28/01/2018 Sunday Politics Scotland

Morning everyone, and welcome

to the Sunday Politics.

I'm Sarah Smith.

And this is the programme that

will provide your essential briefing

on everything that's

moving and shaking in

the world of politics.

Can the Conservative Party speak

with one voice on Brexit?

As Tory splits spill out

in to the open once again this week,

can the Prime Minister

reassert her authority

over a divided party?

We'll be speaking to the former

Conservative Cabinet

Minister, Theresa Villiers -

hitherto a loyal voice,

but who says she's now worried

about Brexit being diluted.

Is Jeremy Corbyn heading for a fight

with Labour councillors?

As local government chiefs accuse

the party's ruling body of trying

to intervene in local decisions,

we'll be speaking to one

of Jeremy Corbyn's key allies.

And on Sunday Politics Scotland:

New allegations around

the shenanigans enveloping

Scotland's Force.

The Conservative Justice

spokesperson tells this programme

they are absolutely extraordinary.

All that coming up in the programme.

All that coming up in the programme.

And to help me to make sense

of all the big stories today, I'm

joined by Camilla Tominey,

Rafael Behr and Rachel Shabi.

I'm sure they certainly

won't all speak with one voice.

The newspaper headlines

make pretty grim reading

for the Government this morning.

'Tories in Turmoil',

'Brexit betrayal',

'PM told to raise her game'.

Tory Brexit divisions erupted

in public once again this week.

So, is the Government's

biggest priority now

becoming its biggest headache?

Morning, Home Secretary. They

divided cabinet?

A new cabinet since

that modest reshuffle but still the

same old Brexit split. Foreign

Secretary Boris Johnson, who spent

so much time on that infamous boss

promising extra money for the NHS,

went off Brive at the meeting on

Tuesday, pushing the government to

honour that much maligned pledge.

Do

you want to be the health secretary?

Philip Hammond was in Brussels from

where he sent a swift review.

Mr

Johnson is the foreign secretary. I

gave the Health Secretary an extra

£6 billion at the recent budget.

And

labour leader Jeremy Corbyn piled in

at Prime Minister 's questions.

Does

the Prime Minister agree with the

Foreign Secretary that the national

Health Service needs an extra £5

billion?

I think the right

honourable gentleman, as I recall

was here for the autumn budget which

was given by the Chancellor of the

Exchequer, where he announced he

would be putting £6 billion more

into the National Health Service.

Meanwhile, Jacob Rees-Mogg took on

the Brexit Secretary David Davis

over the transition deal.

We are

only actually out at the end of the

transition. That is a big shift in

government policy and a big move

away from the vault.

I do not accept

your description.

your description.

Next day, Theresa

May travelled to the World Economic

Forum in Davos to heal a different

divide, this time her special

relationship with Donald Trump.

relationship with Donald Trump. Her

Chancellor described in modest

change in Britain's relationship

with the EU. Now he was being

rebuked by furious colleagues as

well as his boss. David Davies

insists the Cabinet are united. They

want a good deal.

There is no

difference between the Chancellor

and myself and indeed the Prime

Minister, in terms of the fact we

both want a Brexit that serves the

British economy and the British

people.

The EU will set out their

bargaining position for a phase two

of the Brexit negotiations tomorrow.

But can we find an agreed British

response.

So to discuss the implications of

all of the week's events I've got my

expert panel. Welcome. Camilla,

these are quite remarkable headlines

this morning about the party being

in turmoil over Theresa May's

leadership and the direction of

Brexit policy. Let's start with

Brexit. How deep are the divide?

I

think they are very deep. The tide

has turned a bit in the last week.

Normally when you are covering these

issues in the lobby, there is

underlying hysteria. I think there

are quite a lot of people on both

sides scratching their heads,

looking at some of the editorials we

saw in the week about the Tory

party, particularly when referring

to Theresa May as a Wizard of Oz

character. A lot in the Tory party

can't disagree with that. They

regard her as a caretaker Prime

Minister. A lot of them have been

giving her the benefit of the doubt

particularly on Brexit because she

has been consistent about what

Brexit means. That did not mean

leaving the single market and the

Customs Union. -- that it must mean.

To have Boris Johnson and Philip

Hammond freelancing on the sidelines

makes her look weak and unable to

keep the Cabinet together. That

gives the general impression to the

country that they aren't quite in

charge of things and that she

particularly isn't across her brief.

The key question at the heart of

this is which of these Cabinet

ministers are reflecting the Prime

Minister pots opinion on this --'s

opinion on this. Does she agree with

Philip Hammond, or is she looking

for a more significant divergence?

This is absolutely critical. We talk

about Brexit divisions. We are used

to thinking about the division being

about Remainers and levers. That is

not the division we are talking

about. There is a group of people in

government who have now focused on

the practical technical difficulty

of what is required to get Britain

safely out of the European Union.

And they for the most part, and I

will include the Prime Minister,

have understood it is a long

incremental process. You want an

arrangement that looks pretty much

like the status quo. If there is

going to be divergence from EU

rules, it will be incremental. We

get the impression the Prime

Minister has signed off on that

approach because she is a cautious

person. The problem is the

Chancellor said it out loud. He had

the temerity to say it. This is the

plan. You have the other group of

people, the harder, more ideological

Brexiteers are not in government,

who don't have to focus on the

practical reality, look at that and

think, that doesn't sound like

emancipation and freedom, that

sounds a bit boring. When you listen

to what some of the critics of the

Prime Minister from the hard Brexit

position are saying, it is not

obvious what they are asking her to

do. What they want from her is a

sense of clarity, a sense of whether

or not she can have the confidence

to stand up and say, the Chancellor

is right. They are testing courtesy

of she can do that and she won't do

that because she doesn't want the

huge tsunami of betrayal from the

right.

It is also impossible

Bridgeford Theresa May to try and

cross. How can she reconcile these

different views of what Brexit is

going to look like at the point

where we have to start laying out

what Britain's approach will be?

That is the problem. The divisions

are seemingly irreconcilable in the

party. That is their own problem. It

has become a national problem

because they are doing it while in

government. They have a over us

while they are falling apart. That

is completely irresponsible. In

terms of where we are going to end

up, we all know. We saw from phase

one of EU that actually everything

was conceded to the soft Brexit

model was conceded two in what was

agreed to during the parameters of

phase one. It seems like, do we

really have to go through this all

again, this pretend, this bickering,

this biting, when we know in the end

we are going to end up with a

situation that is a soft Brexit

because this is where the major

constituency is in Westminster and

the country.

