11/03/2018 Sunday Politics Scotland

Morning, everyone.

I'm Sarah Smith and this

is the Sunday Politics.

I'll be bringing you up to speed

on all the political

comings and goings in

Westminster and beyond.

Coming up in today's programme.

As the investigation into the nerve

agent attack in Salisbury continues,

we'll be taking to the former

Home Secretary Jack Straw

and former Security Minister,

Pauline Neville Jones.

Is there room for more spending?

Ahead of his spring statement this

week, the Chancellor Philip Hammond

has hinted austerity could be over

as he said there was "light

at the end of the tunnel".

We join the Universities minister

Sam Gyimah on what's jokingly been

called a "punishment

tour" of the country -

trying to attract students

to the Conservative Party.

Most of my friends always slander

the Conservative name saying it's

only for middle aged men who want to

benefit from themselves.

At first I

was like, I'm not going to say it.

One of my flatmates was like, if you

are not Labour, don't talk to me and

I was like OK.

In London, the Liberal Democrat

leader Vince Cable tells us why he's

And on Sunday Politics Scotland...

Richard Leonard tries to rally

the troops but could the single

market crack become a chasm?

I'll be speaking to him

from his party conference in Dundee.

All that coming up in the programme.

And as usual we've got three

Westminster insiders who will take

us behind the headlines and tell us

what's really going on.

Today I'm joined by Tom Newton Dunn,

Dia Chakravarty and George Eaton.

The unfolding events over the past

week in the cathedral city

of Salisbury could have been taken

straight from the pages

of a spy thriller.

The poisoning of a Russian former

double agent who had passed secrets

to Britain and moved to Salisbury

after a 2010 spy swap, involved

the use of a sinister nerve agent.

It has shocked the country

with the finger of suspicion

pointing firmly at Moscow.

The big story of the week started

in Salisbury after a former

Russian double agent,

Sergei Skripal, and his daughter

Yulia and the policeman who went

to their aid all mysteriously fell

ill because an as yet

unidentified nerve agent.

12 years ago, Alexander Litvinenko

was killed by polonium 210.

Was this more Russian foul play?

Boris Johnson was quick

to retaliate, saying there could be

implications for this summer's

World Cup in Russia.

I think it will be very difficult

to imagine that UK representation

in that event could go ahead

in the normal way.

Did he mean the England team?

The Prime Minister explained.

The point the Foreign Secretary

was making yesterday was that,

depending on what comes out

in relation to the investigation

into the attack on the two

individuals that took place

in Salisbury, that it might be

appropriate for the government

to look at whether ministers

and other dignitaries should attend

the World Cup in Russia.

Russian state TV mocked the Foreign

Secretary for his comments,

but the government's

firm language persisted.

The use of a nerve agent on UK soil

is a brazen and reckless act.

This was attempted murder

in the most cruel and public way.

We still can't get through a week

without mentioning the B word

as the Chancellor delivered

the latest big Brexit speech.

He's determined to get

a good deal for the city.

We still can't get through a week

without mentioning the B word

So I'm clear not only

that it is possible to include

financial services within a trade

deal, but that it is very much

in our mutual interest to do so.

Perhaps unsurprisingly

the EU disagreed.

Also when it comes to financial

services, life will be

different after Brexit.

The EU had other things to worry

about, though, as Donald Trump put

forward his highly controversial

plan to make American steel

and aluminium great again.

Surrounded by metal workers,

the President signed proclamations

to impose a 25% tariff on steel

and a 10% tariff on aluminium

imports into the US.

The European Union has not treated

us well and it's been a very,

very unfair trade situation.

Claims of Parliamentary bullying

and sexual harassment hit

the headlines with some

of the allegations going

all the way to the top.

Back in 2010, a woman called

Kate Emms took up the position

as John Bercow's private secretary.

But she stood down from that post

after less than a year.

