14/01/2018 Sunday Politics Scotland

Morning, everyone.

I'm Sarah Smith and this

is the Sunday Politics -

your inside briefing on all the big

political stories happening

in Westminster and beyond.

Coming up on today's show.

The

The decision to release serial sex

attacker John Worboys...

Does the Government now "look more

like the country it represents"?

After a tricky reshuffle, we speak

to one of the new faces sitting

around the Cabinet table -

the immigration minister

Caroline Nokes.

Does the Government have a clearer

idea about what our future

relationship with the EU

should look like?

And for that matter,

does the Labour Party

And on Sunday Politics Scotland...

I'll be assking what the Scottish

Government wants from Brexit

and asking the Scottish Tories why

they've turned against

the UK Government.

All that coming up in the programme.

And sitting around our top

table today, I'm joined

by some familiar faces.

We tried a reshuffle

of our own but they simply refused

to budge: Tom Newton Dunn,

Julia Hartley-Brewer,

and Steve Richards.

Now, after a pretty bumpy 2017,

Theresa May actually went

in to the Christmas break

in relatively good political health.

So, what better way to kick off 2018

than by shaking up her top team

and reasserting her authority?

But as she found this week, things

don't always go according to plan.

If you're going to carry out major

surgery on your Government, you need

to be sure the prognosis is good.

It was a picture of health

to begin with, a fresh,

new team at Party HQ,

but before long, complications

arose.

Justine Greening, who's had a rocky

time at Education, decided

she'd had enough.

She quit the Government

rather than accept a

sideways move.

While Jeremy Hunt refused

to budge from his job at

Health.

He even left his meeting having

added social care to his job

title.

There was a fresher look among

the junior ministerial ranks.

But when the new Cabinet met

on Tuesday morning, it looked...

Well, very much like the old one.

Normally loyal Conservative grandee

Nicholas Soames asked, "Is that it?"

The state of the NHS

then caused more pain.

Dozens of senior doctors wrote to

the Prime Minister saying conditions

in some hospitals were

becoming intolerable.

Patients were dying prematurely.

We have now clearly reached

the point where the NHS

cannot meet the standards

of care that we would,

all of us in the NHS,

ministers included, want to provide.

At Prime Minister's Questions,

the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn

pressed on the bruise.

We know the Prime Minister

recognises there is a

crisis in our NHS,

because she wanted to sack

the Health Secretary last week

but was too weak to do it.

Mr Corbyn announced his own

reshuffle towards the end of the

week, with a surprising

return to the front

bench for Clive Lewis,

who

has been cleared of sexual

harassment claims.

While two other Labour

MPs, Kelvin Hopkins and

Ivan Lewis, have been referred

to an independent disciplinary

panel over allegations

of sexual misconduct.

On Friday, US President Donald Trump

raised the temperature, cancelling

his visit to the UK next month

to open the new American Embassy.

Calling the decision to relocate

the building to an off

location is a bad deal.

His friends on this side

of the pond suspected

Just maybe, Sadiq Khan,

Jeremy Corbyn in the Labour Party

planning mass protests, maybe those

optics he didn't like the look of.

Nigel Farage also set

pulses racing with this:

I'm reaching the point

of

thinking that we should

have a second referendum because...

On what?

On EU membership.

The whole thing?!

Of course, of course.

The Conservatives

hope focusing on the

environment will bring

the party back to health.

The Prime Minister teamed up

with her new eco-warrior

Environment Secretary, Michael Gove,

to crack down on the use of

plastics.

We must reduce the demand

for plastic, reduce the number of

plastics in circulation

and improve our recycling rates.

It all seems strangely

reminiscent of someone who

once said, vote blue, go green.

In another tricky

week that's left the

PM looking a little

green around the gills.

Now, let's pick up on a story

which broke overnight: the new

Justice Secretary David Gauke

is considering a judicial review

of the decision to release

the serial sex attacker

John Worboys on parole.

Earlier this month the Parole Board

announced that he would be released

under strict licence conditions.

He was jailed in 2009 for a minimum

of eight years for drugging

and sexually assaulting 12 women.

However, it's thought he may have

carried out as many as 100 rapes

and sexual assaults on women

in London in the early 2000s.

I will take this to the panel first.

This is obviously a very emotive

case, and people get very worked up

about it, but the politics of the

Justice Secretary, Tom, asking for a

judicial review against the body

which is really under the

supervision of his own department,

this gets a little odd.

Justice

Secretary criticises Justice

Department shock. There is a whiff

of panic in the Government over this

now. I think David Gauke's decision

is emblematic of that. For whatever

reason, the Government have found

themselves on the wrong side of

public opinion on this. An appalling

mass serial rapist is about to be

let out of prison this week, having

served less than ten years for

crimes most of which he wasn't even

prosecuted for. They have seven or

eight days to do this judicial

review, and David Gauke has only

done it because he is under pressure

from other Cabinet ministers. The

entire Justice Department and

justice policy has really been

interested for up to seven years

because the Tory Government really

can't make up its mind between a

liberal justice establishment is

based on rehabilitation and less

time in prison and the more

traditional Tory authoritarian lock

them up and throw the key away

system, and the consequence is

today's decision. You have had five

Justice Secretary is, from the king

of soft justice himself, Ken

of soft justice himself, Ken Clarke,

and now David Gauke, so perhaps it's

no huge surprise that the system is

now in a bit of a mess.

If Tom is

right that the Government are

playing catch up on John Worboys

because of the huge public outcry,

is it nonetheless the right thing to

do?

It seems to me the parole board

breached their own rules. The

victims have a right to make

representations. We know that some

of the victims whose cases were

brought, and again, he is not

convicted as a serial rapist because

those cases one brought to court, a

decision made by Kia Starmer, then

the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The other fundamental issue is a lot

of what Tom was saying, that the

Tory Government is out of touch, as

I think all of the establishment and

party leaders are. Is this

ridiculous nonsense that someone is

released halfway through a sentence,

if you are sentenced to ten years or

whatever, you should be serving the

full sentence, and maybe six months

off for good behaviour, or better

still, more years on for bad

behaviour. I think the British

public think the justice system is

an absolute joke, and they think

that because it is.