We have a couple of

guest to make disagree with that. We

will return to you guys later.

Well, the Cabinet Minister David

Lidington was talking

to Andrew Marr this morning,

and was asked about the backlash

on the Government's Brexit strategy

from Jacob Rees-Mogg and other

Conservative MPs.

Jacob, like everybody else, needs to

see how negotiations go. We are

about to start negotiations. I'm not

going into detail about that

process. Secondly, the very fact

that we will have left the European

Union is a big deal indeed. The bill

in front of Parliament extinguishes

the power of the European Court and

supranational EU law over the UK.

I'm joined now by the former

Cabinet Minister, Theresa Villiers.

She has written a piece in today's

Sunday Telegraph telling

of her growing concern that

Brexit is being diluted.

Thank you for coming on. What do you

mean by Brexit been diluted?

I have

consistently argued the case for

compromise and I recognise it is

necessary. What I was saying in my

article this morning was that if you

go too far with compromise,

eventually you get to the point

where we wouldn't generally be

leaving the European Union, we

wouldn't be respecting the result of

the referendum.

You are concerned

that is the direction they're

heading in?

I am concerned. We must

retain the right to divergence Romeu

laws. One of the key points of

leaving the European Union is to

ensure that we make our own laws in

our own parliaments and not be

subject to laws made by people we

don't elect and can't remove.

What

has made you concerned that is the

direction in which we are heading?

Is it Chancellor talking about

modest changes or something

happening behind the scenes?

It is a

combination of things. I think in

part the government faces a

difficult challenge convincing

people on the Leave side of the

debate. So many times in the past

there have been Prime Ministers

who've gone to Brussels and said, it

will be fine, we would bring you

back a deal, and at the last minute

there has been, territory has been

given away. We have made

compromises. I accept the need for

that. There is only so far you can

go before ultimately you find

yourself in a position where you are

deleting Brexit so much that it

isn't leaving the European Union in

a real sense.

When you hear Philip

Hammond say they will only be modest

changes to our relationship with the

EU, you think he is reflecting

government policy? Downing Street

tried to refute what he was saying.

Only actually said was, you can't

call leaving the single market and

Customs union a modest change. You

are anxious, are you, that right at

the top they are worried about

keeping fairly close alignment with

the EU?

The Prime Minister set out a

bold vision for Brexit in her

Lancaster House speech. My article

is about appealing to the government

to stick to that vision and

implemented so that once we leave

the European Union we are back in

control of our laws, money and

borders.

The Prime Minister has set

this out in Lancaster House and in

Florence. Why do you think she would

be backsliding? Makes you think

anything has changed?

I don't think

she wants to backslide. I think what

is happening is that she is under

huge sustained pressure from a range

of quarters to reverse the result of

the referendum. So in part, but I am

trying to do is to re-emphasise the

positive case for Brexit. And we

emphasise that whilst there are

those who want to soften things up

and frustrate the implementation of

the referendum, others are

enthusiastic about implementing that

vision in the Lancaster House

speech.

Were those people who want

to frustrate her? You must be

worried they are right inside the

Cabinet for you to write a newspaper

article about this. You must be

worried if his right at the top of

government?

I don't believe that. I

think the Cabinet is united in

wanting to do this.

wanting to do this.

After the

different views we had this week?

This is an issue that has divided

the country. The key battle now is

what is going to be the end state we

ask for in the negotiations? We must

ask for an end state based on the

Lancaster House speech, which means

retaining control, making our own

laws in our own Parliament. That is

how we have -- we become genuinely

an independent country again and

respect the result of the

referendum.

Do you think the

Chancellor was contravening stated

policy when he talked about modest

changes. --? Was he out of line?

I

wouldn't make too much of that one

comment. That has not wanted my

concerns. What I want to do is

ensure the case for a real Brexit is

made. I fully acknowledge the

technical scale of the exercise of

withdrawing from the European Union.

It is very complicated. That is one

of the reasons why I have had a --

advocated and supported compromise.

There is only so far you can go

without -- with compromise without

finding yourself selling out on the

people who voted to leave.

The next

phase will be about the

implementation period before we get

to the final future relationship

with the EU. We learned a little bit

more about the government approached

and that this week. David Davis made

it sound as if there will be no

changes to free movement of people

whatsoever during the two-year

transition phase. Does that concern

you? That seems to be a change in

policy.

For me, the important issue

is what happens at the end of the

transition period.

You are relaxed

about two years of transition which

looks most identical to staying in

the EU?

I accept that looks like

what is current to happen. I think

there is a case for a transition

period. I think my worry now is if

we go into the transition period

without the clearest possible

understanding of what the

arrangements are when we leave, so I

believe that we must have as much

detail as possible in relation to

our agreement with the European

Union, that we reach before the

transition period starts. If we go

into it not knowing the end state,

that would worry me.

When it comes to the end state, what

are the things you couldn't sign up

to? What's being described as easy

movement of people in and out of the

UK, would that lead to a point it

was a Brexit deal you couldn't agree

to?

The key issues are the end state

must allow the UK to run its own

trade policy and make its own

decisions on rules and regulations.

So no involvement from the European

Court of Justice?

The Government has

agreed a time limited role for that.

I don't see it as a problem but any

enlargement of that role I would see

as worrying.

Do you think there's

any possibility you could end up

voting against this in Parliament?

I'm not going to make predictions on

how I will vote on a deal that

hasn't been agreed yet. I want to

make sure we work together to try to

bridge divisions, to come up with an

agreement with the European Union

which gives us a new partnership

with them, which hopefully a

majority can be comfortable

whichever way they vote in June 2000

16.

Thank you.

Joining me now from

Newcastle is the Brexit

Minister Lord Callanan.

Can you offer any reassurance to

Theresa Villiers and any other

members of your party who are

worried about this that government

is not going soft on Brexit?

We are

not going soft, there's been no

backsliding on the Prime Minister's

Lancaster house speech. We will be

regaining control of our laws, money

and borders. We will be establishing

an independent trade policy as she

set out in her speech.

set out in her speech.

Theresa

Villiers is completely wrong when

she says she's worried Brexit is

being diluted, is she?

