21/01/2018 Sunday Politics Scotland

Morning, everyone, and welcome

to the Sunday Politics.

I'm Sarah Smith.

And this is your essential briefing

to everything that's happening this

morning in the world of politics.

Big fines for bosses who take

bonuses from firms with black holes

in their pension funds -

will the Prime Minister's promise

help the Government get

back on the front foot

after the collapse of Carillion?

reform if they obstruct the passage

of the EU Withdrawal Bill.

Arch-remainer Lord Adonis

says that's their job.

We'll bring the MP

and the peer together.

Henry Bolton fights to save his job

after a week of damaging headlines

about his relationship

with a 25-year-old model.

We'll be talk to

the Ukip leader live.

Will it be his last

interview as party leader?

And on Sunday Politics Scotland,

Scottish Labour leader

Richard Leonard joins me live

in the studio to discuss his

plans to turn around

the fortunes of his party.

All that coming up in the programme.

And with me today, our regular

gaggle of experts providing

the inside track on all the big

stories - Tom Newton Dunn,

Isabel Oakeshott and Steve Richards.

First this morning, Theresa May

is proposing what she's

calling tough new rules

to penalise company executives

who try to line their own pockets

by putting their workers'

pensions at risk.

"An unacceptable abuse,"

she says, "that will end."

Her comments come as the Government

attempts to seize the initiative

after the collapse of the giant

construction, services

and out-sourcing company, Carillion,

which went into liquidation

on Monday with debts

of around £1.5 billion.

One of Britain's biggest

construction firms, Carillion,

has been put into liquidation.

20,000 workers face

an uncertain future.

Carillion employed people providing

essential services in our schools,

hospitals, railways and prisons.

They had to be told they would be

paid when they turned

up to work on Monday.

Let me be clear that all employees

should continue to turn up to work

confident in the knowledge

that they will be paid

for the public services

that they are providing.

The firm had around 450

contracts with government,

on top of private work

and overseas projects.

Some of those had been handed

to the company after it issued

profit warnings last year.

Prime Minister, why were contracts

awarded to Carillion

despite the warnings?

Labour and the unions

wanted answers.

Why did the Government

not heed the warnings?

Why did they continue to give

billions of pounds of contracts

to a company that the City

were backing against in 2013?

That's the real question.

And it's emerged the firm's former

chief executive, Richard Howson,

who left the firm last year,

received £1.5 million in pay

and bonuses in 2016,

while many ordinary employees face

the prospect of being laid-off

and a huge black hole

in the company's pension scheme

could result in their

pensions being slashed.

Subcontractors who hadn't been paid

for weeks were warned they might get

just 1p for every pound

they are owed.

Some warned that they too

might go to the wall.

We are not really a business

of a size that can trade

through that without some form

of support from the Government.

If it's not forthcoming, I think

ourselves and lots of businesses

like us will probably go

out of business.

In the wake of the collapse...

For Labour though, this was not just

about the failure of one company.

By Monday night, Jeremy Corbyn had

taken to social media.

At Prime Minister's Questions,

he pressed the point home.

This is not one isolated case

of government negligence

and corporate failure.

It is a broken system.

Virgin and Stagecoach's management

of East Coast Trains,

Capita and Atos' handling

of disability assessments,

and security firm G4S's failure

to provide security at the Olympics

were all examples, according

to Jeremy Corbyn, of the private

sector failing the public sector.

These corporations, Mr Speaker,

need to be shown the door.

We need our public services

provided by public employees

with a public service ethos

and a strong public oversight.

As the ruins of Carillion lie

around her, will the Prime Minister

act to end this costly racket?

Theresa May pointed out

it was the Blair and Brown

partnership deals and she suspected

there was something else behind

the current Labour leadership's

hostility to the private sector.

But what Labour oppose isn't just

a role for private companies

in public services but the private

sector as a whole.

This is a Labour Party that has

turned its back on investment,

on growth, on jobs.

A Labour Party that will always put

politics before people.

So, under a Labour government,

how far would their

nationalisation plans go?

Would every binman, builder

and even bankers have to be

employed by the state?

Carillion's collapses the big story

of the week and it will continue to

have political consequences I will

talk through now at the panel. Tom

Newton Dunn, presumably the caps of

Carillion has prompted this promise

from Theresa May that she will

punish bosses who continue to take

bonuses when they have black holes

in the pension fund, is this

something new?

This is our

expectation, the Prime Minister has

acted dramatically as a response to

the collapse of Carillion last week.

The problem as I recall a party

conference speech she gave in

October, 2016, the citizens of

nowhere, calling out a rotten

corrupt apples across the country

then, Philip Green who presided over

the collapse of BHS, leaving a

massive pensions black hole, an

entire year and a bit has passed and

no apparent government action. I

fear Theresa May with the bold words

in the new look Observer this

morning, action today, still action

tomorrow.

It is what people want to

hear?

Certainly people do want to

hear it, although they are amazed it

has not happened before. Jeremy

Corbyn is playing this beautifully.

There is a much more worrying bigger

picture here for the Conservatives.

The opportunity they have created

for Jeremy Corbyn to underline his

case that unfettered free markets do

not work and somehow or other

Carillion symbolises everything that

is wrong about the system, as we

heard him say in the clip. I do not

think most voters are particularly

ideological, they just want things

to work. But if the Government is

seen to be incompetent on this

scale, it creates a vacuum for the

leader of the Labour Party to put an

ideological spin on it and he is

doing it very effectively.

The Prime

Minister is right when she says more

of these PFI contracts were signed

under Blair and Brown than under

subsequent Tory governments, but now

you have a Jeremy Corbyn Labour

Party in opposition, they do not

have to shoulder the blame for that?

Jeremy Corbyn oppose them at the

time. The late 1970s in reverse,

that is what we are seeing. Bowman

the minority Labour government being

torn apart. Now we have a minority

Conservative government being

challenged by tidal waves which put

challenged by tidal waves which put

them on the defensive all the time.

We have not time to go through other

examples, but just on this one,

Theresa May is quite well equipped,

as Tom said, from the beginning, she

taught the language of intervention

and corporate governments, coming

after the bad people in the private

sector, but because of the lack of

action to follow it up and because

Jeremy Corbyn genuinely believes in

these things, it is much easier for

him to swim with these tidal waves

than her lead in this deeply

pressurised minority government.