You raise an

interesting point about what the

public care about versus what is

debated at Westminster. We spent an

enormous amount of last year talking

about Brexit, to the exclusion of

most other things. A few other

issues have raised their heads this

week, Steve. First and foremost, the

NHS has been causing more than a few

political problems for the

Government.

If Brexit wasn't

swamping everything, this would be

the overwhelming issue. Voters are

much more concerned about this than

anything else, with good cause. At

some point, there will have to be a

grown discussion about funding of

the NHS and how we pay for it.

Whether that will be possible in the

current climate I doubt. But I don't

think it's entirely impossible

because I think the crisis will

intensify. In a way, that has been

overlooked, that 2017 election

partly accepted miraculously in

British politics that to get

improvements in some services you

have to pay for it. So, maybe there

will be a grown-up debate, but don't

hold your breath. In the meantime,

it will be an issue that Theresa May

will have to keep at least one eye

on, as well as trying to negotiate

the impossible with Brexit.

At PMQs,

the Prime Minister said the NHS was

the best prepared it had ever been,

and doctors were saying that

patients were dying prematurely. In

the short-term, political damage

absolutely. The tanks are parked on

Labour territory there. The general

consensus in the country is not that

they trust the Tories on the NHS,

which is a big issue for them. A lot

of the problems are down to the fact

that we're getting older and living

longer, and there are amazing

treatments, operations and drugs

that can keep us alive. We see it as

a problem but it is a wonderful

miracle of modern science and

medicine and we should be grateful

for such problems.

The big news was

that we were going to get a

Government that looked more like the

rest of the country in the

reshuffle. It turned out not to be

quite as dramatic as some of us

expected. Was it a Government fail?

Depends how you define fail. It has

taken a few days for the penny to

drop, though I had my suspicions on

the night when some of the 20 15th

intake got no promotions at all. It

was a tell-tale sign. Was it a

success in that it stored to the top

of the buildings? Not really, she

just rearranged the deckchairs on

the Titanic. Caroline Noakes was

attending Cabinet rather than being

a full cabinet minister, but the

Theresa May managed to fend off the

vultures coming for her by

absolutely wilfully, it now appears,

failing to put key rivals into key

positions, people like Rory Stewart,

Dominic Raj, some of the 2015ers? It

was a public fail but digging in

privately.

Well, listening to all that is my

first guest, Caroline Nokes.

She was promoted to immigration

minister in the reshuffle this

week and, in that role,

now attends Cabinet.

Congratulations on the new job. You

are presumably part of the making

the Government look more like the

country. Did the Prime Minister

achieve that?

I think she did. Look

at the whip's offers, where there

are more women than ever before. I

remember coming in in 2010 and

looking at a wet's office that was

really mail.

Why can't we have 50-50

women in the Cabinet?

We are heading

in the right direction, there are

two more women in the Cabinet.

Even

the Scottish Government has a policy

of 50-50 in the Cabinet - surely

it's possible?

We started from a

very low base of women, even

elected. I think we're doing a

fantastic job of encouraging more

women to come forward, and from more

diverse backgrounds. It is a work in

progress but we are headed in the

right direction.

right direction. People like Kerry

bad not, who went to the same

university as I did, the University

of Sussex, hardly a breeding ground

for Tory politicians.

In the

Government, there are 3% non-white

people - not very representative?

We

have done a good job of attracting

more diverse people to come and

stand the rise in the Government.

Our messages, -- our message is,

we're working hard to make sure that

those bright, young women from

diverse backgrounds have a chance.

You know, it's a process, isn't it?

We are all climbing up the ladder. I

think the Cabinet looks better than

it did. I have always advocated more

women in Parliament, and the last

debate I did was about getting more

women to stand in politics, and that

really matters.

The big news this

morning is the idea that the Justice

Secretary may take a judicial review

against the release of John Worboys.

What is your view on that? Should do

just this minute himself be taking

judicial review is against this kind

of decision?

We will look at the

victims of Worboys and we want them

to get the support they need and to

see that justice is being done. It

is absolutely right that David Gauke

is looking at a judicial review.

None of us feel happy with the

parole board decision. This is a man

who served less than ten years, and

it's a horrific number of victims.

We can't see the parole board's

decision or the reasoning for it.

The Government could change that at

a stroke and allow them to publish

it. Should they?

The Justice

Secretary is reviewing the process,

which is important. We want people

to have confidence. Our justice

system is a very old and proud one.

Let's not undermine it. Let's make

sure we get the right decisions in

place.

Lets get onto your own brief,

your new brief on immigration. It

means you inherit the target of

reducing net migration to the tens

of thousands. The last five

ministers have failed, will you do

it?

The last five ministers have seen

the trajectory heading down, the

last figures we saw in the summer

show it dropped significantly.

It

dropped slightly, 14,000 lower than

when you came to power in 2010,

overall net migration at 240 4000.

We want to make sure this is a

brittle open for business, that the

brightest and best can come here to

work and study. We are listening to

the universities and to business via

the immigration advisory

committee...

So if we are open to

business and the brightest and best

come here why have this target of

reducing net migration to less than

100,000? Lots of Cabinet ministers

would like to get rid of it. You

could have lifted and the 2017

manifesto and got rid of quite a

headache.

We had a referendum in

2016 which sent a clear message that

people want that target to remain,

they want to see as reducing

immigration to sustainable levels

and we are doing just that. It is in

the manifesto so that is the

direction of travel.

Immigration

from outside the EU, you claimed

that once we leave everything will

change with freedom of movement, but

net migration from outside the EU

which you have complete control over

now, it's over 100,000 in and of

itself. Why hasn't that been tackled

in the seven years that this has now

been a target?

We are attacking it,

and we are doing this I have a

banking measures you have heard

about this week, working to make

sure that those with bank accounts

and are not here legally have those

Fresnel cursive necessary, that is

important, we have a raft of

measures but the current Home

Secretary and the previous one have

been clear on this, we will get

these numbers down and do it in a

manageable and sustained way.

It is

not what business one. The Tory

mayor Andy Street says the target

should be more like 150,000 so

businesses can attract people with

the skills they need and George

Osborne says this is economic and

made illiterate because we need

higher migration and that --

economically illiterate.

Which is

why we are listening to the

committee which will report in

September which will give a solid

expert economist's view on what

migration levels should be. But it

was in the manifesto, we are

determined to head in that direction

and bring immigration down to a

sustainable level.