Yes, she is

wrong. It's not being diluted, the

Prime Minister is in charge of the

negotiations and we will be

negotiating with our European

partners in good faith, our friends

and allies, but the objectives

remain as she set out.

So it was the

Chancellor who was wrong when he

said there would only be modest

changes in our relationship?

No, the

Chancellor has said he is of the

vision the Prime Minister has set

out.

out. We will be negotiating with our

European partners to bring about

frictionless trading arrangements

but the important part of the

negotiations is that we have to

regain control of our ability to set

our own rules and undulations.

Though there may be some areas where

if there are integrated supply lines

we might want to reflect current EU

regulations but the important thing

is we decide those matters for

ourselves.

David Davis presumably

speaks for government when he is

describing the transition phase, and

he says during this implementation

period people will of course be able

to travel between the UK and the EU

to live and work. That sounds like

free movement is continuing as

before but we were told it would end

as soon as we left the EU in 2019.

We would introduce a registration

scheme so we knew he was coming to

the country.

You could do that right

now. This registration idea, this is

not something that comes about

because we have left the EU, we

could have introduced that years ago

if we wanted to. Several European

countries asked the UK citizens to

register.

Let's see what the

negotiations produced, but what we

want to do is reflect current rules

and regulations as closely as

possible so that at the end of the

implementation period, and it's

important that is strictly

time-limited, we agree with the EU

on that, at the end of that state we

will introduce a new immigration

policy and take control of our

rules, regulations and borders. It

sounds

sounds a lot like a red line that

has gone very pale pink.

We are about to have the

negotiations. We will sit down in

good faith with our European

partners, talk about how the

implementation period will work and

what the end state will be.

But we

don't have to wait to find out what

the UK Government position is

because David Davis set it out this

week and pretty much described free

movement continuing as it is.

As I

said, we are having the

negotiations, we are about to start

them, let's not give away our

positions before we do that. We want

to reach an agreement as soon as

possible so we get certainty that

business knows where we are going at

the end of the period and we move

towards the new state at the end of

a strictly time-limited

implementation period.

So would it

be helpful if the Prime Minister

were to make another speech, where

she set out clearly what the

Government's position is on the

future direction of travel on the

transition period and future end

state so that instead of listening

to Cabinet ministers with diverging

views on this, we knew from the

Prime Minister what the Government's

policy was?

The policy remains what

she set out in detail in the

Lancaster house speech followed up

by the Florence speech where she

outlined the new end state we want

to end up with and the procedures

for getting there. She set it out in

great detail, that was very clear

but we need to have under --

negotiation at the end of the day.

These are difficult, complicated and

tricky areas but we remain focused

on the end state which is we will be

leaving the single market and the

customs union, having independent

trade policy and deciding our own

rules and regulations.

The EU

Withdrawal Bill will come to the

Lords this week to your house, are

we going to see government

compromise?

We will be listening to

the debate. We showed that we were

prepared to reflect and think about

contributions made, and if people

have suggestions that we agree with

that we will improve the legislation

and of course we will do that. The

House of Lords has a very important

role and we will carry that out

effectively and we will listen to

what the debate says.

So you are

open to government amendments

changing the EU Withdrawal Bill? On

issues like Henry VIII powers or

something like that?

We have already

compromised on those areas in the

House of Commons so we will listen

to what the debate brings. Peers

take their role of scrutinising EU

legislation closely and we will

reflect on that and introduce

changes if we think they are

warranted.

Thanks for talking to us

this morning.

And you can find more Brexit

analysis and explanation on the

BBC website.

This week Labour's

ruling body, the National

Executive Committee, or NEC,

stepped in to a bitter row

about a controversial housing

project in the London

borough of Haringey.

It's led to deep divisions

between the NEC and councillors

across the country, with the Labour

leader of Newcastle City Council

calling it a "declaration of war".

With Jeremy Corbyn supporters

consolidating their grip

on the ruling body of the party,

Emma Vardy's been looking

at the new battle lines being drawn.

You might not think to look at it

but this council estate in north

London is being seen as a battle

ground for the very soul of the

Labour Party. Labour run Haringey

plans to redevelop the estate in

partnership with a private company

but the pro-Corbyn pressure group

momentum has led a campaign opposing

it.

You do not gift people's houses

to a private developer and say you

can demolish these...

When Labour's

ruling body, the NEC, intervened

telling Haringey to force the

project, some Labour supporters were

outraged.

We have now got the

National executive committee

effectively telling a Labour council

what to do and I'm thinking where

does this end?

This, some believe,

is what they see as the hard left of

the party using the row as an excuse

to get rid of more moderate Labour

council is ahead of next year 's

elections. Around a third of the

Haringey Labour group of either been

deselected or they have stood down.

How is this being seen by other

Labour council is looking on?

There's 100 names on an open letter

to the NEC today saying stay out of

local council business, and one of

them, the Labour leader of Corby

Borough Council who can be found up

there, called it a disgrace.

I

signed the letter because I wanted

to demonstrate solidarity with a

colleague, also to send a message to

the NEC that we believe it is

inappropriate to intervene in the

way they did. Labour and local

government are the people governing

here in this country, we are not in

Government nationally, we are in

Government locally and we are doing

a good job locally. We are

protecting our people.

Do you think

the NEC will listen?

I would hope

so.

The intervention that led to

this row came for the first time

since Momentum leader was elected as

one of its members.

The NEC has

expressed a view, it has not

mandated, not stormed in and taken

over, and I think for every person

you can find who is upset I can find

tenants who are delighted.

Jeremy

Corbyn's support base on the NEC has

been strengthened after recent

elections so could this lead to

sweeping changes on party policy in

the future?

Where you can see

greater radicalism is on areas of

economic policy, following Carillion

Labour has been clear they want an

end to outsourcing completely if

they are elected, that they would

like to take contracts back

in-house, and at a local of all the

tensions exist as well.

What is the

risk with upsetting councils?

Is it

causes local divisions and they want

parties to be focused on governing.

It also threatens to cause tensions

between MPs. A lot of MPs see Labour

councillors as proud bastions of the

party and see them as a barrier to

those who they think are taking too

much of a faction or ideological

approach.

What would your message

beta Jeremy Corbyn?

That the Labour

Party are very fortunate to have a

large cohort of very experienced and

talented councillors up and down the

country. We know what we are doing,

a us to get on with that.

