

Now, the Government has this

week reopened the public

consultation on plans for a third

runway at Heathrow.

While ministers are clear

the £18 billion project

is still the preferred option,

new data raises further questions

about the environmental

impact of expansion,

and offers an improved

economic case for a second

runway at Gatwick instead.

So, with opponents on all sides

of the Commons, does the Government

still have the votes to get

the plans off the ground?

Here's Elizabeth Glinka.

The debate over the expansion

of Heathrow has been

going on for decades.

Plans for a third runway

were first introduced

by the Labour government in 2003.

Then, after spending millions

of pounds, finally, in 2015,

the airport commission recommended

that those plans go ahead,

and the government position

appeared to be fixed.

But, of course, since then,

we've had a general election.

The Government have lost

their Commons majority.

And with opposition on both front

benches, the Parliamentary

arithmetic looks a little bit up

in the air.

A lot has changed since the airport

commission produced its report,

and that don't forget

was the bedrock for the Government's

decision, that's why the government

supposedly made the decision

that it made.

But most of the assumptions

made in that report have

been undermined since,

by data on passenger numbers,

on economic benefits, and more

than anything, on pollution.

There's demand from international

carriers to get into Heathrow.

More and more people want to fly.

And after the referendum,

connectivity post-Brexit

is going to be absolutely critical

to the UK economy, so if anything,

I think the case is stronger

for expansion at Heathrow.

A vote on expansion had been due

to take place this summer.

But with Westminster somewhat

distracted, that didn't happen.

Now, fresh data means

the Government has had to reopen

the public consultation.

But it maintains the case

for Heathrow is as strong as ever,

delivering benefits of up

to £74 billion to the wider economy.

And in any case, the Government

says, action must be taken,

as all five of London's airports

will be completely

full by the mid-2030s.

Still, the new research does cast

an alternative expansion at Gatwick

in a more favourable economic light,

while showing Heathrow

is now less likely to meet

its environmental targets.

Campaigners like these in Hounslow

sense the wind is shifting.

We're feeling encouraged,

because we see all kinds

of weaknesses in the argument.

Certainly, quite a few MPs,

I think certainly Labour MPs,

are beginning to think perhaps it's

not such a great idea

to have a third runway.

Their MP is convinced colleagues

can now be persuaded

to see things their way.

The Labour Party quite

rightly set four key tests

for a third runway at Heathrow.

And in my view,

Heathrow is not able...

The Heathrow option is not able

to pass any of those.

So, I see a lot of colleagues

in the Labour Party around

the country beginning

to think twice.

And if you look at the cross-party

MPs supportin this anti-Heathrow

And if you look at the cross-party

MPs supporting this anti-Heathrow

protest this week, you will see

some familiar faces.

You know my position -

as the constituency MP,

I'm totally opposed.

I think this is another indication

of just the difficulties

the Government have got off

of implementing this policy.

I don't think it's going to happen,

I just don't think

it's going to happen.

So, if some on the Labour

front bench are, shall

we say, not supportive,

what about the other side?

In a free vote, we could have had up

to 60 Conservative MPs

voting against expansion,

that's the number that is normally

used and I think it's right.

In the circumstances where it

requires an active rebellion,

the numbers would be fewer.

I can't tell you what that

number is, but I can tell

you that there are people right

the way through the party,

from the backbenches

to the heart of the government,

who will vote against

Heathrow expansion.

And yet the SNP, whose Commons

votes could prove vital,

are behind the Heathrow plan,

which promises more

connecting flights.

And other supporters are convinced

they have the numbers.

There is a majority of members

of Parliament that support Heathrow

expansion, and when that is put

to the test, whenever that will be,

I think that will be

clearly demonstrated.

Any vote on this issue

won't come until next summer.

For both sides, yet more time

to argue about weather

the plans should take off

or be permanently grounded.

Elizabeth Glinka there.

And I'm joined now by the former

Cabinet minister Theresa Villiers,

under David Cameron.

Thanks for coming in. You have made

your opposition to a third runway at

Heathrow consistently clear. , have

reopened this consultation but it is

still clearly their preferred

option?

It is but what I have always

asked is, why try to build a new

runway at Heathrow when you can

build one at Gatwick in half the

time, for half the cost and with a

tiny fraction of the environment

will cost average is that true,

though? Private finance is already

to go at Heathrow, because that's

where people want to do it and

that's where the private backers

want to put it. It would take much

longer to get the private finance

for Gatwick? Part of that private

finance is passengers of the future,

but also, the costs of the surface

transport needed to expand Heathrow

is phenomenal. I mean, TfL estimates

vary between £10 billion and £15

billion. And there's no suggestion

that those private backers are going

to meet those costs. So, this is a

hugely expensive project as well as

one which will create very

significant damage.