If you're

immigration advisor comes to you and

says somebody like Andy Street is

right we need around 150,000 coming,

will you change it? Because this was

a manifesto promise to get it down

to under 110,000 a year, so what

will that looked like if you have

disabled we didn't get it right.

Am

not going to prejudge.

I and asking

what you will do with their view

because you are stuck with this

promise of reducing immigration to

tens of thousands, there's not much

you can do if they oppose that.

You

are telling someone who has been in

the job less than a week that she

should make a decision on the hoof

in a TV studio! Not a chance. What I

need to do is listen to the experts

and come up with the direction of

travel that satisfies those who

voted Believe in the referendum,

that satisfies businesses, like the

brilliant Russell group University

and the one in Southampton on the

edge of my constituency can still

attract the best students. This is a

really difficult complicated area.

He mentioned the need to attract the

brightest students. While other

numbers of students coming to

Britain to study included in the net

migration figures? You could help

yourselves quickly by taking them

out of it. Just about every Cabinet

member wants them removed from

official figures, why are they

there?

The O M as determinate

students should be included because

they are here for more than 12

months. We must make sure we have

the public services that support

them. Many of them go home after

their study as they should but it is

important that we work with the

immigration advisory committee to

get the right answers.

You are happy

about students being included in the

migration figures?

And happy we've

got 24% more coming to our

universities than we had in 2010.

I'm happy that we are attracting a

great calibre of student here, I'm

equally happy that our former

feminists are cracked down on bogus

colleges and close them because we

want bright students to come here

and in the -- that our former Prime

Minister cracked down on bogus

colleges and closed them.

Button

back to the panel, Steve Camille

can't envy the new Immigration

Minister being tasked with reducing

immigration to a level that no other

Immigration Minister has been able

to achieve.

I don't envy you, I

don't know your Private view but I

do note that most Cabinet ministers

don't want student numbers to be

part of the total figure and Theresa

May alone is still pressing this.

I've just been doing a series about

a David Cameron. He made a series of

targets which were never met, as you

said in the interview. Good luck

with that. Lots of people I meet now

who were in favour of Brexit, like

farmers, pleading, as you will know,

for cheap Labour from Eastern Europe

to continue. They don't want to fill

in loads more forms to get them. So

there's a lot of talk

there's a lot of talk about Nimby

free movement and you have a tough

brief.

Julia, should net immigration

be reduced to tens of thousands, is

it important to the public?

I find

it bizarre they asked to a target

they've never done anything to

reach, certainly the immigration

levels that they were able to

control under the coalition and

David Cameron on his own, the

numbers can't be controlled

completely, they never even came

close, it was more than double,

about 250,000. I find this row about

students strange. If you live in the

country for three or four years you

need somewhere to live, you'll be

getting buses and trains, might need

to go to the hospital, is that the

idea that these people don't exist

because they are not here

permanently? And some of them do

stay. It's ridiculous. We need a

sensible debate. Brexit wasn't about

ending immigration. It was about us.

Like virtually every other country

in the world choosing who gets to

come here. If you are qualified and

have a skill we need we would love

to have you, come on in, the water

is lovely! But if we just want cheap

Labour subsidised by the taxpayer

with a housing benefit, to do jobs

not paid enough, then I don't think

we should. When it comes to farmers

we should pay more for...

Julia has

given quite a good explanation of

why the target was set up and should

probably stay because if there is no

target, then cheap Labour will

continue to flow in because it's the

easiest thing for business to do. If

you are limited in who you can bring

in new might turn to the indigenous

British population and start hiring

them to do decent jobs they are

perfectly capable of doing.

The

panel will be staying with us

throughout the programme. Thank you

to Caroline Nokes, the Immigration

Minister, for coming in.

Now with all the other stuff that's

been going on this week,

you might be concerned we'd

forgotten about the small

matter of Brexit.

But don't worry, it's

still very much on the agenda.

Having sealed a deal

on the divorce talks,

the focus is now shifting

to the future relationship.

The EU says we can only

have an 'off-the-shelf' model,

like the deals with Norway

or Canada; but the UK Government

says we can be far more ambitious,

as Elizabeth Glinka reports.

# Do you have the time #

To listen to me whine?#.

In her Florence speech,

Theresa May made it

clear that when it comes

to

trade negotiations with the EU,

the UK isn't looking for any

off-the-shelf kind of deal.

It wants something

special and bespoke.

I'm optimistic about

what we can achieve

by finding a creative solution

to a new economic relationship that

can support prosperity

for all our peoples.

Before Christmas, the senior

official in charge of Brexit

told the Cabinet that

when it comes to that

creative solution,

they

should start thinking in terms

of three baskets, what some people

are calling managed divergence.

The Institute for

Government has been

looking at what it means.

Three baskets corresponds

to the three areas

that Theresa May spoke

about in her Florence speech.

We have full alignment,

where we will continue to

meet the same outcomes

in the same way as we do now.

Regulatory equivalence

is where we will

continue to meet the same

outcomes as the EU

but might go about it

in a

slightly different way.

And then the final basket

around divergence,

where we will go about things

in a different way and may choose

to take completely different

outcomes at the

end of it.

OK, so if we were to look

at particular industries, say

something like aviation, maybe

workers' rights, we might put them

in this basket because we are saying

not much is going to change.

It would be very difficult to put

whole industries and whole sectors

in specific baskets.

If you take agriculture,

for example, state aid

and how much overall we can

subsidise our farmers may well sit

in full alignment, whereas issues

about agricultural and environmental

protection standards,

we could continue to

meet the same goals

but

by different means, and they can sit

in the middle basket.

Whereas, actually,

exactly what we subsidise

our farmers for could be completely

up to the UK and sit in the

divergent basket.

So it would be very difficult

to put single sectors

in single baskets.

If the UK is looking

for a high degree of access

to the single market,

then the EU will expect

lots of things ending up in the full

alignment basket,

whereas the UK will probably want

to try and pull as much as possible

into the regulatory

equivalence basket.

Of course, the point of all this

is is to remind the EU that

when it comes to these negotiations,

the UK is in a unique position

because currently we

are completely in sync.

It's in the interests of Britain

and the EU to get on

together.