Local

councils aside, in Parliament Jeremy

Corbyn has won the

Corbyn has won the support of many

Labour MPs who now believe he should

lead them into the next election,

but could it be the relationship

with the wider party in local

government that becomes the one that

is more difficult to manage?

Emma Vardy reporting.

Jon Trickett is a member

of the Shadow Cabinet, and also sits

on Labour's National Executive

Committee.

He joins me now from Yorkshire.

We have got the leader of Newcastle

City Council, the Labour leader,

saying this is a declaration of war,

the NEC getting involved in the

local government decision.

The first

thing to say is Labour is in

Government throughout this country

in local councils, we are very proud

of our record in local government

but the NEC took a decision the

other day, it was unanimous by the

way, nobody voted against it, and

Nick was in the room. He made a

strong case for the autonomy of

councils and in general that is what

we think too. In fact we want to

bring more powers back to local

council...

You cannot reconcile

giving more power to councils with

the idea there is a top-down diktats

on what decisions councils must

take.

Let me just finish the point

because what the NEC did was to ask

for a pause. We did it politely but

we said before that should happen,

let's have a conversation between

Haringey and the NEC and that

conversation is now taking place or

Wilby. I think this is an

exaggerated row and when people look

at the facts, we have asked for a

pause is not necessarily a change in

policy, though we think the policy

was wrong and we want a conversation

with Haringey.

You are having a

conversation between the NEC and

Haringey. If Haringey Council

refused to change their minds about

this, they will then be subject to a

diktats from the NEC, will they not?

I'm not going to go into a

speculative conversation with you

but let's remember the background to

this. This is effectively a huge

deal outsourcing huge amounts of

resources and assets in Haringey. It

is very controversial and remember

this, the NEC received a letter from

22 Labour councillors on Haringey

Council asking for a pause. We

reacted to that request from within

Haringey itself and all of this

takes in the background of problems

at Grenfell and also with the

collapse of Carillion, both of which

I think our matters we need to be

thinking about when we are thinking

in local councils about outsourcing

additional provision. I am

optimistic we will find an amicable

way forward.

It gets to a

fundamental policy aspect of the

Labour Party as to who makes

decisions and surely you say some

Labour councils were concerned about

this, the majority of Labour members

on the council were in favour of it.

The ruling body of the Labour Party

is obliged by the Constitution to

take a view where there is clearly a

dispute within one of our

constitutional elements. And there

was an absolutely clear position

that there was a dispute. We were

asked to intervene. We took a view

and asked the council to think about

it again and agreed to mediation. I

don't think this is unreasonable.

The Constitution of the party

requires the NEC from time to time

to make sure that the constitutional

elements operate within the

policies, programmes and principles

of the Labour Party. I think it is a

storm in a teacup.

It is about the

controversial issue of outsourcing.

That is something you are speaking

out about this week, saying the

Labour government would reverse

outsourcing, setting out clear rules

for companies you would give

contracts to, including the idea

that the boss should not be paid

more than 20 times more than the

lowest paid worker. It would be

quite difficult to find construction

companies to build, say, HS2 if

you're going to stick to those

rules?

Well, there are all kinds of

different contracts which are

outsourced. Some of them can be done

by the public sector, others can't.

We will be thinking about those

services which are outsourced. The

facts are if you work for the

Council or the government, the top

ratio to the average pay is 20 to

one. In the private sector it is 156

to one. That means in a year's work

by a chief executive, the average

worker has to work 156 years, almost

for working like -- lifetimes. We

don't think that is how taxpayers

want the money spent.

When you say

you won't give government contracts

to companies who don't have this 20

to one pay ratio you are talking all

government contracts?

We have said

we want to move towards a ratio of

20 to one. I don't think people

watching will have any compunction

to say that is not unreasonable. If

you are a boss you should definitely

earn more than the average pay. But

156 times? I don't think that is

reasonable.

Depends how quickly you

would move towards this. If you got

into government and took over the

management of say HS2, and there are

£7 billion worth of contracts, most

are companies which don't fit your

criteria, would you be cancelling

those contracts are maintaining

contracts with companies that don't

fit your pay rules?

Contracts which

are already left, you cannot easily

break those contracts, nor should

you want to. It would be illegal. If

the contract was operating in a way

which was contrary to the contract,

clearly we would want to look at

bringing that back in-house. It is

horses for horses -- courses.

horses for horses -- courses.

So you

would continue with the contracts

the government signed for the

construction of HS2 even though

these companies don't meet your

criteria?

In the case of HS2,

remember, it went to Carillion, and

20 Carillion after government knew

they were in trouble.

There are ten

more companies involved in this.

But

Carillion are in trouble. The truth

is the government gave them billions

of pounds, I think it was £1.4

billion, to a company which was

clearly going belly up. It is

completely wrong.

Jon Trickett, thank you. I will talk

to the panel about what we have

heard on the programme so far. In

Trieste -- interesting ideas from

Jon Trickett. It would be harder to

impose their rules about outsourcing

and private companies, wouldn't it?

Not necessarily. The Carillion thing

as come at an interesting time. It

has exposed in bold the kind of

suspicion we have had for some time,

which is that these PFIs are really

just a vehicle for private companies

to take public funding and not

deliver on the services that they

were supposed to do. It ends up

costing us more. It is in line with

a shift in public mood we have seen.

There is overwhelming support for

nationalisation across sectors, from

utilities to railways and actually

across politics. Conservative voters

favour nationalisation. It is no

wonder that we have this level of

discontent when we see something

like Carillion happen. Yes, it might

be difficult in the short term to

return some of those contracts into

public hands. But it is going to be

cheaper and more efficient and

better for everyone in the long

term, that much is clear.

Camilla,

do you think it is even possible to

impose these kinds of rules, the 20

to one pay ratio, four any company

with a government contract?

No. And

as Andrew Gilligan's piece in the

Sunday Times showed, a lot of these

ideological premises have no basis

in law whatsoever. Momentum has

suggested to Capp pay at £60,000.

What effect would that have on head

teachers in Haringey? The people in

Haringey did not vote for a

Momentum, they voted for Labour.

Haringey is a broad church. It takes

in top on one hand and Highgate on

the other. Our Momentum's policies

representative of the constituency

as a whole? No. It is deeply

worrying people are being deselected

by people with fanatical views. John

Landis man is hugely controversial

figure. He claims to be a Bastian of

socialism and socialist policies,

yet at the same time we have

discovered, and the Sunday Express

have had a lot of in-depth analysis

of his own finances, he recently

loaned £5,000 to his son's property

company, which in turn is charged

with franchising McDonald's outlets.