We

have been talking to all three of

you through the programme, let us

pick up on Carillion with the Shadow

Attorney General, Labour's Shami

Chakrabarti. Labour have been very

critical of the Government's

response to the collapse of

Carillion, what would Labour have

done differently this week if you

had been in government?

I think what

we would do and what we will do, as

soon as we are in government, is

look in a far more fundamental way

at PFI, outsourcing, and by the

way...

We will get on the principles

of this, but if you had won the

election in 2017, it would have been

a Labour government handling the

collapse, what would have been

different in your response?

We would

not have left it so late, we would

not have bailed out a company that

already had raised serious warning

signals in the City, we would not

have allowed them to get into

subcontracting with, for example,

Cerco, worth millions of pounds,

profit warnings against that company

too.

Cerco are a big government

provider, should they be looking at

all of their contracts with the

likes of Cerco who have also issued

profit warnings?

You do have to look

at all of the arrangements and the

subcontracting arrangements. It is

not because I am ideological leap

opposed to the private sector, it

will be smaller private sector

companies suffering from nonpayment.

Should the Government help? The man

running the small business in the

film saying they might go to the

wall.

Quite possibly. But with

accountability. It is all very well

for Mrs May to say she will sting

the big executives, there has to be

ministerial responsibility as well.

One of my concerns is that when

vital public services of a kind

almost constitutional, for example,

prisons, get contracted out, what

you are actually devolving as

ministerial responsibility,

something goes terribly wrong, in a

vital utility, a matter of security,

infrastructure, and ministers, of

whatever colour, put up their hands

and say, it is wicked executives.

What we need is ministerial

responsibility, oversight, of course

we want a thriving private sector,

but some vital services need to be

run by public servants and with

ministers held to account.

Sometimes

when you hear Labour Shadow

ministers talking, it sounds as

though they want to take absolutely

everything back into public

ownership.

That is not the case. I

believe in a mixed economy and I

know my colleagues do too but there

are times when some things need to

be in public hands. That will

include on constitutional grounds

talking about people's human rights,

basic security, and it will also

mean sometimes when you have a big

organisation and outsourcing is used

to grind down the working conditions

of some workers and break down the

sense of community solidarity.

Where

is it appropriate for private

contracts?

For example, there are

some things that the private sector

probably does better. When you're

running a police force, you are

unlikely to say, we will make the

motorbikes for the police officers

better than BMW. Maybe you will but

I doubt it will happen any time

soon.

You need to look at this. What

about cleaning in offices and police

stations? Should that be run by the

police or outsourced?

Maybe

stations? Should that be run by the

hospitals are better example because

cleanliness in a hospital is quite

often a matter of life and death.

Sometimes it is better even for

something that seems not a core

service like claiming to be in

public hands. You need to look at

this on a case-by-case basis.

You do

not have many examples of where it

is appropriate for private companies

to be involved. Prisons and

probation, what about catering in

prisons, does that have to be in

public hands?

What you want to do is

look at the quality of the service,

the quality of the conditions, for

the people working there, and to see

what would be best value for the

public and for the public purse. It

is not ideological, but in some

cases, principles are at stake.

We

are left with the problem here of

workers worried about pensions,

working for Carillion and

subcontractors who might not get

paid. If the Government work to talk

about putting taxpayers' money into

helping out those people or those

companies, would the Labour Party

object?

We would want to look at the

conditions of spending public money?

In principle? It is not the fault of

the subcontracting small companies

they will not get paid.

Indeed, but

if you decide to spend public money,

for example, to help the smaller

businesses, you want accountability

in response. You

in response. You might well want to

legislate to give priority to

pension funds, for example, over

shareholders who have not done their

job of corporate governance in these

cases.

Moving on to talk about

something else, if you don't mind,

the serial six attacker, this time

last week we were sitting here

talking about the fact the Justice

Minister said he would launch a

judicial review and now he will not

because it has little chance of

succeeding. Should the Government be

pursuing a judicial review?

My view

at the time, I held my tongue about

it because I am used to politicians

wading in in a knee jerk way when

there is a case of this kind, my

view is that if there is to be a

judicial review of the parole board

decision, the best person to bring

such a review would be a victim

because the chances are their best

arguments would be under the Human

Rights Act which gives rights to

victims and not to politicians.

Crowdfunding attempt to raise money

to do that perhaps?

If the Justice

Secretary wants to make a name for

himself with this as a new Justice

Secretary, he might better give his

attentions to making sure the people

have decent levels of legal aid so

they can vindicate their rights

under the Human Rights Act. In

relation to the case of John Worboys

and the crisis of public confidence,

that it is in danger of creating, we

could do with an end review of the

whole case, from the moment a young

woman

woman went to the police and was not

believed to the moment this release

decision was made arguably with the

lack of transparency and involvement

of victims.

He was prosecuted for

offences against 12 women and we

know there were almost 100 other

women who came forward. The CPS said

there was not enough evidence and

they cannot revisit that decision,

if there was not enough evidence

then, there will not be enough now.

I am not second-guessing the

particular CPS decision is because I

am not in a position to do that but

there are issues for the whole

system from the moment that a woman

went to the police and was not

treated with the respect she

treated with the respect she

deserved, to victims.

Kier Starmer was director of

prosecutions at the time and he said

he didn't have any involvement in

the decision-making behind it.

Nor

did his predecessor.

But he should

have done, shouldn't he? He has

prosecuted for only 12 cases, the

DPP should be involved in that.

My

argument is this whole

story on this whole case and the

numbers of women involved and

frankly the anxiety this decision

has caused to women who weren't even

victims means there needs to be an

end to end review of how the system

has worked in this case, from the

moment a woman went to the police

and was arguably not believed in was

made without the input of victims

who I would expect to be given

notice and the opportunity to make

representations to the parole board.

There's a story running in the

Sunday Times this morning about

Momentum and saying they are trying

to deselect 50 Labour MPs. The fact

of the matter is whether have been

Parliamentary selections, momentum

candidates have... Do you think

actually the Parliamentary Labour

Party should better

Party should better reflect Jeremy

Corbyn's Labour Party?

Momentum is

not prioritising the selection of

some candidates over others. They

are part of the Labour movement that

has always had various strands

within it. What is exciting to me is

not exciting to the Sunday Times,

fair enough, but we have a

Democratic party becoming more

democratic. I...

There is still a

massive disconnect between those who

sit in Parliament and those who have

joined since Jeremy Corbyn became

leader.