Her colleagues told Newsnight

that this is because Mr Bercow's

bullying left her unable to continue

in that job.

Theresa May enthusiastically

welcomed Saudi royalty

to Downing Street this week.

Mohammed bin Salman was even treated

to lunch at the Palace.

Billboards sprung up extolling

in the crown prince's virtues.

Supporters of the man

they call Mr Everything say

he is a great reformer.

But protests surrounding UK arms

sales were also highly visible

and with Saudi's intervention

in Yemen ongoing, the visit

angered Jeremy Corbyn.

British arms sales have sharply

increased and British military

advisers are directing the war.

It cannot be right

that her government...

Mr Speaker, it cannot be right

that her government is colluding

in what the United Nations says

is evidence of war crimes.

Clearly riled, Theresa May

got her own back, calling

Jeremy Corbyn out on the eve

of International Women's Day.

Can I thank the Right

Honourable Gentleman

for telling me that it is

International Women's Day tomorrow.

LAUGHTER.

I think that's what's

called "mansplaining".

Tom, Dia and George

were watching that with me.

Now some insight and analysis into

what's going on behind the

headlines. The big story of the week

is obviously the poisoning of Sergei

Skripal and whether or not Russia

was involved. A lot of people have

been quick to assume that President

Putin sanctioned this and it's a

Russian state operation but can we

be sure of that?

Reasonably sure,

yes, clearly there is no physical

proof to produce at the moment. I

think by the end of last week the

government were in no doubt that

this was ordered by the Russian

state and in particular Vladimir

Putin, who, under Russian state

rules, has to sign of all foreign

assassinations personally since rule

change in 2006. The reason I think

they are almost certain about this

is quite frankly no one else has a

motive to do that. Who would want to

do a better job in spite of analogy

on an old colonel living quietly in

Salisbury? Not the people have the

modes of delivery to do this, to

pass a nerve agent, chemical

weapons, on Britain's streets.

Thirdly, this will be the killer,

the scientific proof it was an

extremely rare nerve agent, used,

not one of the more widely available

once you see in things like Syria,

it's a rare particular type which

has only been known to be produced

in one or two laboratories in the

world, one of them is in Moscow. The

Moscow foreign spy service. What is

fascinating is not just was Vladimir

Putin responsible? It is why he

wanted us to know he was

responsible, because he left such a

massive calling card, and that has

been really bothering cabinet

ministers in the last week.

Dia, we

had from the Chief Medical Officer

who said traces of this nerve agent

has been found in the restaurant

where Sergei Skripal and his

daughter were eating and 500 people

were there at the same time and they

should wash their clothes and clean

their possessions that were with

them. There is a small rescue but

there is a risk. Frightening news

like that is what drives home to

people why it matters this is

happening in the UK.

Absolutely and

there are so many questions about

this, even before we do want to who

was doing this. That's very

important. This also questions about

how the whole thing has been

handled, seven days, and they are

now telling these terrified

residents to wash their clothes and

possessions. Is that going to be

enough? What exactly is this agent?

If we see people in scary laboratory

suits walking around, doing what

they need to do, a quarantine going

on, is it enough to say go and wash

your clothes seven days later? The

communication around it, I

understand it is sensitive, that I

think it has been dire. Really quite

woeful. If I was living in Salisbury

I would be very, very worried.

George, the UK Government, once the

investigation has finished and they

decide whether this was a

state-sponsored assassination, they

need to decide how to respond. All

we have practically heard of so far

is some rubber mats might not go to

the World Cup in Russia, presumably

will have to do come up with

something better than that --

diplomats. What can we do that

Russia will care about?