John Landsman is not here to defend

himself. Move on from that point.

Let me bring in Raphael first.

Haringey is emblematic of a wider

thing happening in the Labour Party.

You have got the NEC that met this

week, the first time since you had

more Momentum members elected.

Interesting to watch if it changes

the decisions they make. How

worrying will it be people to see

them getting involved in something

as local as the decisions in

Haringey?

Momentum is a complex

institution. It is not an

ideological phalanx or something

captured by the hard left. What is

very interesting about this is that

this is a tension within the left

and labour that predates Jeremy

Corbyn and Momentum. You have a

tension between people who would

start with a fixed idea of what it

means invincible to be on the left,

and people who take a slightly more

pragmatic view to

pragmatic view to get elected.

Broadly within the Labour Party at

the moment Jeremy Corbyn as won the

ideological argument. People have

been marginalised. The problem is

when you had the election last year

and labour did better than a lot of

people thought, including a lot

better than Jeremy Corbyn and John

McDonnell thought, something

switched and Labour thought, we can

do this, we can get into government.

Suddenly the pragmatic tendency

started to appear within the Corbyn

movement. The tension is not between

anti-Corbyn and pro Corbyn. It is

about how you sneak up power, not

alienate too many people. Can you

actually win, beat Theresa May and

get into government? That tension is

happening inside the head of Jeremy

Corbyn and John McDonnell. It is

happening inside the head of Jon

Trickett. We have to leave

Trickett. We have to leave that now.

It's coming up to 11.40 -

you're watching the Sunday Politics.

Good morning and welcome

to Sunday Politics Scotland.

Coming up on the programme:

New allegations about

the Phil Gormley affair -

the Tories' Justice spokesperson

tells this programme

they are "absolutely extraordinary".

Could the Lib Dems be about to back

the Scottish Budget?

I'll be asking party

leader Willie Rennie.

And as austerity continues

to hammer council budgets,

could culture be the next victim?

We'll have a special

report from Stirling.

The loss to the city will be

enormous. Has ever heard of a city

without a museum? -- who has ever

heard?

The Scottish Police Authority was

set up to oversee Police Scotland

independently of Government.

Last November they reached

a unanimous decision to reinstate

the suspended Chief Constable Phil

Gormley.

He was informed, and press

releases drafted announcing

his return to work.

Then, following two meetings

with the Justice Secretary,

the chair of the Scottish Police

Authority changed his

mind and emailed board

members, recommending

the decision be "paused".

He also contacted Mr Gormley

on his way back to Scotland

at the time, and told

him not to come back.

MSPs are concerned about political

interference in the day-to-day

running of the police.

The Justice Secretary

Michael Matheson

insists he only asked essential

and pertinent questions.

So what happened in those

un-minuted meetings?

Was the chair of the SPA

made to change his mind?

It all came under intense scrutiny

at Holyrood this week -

firstly in Committee and then

in Parliament itself.

Did basically tell you at that first

or second meeting to change your

mind?

No, it was not that exquisite.

So why did you change our mind?

As I

said in my earlier answer, I think

that for the Chief Constable to

return it would be best that it was

in the most conducive situation

possible. If the Cabinet Secretary

was unhappy for reasons that I did

not understand, and what it was best

to try and resolve those issues

before he returned.

You were asked

earlier whether you felt that the

cabinet secretary was directing you

to stop the process. Will you accept

that if you look at that

objectively, it is quite difficult

not to conclude that you felt the

cabinet secretary was telling you to

stop this process?

I think direction

is a more formal term, and I could

not say that I had been directed.

The position I was in, I felt I was

at not in a position to move forward

with that decision.

You had no

choice but to pause the decision?

Yes.

Thank you.

It was called a

one-sided meeting and he felt he had

no choice but to reverse the

decision of his independent board by

changing his mind based on the

cabinet secretary being unhappy. So

the independent chair of an

independent body has two meetings

with the Justice Secretary where in

the first he has told he has made a

bad decision, and after the second

years left in no doubt that he had

to reverse it. Andrew Flanagan

clearly said he had not been

requested by the Justice Secretary

to change his decision, and he was

not directed to do so. Questions

were asked, and as I said, I

absolutely and of the view that the

Justice Secretary was right to ask

those questions.

Well, the Justice Secretary Michael

Matheson declined our invitation

to come on the programme,

so earlier I spoke with

the Conservative's Justice

Spokesperson Liam Kerr,

and the SNP's Ben Macpherson.

First of all, I am curious as to

what you make of these reports that

were in the Sunday Post this

morning, and I should briefly

explain what this is about. Kate

Frame, the police investigations and

review Commissioner, suggested that

the Government was trying to

interfere with her independence. It

was about to the publication of a

report on the Phil Gormley avail.

She claims that summoning the

Scottish Government was trying to

delay it. What did you make of that?

I found this extraordinary. These

are absolutely extraordinary

revelations. What they show is that

Government interference in

supposedly independent bodies,

trying to do an independent job, is

endemic throughout the system. But

it also shows is that there is a

wider issue of Government, because

we have seen John Swinney trying to

interfere in the named person

witnesses, or at any rate there are

delegations to that. This is showing

that this interfering is with

independent public bodies is endemic

throughout the Scottish Government.

In MacPherson, what do you make of

it? This is arguably more serious

than the allegations about Michael

Matheson. -- Ben MacPherson. He

could have said he hadn't interfered

in the timing and could be judged to

be irresponsible, given the

circumstances. This looks much more

on the face of it, if these e-mails

are accurate, like a straightforward

case of the Government trying to

interfere in the normal day-to-day

workings of someone who is supposed

to be an independent commissioner.

On issues important like this, it is

important to be rational and

reasonable. This is a story that has

broken this morning. There has not

been any Parliamentary time or

otherwise to look at it. What is

absolutely clear from the story in

the Sunday Post, and the statement

made by the park, is that no

incidents of Government interference

have taken place. Those are his

words rather than mine.

-- her

words. Only because she resisted.

Let me just read you what Kate

Frame, the piece to make sure in

review said, she said if these

e-mails are accurate, my perception

of your remarks is of governmental

interference with my independence.

That is a direct quote.