Heathrow is

ultimately where passengers and

airlines want to go to, isn't it?

Every slot is practically full.

Every time a new one comes up, it is

up immediately, it's a very popular

airport. Gatwick is not where they

want to go?

There are many airlines

and passengers who do want to fly

from Gatwick, and all the forecasts

indicate that a new runway there

would be full of planes very

rapidly. But I think the key thing

is that successive elements have

said, technology will deliver a way

to resolve the around noise and air

quality. I don't have any confidence

that science has demonstrated that

technology will deliver those

solutions to these very serious

environmental limbs which have

stopped Heathrow expansion for

decades.

Jim Fitzpatrick in the film

was mentioning that people think

there is a need for even more

collectivity in Britain post-Brexit.

We know that business has been

crying out for more routes, they

really think it hurts business

expansion that we don't get on with

this. More consultation is just

going to lead to more delay, isn't

it?

This is a hugely controversial

decision. There is a reason why

people have been talking about

expanding Heathrow for 50 years and

it is never happened, it's because

it's a bad idea. So, inevitably the

legal processes are very complex.

One of my anxieties about, pursuing

this option is that potentially it

means another lost decade for

airport expansion. Because the

problems with Heathrow expansion are

so serious, I believe that's one of

the reasons why I advocated, anyone

who wants a new runway in the

south-east should be backing Gatwick

is a much more deliverable option.

Let me move on to Brexit. We were

talking with Hilary Benn about a

meaningful vote being given to the

House of Commons chukka how

important do you think that is?

Of

course the Commons will vote on

this. The Commons is going to vote

on this many, many times. We have

also had a hugely important vote not

only in the referendum on the 23rd

of June but also on Article 50.

But

will that vote allow any changes to

it? Hilary Benn seemed to think that

the Commons would be able to shape

the deal with the vote. But actually

is it going to be, saying, take it

or leave it at all what we have

negotiated?

Our Prime Minister

negotiates on our behalf

internationally. It's

well-established precedent that

after an agreement is reached

overseas, then it is considered in

the House of Commons.

What if it was

voted down in the House of Commons?

Well, the legal effect of that would

be that we left the European Union

without any kind of deal, because

the key decision was on the voting

of Article 50 as an irreversible

decision.

Is it irreversible,

though? We understand, may have had

legal advice saying that Yukon

stopped the clock on Article 50.

Would it not be possible if the

Commons voted against to ask the

European Union for a little bit more

time to try and renegotiate?

There

is a debate about the reversibility

of Article 50. But the key point is

that we are all working for a good

deal for the United Kingdom and the

I'm concerned that some of the

amendments to the legislation are

not about the nature of the deal at

the end of the process, they're just

about frustrating the process. I

think that would be wrong. I think

we should respect the result of the

referendum.

Will it be by next

summer, so there is time for

Parliament and for other

parliaments?

I certainly hope that

we get that agreement between the

two sides, and the recent European

summit seemed to indicate a

willingness from the European side

to be constructive. But one point

where I think Hilary Benn has a

point, if we do secure agreement on

a transitional deal, that does

potentially give us more time to

work on the details of a trade

agreement. I hope we get as much as

possible in place before exit day.

But filling out some of that detail

is made easier if we can secure that

But filling out some of that detail

two-year transitional deal.

That is interesting because a lot of

Brexiteers what the deal to be done

by the inflammation period, it is

not a time for that.

I fully

recognise we need compromise, I am

keen to work with people across my

party in terms of spectrum of

opinion, and with other parties as

well to ensure we get the best

outcome.

Let me ask you briefly

before you go about the possible

culture of sexual harassment in the

House of commons and Theresa May

will write to the Speaker of the

House of Commons to make sure there

is a better way that people can

report sexual harassment in the

House of commons. Is that necessary?

A better procedure is needed. It is

sad it has taken this controversy to

push this forward. But there is a

problem with MPs who are individual

employers. If you work for an MP and

have a complaint against them,

essentially they are overseeing

their own complaints process. I

think a role for the House of

commons authorities in ensuring that

those complaints are properly dealt

with I think would be very helpful,

so I think the Prime Minister's

letter was a sensible move.

So you

think there is a culture of sexual

harassment in the House of commons?