I think these things become

exaggerated. I have noticed people

uniting around purposes, not least

the scandal around Carillion. I

don't really spot this red Menace in

the way other people do. It's a

democratic party, and most popular

movement of about 600,000 people and

I think that something to be

optimistic about.

Thank you for

talking to this morning.

Momentum haven't been that

successful so far.

I think it has

been overblown on the basis of the

evidence. You quoted the procedure

is taking place so far, they haven't

prevailed that often and in the

Sunday Times this morning they

resorted to the example of Haringey

Council where there are a lot of

specific local issues. At this point

it is unclear whether the selection

will become the overwhelming theme

over the next few years in the

Labour Party. It might do but the

evidence so far is it is much more

nuanced than some papers are

suggesting.

Three new Momentum

members on the NEC this morning, is

it going to make a difference do you

think?

A huge difference because

Corbyn and his wing of the party can

now do precisely what they want, as

long as they have the union muscle

behind them during conference votes,

then the party and any which way he

wants to run it is his. I disagree

with Steve, the difference in

language Jeremy Corbyn and his close

associates were using after the NEC

elections this week on mandatory

reselection is, Shami wasn't asked

if she believed in them, Rebecca

Long-Bailey was, and they refused to

rule them out and say they were a

bad thing. In my view, it is without

doubt that Corbyn will at some stage

try to reshape the Parliamentary

party more in his image and you may

argue why should he not do that.

Shami was saying the party is much

more united around Jeremy Corbyn and

when we see a story like Carillion

it is easier for him to get the

backing of the Parliamentary party.

I think that's right. How unpleasant

and ugly and divisive is it to have

the story is out, whether or not

they are completely accurate or

whoever is briefing, I think it

looks very bad on the atmosphere of

the Parliamentary party. Where I do

think Shami has a good point is on

the size of the Labour membership.

600,000, the Conservatives can only

dream of getting a fraction of

dream of getting a fraction of this,

so clearly there is a big problem

for the Tory party there in matching

what Labour is doing.

We should ask,

mandatory reselection for Labour

MPs, are you in favour, Shami?

Any

democratic process should be across

the board and for everyone. Where

MPs are doing a good job, including

working with their membership, and

you have to work with your

membership to get the vote out in

the Labour Party, that relationship

works well and I think that

relationship will only work better

into the future. I have been all

over the country to all sorts of

CLPs campaigning, and you would be

surprised at the number of places

where there is a very happy

relationship between the MP and the

party regardless of the particular

strand they come from.

Thank you for

that.

Now, the Government's flagship

Brexit legislation -

the EU Withdrawal Bill -

hasn't always had the easiest

of times in the House of Commons,

but this week, MPs voted to send it

through for consideration

in the House of Lords.

A number of peers having expressed

concern about the so-called Henry

VIII powers the bill grants

to ministers to make changes to some

laws without parliamentary scrutiny.

And of course, a number

of peers are dismayed

about the process of Brexit itself.

So, are we likely to see more

dramatic attempts to change

the Bill in a chamber full

of unelected lawmakers?

Ellie Price has been

taking their temperature.

Stop Brexit!

You'd think a bill that sought

to enshrine EU law into British law

after Brexit would be popular

with the pro-Remain

crowd in Parliament.

But when the Withdrawal Bill cleared

the Commons this week,

one Tory Remain-supporting MP said

he hoped the House of Lords would

make an enormous amount of changes.

Good lord, what are they up to?!

I think what will happen

is that the Government will suffer

a series of defeats,

which will reduce the power

of ministers to do things

without proper scrutiny,

and put in place a sensible series

of votes - both in Parliament

and the people at the end

of the process - so that when we do

get an end point to Brexit,

people can say that it's

been done properly.

So a second referendum

is on the table?

It's definitely on the table.

You would expect a Lib Dem

to say that, but some Tory

peers want changes too.

If it comes to the situation

where it looks as if what people

voted for cannot be delivered,

then we have to decide how

best to move forward.

I don't believe the House of Lords

is trying to block Brexit at all.

I think what the House of Lords

is doing is its constitutional duty.

So anyone hoping the House of Lords

will deliver a fatal blow to Brexit

will be disappointed,

but so too will anyone hoping

that the Withdrawal Bill will come

out of there unchanged.

So what is all the fuss about?

The extent of the Government taking

powers to itself while giving

powers to Parliament,

Henry VIII powers, this issue,

of course, about the kind

of protections we've had under EU

law that we've contributed

to for consumer protection,

workplace protection,

environmental issues,

they are coming into UK law

and that's what this bill does

but it needs to make sure they're

protected in UK law; they can't just

be overturned the next day.

There has to be a mandatory

process to do that.

But this was the reaction when some

elected MPs over in the Commons

voted against aspects

of the Withdrawal Bill,

causing a government defeat.

One of their own colleagues even

talked of treachery.

Another MP, Jacob Rees-Mogg,

this week said the laws would face

reform if it tried to frustrate

the democratic will of the people.

So is the chamber full of unelected

Remainers playing with fire?

Since I've been leader

in the House of Lords,

for just over two years,

what I've found is every time

someone doesn't agree

with something we're doing,

they will get quite

hysterical about "take

away their powers," it's almost

an off-with-their-heads moment.

But you know, there is quite

prescribed powers we do,

we take them seriously

and responsibly, and,

we will send them back

to the House of Commons.

And even one of the lesser-spotted

Brexit-supporting

Lords isn't worried.

There are a number of lords

are in cahoots with Messrs Tusk

and Juncker in trying to persuade

the British people that they made

a grave mistake when they voted

to leave Brexit, and I have no doubt

they will have a bit

of fun doing that.

But on the big issues,

like whether we should

have a second referendum,

the Lords voted by a majority

of more than 200 against that last

year; or if you look at the Commons

vote where the majority was over 200

against remaining in the single

market and the customs union,

I think the Lords will look

to the elected House and do

what they're good at,

which is to consider the detail.

Of course, one of the biggest

differences between the Lords

and Commons is the presence

of nearly 200 crossbenchers -

members who aren't in a party

and don't take the whip,

and they include some

of the most distinguished legal

minds in the country.

And debate over the bill's

constitutional implications may well

lead to more than one showdown

with the Commons.

It's worth remembering

that the Corporate Manslaughter

and Corporate Homicide Bill went

back and forth between the two

Houses seven times only a few years

ago, and that was just an aspect

of the criminal justice system,

it wasn't about the biggest decision

this country is taking since 1945.