That was

correspondence to give the context

but a Government official. But as a

comment to the story, they have made

very clear that there had been no

incidents of Government

interference.

But again, I make the

point only because it would appear

that Kate Frame resisted them. She

herself is saying that the remark

she received from this fellow, who

is the deputy director of police

division of the Scottish Government,

were, and ever video game, my

perception is of governmental

interference. If this was the former

Labour Liberal Democrat

administration, and something like

this had happened, the SNP would be

all over it like a rash. Saying,

this is an absolutely outrageous

interference.

I am not going to

comment on that. I think it is

important that we look at this story

in the context of the days ahead,

the policing subcommittee that I sit

on the well perhaps want to take a

look at it. But what is very clear

to me today is that when asked to

react to this story, they have said

that there is no instance of

Government interference.

On the

other issue at stake, which is about

Michael Matheson, I am not quite

clear what your objections are to

what he did. I do think that the

substance of what he did, to stop

the return of Phil Gormley, was OK?

It is just the way it was done?

I

think it is interesting how you

phrase that. The substance of

Michael Matheson and interfere to

prevent the return of Phil Gormley.

The situation...

But was that wrong?

The issue here is that there was a

meeting to which the independent

chair of an independent body, the

SPAD, is called into, unannounced,

between the cabinet secretary and

the former SPAD chair. This is a

meeting that is an minuted. The

chair goes then, with a unanimous

board decision we heard in committee

last week, saying the situation of

Phil Gormley should be coming back

to work. He emerges a short time

later. From an an minuted meeting

with no notes, with an eight

different decision. Mr Matheson

would have us believe that he did

not play any part in that decision.

For all of the people, this is just

process. You seem to agree that he

was right to interfere and stop Phil

Gormley returning, or am I

misunderstanding you?

What you are

misunderstanding, if I may, if that

this meeting, if Michael Matheson

wished to interfere, he can do that.

What he does not have power to do is

just do it in a closed meeting.

Side

you are objecting to the process.

Michael Matheson makes the point

that if he had not intervened,

giving the people inside Police

Scotland had not been made aware of

the suburbs and return of Mr

Gormley, if he had not intervened

people like you would be screaming

that this was an appalling and that

the SNP Government was incompetent,

and that of course it was ministers

responsibility to stop a situation

like this are rising.

On the

contrary, what is appalling is that

if Mr Matheson is now saying that he

did intervene, which he previously

didn't, if he did intervene, then he

has to go through an appropriate

process, and that process involves

not waiting, apart from anything

else, for nine weeks to come before

Parliament and talk about what

happened in that meeting.

What is

your response to that, Ben

MacPherson? Again, I think he is not

quite say this, but the issue of

substance is conceded, but you

presumably could see the issue of

process, that he should have... The

meeting should have been minuted. He

should have towed -- told MSPs what

is going on.

It's important to

recognise there is an ongoing

statutory investigation with these

allegations. We should all be

mindful of that. What is clear, and

implicitly Liam Cooper has just

admitted, that the Cabinet secretary

was absolutely right to ask the

questions about the process in which

the decision of the SNP was made. --

Liam Kerr.

We don't have endless

time, what about the point of

process? He should have told what

MSPs was going on, and he should

have made sure minutes were taken.

We have just got people post like

word for what has happened. --

people post like word.

In terms of correspondent from the

Scottish Government, the Public

audit committee has received

correspondent detailing the fight

that the follow-on correspondent

that took place there after the

meeting was much more substantial

than any formal minute.

OK. Running

out of time. Liam Kerr, returning to

these e-mails to and from Kate

frame, the police investigation

commission, what do you think should

happen about this? What will you be

asking for?

I think first of all the

Cabinet Secretary needs to reflect

very carefully on events of the last

few months and indeed the debate

that to please in Parliament when I

cold on transparency. I would expect

that to be happening. There needs to

be a fool public enquiry. A public

enquiry? Into the SNP. The way

Nicola Sturgeon was my government is

conducting itself is losing

confidence from the public, hang on,

you cannot have a public enquiry

into the fact that you do not like

the SNP government, that is silly.

Of course not. I think we need a

filling quietly into what is going

on here.

Do you mean the

relationship between ministers and

independent bodies?

We need tact

transparency. There has been no

transparency throughout this

process. There has been no

transparency from the Cabinet

Secretary.

I am not quite sure why

you want an enquiry?

I wonder --

want an enquiry into transparency.

John Swinney is currently facing

allegations over a billion of

independent witnesses on the main

person -- named person enquiry.

What

do you want to happen specifically

about this Kate frame situation?

Will your committee be doing

anything about this?

That is a

question for our committee to

discuss. That will be for John

Finnie to take forward. That is not

a question I can answer at the

moment. This is an important matter.

It seems like you do not know what

to do about it.

We have seen a

headline this morning about how we

can take this matter forward. It

will be discussed in Parliament this

week. It is important that there is

a lot of sensational as from Liam

Kerr today. They have been proven

wrong and it has proven that the

Cabinet Secretary was right to act

the way he did. There has been

touring have Chrissy, it is about

time we got behind our police

service. -- hypocrisy.

I was

wondering how long it would take for

one of you to say you are not

backing the fleece. Thank you both

very much indeed.

Now, since we recorded that

interview, the Police Investigations

and Review Commission have confirmed

to the BBC that the emails

are genuine.

However, they insist that,

since the report came out

as scheduled, there was no actual

Government interference.

And in a statement,

the Scottish Government said:

"There have been no incidents

of Government interference,

and the release of the audit

document went ahead

within the planned timescale."

Now, since the SNP no longer has

a Holyrood majority, they depend

on support from at least one

of the other parties

to pass their budget.

It was thought that would

come from the Greens,

but could the Lib Dems be

about to outmanoeuvre them?

Well, let's find out,

because their leader, Willie Rennie,

joins me now from Dundee.

I know you are dying to talk about

the budget. Let's get your views on

this. The report which is at the

centre of these new allegations was

not about Phil Gormley, it was

apparently about procedures in

general terms, to do with cases like

Phil Gormley but it did not name

them. What do you make of these

relegations this morning and what

you think should be done about them?

-- revelations. The government is

developing an unhealthy culture of

intervention. If I was in the

Justice Secretary's position, I

would probably have made the same

cold because the circumstances about

Phil Gormley's return were not

right. That is not the centre of the

problem here. We have a

concentration of power within the

justice system. We have the Justice

Secretary, the chair of the police

authority and the Chief Constable.