I have not been subjected to it or

seen evidence of it, but obviously

there is anxiety and allegations

have made their way into the papers

and they should be treated

appropriately and properly

investigated.

Thank you for talking

to us.

Thank you for talking to us.

Next week the Lord Speaker's

committee publishes its final report

into reducing the size

of the House of Lords.

With over 800 members the upper

house is the second largest

legislative chamber in the world

after the National People's

Congress of China.

The report is expected to recommend

that new peerages should be

time-limited to 15 years and that

in the future political peerage

appointments will also be tied

to a party's election performance.

The government has been under

pressure to take action to cut

members of the unelected chamber,

where they are entitled

to claim an attendance

allowance of £300 a day.

And once again these expenses

have been in the news.

The Electoral Reform Society

discovered that 16 peers had claimed

around £400,000 without speaking

in any debates or submitting any

questions for an entire year.

One of the Lords to be

criticised was Digby Jones,

the crossbencher and former trade

minister, he hasn't spoken

in the Lords since April 2016

and has voted only seven times

during 2016 and 2017.

Yet he has claimed around

£15,000 in this period.

When asked what he does

in the House he said,

"I go in and I will invite for lunch

or meet with inward

investors into the country.

I fly the flag for Britain."

Well, we can speak now

to Lord Jones who joins us

from Stratford Upon Avon.

Thank you very much for talking to

us. You provide value for money in

the House of Lords do you think?

Definitely. I am, by the way, very

keen on reform. I want to see that

15 year tide. I would like to see a

time limit, an age limit of 75 or

80. I would like attendants

definitely define so the whole

public understood what people are

paying for and why. The £300, as a

crossbencher I get no support, and

nor do I want any, speech writing,

secretarial assistance, none of

that, and the £300 goes towards

that.

Whilst you are in there

because we will talk about the

reform of the Lords in general, but

in terms of you yourself, you say

you invite people in for lunch, is

it not possible for you to take part

in debates and votes and ask

questions at the same time?

Have you

ever listened to a debate in the

laws? Yes, many times.

Yes, many

times. You have to put your name

down in advance and you have to be

there for the whole debate.

You have

to be around when the vote is called

and you do not know when the book is

called, you have no idea when the

boat is going to be called.

This is

part of being a member of the House

of Lords and what it means. If you

are not prepared to wait or take

part in debates, why do you want to

be a member? It is possible to

resign from the House of Lords.

There are many things members of the

Lords do that does not relate to

parrot fashion following somebody

else, which I refuse to do, about

speaking to an empty chamber, or

indeed hanging on sometimes for

hours to vote. There are many other

things that you do. You quote me as

saying I will entertain at lunchtime

or show people around the House,

everything from schoolchildren to

inward investors. I will meet

ministers about big business issues

or educational issues, and at the

same time I will meet other members

of the Lords to get things moving.

None of that relates to going into

the House and getting on your hind

legs, although I do go in and sit

there and learn and listen to

others, which, if

others, which, if more people would

receive and not transmit, we might

get a better informed society. At

the same time many times I will go

after I have listened and I am

leaving and if I have not heard the

debate, I will not vote.

debate, I will not vote.

Voting is

an essential part of being part of a

legislative chamber. This is not

just an executive committee, it is a

legislature, surpassing that law is

essential, is it not?

essential, is it not?

Do you really

believe that an MP or a member of

the Lords who has not heard a moment

of the debate,

of the debate, who is then listening

to the Bell, walks in and does not

know which lobby, the whips tell

him, they have not heard the debate

and they do not know what they are

voting on and they go and do it?

That is your democracy? Voting seems

to be an essential part of this

chamber, and you have your ideas

about reforming the chamber. It

sounds as though you would reform

yourself out of it. You say people

who are not voting and who are not

taking part in debate should no

longer be members of the House.

I

did not say that. I said we ought to

redefine what attendance means and

then if you do not attend on the new

criteria, you do not have to come

ever again, we will give you your

wish.

wish. I agree attendance might mean

unless you speak, you are going.

Fair enough, if that is what is

agreed, yes. Sometimes I would speak

and sometimes I would not. If I did

not, then off I go. Similarly after

15 years, off you go. If you reach

75 or 80, off you go. Why do we have

92 members who are only there

because of daddy.

because of daddy.

You are talking

about hereditary peers. You would

like to reduce the House to what

kind of number?

I would get it down

to 400.

You would get rid of half

the peers there at the moment? You

think you are active enough to

remain as one of the 400?

remain as one of the 400?