So I think people need to be

a little bit relaxed about that.

Like the MPs on the Green

benches of the Commons,

the Lords on their red benches

agreed to trigger Article 50.

But the Lords, like the Commons,

is split on what Brexit

should actually look like.

There may be some toing and froing,

or ping-pong as it's known around

here, but pretty much everyone

agrees the Lords can't

and won't block the bill,

and it will go through,

probably, by the end of May.

Ellie Price reporting.

by the MP Jacob Rees-Mogg.

This week he was elected

chair of the influential

European Research Group,

made up of Brexit-backing

Conservative backbenchers.

And in the studio, we're

joined by Andrew Adonis.

He's a Labour peer who resigned

from his role as a Government

adviser last month over

its Brexit strategy.

Lord Adonis, you have made your

opposition to Brexit clear, recently

describing it as a national list

spasm that can be stopped. Do you

think the EU Withdrawal Bill is the

opportunity to stop Brexit?

I agree

this is the biggest decision the

country will take since 1945. I do

not think the Lords can stop it,

this is an issue for the people. It

started with the people in a

referendum and my view is the final

sites should go to the people. The

critical issue over the coming

months will be the relationship

between the House of Lords and the

House of Commons in seeing people

have the final say.

When you say

people have the final say, you are

talking about a second referendum?

The first referendum on Mrs May's

terms on departure of the EU, not a

rerun of the referendum two years

ago because when we have that we

didn't know what the terms would be.

We are a democracy, we engage the

people, this is the biggest decision

since 1945 and the people should

have the final say.

Let me bring in

Jacob Rees-Mogg on that, you are

confident we will have a Brexit deal

that will look attractive to most of

the electorate so presumably you

wouldn't be too worried about the

second referendum on the terms of

the deal?

I think the ambition of

the Lords in putting forward a

second referendum is to try to stop

tax it, and Lord Adonis has been

clear about that. He said only

yesterday he wanted to delete all of

the clauses of the Withdrawal Bill.

We have had a referendum, then a

general election where both main

parties backed the referendum

results. I think if somebody wants a

second referendum they should win a

general election first, campaigning

for one, rather than getting

unelected peers to use it as a

stratagem to obstruct Brexit. It is

noticeable Lord Adonis and others

have not called for a second

referendum on other things

referendum on other things like the

Scottish vote.

Lord Adonis, you have

sent you will make the Government's

life an absolute misery over the EU

Withdrawal Bill which sounds as if

you are using it as a stick to beat

a policy or a decision you don't

like rather than your real role

which is legislative scrutiny.

There's a huge amount of scrutiny to

do. The powers which ministers are

given in this bill is without

precedent in a single piece of

legislation, they have order making

powers over the whole sphere of

legislation that was previously

enshrined in European law so if the

House of Lords doesn't pay attention

to that it's not doing its job.

Coming back to Jacob's remarks,

Jacob himself has been a

supporter of the second referendum.

In the House of Commons in 2011 he

himself set out a case for a

referendum on the terms of departure

from the European Union if the

electorate voted first time around

to set the process in train. Jacob

is contradicting his own position.

You are shaking your head, Jacob

Rees-Mogg.

That is simply inaccurate. There was

a proposal for a referendum to begin

a process of negotiating

nonmembership, to give them a

mandate, and he would come back with

what he achieved, and there would be

a referendum on the result. The

Prime Minister decided to have a

straightforward referendum, in or

out. Lord Adonis is speaking about

discussion before the referendum

terms were set, then they were set,

everyone knew what they were voting

for, to leave the EU, it was clear

that meant leaving the single market

and the customs union. I put a dent

Lord Adonis, he would not be calling

for a second referendum had Remain

won.

That is completely untrue. We

did not know what the terms were.

The Conservative manifesto for the

election before said we would stay

in the single market. These are

Jacob's words, in the House of

Commons, in 2011, it might make

sense to have the second referendum

after the renegotiation is

completed...

He says he is talking

about Cameron's renegotiation that

he went to before.

Exactly the same

principle applies now. We are seeing

the terms Mrs May is coming back

with, it is absolutely right that

people should have a safe and it

should not be Jacob Rees Mogg and

Brexit ideologues deciding what the

terms are.

The difficulty with this

is that people decided in a

referendum, the general election

manifestos of both parties committed

to carrying out the result of the

referendum, if Lord Adonis wants to

put his case forward, he should try

to stand for election, something I

do not think he has ever done, win a

general election campaigning to

reverse the result. Unelected peers

should not try to frustrate the will

of the British people, as now

expressed in two Democratic votes.

On that, you have been issuing some

veiled threats this week, saying the

House of Lords would get into

difficulties if they try to

frustrate Brexit, what do you mean

by that?

I think what Baroness Smith

is saying is very sensible, the

House of Lords will abide by the

Constitutional conventions, it will

look to revise, I have concerns

about some of the Henry

to get Brexit through without the

people the final say. He is dodging

the issue because nobody is talking

about the House of Lords asserting

itself against the people. The issue

which it will come down to resist

the House of Lords invites the House

of Commons, Jacob and his

colleagues, themselves to reach a

decision again on the issue of

whether they should have a

referendum on the final terms. It is

not anti-democratic, it is the

proper expression of democracy and

the House of Lords. It is something

which Jacob himself has supported in

the past, no longer convenient for

him to recognise that fact, but

people's past does catch up with

them. Nigel Farage has come to

support a referendum on Mrs May's

Brexit deal because he realises it

is inevitable. As people realise the

gravity of this decision and the

fact Parliament itself is not in a

great place to take it because there

has been a referendum. The case for

a referendum on Mrs May's terms will

be unstoppable and the House of

Lords will play an important

democratic role in inviting the

House of Commons to reach a decision

on that.

Jacob Rees Mogg, it would

be ironic if the British

constitution is working its way with

the House of Lords making its

revisions sending it back to the

Commons, for you to argue against

that, when what you wanted was for

us to take control back of our own

government.

I am all in favour of

taking back control and decisions

being made in the House of Commons

with the Lords acting as a revising

Chamber. You have to understand the

motives, they are trying to obstruct

Brexit. Lord Adonis said the

decision to leave for is as big a

mistake as appeasement in the 1930s,

almost hysterical reaction to the

Brexit decision, and they are using

it as a strategy to frustrate

Brexit. What they should do is not

used the unelected Lords but they

should campaign in a general

election if they have to campaign to

do it as the Labour Party notably

didn't in 2017, to call for a second

referendum and reverse the result,

but they do not have the courage

because they know the British people

are not with them.