The pressure

from some Labour Party and

Conservative MPs is to introduce a

version of the Magnitsky Act, which

means it's easier to freeze the

assets of Russians suspected of

human rights abuses or corruption,

and expel them, but Britain is

severely limited and I think it's

worth asking the question why did

Russia choose this moment to target

Britain? We are set to leave the

European Union, huge burdens on

governments, stretching the

government bandwidth to its limits,

and Donald Trump and the USA who we

supposedly have a special

relationship with, is imposing

tariffs on steel and has not made

any robust intervention over this,

despite the fact he normally rushes

to tweet when there is a terrorist

attack on British soil after making

unhelpful remarks. He has not been

standing shoulder to shoulder with

Britain in this instance.

There has

been a suggestion this should come

up at the next Nato summit in

Brussels, and they could be looking

for some kind of coordinated

response from international allies.

Is that likely?

It's difficult to

see at the moment. Russia's strength

here is significant and Vladimir

Putin, such a brazen act, clearly he

does not feel Britain has the

capacity to respond. Last December,

when we were short of gas, the one

country we turn to was Russia.

We

will be back to talk about the other

stories during the programme.

The poisoning of Sergei Skripal

and his daughter carries

echoes of the murder

of Alexander Litvinenko,

the ex KGB officer who died

after drinking tea laced

with radioactive polonium 210

in a London hotel in 2006.

And this morning, his widow,

Marina Litvinenko urged Theresa May

to adopt American-style laws that

are tougher on Russia.

You need to be very selective who

you are friends with. And when you

allow people with money to come to

your country and make a business,

you need to be sure what kind of

money these people try to bring to

your country because very often this

money is stolen from Russian people

and sometimes it is a very serious

crime behind it. I'm

crime behind it. I'm absolutely

asking this question to unite this

action already done in the United

States, in Europe. I think the UK

has to do the same steps.

Joining me now from Edinburgh

is the former Home and Foreign

Secretary, Jack Straw.

Thank you very much for joining us

this morning. Do you agree that the

UK needs to introduce tougher laws,

the likes of which the US has?

I do

think we should do this now. I think

have to take this very careful

step-by-step way, so I think the

approach of Amber Rudd and her

security minister, Ben Wallace, is

the right one. Jumping to

conclusions in this situation is not

a sensible way to proceed. The other

thing we have to think about very

carefully, when it comes to those

who are saying something must be

done and if you are in government,

you get this all the time, in

situations like this, something has

got to be done, is what happens when

you have to get back to normality? I

often reflect on the sanctions were

imposed to Zimbabwe for the

different situation but there are

parallels. In retrospect, Robert

Mugabe was a very bad man, but in

retrospect I often wonder if it was

a sensible thing to do. In the end

we had to get the troops down again.

It was very tricky so people need to

think very carefully indeed. This is

on the assumption the Russian state

was behind this, which has not yet

been approved or announced.

If we do

establish that and work on the

presumption for now and I understand

your reservations, would President

Putin care if we were to try and

institute some kind of sanctions or

punishments or does it just increase

the siege mentality Russia is under

threat from the rest of the world

which in many ways bolstered his

position in advance of the elections

coming up soon?

If we were to do it

unilaterally, just the UK, he

wouldn't careful stop with the EU,

and more other major allies

including the USA, he might take

notice but frankly, I think he

regarded as a medal if we were

simply to do it by ourselves and he

knows that, post the collapse of the

Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union in

the early 1990s, there is a huge

amount of Russian money in the UK,

particularly in London, and a

Magnitsky Act won't make that much

difference to the level of

dependence of some very highly

respectable British London based

financial institutions with Russian

money.

With the Alexander Litvinenko case,

an enquiry two tiers to get to the

bottom of what happened there, and

could only conclude that it was

probably orchestrated by the Russian

state. Can you take any sort of

action on the basis of something

probably being true?

People need to

bear in mind the example of Iraq.

The evidence against Saddam Hussein

having and continuing to have

biological weapons was overwhelming.

The question came up in United

Nations Security Council

resolutions, passed unanimously.