No, I said

that might well include me.

that might well include me. Let's

get a set of criteria, let's push it

through, because the laws is losing

respect in the whole of the country

because there are too many and all

these things about what people pay

for. I bet most people think the

money you get is paid. It is not, it

is re-funding for all the things you

have to pay for yourself. But I

understand how respect has been lost

in society. Let's change it now.

Let's get it through and then, yes,

if you do not meet the criteria, you

have got to go and that includes me.

Lloyd Jones, thank you for talking

to us.

Lloyd Jones, thank

you for talking to us.

Good morning and welcome

to Sunday Politics Scotland.

Coming up on the programme...

Is it time for some blue-sky

thinking about NHS services?

I'll be speaking to Health

Secretary Shona Robison.

And about claims settle her sad --

sexual harassment in the Scottish

Parliament.

Ruled directly from Madrid

and a defiant deposed leader.

Who will be running the lives

of Catalans this week?

And we take a look back to 50 years

ago when an astounding by-election

victory in Hamilton marked

the beginning of the rise

of nationalism at the centre

of political debate.

The National Health Service has

rarely been free of debilitating

symptoms and troubling conditions

and in its annual review,

Audit Scotland's assessment

is troubling, identifying a host

of missed targets, longer waiting

times and health boards struggling

to keep up with rising costs.

The watchdog also warned

there is no "long-term plan"

to transform the NHS.

So is it time for some

blue-sky thinking?

I spoke to the Health

Secretary Shona Robison,

but I began by asking her

about allegations today that sexual

harassment is rife in the Scottish

Parliament.

That me first of all ask you...

There is material in the papers this

morning claiming that sexual

harassment is rife in the Scottish

Parliament. Is that a picture that

you recognise?

I am very concerned

by the reports that I have read, and

there is clearly a focus at the

moment what about sexual harassment

in a number of institutions, and out

which find it hard to believe that

the Scottish parliament is immune.

What I would say to anybody is that

it is really importing these issues

are brought out, and people of this

match had reported to the

parliamentary authorities, to the

police, possibly, and also, if it is

a party issue, to the political

parties. We need to bring these

things out and the open, by the

editors got is Parliament,

Westminster or the BBC. It is really

important that things that perhaps

have been brushed under the cap

before too long in regard of sexual

harassment, these things need to be

brought out, because clearly it is

totally unacceptable that people are

faced with that type of behaviour.

Have you personally ever been

subjected to behave if you feel is

an appropriate or do you know of

female colleagues who feel that way?

I have been very lucky in that I

have not had that personally, but I

am aware in blocks of life, not used

in political life, that it is

commonplace for women to have

remarks made. Actually, on social

media, we do all get a level of

abuse that I think we get as women

that perhaps wouldn't be directed at

men about how we live and what we

were, and obviously that isn't

necessarily as serious as sexual

harassment in your day-to-day job,

but I think it is part of an issue

as a society we have where women are

targeted in different ways. If it is

in the workplace, where there is

perhaps a relationship with a the

person is being sexually harassed,

that is very serious.

I just wonder

what I do think the Scottish

Government needs to do something. I

mean, to say the Scottish Government

should start this would be

ridiculous, but perhaps could do

something to encourage people to

come forward. -- should stamp this

out. Nothing is being done about it,

everybody runs for cover. They field

concerns have been ignored,

according to the lawyer.

That is

very serious indeed. The Scottish

parliament as an a situation needs

to look at this very seriously

indeed antiseptic people, whoever

they are, and women in particular,

that if they are facing anything in

the workplace, then the institution

encourages them to come forward, in

confidence, so there will be no

repercussions, and confidence to

report such matters, and as a party,

I would certainly say that our

headquarters are open, they will

take any issues of concern, and they

would be treated confidentially, and

a originality -- all the other

parties would say the same. This

practice Government has taken a lot

of action and equality and making

sure that the gift in message that

that type of behaviour in whatever

institution is absolutely wrong and

must be stamped out, and if there is

anything more we can do as a

Government, then I am sure we well.

First of all, the Parliament has to

make sure that it has and openness

to say that this behaviour is wrong,

and as collies, if we see anything

like that, we should also been

speaking up and think that type of

behaviour is absolutely wrong, and I

would encourage all of my colleagues

across any of the parties to do

that.

There is a discussion going on

about taxation and whether it should

be increased in Scotland. No

decision has been taken yet. Alex

Neill has been saying this morning

that any increases in tax as a

result of these discussions should

be reserved for the NHS.