People are thinking that it's

a binary thing, we are either

in the EU or we're out, that it's

night and day, but it isn't.

The point about

managed divergence is

that it does give us

much more flexibility.

We can decide for ourselves

which bits we want to keep

and which bits we want

to amend or get rid of.

And I think...

I think that's a huge opportunity.

Philip Hammond and

David Davies have been

on a charm offensive

in Germany this week,

so just how are those very British

baskets going down in

Brussels?

There is a concern that the UK

will take a shopping basket,

pick off the elements of the major

trade agreements the EU has secured

with third countries,

take all those together.

It gets the UK very close to full

membership of the single

market without any of

the obligations, so I think

they view managed divergence

as another way in

which the UK either hopes to cherry

pick or have its cake and eat it.

All member states will

agree that they can't

set a precedent with

the

UK that then sets internal

challenges for themselves over the

medium to longer term.

Now, what goes into

these baskets remains a

bit of a mystery, but of course,

there are deadlines because the next

round of talks is due to get under

way

this spring.

And you

can find more Brexit analysis

and explanation on the BBC website,

at bbc.co.uk/Brexit.

With me now is the Shadow

International Trade

Secretary, Barry Gardiner.

Welcome to the programme, thank you

for coming back. We were learning

about the different baskets, full

alignment, regulatory alignment.

Labour say you want to give all the

benefits and the single market so

presumably want to stay as much in

alignment as we do already?

What

we've said is that the government

have said we could have all the

benefits and we will hold them to

that.

To do that, we must keep most

of what we can in the full alignment

basket?

We want to make sure we get

as much of the benefits as we

currently have once we have left the

EU.

You can't do that and diverged.

Absolutely. That's the point.

Diverges from that, whether through

a trade deal with another country or

whether it is simply because we want

to deregulate our standards in the

UK is going to cause a problem with

maintaining the sort of trade we

have with Europe. It's going to

cause that economic bond. But we

want to make sure we have a Brexit

that is for jobs, for the economy

and that's why we see the benefits

of the single market, the benefits

of the customs union, and swipe we

said we wouldn't rule is off the

table. Whereas the government

precisely said it would. And that is

the red lines that Theresa May put

in place that are now causing her

all these other problems.

They've

caused a few problems in policy for

Labour as well because the closer

you want to stay to single market

rules, if we've loved the single

market because that is government

policy, more alignment would have --

if we've left. That is us accepting

rules we had no say in making, a

state you have described as being a

vassal state.

These other uses we

really have to resolve. Because you

are right, once we leave the EU that

means we are not a member of the

single market. It doesn't mean we

can't trade into the single market,

of course we can. We can do that in

the same way that Norway does. But

our economy is very different from

that of Norway. And what we need to

be sure about is when we are making

our rules in this country we are

doing it as close as possible to

maintain the trade and the economic

benefits we get in the European

Union.

There have been reports this

week that Labour is working on a

policy that would involve staying in

the customs union. The Robert Peston

programme on ITV...

That could not

be the case. I'm sorry to correct

you on a technicality. But once you

leave the EU you leave the treaties

and it is the treaties that create

the customs union. So we could not

be a member of the customs union.

You could be remember of a customs

union, which is what Jeremy Corbyn

was talking about on TV this

morning.

He was talking about the

transition period immediately after

leaving the EU. That has been our

position for many months. We were

the ones that said, in that

transitional period, we want the

status quo. We want to maintain

things that are... We want to

maintain a customs union and single

market during that transition.

Let's

talk about the future after the

transition period. Let's look at

what you said you thought were the

consequences.

consequences. Do you still agree

with that?

I was specifically

referring to, and if you go back on

that quote a little bit, you will

find we were talking about the

turkey situation, which was a

customs union agreement with the EU.

That would be a very bad end point

for us, because it would mean that

the European Union ended up doing

all the negotiations for trade for

the UK. We would have to open our

markets to any other company in --

any other country they made an

agreement with. But that country

would not have to liberalise its

markets and open itself up to our

goods and services.

The common

commercial policy is what governs

all of this and binds us in with

these trade treaties. The UK

Government say they want to leave

that. Is that the Labour position?

We will be...

Would you like to join

something similar once we are no

longer members of the EU?

I already

said, we believe that the benefits

of what we currently have should be

maintained as much as possible, and

that means that whilst we cannot

stay in the customs union, we should

not have a turkey style customs

union agreement, because that would

be an asymmetrical relationship with

any trading partner. What we do see

as a possibility, and it is what we

have not ruled out, which is to have

a new customs union with the

European Union, and that is

something very interesting wave

which in paragraph 31 of the

cross-border trade taxation bill

which came in on Monday from the

Government, and which we debated

them, they have actually put

provision for that, a new customs

union, where we would be an equal

member.

But you cannot possibly

believe that you can have the

benefits of being in a reformed

customs union relationship with the

EU and still have total freedom to

make new trade deals. You have said

you don't want anything which

precludes us from making independent

trade agreements with some of our

bigger partners.

Let's be clear

about the nexus of problems we are

trying to solve the run work our way

through. You have, within the

referendum, a clarity that people

were voting for certain political

issues, whether that was in terms of

immigration, regaining sovereignty,

or simply not paying money into

Europe. All of these were things

people thought they were voting for.

If you were to be in a relationship

in which some of those continued to

be the case, where we were rule

takers and not rule setters, as

Norway is at the moment, and they

are told they have no right to

decide what the rules are going to

be, that is a political problem

which many people in this country

would feel, what was the referendum

all about if we don't achieve that?

Let's...

Just let me... I don't

think it's clear, the problems we

are trying to solve. We want to

maintain a maximum economic benefit,

to get the economic benefit of the

jobs that we currently get from the

trading relationship we have in a

customs union and in a single market

with the European Union. But to do

that respecting the referendum will

of the people for those political

objectives.

We understand that

point.

Labour has to bring back the

42 purse -- the 52% under 48%.

We

understand need to move you on to

something else.

something else. We have

something else. We have heard the

new Tory chairman Brandon Lewis say

today that

today that if any... He wants new

Tory candidates to sign up to a

respect pledge that they will

conduct themselves on Twitter and in

what they say in a respectful way,

otherwise they will be removed as

candidates.

candidates.

Of course, that's right.

Jeremy Corbyn said that Labour

should do it too. It raises

questions about some Labour MPs.