That is what Tony Blair and I used

almost 15 years ago to persuade

people to go to war against Iraq,

and it turned out to be completely

incorrect, so you've got to be

really careful. I have the scars

literally on my back in respect of

this. In the heat of the moment,

with people in the House of Commons

and the newspapers screeching,

something 's got to be done, being

non-explicit about what... Moreover,

we shouldn't descend to the level of

the criminal justice system in the

Russian Federation or other states

like that. There are demands today

from some Conservatives to ban the

Russia Today programme.

The Shadow

Chancellor said today that he

doesn't think Labour MPs will be

appearing on there in the future.

Will you do the same?

I have not

appeared on there for some time, but

I will make a decision on my own

terms. We have to be careful about

doing that in the absence of

evidence. Far better for Britain's

position in the world to have high

standards of probity. It's better to

bear in mind that well intentioned

people who do not lie at all,

including myself, and the House of

Commons by a huge majority, and

public opinion at the time, came to

the wrong decision with respect to

whether or not Saddam Hussein still

had biological weapons on the basis

of probabilities. That is the

difficulty here. People will of

course be very impatient indeed to

have a culprit here, and obviously

stacking it up on the basis of

circumstantial evidence, you can

make a very good case that it is the

Russian state, but we need a bit of

sobriety before we come to that

conclusion. Thank God that Amber

Rudd is the Home Secretary at the

moment. Someone else I could think

of in the British Cabinet, and she

is taking a very measured approach

to this.

Here with me now is Pauline Neville

Jones, who was Security

and Counter Terrorism Minister under

David Cameron, when Theresa May

was Home Secretary.

That was fascinating, listening to

Jack Straw drawing parallels with

Iraq and what was supposedly the

evidence of chemical and biological

weapons there, saying we have to be

very careful about pointing the

finger of blame. With your security

experience, will we ever be able to

establish whether this was

sanctioned by the Russians?

I doubt

the Russian state will admit it was

involved. In order to get absolute

proof, what we needed with

Litvinenko was to have a trial.

There hasn't been a trial because

the Russians wouldn't cooperate. I

think it's right for the government

to be cautious about saying anything

now, because it mustn't be seen to

lead the investigation and therefore

damage it, but once we have

established a degree of probability

about the cause, that is the time

for action. I think the chances of

it not being connected with Russia

in some way are very low.

The means

would point to that, but what is the

motive? This is a retired agent

who's been living here for years.

Came as part of the spy as well. The

unwritten rule of espionage is that

you don't touch spies. What dangers

does he pose to the Russian regime?

I think we simply don't know the

full story. There's plenty of

evidence that the Russian regime is

pretty vicious. Even if he was part

of a swap, I don't think you can

exclude the fact that the Russian

state might decide to take action

against him.

Looking at pictures of

him and his daughter there. It's

difficult to see what threat they

posed to the Russian state. Is it

not worth considering the

possibility that they may have been

involved in something else that

isn't technically state faction --

state sanctioned?

If possible. It is

possible that the Mafia was

involved. The question is, what lay

behind the Mafia and where did the

nerve agent come from? Is it

possible to come from elsewhere than

a state laboratory? It's difficult

to imagine that the threat isn't

going to go back to Russia somehow.

Is it possible to take action

against wealthy Russian oligarchs

living in London, even if we change

the laws and bring in something like

the Magnitsky act? Mrs Litvinenko

got a letter from Theresa May, Home

Secretary at the time, saying that

we want to make sure nothing like

this happens again in the UK, and

now it has.

There are already powers

which the government can use. One of

the reasons why there was an

argument in the Commons the other

day about this so-called Magnitsky

amendment was that the government

said, we've got the powers. You may

say, we need to use these powers,

for example to investigate people

who have unexplained wealth. There

are things we can do.

These are

people who are not necessarily

linked to Putin and the regime, so

these are two distinct things.

They

are. You have to be careful how you

do this, and it requires resources.