Would you

agree? I was make a very strong PNA

negotiations around the budget for

the health budget.

He is suggesting

it should be...

Olivers discussant

around the budget, which are

ongoing, but have a discussion about

what the priorities are for

Government. I think it is fair to

say that they have budget has been a

key priority for Government. It is a

good £6 billion will... 2 billion

over the course of the rest of this

Parliament for the health budget.

These discussions will be ongoing,

and I will certainly be making a

very strong case that the health

budget should continue to be

protected.

You are not saying it

should be

should be increased from taxation?

The NHS has already had a commitment

to get the lion's share of

resources, so I will continue to

make that argument.

There is a

programme to transform the NHS. We

have had this Audit Scotland report

this week which was extremely

critical of the performance of your

Government. What I find particularly

concerning, looking at it, was that

if we look to the future, to the end

of this, this big programme to

integrate social care with the NHS

was supposed to take pressures off

hospitals so that it would be up a

cute bed, and get people out into

the community. By that as evidence

that they're blocking has reduced,

but they also say is that there is

little indication the balance of

funding will shift in the coming

years, not just now, but in the

coming years. They say that they

have examined the situation and find

that all evidence of multi-year

plans to move funding and reduce the

number of acute beds. How is that

possible when this flagship policy

has now been in place for years?

Audit Scotland does recognise that

the reforms put in place are

beginning to show something...

Assisting that even at the reforms

work they will have no effect.

I'm

delayed discharge, that is making

progress, and that is recognised. We

have made a bet commitment to

transfer £500 million of acute

anti-community services.

It is a

very congregated subject, the NHS.

You can quote me lots of figures.

Audit Scotland is saying that there

is little evidence of multi-year

plans to move funding and reduce the

number of acute beds. That was

supposed to be the end point of your

transformation, and they are saying

there is no evidence that even if

your transformation worked it will

have the effect that you say it

will. Just talking about the amount

of money you in is not the point.

I

agree with Audit Scotland that money

is not the answer. It has to be

reformed, as well as obviously

proper investment and enough

investment, it is re-form. One of

the recommendations and they make is

for a financial Fearon to set

alongside the health and care

delivery plan to track...

Why is it

not there?

What has already gone on

to make sure we can put that in

place, and it will be published in

the spring to set alongside the

health and care delivery plan to

make sure that that money is tight

as it changes. Previously, we hadn't

made such a bold commitment, to

transfer £500 million from acute

anti-community services, and they

talked about shifting the balance of

the, but there was no figure. We now

have a figure. The financial

framework but track that and it will

demonstrate how that money, going

from acute into community services

will make the difference. That needs

to happen.

That financial framework

will help. A year ago, Audit

Scotland produced a report saying

the problem with all these grand

what about social care, which you

have just repeated, is that there is

no funding plan in place, so no one

knows how much it is going to cost,

and there are no benchmarks in place

so that we won't know, even if there

was funding there, whether it is

working.

And yet, that is still the

case. It is more than grand words,

because £250 million went into

social care through the health

budget in order to build up those

communities services, to tackle

daily and avoid people...

Audit

Scotland say there are no benchmarks

in place. There are benchmarks.

They

are wrong? No, they are not wrong.

We need to do more and give

transparency to that. But we have

said that what we need to do, how we

are going to do it. The financial

framework in the spring will set out

the financial dimension of that, but

it is very clear that putting more

money in and having the system same

is not going to cut the mustard, and

that is by keeping people out of

hospital, tackling delay, and

developing commuters services is

absolutely good thing today.

Just to

take up something you mentioned a

moment ago, which is a £250 million

which was silly health budget,

allocated to social care. Audit

allocated to social care. Audit

Scotland say that that money did not

go to the NHS, it went to social

care through the NHS. They say if

you strip that money out, the

revenue budget for the NHS actually

fell in real terms last year. I

can't remember the number of times

I've had Scottish Government

ministers boasting about how they

are increasing health spending in

real terms. Would you accept the

point that if you strip out this

yard and £59 which went actually to

social care, they have budget

actually fell last year in real

terms.

You can ship it out. They do.

They actually don't, because they

recognise that it is actually one

system, and they said that in real

terms, paragraph 12, on page 12, it

sets out the real terms increases

that we have seen in the health

budget, and then we go on to talk

about the last two years, and they

make the point that the 250 million

is part of an integrated system and

therefore has to be included, and

that of course means it was a real

terms entries.

This Pacific would

make the point that when she's

studied that out, the revenue budget

for the health service fell last

year.