One slightly

different thing before we finish,

are you excited the buyer tapestry

is coming to Britain, you don't

think it is maybe a bit cheeky of

the French celebrating something to

a celebrating the Norman victory

over the British?

-- Bayeaux

tapestry. I think it is a splendid

gesture. We could send them a

fragment of the union Jack from

Nelson's ship at Trafalgar to remind

them that by and large we win the

battles.

Some people have suggested

we send Jacob but Bayeaux tapestry

is much more recent in its views.

On

the big issue of Brexit... We will

have to leave it there, Jacob Rees

Mogg, Lord Adonis, thank you for

that.

And you can find

more Brexit analysis

and explanation on the BBC website,

at bbc.co.uk/Brexit.

It's coming up to 11.40am.

You're watching the Sunday Politics.

Good morning, and welcome

to Sunday Politics Scotland.

Coming up on the programme:

The Scottish Labour leader

Richard Leonard joins me live

in the studio to talk

about his plans to turn around

the party's fortunes.

Patrick Harvie tells me that the SNP

must reverse council cuts before

the Greens will back the Scottish

Budget.

And private money helped

to build new schools

and hospitals across the UK,

but amid the controversy and fallout

from Carillion's collapse,

is it time for a rethink?

For every hospital or school built,

we have paid for three.

Since 1999, Scottish Labour has had

as many different leaders as Italy

has had prime ministers.

In the same period, they have gone

from coalition government

to the third party of Holyrood.

Among its former leaders,

one resigned after calling himself

a "muddler," another stepped down

describing it as a "branch party,"

and its last leader, Kezia Dugdale,

made it clear her party's internal

politics were fractious.

That was before she headed to

Australia to take part in a game

show.

Its latest leader, it's fair to say,

is about as far away from celebrity

as it's possible to get,

but after a few months in the job,

is he wanting to get out of there?

Well, let's find out.

You haven't had enough, have you?

Absolutely not, I have only just

begun!

Let's talk about Europe, Neil

Finlay, at your Brexit spokesperson,

says a second referendum on EU

membership cannot be ruled out. You

have responded by saying you think

it is more likely that the Tories

will lose a vote on the final deal

and they will be a general election

at which you presumably hope Labour

will sweep to power, and when Labour

sweeps to power, it should do what

exactly about the EU?

It depends

what stage the negotiations have

reached. My scenario is that I think

the deal forged by to reason me,

David Davies, Boris Johnson, will be

an insufficient one to satisfy the

demands of the people of this

country and the elected

representatives of this country, so

I can see there being a voting down

of the deal which will precipitate

an election.

And Labour would argue

in that election campaign and once

it wins it, in your view, for what,

staying in the single market and the

customs union?

We have made clear we

think it is important that access,

tariff free access to the single

market is important, because we have

said our priority is jobs, and the

economy, but also things like

environmental protection, consumer

protection and workers' rights,

which we want to see safeguarded in

a post Brexit UK.

Does that mean you

are in favour of being in the

customs union for example?

There is

a compelling case for being in the

customs union, in the sense that

that would certainly provide us with

a tariff free trading area to be a

part of, so I think that has an

appeal to it, but...

It is not

Jeremy Corbyn's view. The whips

towed Labour to vote recently

against a proposal to

there are

issues around the timing of issues

being taken and there was a

proposition put to Parliament which

was too premature, and that was why

the Parliamentary Labour Party...

Not just Jeremy Corbyn but Kia

Starmer... They took a decision not

to vote for that amendment.

Your

view of the customs union. What

about the single market?

I am

appealing for us to have access to

the single market.

You are saying

stay in the customs union, what

about staying in the single market?

Membership of the single market

would bring with it difficulties

because there would be a membership

fee to pay, and we would be in a

situation where we would presumably

be a member of the single market but

without full membership rights to

decide what the rules of the single

market worth.

You are against that?

I don't think it is an advantageous

position.

A poll in the Observer

this morning said 56% of likely

Labour voters want Labour to back

staying in both the single market

and the customs union. Why so

resistant to backing staying in the

single market?

Because I think there

has been a referendum in which the

voice of the people has been heard,

and I have consistently said I don't

think it is the place for

politicians to stand in the wake of

the decision taken by the people,

and I would apply that to the 2016

referendum and also the 2014

referendum in Scotland.

OK. In what

wait... Fine, if you come out and

Jeremy Corbyn comes out in favour of

the customs union, which he hasn't

done yet, but as of now, in what way

is your position different from the

Tories?

Well, let me give you an

example. Just before Christmas, to

reason me was asked whether the

working time directive would be

incorporated and continued in UK law

after Brexit -- the Prime Minister

was asked. She refused to answer.

The easiest way of doing that is to

stay in the single market, by the

way.

It is currently UK law because

it has been transposed from the

European directive as regulations in

UK law. Theresa May could simply say

we will maintain this provision

which provides for working people

are right to paid holidays and a

limitation on the amount of working

time they have to spend each week

and each month.

The Scottish

Government wants powers over

immigration after we leave the EU,

it says Scotland has economic issues

which means we need it. Would you

back them in that?

I have an open

mind on whether there needs to be a

distinctive immigration policy for

Scotland. When we were in power in

the Scottish parliament, Labour

introduced a fresh talent initiative

which was a recognition that they

needed to be a nuanced approach to

migration in Scotland, and that

wasn't just about...

So you might be

in favour of further immigration

powers?

I can see there being a case

to be made for a power of variation

for the Scottish context. It could

also be a power which incidentally

could be extended to London, Wales

as well.

OK. Nicola Sturgeon said

this week she will make a decision

later this year whether to hold

another independence referendum. If

she does, the British government

will certainly tell her she cannot

have one at least until after the

next Scottish elections. Would you

back the British government in that?

It is not a case of whether about

the British government. I am there

to represent the interests of the

Scottish Labour Party, and we have

been absolutely clear that we do not

see the case within a matter of a

couple of years for a second

independence referendum. The people

were asked in 2014 and they gave a

very clear answer, so I am firm on

the question of whether they should

be a second independence referendum.

They should not be, there is no case

for it.

Nicola Sturgeon says she has

a mandate from the manifesto of the

2016 Scottish elections and that

runs until 2021, and the issue is

that she should have... I know you

are against the referendum, but the

Scottish Government should have the

right to call one, that's what I'm

asking about.