This is a complicated job. Jack

Straw put his finger on it when he

said, we need to act in concert with

allies. This is the thing that the

Russians really are going to take

notice of. At the moment, it's fair

to say that although we are Aljaz

overtime, we have gradually

increased the pressure. With

sanctions, and Nato have increased

measures on its borders, but we

still have a great deal of

harassment from the Russians. They

are taking action in people's

politics. They are conducting cyber

attacks. We need to act as an

alliance so that the Russians really

do believe, and they seek positive

evidence of it, that action against

one is an action against all, and

collective action follows. We need

to have a strategy that brings

together what we do militarily, what

we do to protect our citizens in the

cyber sphere, what we do in

broadcasting, so we have an all

encompassing way of dealing with

Russia.

Thank you very much for

coming to talk to us.

The new Universities Minister,

Sam Gyimah, has set himself

a rather ambitious task.

Travelling up and down the country,

he's trying to attract students

to the Conservative Party.

With just one in five voters aged

between 18 and 24 voting Tory

in the 2017 election,

it's been jokingly called

his "punishment tour".

Our reporter Elizabeth Glinka

joined Sam on his visit

to Canterbury Christ Church

University.

And just to warn you,

her report contains flashing images.

Was that a youth quake?

Reports of a massive

increase in young voters at

the last general election may

have been exaggerated.

# I got the big size

12s on my feet...

Nationally, the turnout didn't

really change, but of

the young people that did vote,

a whopping 67% went for Labour.

And in a place like

Canterbury, where there

are more than 30,000 students,

it's thought that their votes played

a big part in the city

electing its first ever Labour MP.

Canterbury.

This has been Conservative

since World War I.

An extraordinary surge

in their share, up 20% here.

In general, everyone just

always seems to think

that the Conservatives are always

doing something wrong,

so even if you don't know

about the Conservatives,

all you hear, you just think

negative things about it.

Most of my friends always slander

the Conservative name, saying,

"It's only for middle-aged men who

want the benefit from themselves."

Do you think you have

to be quite brave to

say, "I am a Conservative?"

Yeah.

At first, I was like,

OK, I'm not going

to say anything to my friends,

because they will just kick off.

One of my flatmates was like,

"If you are not a Labour

voter, don't talk to me."

Labour had a lot of backing.

They had people like

AJ Tracey jumping on.

So once they see that,

everyone kind of runs

to it, like, let's vote Labour.

# Tracksuit grey, black,

blue

# I was just a hope-filled kid

like you...

AJ Tracey is just one of any number

of current music acts who publicly

endorsed the Labour Party

at the last general election,

helping to build a brand

which was apparently three times

more attractive to young voters.

To be fair, it's not

as if there was some sort of golden

era of Conservative hipsters,

but the figures suggest

things are getting worse.

And that's why the new Universities

Minister, Sam Gyimah,

is currently on a nationwide tour,

including here in Canterbury,

where he is attempting to

at least start a conversation

with a generation of voters who see

his party as old, male and stale.

Minister, this seems

a good time to jump in.

This is an incredibly difficult job,

isn't it, convincing young people

to vote Conservative?

We do have our work cut out for us,

but I think the first thing to do

is actually to be on campus.

If we allow Jeremy Corbyn to be

the only one on campus, then we only

have ourselves to blame.

Many students will say to you, well,

it's fine, you're having

a review on student fees

and many other things.

The Labour Party's promising us

they're going to get rid of fees.

We know what happens when you

promised something for free.

Numbers are going to be capped,

which means fewer people

going to university.

It's the well off that

are going to do it.

That's not what we're about.

I'm not really worried

about Jeremy Corbyn's free

for all offer, because it's not

realistic, and he can't deliver it,

and we only need to look

at countries like Scotland to see

that it's not going to work.

And what reaction are you expecting

when you head in there?

Well, I thought it might

be rowdy like PMQs.

I've no idea.

I haven't had the mob treatment

anywhere yet so far.