Jarrod O'Mara, for example, who has

had the whip suspended.

An

investigation is being conducted, as

is appropriate, within all the

procedures of our party. Absolutely

right, suspended.

Because of remarks

he made about women and homophobic

comments. Then you look at the

Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell,

against whom no action has been

taken, and he has said a number of

things, but one of them which has

been heavily criticised is that he

been heavily criticised is that he

wanted... Well, he agreed with

people who wanted to see Esther

McVeigh lynched. We have the audio

of this. Let's listen and then we

will ask you about it.

I was up in

Liverpool a fortnight ago...

And obviously, he used a word that

we won't be saying on TV, but is

that respectful language?

It is not

language I would have used. Earlier

language I would have used. Earlier

today, you have been quoting

today, you have been quoting remarks

that were made by the President of

the United States which were deeply

offensive and unacceptable.

Yes.

Hang on.

But this is about the

Labour Party...

And you quoted. The

point I am making is that he was

quoting what someone else was

saying, and I would not have chosen

to do that.

He was clearly quoting

with approval, not reporting it.

The

underlying issue which the

Conservatives have been trying to

cover up through all the

cover up through all the smear on

John McDonnell, Esther McVeigh, who

was a Department for Work and

Pensions minister, and at a time

when she was in charge of work and

pensions as a minister, her company

had been reported for breach of

health and safety guidelines. She is

one of the ministers,

one of the ministers, and for that

reason...

Jeremy Corbyn said we

should stick to policies and use

respectful language. That wasn't

respect.

That's what I'm doing now,

and I'm trying to make the

underlying political point about

what's going on here. She was in

charge of a department in which she

was responsible for health and

safety when her own company which

she was

she was a director of, a

construction company, they had been

construction company, they had been

suspended, their work had had to be

suspended twice within three months

for breach of

for breach of those health and

safety guidelines, putting workers

at risk in her own company.

at risk in her own company. She is

also somebody...

We will have to

leave it there. Thank you very much

for that. It is coming up to

11:40am.

Good morning and welcome

to Sunday Politics Scotland.

Coming up on the programme...

Even the Scottish Tories now say

Westminster's Withdrawal Bill isn't

fit for purpose.

I'll be asking the Minister

for Brexit if this legislation

will ever gain consent

from the Scottish Parliament.

And after plans for bans on cotton

buds and plastics are announced,

is it time to consider

banning all waste?

We'll be looking into

the zero-waste economy.

Good morning and welcome

to the programme.

A new year, a new round

of rhetoric on Brexit.

Nicola Sturgeon says the lack

of planning by the British

Government "beggars belief" and has

been talking about everything

from refusing to endorse the Brexit

Bill in the Scottish Parliament

to holding another

independence referendum.

And the Scottish Conservatives

are now unhappy

about the Brexit bill too.

But behind the rhetoric,

what do the different sides want?

I'll be talking to the Conservatives

in a moment, but first I'm joined

by the Scottish Government's Brexit

secretary Mike Russell,

who's in Inveraray.

He is still on his tour of the

scenic parts of Scotland. Before we

talk about a Brexit, let me ask you

about Correlli, because I know there

are fears about what might happen if

the company goes down. Is the

Scottish Government taking any

action ahead of this?

We are very engaged in the issue and

Keith Brown is very focused on it.

We are liaising with the UK

Government, but we have some

assurances about the major project,

the Aberdeen peripheral route which

Carillion is one of the few parts of

the consortium. We are concerned

about the workforce, a great number

of people who work for them and in a

number of areas, so this is a

worrying time for them, a worrying

time for everyone involved in the

company. We will work with the UK

Government and work with the company

to try to find a way forward.

On the Aberdeen project, the bypass,

are you saying it will continue

irrespective of what happens to

Karelian?

We understand that is the case.

Which this is a technical issue,

there is a great deal of detail, but

we understand the work is secure and

that is of great importance. And it

is important to the workers on the

project because it is a big project

that has been going on for a long

time.

On Brexit, I am keen to get what the

areas of dissension are. On the

Brexit bill, they seem to be two

areas. There are detailed

discussions about devolution, but

there is an issue of principle which

clause 11 of the Withdrawal Bill

appears to contradict the Scotland

Act and assumes powers should not be

modifiable when they come to Britain

by the Scottish Government unless it

is approved by the British

Government. When Theresa May says as

she is prepared to make amendments,

is she prepared to make amendments

to that principle?

That is the issue, and it is not

just the Scottish Government's

position, it is the Scottish

Parliament's permission, it was

unanimously taken as that view. It

is the view of the Welsh Government

and of a number of organisations in

Scotland and it is the view of the

Scottish Conservatives. The UK

Government have to amend the bill,

amend clause 11 and remove the

difficulties that the clause

contains. There is no other way for

this bill to get legislative

consent. We have been promised that,

David Mundell promised it last year,

Damian Green promised it and it has

not happened. That is the problem.

They have to make sure it happens

because without that there is no

approval. I was speaking at a

conference in Ireland along my Welsh

counterpart and we both made it

crystal clear from the platform,

without the amendments, there is no

legislative consent from Wales or

Scotland, and that crazy situation

with the House of Lords who has to

decide whether they can pass it

without legislative consent.

What I want to get at is you have

been having talks with the British

Government. What is the problem?

Added British Government saying

yeah, we see point?

The point is conceded, but they have

not amended it. The Welsh Government

has produced an amendment, a joint

amendment, the first time we have

ever done about, we put those

forward, the Tories voted it down,

including the Scottish Tory MPs

voted it down and came along with

their own amendment. We said as long

as it has the same effect, and we

can agree it, we will be happy with

that. It has not appeared, we have

not had it.

I want to be clear on this. As you

are understanding, the British

Government has accepted the point of

principle about clause 11 that it

contradicts the Scotland Act opened

is attending to -- intending to

amend that so powers that are not

the adult -- that the British

Government had accepted it.

My understanding is they have

accepted that point but they have to

produce the words that accept it.

For some reason they are not doing

so and are being resistant about it

and they have to do it. I am pleased

that Ruth Davidson has made that

point, we are all making it, but it

has to be taken by the Prime

Minister and get some action. It is

absolutely clear that without that

there is no legislative consent.