She put before the

Scottish Parliament in the spring of

last year the proposition that they

should be a second independence

referendum, and that sparked a real

polarisation of opinion in Scotland.

I have never witnessed... I have

never witnessed since the days of

Margaret Thatcher a political leader

so divisive because of that call she

made for a second independence

referendum, and that's why I think

the SNP have been forced to row back

on it.

If the SNP say they will have

a new referendum and the British

government says no, from the side of

it -- sound of it, you support the

British government.

It is not a case

of being one side of the British

government, I am opposed to it

because I cannot see sufficient

material change to call for the

second referendum, when it was

undertaken that it would be a once

in a generation opportunity for

people to vote. I think we need to

move on from the Scottish

independence referendum question.

In

a budget debate last week called by

your own party or finance spokesman

denounced what he called was £700

million of cuts to councils planned

in the Scottish Budget. But when he

was asked to explain how you,

Labour, would raise £700 million in

the addition to the money you would

get by putting taxes up, he didn't

have a clue. Can you enlighten us?

We will enlighten you and the rest

of the people of Scotland in the

course of the next ten days. The

stage one debate on the Scottish

draft budget takes place a week on

Wednesday. What I can say to you

this morning is that we will

undertake to put forward our plans

on how we would...

What are they,

why is it a secret?

It is not

entirely secret. I have been on

record as saying I think the

additional penny on the top rate of

income tax is a woefully timid

approach. There needs to be a much

more ambitious approach to the top

rate of taxation. It was no secret

in 2016 manifesto, we said the top

rate ought to be 50p in the pound,

so that I think is a reasonable

proposition.

Are you still in favour

of a penny on the basic rate? That

is not Corbin's policy but that of

Scottish Labour till you became

leader. Do you still support that or

would you prefer to do what Corbin

wants to do, put all the onus on

higher rate taxpayers?

Without

revealing too much in advance of our

announcement, the number of high

wealth individuals in Scotland is

less than in other parts of the UK,

or less than the UK as a whole, so

it is our empirical observation that

we simply cannot look alone to

people on the top rate of earnings

to fill the whole of that gap. But I

have also said as well that...

I am

completely confused. You are saying

you are in favour of a penny on the

basic rate?

No, I'm saying we need

to look beyond simply the top rate

of income tax. One thing I think is

worth examining is the case for a

wealth tax. We have set up a tax and

investment commission to look at

that as an idea because one of the

features of the society we live in

has been a massive increase not just

in income inequality but wealth

inequality, and it is duty bound on

us as a party in favour of

redistribution and equality to

address that question of wealth

inequalities.

Kezia Dugdale, you

reprimanded her for going to

Australia to appear in a game show.

She appears to have kept £40,000 of

the £45,000 she received from that,

the other £5,000 to charity. If and

when you are on Quickly Come Dancing

would you give the proceeds to

charity or the party, and you think

she should have done?

That is

hypothetical because there is no

chance of me appearing on any

celebrity programme!

You can give me

the real answer now, do you think

you should have given the money to

charity or the party?

That it is a

decision for there to make and

people will judge her based on that.

Richard Leonard, don't rule yourself

out!

Have you seen me dance?

Maybe

the nation wants to see you dance!

We have to leave it there, thanks

very much.

The collapse of the construction

firm Carillion seems to have

polarised politics in a way not seen

since the 1980s, with Labour

championing public ownership

and the Conservative government

standing up for the benefits

of free enterprise.

In truth, all governments,

not least the Scottish Government,

have been happy to benefit

from shiny new schools and hospitals

funded by the private sector.

But as the National Audit Office

pointed out this week,

there's little evidence that PFI

contracts represent good value

for money, often leaving

the taxpayer paying billions more

in the form of repayments.

In a moment, we'll discuss

whether it really is a case

of "public good, private bad",

but first, here's Graham Stewart.

The artist impression of how the

three companies see a bridge which

would span the distance to the

island and are revealed. Now they

will be doing the sums before

submitting a tender which will need

to design, build and operate than

pay for the bridge. It was the first

major Government project funded by

the Private Finance initiative.

Built at a cost of £20 million by

the mother group. Like all five

companies they wanted their money

back and when tolls were charged a

public protested, forcing the then

Scottish executive to buy out the

bridge contract for more than the

bridge costs to build in the first

place. Nearly three decades on and

private finance is just as

controversial. This week the

construction giant Carillion into

liquidation after that lost money on

big Government contracts and run up

huge debts. It is partly responsible

for projects such as the Aberdeen

bypass and its collapse threatens

thousands of jobs across the UK.

That rekindled an age-old debate in

the Commons this week.

These

corporations need to be shown the

door. We need our public services

provided by public employees with a

public service ethos and a stronger

public oversight. As the ruins of

Carillion lie around her, will the

Prime Minister act to end this

costly racket of the relationship

between Government and some these

companies?

What Labour opposes not

just a role for private companies

and public services but the private

sector as a whole. The vast majority

of people in this country in

employment are employed by the

private sector. But the Shadow

Chancellor calls business is the

real enemy.

But when in power,

Labour were even more enthusiastic

about the Private Finance initiative

than the Conservatives as the former

Health Secretary under Gordon Brown

explained this week.

Each choice we

were given was the wrong one,... The

Treasury...

I was a Treasury

official, they have never liked PFI.

Who told you you had to do it that

way? Was it Gordon Brown of the

Treasury?

It was both.

David is

banging on about politics again.

The

SNP Government have been happy to

take credit for schemes funded by

private finance.

What have the SNP

Government ever done for us?

The

belt or do not skills, 750.

Remember

who the schools used to be...

You

skills may be modern but been

concerns over loading standards ever

since Mrs Elliott fell from an

Edinburgh primary. A total of 17

schools across the city were forced

to close. This exposed some of the

flaws of privately funded schemes.

By the cash for the buildings

consist Ali expensive new schools or

hospitals but as the watchdog

pointed out, private companies

borrow at a higher rate of interest

and that can end up costing the

taxpayer millions of pounds more

over the coming decades.

For every

hospital or school built we pay for

three. So instead of having three

hospitals and three schools, we're

actually only getting one. That is

what a bad deal this is for the

public.

One junior minister in the

last Labour Government concedes with

hindsight that some deals did not

offer value for money but says the

private sector should not be

demonised.