They don't say it should be.

They recognise it as part of the

integrated system.

When you slip the

money for integration that will go

to social care, in the current

financial climate, while the NHS

budget, without that money, increase

in real terms.

The NHS budget is one

budget. We don't have any acute

services, primary care and social

care all different. We have an

antiquated system. All of the money

works as one system, and of course,

all of the parties wanted us to put

money into social care. We can take

part of the money out. It is like

saying take the money out a primary

care family have budget, take money

out of social care. It is one

integrated system, and their father

has been a real terms entries in the

health budget.

What about the

current year? Why can you say I do,

yes, if you strip that money out

there well I would be an entries and

they have budget, but it doesn't

matter. But that be, excluding the

money that goes to social care, and

entries any health budget in the

current year?

Yes or no. You cannot

strip that money out.

You can,

because you know the figures. Why

can't you just say yes or no to my

question?

No, there is not if your

term reduction. You don't take this

social care money out, because it is

one system.

Audit Scotland did and

said you should in order to be

honest.

Audit Scotland recognise it

as an integrated system that works

through the whole attitude into

primary-care.

They raised the issue

and said you could strap it out as a

matter of transparency. They said

that, not me. I suspect, from what

you are saying, is that they would

not be an entries in the revenue

budget for the NHS.

Am I right?

There is an entries in the revenue

budget for the health budget every

year. You cannot strip the 250

million. It is one system. If we did

that, it is about like saying that

it doesn't matter about delayed

discharge. You could be in a

hospital bed and not get on because

you don't count that money. Of

course you have to count that money.

We haven't even touched on the fact

about the targets. Renal health is a

different -- renal health is

difficult to learn. Performance in

six out of a target is going

backwards, and you have failed to

meet seven out of eight in the last

year, and there is no evidence the

health of the population is

improving. The opposition parties

are saying, look, with a less like

that you should resign.

First of

all, the system in Scotland is

outperforming all of these systems

in the UK, with the same opposition

parties are in charge of, so that is

the first thing. If you look at

those eight targets...

It is OK for

you to be failing because the Tories

are failing...

It is happy critical

for my opponents to be saying that

the Scottish health system...

Isn't

reasonable to say, look, wouldn't it

be better to let some have a go at

this?

Whoever would be in my shoes

would face the same issues and the

same problems, and they would be

implementing this same plant, a plan

that I and my colleagues put in

place, and that there is no other

plan. It is a plan that I am

determined to deliver, and if you

want to talk about the targets, the

Audit Scotland obvious in exhibit

that something to focus too much

energy targets.

You are going

backwards on targets.

Every look at

the attackers, four of them are

actually very close to being met. If

you look at the 31 day cancer

target, 0.1% of if I'm been met. Any

departments, the best performing in

this violence.

When will they be

met? By next year?

We will make

progress over the next 12 to 18

months in meeting the cancer target,

at very high priority. BA idea

target is almost the best performing

in the UK over 2.5 years. Whether as

a problem is with elective and

outpatient.

We don't have time. How

many targets for you made when Audit

Scotland produces airport next year?

I would want us to make progress on

all of those targets. You will meet

those targets? They will be going in

the right direction, and the work

that Professor Derek Bell is

undertaking, Bissouma he undertook

an unscheduled care. He is working

on collective outpatient.

on collective outpatient.

I remember

during the referendum campaign that

if we voted against independence the

NHS would be privatised, how much

has the NHS being privatised since

1914? You macro this year there will

be 20 minutes in the the private

sector, that's 22% of the health

budget. A tiny proportion going into

private sector spending and. Yellow

markers so it turned out...

Welcome

the NHS is not going to be

privatised under the pet SNP. If you

look at the virgin health care and

all the other private companies

coming in in England people should

be very worried, in Scotland there

will be no privatisation of health

care in Scotland.

Despite being sacked

by Spanish Premier Mariano Rajoy

on Friday as regional premier,

Carles Puigdemont gave no indication

in a speech on Saturday

that he considered himself dismissed

and called on "democratic

opposition" to direct

rule from Madrid.

Our reporter Niall O'Gallagher

was in Barcelona for us

watching the events unfold.

Even at the last minute it wasn't

clear that Catalonia's declaration

of Independence would go ahead. With

the region's autonomy due to be

suspended the pressure group to

implement the result of the

contested referendum. Supporters of

independence gathered outside the

parliament in Barcelona. But hopes

of a deal receded over the horizon.

In the morning, thousands gathered

outside the Catalan part liniment.