You were in Ireland. In a speech

there, you talked about how you and

your Government would like Britain

and Scotland to remain in the

customs union, single market, and

you said that is a minimum fall us.

Is this it is a different issue? You

are not saying you will will pass

this until we can stay in the single

market?

These are not the same issue. In

Ireland, a wide-ranging discussion

with people including Arlene Foster

and the leader of the main

opposition party, we were discussing

the wider issues of Brexit, and this

was also in the area of the paper

that the Government will publish

tomorrow.

tomorrow. There is this Canada plus

trade deal, and the point we are

making is it is bad enough to have

to leave. We do not think it is a

good idea, it will be damaging. The

least bad option is continued

membership of the single market and

the customs union. That is, anything

beyond that, it will be problematic.

Even that will have its

difficulties.

difficulties. People have been

watching this programme in the last

20 minutes and heard lots of

nonsense from the Labour Party. It

is possible and it has to happen to

protect Scotland's interests.

This is a separate issue from

whether you would recommend the

Scottish Parliament passed a motion

of legislative consent, that is the

crucial point.

The motion is a process of

negotiation that has been underway

since July and still be Tories have

not done what they need to do. I

can't understand it, though it is

typical of the chaos within the UK

Government.

You have complained about the fact

that the amendments were not brought

forward when the bill was before the

House of Commons. Given the failure

to bring forward the amendments and

the Scottish secretary David Mundell

promised to bring them forward, is

his position untenable?

his position untenable?

-- untenable?

If they do not come forward in a way

that is... David rang me on

Wednesday to tell me we were in a

situation where he could not bring

the report stage, despite a clear

assurance it would happen. The House

of Lords is not elected and we do

not have representatives there, so

there is considerable difficulties

in the matter. He will have to

continue to steer it forward, but so

far he has not steered it very far.

Have you identified a peer who can

act in your interests in the House

of Lords?

There are a number of peers who are

going to speak on this and I will be

speaking to, briefing members of the

House of Lords over the next

fortnight and there will be peers

who make this point. The legislative

procedures of the House of Commons

and House of Lords are pretty

arcane. It will appear in various

stages in the next couple of months.

We will also be in bridging the

House of Lords to bring forward the

type of amendment that the Welsh and

Scottish governments drew up and put

the House of Commons, which was

actually put by all the other

parties in the House of Commons,

they joined together to propose the

amendments that the two governments

had brought in. It was the Tories

that voted it down. We hope in the

House of Lords there will be a

majority for that.

Nicola Sturgeon said the prospect of

a second referendum on membership of

the EU may become irresistible, but

then she said she was not

campaigning for it. If it is

irresistible, we also know that your

Government had meetings with Willie

Rennie who are campaigning for a

second referendum. He says it did

not get a clear response. Why are

you not campaigning for a second

referendum?

It is clearly not the time where

that would take place. At the

present moment, there is absolute

confusion about what will take

place. The three options for

leaving, the UK Government has not

preferred what it prefers. The EU 27

I tried to be more specific, but

what was agreed last year before

talks of the trade issues in March

this year. The First Minister is

right to say that the people are

important, the people of Scotland

and the UK will want to say

something about this. Our view is

that we have to address those issues

and we will address them with the

Liberal Democrats, there are

questions to be answered about what

would happen if Scotland voted,

continued to revote to remain and

the rest of the UK voted to leave.

A discussion is underway. It is not

been ruled out.

You say it has not been ruled out.

One of the points that Jim Sellers

has been making is that it was a UK

referendum, it was understood that

the British people would be

accepted, their decision. If you

start the campaign for another

referendum, you could be staring up

all sorts of problems if you have

another independence referendum,

what would you say to him?

I would tell him he had not

understood something. The vote in

Scotland was sold to save as late

against leaving. -- decisively. All

the opinion polls has shown that

this has grown, there is a

democratic swell in Scotland there

does not want to be taken out of the

EU.

EU.

We will have to leave it there.

You will be glad, although it is

beautiful, it looks as if you are

freezing.

It is cold.

Listening to that and with me now

is the Scottish Conservative's

constitution spokesperson Adam

Tomkins.

Is David Mundell's position tenable?

Of course it is. What has happened

this week is what I have described

as a deeply frustrating and

disappointing delay. There is no

change of direction or policy by the

British government. They will amend

the bill. We had hoped to be able to

do that in the House of Commons. It

has turned out not to be possible to

do that. We will have to do it in

the House of Lords rather than the

House of Commons.

Is Mike Russell

correct, he says the British

government has accepted that this

contentious clause 11, explain to

people, this is the clause that

seems to contradict the Scotland

act. Mike Russell says the British

government has accepted it needs to

be amended to restore, if you like,

the spirit of the originals Scotland

act.

Is that your understanding?

Let's be clear about what we are

talking about, there are 111 powers

exercised the EU level which fall in

the devolved confidence of the

Scottish Government. The question is

what happens to those powers when we

leave the European Union? Do they

come to Scotland or Westminster?

The

basic issue is that things are

assumed to be devolved in the

Scotland act or the opposite.

There

is a fundamental principle on which

Scottish devolution rests and has

rested since its creature in 20

years ago, that everything is

devolved unless it is expressly

reserved. That is where the clause

has to be amended to be clear. That

is the position not just of the SNP,

it is the position of everybody in a

Scottish Government. It is the

position of a committee I sit in, it

is relatively easy to be done. The

reason why there is a hold-up is

because it is important that some of

those powers, not all of them, but a

minority of powers are exercised by

Holyrood, subject to UK weight

elements.

But that seems to be

accepted by the SNP as well. For

example on farming. They do not seem

to...

The accept. I have always said

a deal can be struck on this issue.

Both governments want consent. Both

the United Kingdom government and

the Scottish Government want to be

in a position whereby Holyrood can

give its consent to this legislation

so we can have a smooth Brexit. And

both governments accept that there

will be a need for what are cold

Common frameworks. Across the whole

of the UK or across Great Britain as

the case may be. That will govern

how some of these powers, not all of

them, but how some of these powers

will be exercised. That is a

principle agreement but the reason

for the delay is because there is

quite a lot of detailed work going

on about what happens in the event

of a breach of those common

frameworks. Let's see there is a

common framework and agriculture.

And Scottish ministers... Your

argument is that the Supreme Court

could have a real in that?