Some companies go bust

and others do well. Canadian is a

private company that has happened to

have gone bust, the vast majority

are doing well. I can think of some

one by councils in Scotland to

England 1990s did not quite go bust

because they were part of the local

council but they had massive

mismanagement and financial

problems.

The private sector's will

in the running of the deal raises

under scrutiny. The Scottish

Government has floated the idea of

the public sector bid for ScotRail.

One transport union has predicted

that the lead to an immediate 6%

drop in fields. Others are not so

sure.

The total amount taken by any

of the franchise operators in

Britain as between 2.5% to 3%. The

margins are very very tight. Those

politicians who think they can

transform the industry by

redirecting those profits into

reducing fears will be disappointed.

Jeremy Corbyn pots Labour Party

would bring private rail companies

back into public ownership as well

as ending the private finance

initiative. There are calls for the

current Government to operate a

level playing field between private

and public sectors.

It needs to open

the books on PFI, there should be no

hiding behind commercial confidence.

And the high interest rates and the

returns to investors.

On a clear day

the splendour of the Skye Bridge is

there for all to see but when it

opened in 1995 the Government

stopped the ferry service, granting

the consortium that built the bridge

a monopoly to charge tolls. 20 years

on opponents of private finance say

all they want is transparency.

That was Graham Stewart reporting.

Joining me now from Aberdeen

is the SNP's Gillian Martin,

and in Edinburgh is the Conservative

Jamie Halcro Johnston.

Before we get into a debate on this,

I know your constituency contains

the Aberdeen bypass, as far as you

an awareness everyone going to keep

their jobs and not be completed on

time?

There has been no more update

on that since earlier in the week

when actually Balfour Beatty and the

other part of the consortium are

looking to work with the

administration people over how they

will finish the contract. They are

going to finish the contract they

said they will, and they are going

to I hope employ those that are may

lose their jobs as a result of

Carillion. It still needs to be

built and to the deadline they set

and it still has to be built to the

deal that was made. That is ongoing.

Jeremy Corbyn says private companies

doing public contracts should be

shown the door. Do you agree?

The

private companies should be shown

the door? No, because you are

conflicting, we do not have PFI in

Scotland, we have put in place that

you would have a non-profit capping

on private companies so it is

considered a different situation,

and that is the situation with the

high pass, they have a commitment to

deliver that in budget and on time

and that is what is different from

situations in a list of the UK.

So

PFI is bad, PFI renamed by the

Scottish Government is good?

I do

not think it is a case of renaming

it, it is completely different. It

is better value for money for one

thing is and that is a cap on

profits which there was not with

PFI. Some of the things in the

report are conflicting court is

going on in the rest of the UK with

Scotland.

The National Audit Office

produced a report this week,

previous reports have been a bit

ambiguous, they say it depends on

the project but this was a blanket

finding that PFI projects were not

good value for money for the public.

If you look across the study of PFI,

that the number of very important

projects that have been delivered

because of it and it is a role for

private sector finance within these

projects but we recognise that there

are concerns around costings and

flexibility of some of the contracts

and also the opaque nature of some

of these contracts that is why it's

critical we get more transparency

within that process. Also looking

forward to that when these contracts

are being negotiated, a renegotiated

in some cases, the effort is made to

ensure that local authorities...

Would you accept the argument that

PFI contracts and the Scottish

Government's non-distribute of

contacts, there's no commonality

between them?

I'm not sure if that

is no commonality but we try to

ensure that local authorities and

other public bodies that are

involved in accessing private

finance as part of these contracts

are not held to ransom. Anything

that can be done to improve that is

obviously very welcome. One of the

issues that has come up is

transparency, they can be very

opaque and that is why from a UK

Government point of view they have

done a lot of work ensuring they

meet their commitments to make these

contracts more transparent, whether

that is ensuring they have included,

liabilities and included are,

Government accounts are publishing

data so that people can make a

choice.

The other side of this is

because so many contracts have

either been PFI of this

nondestructive model that the

Scottish Government has introduced,

don't we tend to forget that

straightforward contracts with the

Government raises money and build

things like the Scottish Parliament,

can be vastly overbudget and it is

the public who have to take the rap

when they have overbudget so there

are advantages to these private

contracts?

That is the difference

between PFI and the other model that

you describe, nonprofit distribution

model. It is a case again...

And a

PFI the private companies take the

that as I was saying the Scottish

Government was the public who took

the that.

The difference now is we

do not have that model so we do not

have a situation of the cost of

something major would be completely

and utterly runaway costs that

they're not have...

And PFI

contracts they are not run away, as

is the private companies that take

responsibility.

PFI does not exist

in Scotland any more. The applicant

with a different model and do not

forget we have the Scottish

investment banks being set up so we

are looking at refining the model

even warmer other part of the jigsaw

in place which could mean a deal

difference to how things are built

in Scotland.

Thank you.

The consensus once again this year

is that the deal the SNP Government

does to get its budget

through Holyrood will be

done with the Greens.

So what will that party get

in return for such crucial support?

Earlier I spoke to their

co-convenor Patrick Harvie.

Where are we with the budget? You

will vote against it unless you get

more concessions?

Last week there

was an opposition debates, Labour

debate billed as no confidence in

the Scottish budget which I think

opposition parties especially when

there was a minority Government have

a responsibility to be constructive,

we did this, we have been clear all

the way along that there are three

key areas women need to do more.

Can

we just go through?

We have an

agreement that they need to amend

the draft budget to deal with local

Government public sector pay and

low-carbon investment.

Let's briefly

look at the public sector pay, they

said they will give 3% to anyone

ended in the coming under £30,000.

You will not relate and vote against

the people over the past 30,003%

UMPIRE: Game, set and match, There's

not a specific

pay policy itself and that will be

subject to negotiation with the

unions. The ambition and a fair case

of people deserve and inflation

-based increase and if you look

particularly at the spears of

teachers who have gone from seeing a

decade of erosion and their pay,

they don't compare very preventable

countries. I know it is... I am

trying to get to, have you seen you

will not vote for the budget unless

that is a 3% pay rise for people

earning over £30,000?

What we have

said as the Government has to

reverse the proposal for £157

million of cuts...

Let's stick to

the page.

Make a fair contribution

to the extra cost the local

Government will have to meet if they

were having a policy that is what is

acceptable to the unions.

That does

not answer my question which was as

one of your red lines that public

sector workers who are running more

than £30,000 should get an efficient

paydays of the present?