Those three positions held by three

people, you do not have that

dispersed power, share power across

the country.

What about specific

allegations not about Kate frame but

with matters to do with keep

reading?

It is inevitable that you

get to circumstances like this

because the power is concentrated in

just three hands. That is why we

need to change the system to

disperse power because the Justice

Secretary is not tempted in the way

that he has inevitably he has been

on both those issues. It is

inappropriate to intervene in such

cases, but it is inevitable that it

happens because power is so close to

the Justice Secretary. He can

intervene so easily without telling

parliament, and that is why we need

to have an independent review of how

the police structure is operated. We

should -- believe it should be

changed.

Another dancing on the head

of a pinpoint, Michael Matheson

saying he did not interfere in the

return of Phil Gormley, but you

would accept that he intervened. It

is the difference between the two

words. This case

with Kater Frame and the delay of

the publication of a document. Would

you accept that something on that

last remark -- Kate Frame.

To be

honest I have not seen all the

detail on that. I think it is a

culture where the government seems

to readily interfering and

intervening in many cases like this.

Even if he didn't actually

interview, they did try to. I think

that is the kind of questions we

need to be asking. I think there

should be a statement to Parliament

on this issue this week and we need

to put an end to it.

The budget,

everyone's Patrick Harvey and the

Greens would come to the

government's rescue. Are you

galloping to the rescue instead?

Talks with Derek Mackay broke down

before Christmas on an important

issue for the Northern Isles on the

internal ferry services because

there was a promise that they had

made to fund the services to avoid

massive cuts to the lifeline

services and public services. They

withdrew that commitment that they

had made over many, many years and

then tried to strong arm is into

voting for the budget. There was a

breakdown of trust so we broke down

the talks as a result of that. There

is still time to the the damage and

that was done. We could talk to the

government, there is still time left

before we finalise the budget and

agree the budget, and we have powers

over education, that I have

explained to you before.

Is the

issue over the ferry is your red

line issue? If they conceded on that

you would fought with them?

That is

not the only issue we are voting

for. But the handled it, broke down

the trust between us and them we

have had in previous years. There

was a precondition before any talks

with the government, was that the...

But do you have any redline is

beyond that? On the face of it you

are seeing is a much more modest

amount than the demands that were

made by Patrick Harvey about, you

know, effectively about £200 million

worth of restoration cuts to

councils. It was a precondition for

further talks about the big issues

that we have been arguing for, about

investment in mental health,

investment up to £1.2 billion, but

also £500 million investment in

education for schools, nurseries and

colleges.

Those have been a priority

set out in our manifesto in 2016. We

put out these issues for discussion

and debate, we could not reach

agreement last year, I was hoping we

could beat agreement this year or

remove some weight on tax which will

raise more men of the. -- more

revenue.

I am slightly chuckling

here. Your phrase, what is a red

line? Could sum up the history of

the Liberal Democrats.

What I am

explaining here are the kinds of

things we want to see. We are not

the biggest party in parliament so

we cannot provide everything that we

want. We have put forward and

coherently a package of proposals to

transform the education system to

invest in that system, to boost the

economy. Because the economy hasn't

struggling in recent months

following the Brexit vote. We need

to make that investment to turn

around the economy, but we also need

to invest in mental health.

Those

are the things we would be happy

with. You had a clash with Nicola

Sturgeon, at First Minister's

Questions. You appear to be accusing

her of lying and there was a bit of

bad-tempered exchanges. Would you

like to withdraw that allegation?

I

accept what the presiding officer

has said about the use of language

in Parliament. You can understand my

frustration and strong feelings on

this issue when the First Minister,

in a debate that I was part of back

in 2016, when she gave assurance to

the question that she would be

standing up for the children's Ward

in Paisley. When she knew fine well

that it was a matter of discussion

and debate for the health board and

the community. She said to the

question, there are no proposals.

That is a politician's Ansa, she was

dodging it and she got round of

applause at the of her question and

her answer. The audience were

convinced she was going to stand up

for the ward. I think it is

inappropriate note to say it is the

doctors who forced her to make this

decision. I therefore think that

what she said back then was

misleading the parents of sick kids

in Paisley. That is why I felt so

strongly about the issue.

That is

just a difference of words. You have

swapped the word lying for a

misleading.

The presiding officer

has given it a ruling. I think you

know what I mean and you know how

strongly as I feel about this issue.

You are not withdrawing what you

said?

I have written to the

presiding officer, I have made it

clear I accept his judgment about

the language. But I feel incredibly

strongly about this issue. Because

the First Minister did mislead the

people of Paisley believing she was

quick to stand up for that ward and

I think those issues of integrity

are incredibly important.

This is

where you get to fit on your best

big smile. There is a full thing

that people want another referendum

on the EU? It is fantastic. You have

been saying that you have had

discussions with the SNP about your

position on having another

referendum. Have you had any

meetings?

Tavish Scott did have a

meeting and they are sitting on the

fence. I would rather they came of

that fence and back what is going in

popular position, to have a say on

the final outcome of the Brexit

deal. It would be sensible for them

to do that. I suspect they are a bit

too attracted to having an

independence referendum than backing

our proposal.

If polls in Scotland

swing to people saying they want

another independence referendum, we

will have the same big smile from

you and you will see, yes, bring it

on.

We rejected a bad deal three

years ago, I do not think we will

have another one.

Willie Rennie,

thank you very much.

Now, as local authorities

across Scotland battle

to balance their books,

is it inevitable that arts

and culture will lose out?

Stirling Council published dozens

of proposals this week aimed

at saving around £20 million over

the next five years.

Among the projects facing funding

cuts are the city's museum

and a children's orchestra.

The council is encouraging people

to get involved in its consultation

before any final decision

are made next month.

Katie Hunter reports.

One, two, three.

These women find

sunshine singing in the sterling

museum. The facility's funding could

be cut. Doctor Victoria McBurney

will be singing, says it is good for

people's health.

Cutting the arts is

a big mistake, it is a huge mistake

because the arts give us pleasure

and they encourage creativity. If we

do not have that, I really am fed up

sending people to psychology

departments and signing them offer

stress and trying to offer them some

help when they are saying, let's get

back to creators. If you would get

the first people to survive...

It

could lose almost a quarter of £1

million of council funding over the

next five years.

It was literally a

big...