There is

a discussion going on between

governments about what the

appropriate mechanism will be for

reviewing such disagreements and

resolving such disagreements. That

is the kind of level of detail that

we are talking about. We had hoped

that we would resolve all of these

issues in December. We are still

committed to resolving them.

Let's

see the Scottish Government refuses

to pass our legislative consent

motion. What are the implications of

that?

I don't think that will

happen. I hope that will not happen.

For all of the reasons I have sought

to explain that we can resolve this

issue without coming to that. We are

talking about hypotheticals. If it

comes to that, and then as the

minister said, the House of Lords

will have to decide whether it wants

to go ahead with this bill are not.

Legislative consent is not a legal

requirement for this legislation to

be enacted by Westminster, but it is

probably a political requirement and

the political price of enacting

legislation without consent might be

quite significant indeed. But I do

not think it will come to this.

Meaning what? If it falls, it will

be difficult to the liver Brexit at

all. I do not think it is...

-- till

over. You do not think it is going

to happen. Why would it be duller --

difficult to deliver Brexit?

After a

set day, is that legislation is not

passed, there will not be any

legislation to make sense of the

statute book.

Let's say the

legislation is passed but with the

consent motion.

There will be a

political argument between the

Scottish Government and the United

Kingdom government.

I don't want to

put words in their ice, I can

imagine some Conservative MPs seem

from the shires in England saying,

this is not a legal requirement, the

SNP, we know what they are about. It

it does not matter, they can decide

to disagree, it will not matter.

What would you say? It will be

irrelevant. This is going to be

dealt with in the House of Lords not

the House of Commons. We are

getting, we are several steps ahead

of ourselves here, there is no

reason that any of these things will

happen. Both governments are

committed to a resolution to this

issue. There is a relatively easy

solution to find, both governments

are committed to the idea there

should be some common frameworks

using these powers after we have

left the European Union and we are

in the process now of bottoming out

what those common frameworks will

look like, how they will be

negotiated and then hope they will

be put...

Just to save time, instead

of you repeating it, I will repeat

on your behalf, you do not think it

will come to this. I am struck by

using that our legislative consent

motion not being passed, somehow

Brexit cannot happen.

What do you

mean by that? If this... Brexit

cannot happen until this legislation

is passed or an equivalent of this

legislation being passed. This is

not an accident, this legislation is

needed to deliver a legally secure

Brexit. That is the bill. Why? It

does not have to happen as a matter

of law. It is a constitutional

principle that the UK Government

will not legislate on matters that

fall within the scope of the

devolved confidence of the Scottish

Government without the Scottish

Government's consent. That is an

important principle. It has always

been adhered to and we would expect

it would be adhered to in the

future.

If that legislative consent

motion is not passed and this bill

comes back to the House of Commons,

with the Scottish Conservative MPs

support...?

We are building

hypothetical upon hypothetical. It

is not my job to tell Scottish MPs

how to vote.

Anything that happens

in the future is by any sense

hypothetical stop I do not think any

of these things will happen.

There

is a vision of the future were none

of these things occur. We are

nowhere near any of these things

occurring at the moment. Let's focus

on what we can manage. We can manage

an agreement between the two

governments about how this

legislation needs to be amended in

order to ensure that MSPs like me

can give our consent to it in due

course.

Do you accept mate Russell

saying, he did not say, that he is

in fact negotiating in good faith?

-- Mike Russell. You do not think

the Scottish Government will come

and say we will add other things

before we agree?

I was elected to

the Scottish Government 1.5 years

ago. It is my job to be suspicious

of the SNP and be a winner of the

tricks they are up to.

tricks they are up to. They are good

cordial working relationships and

there is no reason to suspect anyone

is working in bad faith towards

this.

Adam Tomkins, thank you very

much indeed.

Politics has been coming over

all green this week.

Just as the Prime Minister revealed

the UK Government's new 25-year

environmental strategy,

the Scottish Government pulled a ban

on plastic cotton buds out

of its eco-friendly bag.

And there's more to come,

with talk of a "latte levy"

and a money-back scheme

for plastic bottles.

Even Donald Trump was trying

to convince us this week that

he's the new Swampy.

But how much of this is simply

the greenwashing of politics,

to borrow a trendy phrase?

Policies which may be

laudable in themselves,

but do nothing to tackle an economic

system based on

over-consumption and waste.

Graham Stewart's been finding out.

Today, in the Atlantic waters of

Europe, as elsewhere, they have to

share the ocean with plastic. The

devastating effects of plastic

waste. Brought home to millions of

viewers. From the Atlantic Ocean to

Gullane sands and East Lothian,

hundreds of plastic sticks from

cotton buds washed up on the beach.

They are not the most common plastic

waste but they can kill marine

animals and the birds that swallow

them.

Oh my goodness, you have found

a lot of them.

With biodegradable

alternatives already available, it

is an easy fix for ministers.

There

are other items that we may want to

look at. This was a relatively

straightforward one that we could do

pretty quickly and we see no reason

to delay it. The thing is every

single item needs to be looked at on

its individual merits because in

some cases it would be a much more

difficult thing to achieve. In some

cases it might be that we would not

have the powers to do it.

Another

measure being considered as a levy

on disposable coffee cups. At this

cafe in Edinburgh, the use coffee

cups which biodegrade along food

waste in less than six months.

The

more that we are becoming interested

in the environmental impact that

everything has, how sustainable we

want to be, people turning vegan,

people using local businesses,

everyone is becoming interested in

what their impact is, especially on

takeaway food.

It is a massive

market. Realising that green

policies could be vote winners, the

First Minister -- Prime Minister

launched a 25 year environmental

policy.

It is clean and plentiful

water, plants and animals that are

thriving and dig green and cleaner

country for resolve.

President was

impersonating a tree hugger this

week. After withdrawing America from

the Paris climate agreement last

year.

I had a problem with the

agreement that the side, as usual

they had made a bad deal. We could

go back in. We are strong on the

environment, I feel strongly about

the environment.

Politicians can

only do so much. Environmentalism

starts in the home. Nearly half of

the rubbish generated and Scottish

homes is being recycled. But as

recycling alone the solution? About

half of all the plastic we recycle

ends up here, in China. The world

was my biggest market for household

waste. But no more. From the 1st of

January China has banned the

importation of all plastic waste

from around the world.