Personally I

do not think the Government has made

a strong case for that cut off but

it is for the unions to negotiate.

That is not a deadline for you and

the budget?

It is for the unions to

decide. Unique causation at local

Government level is separate to that

policy and local governments needs

to be any position of knowing that

they have the resources available to

make a fair pay offer at local

Government level.

You want more

money for local Government? How

much?

The spice analysis suggests

that is £157 million... That is the

independent analysis not recover any

particle party so we think that is

the fairest figure, it is the

equivalent analysis to the one be

used last year they said there was

blood and £60 million of cuts. We

reverse that, it is a very similar

figure. But above that cancer need a

fair contribution to the costs that

they are going to face.

You said

157, plus how much work they need to

make what you call a fake pet --

fair pay settlement?

That is a

judgment call. The more we can do on

that, the better position councils

will be in to negotiate...

I want to

know your red line, gear, it is you

want at least £157 million more for

local government but some extra to

take care of pay demands?

That cut

is unacceptable and has to go if the

government had to be consistent with

the way they voted on Wednesday last

week when they said they needed to

amend their draft budget to protect

local services. But they does have

to be a contribution... A lot of

councils are budgeting for something

like 2% pay increase, if they want

to go that little bit further, there

will be a fair contribution.

OK. Low

Carbon projects, that could be

anything, couldn't it, any amount of

money because there are so many

different things.

In many ways this

isn't about the money in the coming

year's budget but the direction of

travel. The low carbon

infrastructure task force recommends

that 70% of capital budget should be

on low carbon. We are way below that

in Scotland.

Your red line on that

one is just make a bit of progress?

We have said that there needs to be

that long-term direction of travel

-- long-term, but we have flagged

specific areas where local

communities are campaigning for

improvements, new stations and rail

lines for example. The ability of

communities to put those ideas on

the table is limited at the moment

so we have suggested mechanism, a

relatively small amount of money,

single figures of millions of

pounds, where the Government could

empower people to get their own

appraisals and analysis done,

viability studies for projects and

have public transport to meet

people's needs.

Bottom line, you

will vote the Budget through, there

is no way you will oppose it?

That

is simply unrealistic. Look at the

track record. We are the only party

that has brought down a budget under

the previous minority government

when the Tories were voting for

budget after budget after budget. We

judge these things on their merits

and very clearly, we have been bound

by our party conference, we took

these principles to party members

who democratically voted on our

priorities.

FIM Derek Mackay I

think, I had better give them the

money on local government, he has

probably put that in his

calculations, and otherwise that is

it.

It is clear that Derek has

proposed a tax plan that includes

clear mistakes, he acknowledges it,

calls it an anomaly where islanders

will get a tax cut. There are clear

opportunities for a better, fairer

plan to fund the public services our

country relies on.

We have to leave

it there, Patrick Harvie, thank you.

Now it's time to look back

over events and forwards

to the week ahead.

Joining me this week

are the journalist Peter Geoghegan

and the former Conservative health

spokesperson and MSP Mary Scanlon.

Welcome, both.

Peter, Richard Leonard, I am not

sure I know what Labour policy is on

Brexit, but I am not sure... He was

very adamant that Britain should

stay in the customs union, I am not

sure that is Labour policies.

It is

interesting, Jeremy Corbyn said

previously we should leave the

customs union and the single market.

When it came to the single market he

was saying, we shouldn't stay in,

whereas he was passionate about the

customs union. The UK has a deficit

of good straight with the EU but a

surplus of services so if we left

the single market there could be all

sorts of barriers to sending our

services to the rest of the EU so in

some respects you could argue that

Britain needs to be in the single

market more than the customs union,

but when you listen to Richard

Leonard it seemed to be that the red

lines were drawn, and it wasn't

quite clear what the reason for

drawing the red

line the way it is was. You can see

the differences with the Labour

Party at the UK level. It was also

interesting the way he was talking

about timing with Starmer and Corbyn

saying some have been premature. It

gives you the impression the Labour

Party are looking at things less as

red lines than choreography and it

is maybe reflected in Scotland, it

is easier to say these things

because there isn't the same issue

around Labour Leave voters than the

rest of the UK.

Meret, Peter makes a

point about services. President

Macron says this is your passport in

for financial services and you

cannot get that unless you are a

member of the single market. John

McDonnell earlier said getting that

passport in is one of his red lines.

I am not sure how you square these

things.

I have to say the charming

Mr Macron did an excellent job, but

he is one of 20 countries

negotiating with the UK. There is

still a long way to go in the

negotiations, and I think the point

Peter was making is that it has been

very unclear prior to the Brexit

referendum and since just exactly

what Labour's case is, and that is

why I think there are so many

hold-ups, so much mudslinging at

Westminster, because the Government

has no idea what amendments the

Labour Party will support or not

support, and as a Remainer, I would

also say that if Corbyn and the

Labour Party had been clearer about

Brexit in the lead up to the Brexit

referendum, we might be in a

different place now.

OK. That is a

very interesting way of not blaming

David Cameron, who called the thing

in the first place.

Of course he

did, but he probably expected a

little more support from the Labour

Party, and I think that was

reasonable.

Police Scotland, Peter,

Susan Deacon, the new chair of the

SPLA is coming up the committee this

week with more shenanigans and

shenanigans and accusations and

counter accusations. Where is this

going?

It is almost like following

Brexit in some respects, the

machinations seem so labyrinthine

and going on. We had the chief of

Police Scotland's wife talking about

accusations, there are still lots of

questions. Susan Deacon is new in

his job and the SPLA were rapped

over the knuckles by auditors before

Christmas who said their

investigations were not fast or

thorough enough and we have the

issue was well about what happened

in November. Then at the 11th hour,

in transit, people were told to come

back. There was a meeting between Mr

Masterson and then SPA cheap which

did not have minutes so we don't

know what happens, the issue of not

limiting becoming an issue with the

Scottish Government so Susan Deacon

will have do answer questions. There

is a need for clarity.

You could

start the answer to each question by

saying, I wasn't there! Is this just

soap operas, Mary? It obviously had

serious implications but is it just

soap operas, or do you think there

is a structural problem with Police

Scotland or the SPA or both.

There

is but also a cultural problem.

Taking for Gormley out of it there

were problems when it was Stephen

House. When Police Scotland was set

up you have the SPA and Stephen

House both hiring lawyers to

determine what their job

descriptions were, so there is a