While they debated what to do,

Spanish state power was present.

People have been waiting for hours

for the Catalan parliament to make

that declaration of Independence, a

declaration in Spain says will be it

illegal and the people here say it

is now time for the parliament to

act. By the early afternoon, the

owner moment had arrived. After a

majority of pro-union members had

left the chamber in protest, the

rest voted by secret ballot. The

result was met with judo should I do

those waiting outside. But within

the hour, the Spanish Sennett voted

to strip Catalonia from its powers

and remove the government. Catalonia

will be ruled by Madrid until

elections are held in December.

But

24 hours afterwards who has Brit

recognise the Republic of Catalonia?

No one. So it is a former president

of a regional region of Spain, has

put himself outside the law.

But

speaking near the border of France,

the Catalan leader made it clear

that he did not recognise the

state's right to remove him.

The

best way to achieve the games of

today is to oppose Article 155,

which is against the will of the

Catalan people and the majority have

felt like a European nation.

felt like a European nation.

Two

governments now claimed the right to

govern this region and Spain has the

power and the international support

to assert its authority. Catalonia's

proclamation has been heard that has

not been accepted. After a clear

day, the future remains uncertain.

Now, Professor of Economics Sevi

Rodriguez Mora has been

following the events closely

in his home city of Barcelona.

I wonder Professor, now the Spanish

government rather than arresting

Carles Puigdemont, is this the first

sign that we could have some form of

negotiation and reconciliation?

I

think there was never an option to

arrest him unless he did something

openly illegal. He has said that he

is still the president and the

Spanish black is still flying on the

government building in Catalonia and

I

I imagine there will will run normal

regional elections in December.

So

you don't expect Carles Puigdemont

and his colleagues to set up an

independent state? You macro no, I

don't think they have the financial

resources to do so.

They could try

to do it for a external purposes,

big demonstrations and attract

international public attention, but

the cost would be too big. It would

not be reasonable to do that. This

is completely crazy as far as I'm

concerned.

Can I just ask you, you

helped define bound temp map to, so

you are against independence. But

you are in favour of elections.

Someone said to me, you might

actually do well in these elections.

Our

Our party is the largest opposition

party in Catalonia, it is the third

party in Spain. Our party was

founded by the people who were

opposed to Catalan nationalism.

Would you suggest expect the Catalan

nationalists to take part in these

elections? Yes to much you macro the

most radical of them,

most radical of them,

these guys I

don't know. But the two main parties

in the Catalan nationalist movement

I think they will participate.

If

they Catalan party supporting

independence in Catalonia, would you

suggest that is a mandate to declare

independence?

independence?

They should try to

change the Spanish constitution.

They will have 40% of the Spanish

parliament would be willing to do

that. They can try to do that. I

think it is possible to find an

agreement. There has been a

commission instigated to present

change.

Thank you very much.

To independence movements

closer to home now.

50 years ago this week,

an astounding by-election victory

in Hamilton marked the beginning

of the SNP's rise to power

and period of history which has seen

nationalism at the centre

of political debate,

with the establishment

of a Scottish Parliament

and a referendum on independence.

Graham Stewart looks back on why

Winnie Ewing's election win of 1967

marked a turning point in history.

Winnie Ewing 18,300 97. Winnie

Ewing's spectacular or when in

Labour's safest seat rocked the

political establishment.

I was a

threat at that time seemed a threat

to both parties because they had a

nice cosy car park, a safe labour

and Tory seats a knew where they

were. The trade union hacks and it

was all nice and lo and behold a

safe seat like Hamilton toppled and

they thought if this can happen in

Hamilton it can happen anywhere and

a shiver ran down the Labour MP's

back.

The Labour MP who was

supporting a majority of 16 and a

half thousand four a majority was

secured. We didn't George Leslie who

stood for the SNP in that year

believes wedding Winnie Ewing was a

big asset to that party.

All the

energy she injected into the party,

we had sometimes a community hall or

a classroom and Winnie could talk

the hind legs off a donkey. She

would somehow make it so that she

was talking person personally to

every single person.

I attended one

of her meetings and she is a very

good Speaker. And she gets a point

across very good very well.

Won

because she is a woman and secondly

because I agree with a lot of what

she says.

The legacy of Winnie

Ewing's 1967 victory was that it put

the Scottish question centre stage.

The political establishment takes

Scotland much more seriously. The

Treasury was much more aware that

Treasury was much more aware that

they Scotland was distinct.

Six

months after Hamilton, the Tory

leader Edward Hage made this

declaration at the party's

conference in Perth.