China quite

understandably does not want to keep

on taking on more and more volume of

the West's with plastic and plastic

pollution. I think we have a

responsibility to solve this problem

at source because just as China does

not want to deal with this problem

for ever, so our own communities are

not going to accept building more

incinerators as the other short-term

unsustainable way of getting rid of

this problem.

As far as my remit was

concerned, recycling should be the

last resort. It builds up energy,

generates pollution and ultimately

is not good for the economy.

For

everyone job we see in the

collection of materials for

recycling, we believe there is

another eight jobs in repurposing of

those materials back into the

economy. That is in a way what this

is all about. We want to design at

an economy here in Scotland and

realise as many jobs as possible. It

is good for the environment but we

need to start looking at the

economic possibilities.

This company

take low value residues from whiskey

production and turn them into

high-value biofuels, which can be

put into cars. Although the company

has benefited from government grants

it is based on a sound business

proposition.

Celtic renewables has a

fundamental recycling ethos behind

it in creating value. But that is

the key value -- word, valuable --

value. There is no charity in this.

It is about doing something, it is

the right thing to do but it must be

economically and environmentally

sustainable.

But there is more we

can do to reduce waste. Take the

scourge of plastic bottles, nearly

40 million are used in the UK every

day, with only half making it to

recycling. Tackling that will

require a cultural shift.

In Paris

they provide water fountains note or

the give you carbonated water to

drink and go. So we can be

innovative around not just the

technologies and finding new types

of plastics that biodegrade, that

can perform better as packaging, but

we also need to be thinking about

reducing the amount of plastic.

Tesco this week became the first

major supermarket to throw its

weight behind the idea of a deposit

and return scheme for plastic

bottles. But for those of us who

remember cashing in ginger bottles

for a sweetie money back in the day,

a lot of this trendy green thinking

seem strangely familiar.

That was Graham Stewart reporting.

Now it's time to take

a look back at events

and forward to the week ahead.

With me this week are Lynsey Bews

from the Press Association

and the columnist Kevin McKenna.

Welcome both.

Brexit, I think we have learned

something this morning. We have...

The Scottish Government wants the

clause 11, the nature of devolution

clause amended, the British

Government has accepted that it was

a mistake and it will amended, and

we have learned that the Scottish

Government, the SNP, make the whole

question of the single market and

customs union completely separate

from whether they will pass a

legislative consent in the Scottish

garment. As long as clause 11 as

amended, even if we leave the single

market and customs union, they will

get the Scottish moment to pass it.

That seemed to be what Mike Russell

were saying and he was saying that

the UK Government had conceded the

point the Scottish Government had

made an clause 11 and it had not

produced that amendment yet. If it

is as straightforward as that, it

makes us wonder why it has taken so

long. So we are all wondering where

is this amendment?

This clause is a one sentence, about

four lines.

And Scottish Tories are trying to

blame it on the complexities

involved and think the officials

should be more aware.

Adams, -- Adam Tomkins...

I think David Mundell has to take

some responsibility for not keeping

to the promise.

If this is all the case, it seems a

terribly small problem to resolve

for which there has been an endless

amount of force.

And it begs the question as what

David Mundell is for. This is not

that he had to deliver. Anybody in

the street watching that sees the

SNP, the Government saying the UK

Government agrees with us an clause

11, however, we are not confident

that they weren't muddy the waters

further. And then you have Adam

Tomkins saying, our position is

exactly the same as the SNP, but I

don't think there will be any

problem whatsoever. As you pointed

out, it is a tiny clause in the

scheme of things and fairly simple

to grasp, which has not often been

the case with anything else with

Brexit, so people say get it sorted,

this is what pay you to do.

The politics maybe not so

straightforward because one view

would be as soon as the Scottish

Government agrees to pass a

legislative consent motion on this,

even though it is on the narrow

issue of the clause, that is their

leveraged gone on anything else like

the single market customs union.

That is their leverage gone, the one

thing they can threaten the UK

Government with.

There is a debate around whether

that has the ability to throw a

massive spanner into the works and

derail Brexit, and many people have

said that would not be the case.

Adam Tomkins themed to think it

might.

He was talking about the political

side of it not being passed and the

Withdrawal Bill not being passed.

The option would be for the bill to

be passed without the LCM and Brexit

to go ahead anyway. That is where

the leveraged comes from. It is

difficult to play that leverage if

you say we are here to negotiate in

good faith and if you deliver, we

will pass the LCM.

I think Adam has delivered the

splash for tomorrow's front pages,

with the difficulties he sees if

there is no legislative consent

forthcoming.

The most of us thought

we will find a way, or the

Government would not allow that to

derail whatever agreement we have,

but here we have a senior member of

the Conservative opposition in

Scotland, one of its smartest

operators, saying...

His years will be burning.

There will be a major problem, by

the way. I thought there is the most

significant part of the interview

and I think it will dominate a lot

of exchanges in Holyrood in the next

week or so.

Second referendum? The SNP perhaps

for understandable reasons, they

want to keep saying it might happen,

but they do not want to commit

themselves to campaigning forehead.

I think the idea of a second

referendum, I think it is seen by

many people as distraction from the

other issues surrounding what kind

of deal the UK Government is going

to achieve and I think a second

referendum still looks very

unlikely, though slightly less

unlikely since the general election

last year. It still does not have a

huge amount of momentum behind it.

What do you think of that?

Are we talking about an independence

referendum?

Know, a second EU referendum. Nicola

Sturgeon was talking of another EU

referendum.

The SNP can not have their cake and

eat it. How can you say it could

become it was -- irresistible, but

I'm not going to campaign for it?

Come on, we are not stupid, that is

the opening salvo of a campaign.

Problems in the NHS. You want to

insult GPs the length and breadth of

Scotland?

Scotland?

I have much admiration. I would like

them to be fully part of the NHS,

currently they get pensions from the

NHS, they get IT support, but they

are allowed to roam their surgeries

as arrive at enterprises, and

ordinary people are asking these

questions, when you have so much

pressure on the NHS in the winter,

you have GPs surgeries should far

days at Christmas, that would not be

happening if they had NHS contracts.

I am only writing what I am

listening to and hearing.

Should we be talking more about it?