The museum tells many stories

of Striling's bloody past, now it

faces a fight for the future.

We

have the world's oldest football,

world's oldest curling stone, the

War of Independence, you name it, we

have it. If it is about Striling, it

is here. And most of the city will

-- the laws of the city will be

enormous.

It isn't just the city's

museum facing cultural cuts, this is

the wrap Lough estate, home to a

project that aims to transform

children's lives through music. --

Raploch. Big noise has been behind

Major concerts in Scotland and

beyond. It works and some of

Scotland like most deprived

communities. It could lose £200,000

of funding by 2023, a worrying

prospect for families who take part.

Hannah, she is very musical, she

enjoys it very much so. It is

something she can do with her

friends as well, Hannah is quite

shy. When she wants to be. She comes

out shell and she is quite energetic

and I would not say loud, she is

very vocal when she comes to big

noise.

What is it you like about

playing the cello?

Because I didn't

want... I didn't want an oestrogen.

-- -- E string. I have played in

some... One of them I had... There

were a couple of big noise all

playing on stage. Did you play at

the Albert Hall? Yes.

Striling

council needs to save £23 million

over the next five years. It has set

out dozens of areas that could be

cut. The final decisions will be

made next month. The groups we spoke

to said they were sympathetic to the

challenges the council faces. The

leader says that they will not have

to close their doors.

Art and

culture are very important to

Stirling. We are determined to

maintain that in the city as we move

forward. What we have to look at,

are there any potential

efficiencies, any potential to

increase income? Is their ways that

we can improve the financial model

so that the council becomes less

exposed and we can create a more

sustainable model in terms of arts

and culture?

Back at the Stirling

Smith, the singers have moved into

the sunshine. And to coin a cliche,

they have made this on their own.

Don't take our Smith away.

Now it's time to take

a look back over events,

and forwards to those looming

in the week ahead.

Joining me now are two

journalists and broadcasters -

Lesley Riddoch and David Torrance.

Let's start with these new

allegations about the police, David

Ford. The Scottish Government insist

no actual interference happened.

Does that get them off the hook? On

the face of it, the e-mails try to

interfere, and evidence credit here,

it is to police investigations

Commissioner was turning up to it.

O'Shea the Scottish Government on

this, that there was no

interference, spectacularly misses

the point, as the e-mails clearly

show there was a an

attempt, not the

first time he has been in the news

incidentally. As you say, the

Commissioner has had a clear no to

that attempt. An attempt to

influence the timescale, not a musty

conclusions. But it is yet another

example of civil servants going

beyond their remit and behaving

quite politically.

Why do they do

things like this? Would it not be

better to just not bother? The

report came out and it was not much

of a fuss about it.

I bothered to

look back at what the complete audit

said, and it baffles me about

journalism in Scotland that we end

getting so hung up on these

particular personal details when

really there is some substantial

points in that. Not enough

explanation on how the SBA, who are

meant to be the watchdog for the

police, the standards authority.

There was no information or

explanation about how they reached

decisions, the average time to

resolve something is excessive. The

public having to produce evidence

regarding complaints is not

appropriate. There is no guidance

about whistle-blowing. That would

worry me as a... That is the framing

of our police system.

There clearly

was on the face of it, and we know

these e-mails are genuine, an

attempt by the Scottish Government

to say, could you delay this?

Having

looked at that, they seem to be

suggesting that you can actually

find a different way that is less

public to resolve this instead are

published yet. Before the big

investigation that is going on it to

the Chief Constable. I don't know

whether that really washes very

well, but I also don't know how long

this interest in the quite

pernickety business of these details

of timing will continue. I don't

know that Michael Matheson's jacket

is a shaky peg.

This seems to be

dragging on for ever. There is now a

big row surrounding Police Scotland.

Obviously that does not affect

policing on a day-to-day level, but

surely this has to be sorted out and

quickly.

It does. Having written a

couple of articles about Police

Scotland myself when of its

considerable worry about the control

room is not responding properly to

urgent calls, there is also worries

about 40-50 stations being closed.

It is overcentralised, and I

completely agree with Willie Rennie,

there is not the underpinning of any

local accountability. Because I used

to be able to be the one that hired

and fired chief constables, now they

are way beyond reach and that system

is one that the Scottish Government

set up, a lot of police on the beat

want to see and broken back up into

34 units.

David, could Willie Rennie

gallop to the rescue on the Scottish

budget? The significance of what he

was saying, his commands I say more

moderate than the demands of last

Sunday, Patrick Harvie on this

programme basically demanding tens

of millions of pounds. It was less

clear that Willie Rennie is

demanding that.

It was clear in that

interview that Willie Rennie was

trying to keep the negotiations

giving, on that front. I suspect he

is pushing an open door. I have

spoken to some SNP MSPs, one who'd

used the phrase about finding a new

dance partner, which I thought was

quite amusing. In relation to those

budget negotiations, and a lot of

nationalist find the Greens quite

tricky to deal with. I think Willie

Rennie is probably aware of that.

The interesting thing is that it is

a reminder that this is a menorah to

Government, and it often gets

overlooked. In the first term, back

in 2007, there was this sort of

dance that took place quite

frequently over the budget

negotiations.

Your referendum,

Jeremy Corbyn this morning on

television was absolutely adamant

that Labour will not back another

poll.

The poll was showing a

majority of a second referendum, but

when you break it down, Labour

voters, young people and Scots are

the three groups who support for

domain has increased.

It also showed

that there might be a tiny majority

for domain, but certainly not enough

that could be changed.

I wrote

something about this myself, do not

go for a second referendum, because

this was an advisory referendum,

every time that a referendum takes

place our Parliamentary sovereignty,

you weaken an already weakened idea

in British politics. The MPs need to

stand up and do something here. You

look at the Midlands, the big areas

that were in favour of leaving, it

is still so.

If Jeremy Corbyn is

saying no and the Conservatives are

saying no, it is not a runner.

The

SNP have made noises in favour of

it, but they are still not gone as

far as backing it.

Willie Rennie's

meetings do not seemed getting far.

I think the point is salient. The

figures show a chef, I wonder how

strongly voters actually feel about

the idea of a second referendum.

As

they rank it? Other things like the

NHS are more important.

They might

say yes if boost, but do they at

least feel strongly about it? I

suspect not.

That's all from the us this week.

I'll be back on Wednesday

with Politics Scotland.

Until then, goodbye.