We will give

the people of Scotland genuine

participation in the making of all

events that affect them and the

historic unity of the United

Kingdom.

The Labour Party also

supported this. And when each Ewing

was chosen to preside over its

opening.

opening.

The Scottish parliament is

hereby reconvened. White macro in

the 1967 by-election, Winnie Ewing

also supported joining the European

community, something the SNP still

holds today.

Winnie Ewing put her

insisted that Scotland was part of

Europe coining the memorable phase

stop the world, Scotland wants to

get on.

It was multicoloured

multicultural, progressive thing

that Winnie Ewing was progressing.

She was rejecting ethnic nationalism

and embracing civic nationalism. So

the modern SNP really found its

voice in the Hamilton by-election

through Winnie Ewing.

Winnie Ewing,

38, a Glasgow solicitor has won

Hamilton.

It has by no means been a

straightforward trajectory since the

election in 1967, but the events of

60 year 50 years ago marked the

beginning of a political fun than on

and that we are still feeling today.

I have to say thanks to Hamilton for

making history but Scotland and give

a neat independent voice in

Westminster.

Now it's time to take a look back,

as well as forwards,

to the week ahead.

I'm joined now by journalist Pennie

Taylor and former MSP Mary Scanlon.

Welcome to both of you.

Let's just talk about the sexual

harassment business which is all

over everything today. Is this

something you came across Mary in

the Scottish parliament? Is it

right?

I read the article in the

Herald two-day, there is very little

else about it. It would be unusual

if it didn't exist in the Scottish

Parliament.

Parliament. In an could do more. I

can do more by alerting people as to

what constitutes bullying, for

example, malicious rumours,

victimisation, exclusion, and I

think people need to be much more

aware of the insidious type of

harassment that can exist, and I

think also that many people have

almost got used to, and I think both

employers and employees through the

whole country in the organisation, I

think there is scope for a lot more

awareness and training around this

issue.

Health,. This report this

week is not great.

It was a damning

report following other damning

report. I think, family, the

striking message from it was serious

change is required, and there is no

evidence that it is going to happen.

The evidence seems to be that in as

it is working, it is not reducing

them demand for acute beds.

We have

got a perfect storm in Scotland as

you have across the UK, really, with

growing numbers of older people,

with multiple conditions needing

treatment, but that has been

entirely predictable. You have got

an ageing workforce as well, which

means that people are retiring and

are not able to bring people in at

the other end to staff the service.

May Day, one of the things that

Audit Scotland says, and they have

said this before about the NHS and

other areas in public service,

exactly come up with grandiose games

and plans, but there is nothing

there spelling out what was count as

these plans working. The

benchmarking is not there.

I think

that is actually the most

disappointing thing of all, and it

should be the banner headline. There

is no single health care assessment

of the quality of health care. We do

know that the out of 14 health

boards, you can get cancer treatment

within 62 days, but if you live in a

deprived area, most people are

actually diagnose that stage four.

They have not got 62 days to this

debate. Every year, and they are

boring enough to have read all of

these NHS Audit Scotland reports

since devolution, every year,

almost, we have increased life

expectancy. That has now stood still

for five years. Personal injury

claims, money set aside for that,

that money should be going into

podiatry and physiotherapy.

This

idea benchmarking, Pennie, it is any

of England seem to have got the

message. We have had this problem in

education as well. There is not

being laid out saying, how are we

going to know whether spending all

this money and making this change is

largely working? Curriculum for

excellence being another example.

It

has to be measurable. And this is

what the auditor general has said.

You need milestones by which this

service can be judged. And also she

is calling for long-term financial

planning instead of year-on-year

budget setting. And I have had no

commitment to that from the

Government so far.

I didn't have

time to get into it with John

Robinson, but another area is

primary care. No one seems to have

any data on the people they employ,

what those people do, by that one GP

in one area in the country is as

efficient as one in another. There

is no information.

One of the

problems with that is getting the

information into the central system.

It is very complicated. As a First

Minister said, this is tough stuff.

It is incredibly tough. It is also

incredibly important to get it

right.

The most important plasma

disappointing thing, listening to

Nicola Sturgeon on First Minister's

Questions, and shoulder today, I am

sorry, but they are in total denial.

We want for them is to say, this is

very disappointing, have faith in

us, we will put it right. You cannot

put that if you are in denial. This

is the worst ever Audit Scotland

report, and it has repeated what

they have been saying for years.

You're going to have to leave it

there. We are completely out of