# Your face ain't big for my boot

# Kick up the yout

# I know that I kick up the yout...

There might not have been

a youth quake nationally,

but there was a bit of a youth quake

in Canterbury, and I want to listen

and I want to understand.

You know, we've had enough

of austerity politics.

We've had enough of student fees,

things like that, and we've seen

the NHS get less and less

funded over time.

And it's hard to

ignore those things.

You know, we are going to take

action against you.

# Bros in my ear saying

"Stormz, don't do it"

# Devil on my shoulder

I don't lack

# Hit 'em

with a crowbar, I don't scrap...

Well, lots of discussion,

some of it a bit feisty,

but did the Minister win any

hearts and minds?

He's really good at talking

to students, and he's

here to talk to everyone.

Would it make you feel differently

about voting Conservative?

I took from your comments that

you were not a Conservative voter.

Definitely not, but I did think

he made some good points,

and he was very measured.

It's quite clear that there

are a number of people here who have

been seduced by Jeremy Corbyn,

but I think the purpose of this

is to let them realise

that there is a Conservative voice,

there is a Conservative point

of view, and that as a minister

I am here to listen.

Clearly a smart man.

I'm not sure it's better

or worse to have a smart

Tory or a stupid Tory,

but he knew what he was

talking about, even though

I disagree with him.

Would it make you think twice

about voting Conservative?

No, I will never vote

Conservative in my life.

So as the sun sets in Canterbury,

there's still a long way to go.

And Universities Minister Sam

Gymiah joins me now.

A smart Tory. That is a compliment

from one of the students! Do you

think you persuaded many of them to

vote Tory?

The point of the exercise

was not to persuade people to vote

Conservative. As Universities

Minister, I'm very conscious that

students are investing a

considerable amount of money in

their education, so they should have

a voice in the corridors of power.

Gone are the days that the

Universities Minister 's spends time

with the chancellors and not the

students. Jeremy Corbyn has a voice

on the campus, and if we allow that

to continue, we only have ourselves

to blame. The starting point in the

process is listening and engaging,

rather than going in there to preach

to them about what their problems

and answers are.

You have a mountain

to climb with young people. Let's

have a look at the numbers. At the

last election, between 18 to

24-year-olds, 67% voted Labour.

Unless you can change those minds,

you have a generational problem with

voters, and you will not see

Conservative governments in the

future, unless people change their

minds.

What I am doing at the moment

is pressing, which is why the party

is beginning to engage with students

at this level. A number of things

have come up as I've travelled

around the country that we can

address. Austerity keeps coming up.

We stopped making the case for why

we had to reduce the deficit from

the extreme levels that we inherited

from the Labour Party. One man said

to me, all I have ever heard the

Conservatives talk

about is austerity. It must be your

ideology. That is clearly not the

case. It is a matter of necessity,

not ideology.

We have the spring

statement coming up next week. The

Chancellor has said this morning

that we are in a much better

financial position at the moment

then we have been, but it doesn't

sound like he's going to end

austerity. Would you encourage him

to do so?

This brings statement is

an update on the public finances.

But he is going to point further

ahead to the budget in the autumn,

and he doesn't seem to be talking

about the increased public spending

you think will attract people to the

Tories.

We are not going to say we

are going to return to discredited

economic policies of 40 years ago.

What he should be saying to young

people is that the balanced approach

that he is pursuing, in a world

where we have technological

challenge and a global market

economy, the Conservatives are

uniquely placed to deliver

prosperity for them. Another issue

that comes up is our motives. When

we talk about economic prosperity,

people feel it is for the few.

Sometimes I have to explain that the

top rate of tax has been higher

under the Conservatives, and that

the top 1% pay 20% of income tax.

They didn't know that. We need to

talk about -- we need to persuade

them that when we talk about

economic prosperity, it is their

future we are talking about.

You addressed tuition fees in the

film but look at maintenance grants

being cut by this government so the

poorer students to go to university

will lead with larger debt than

those from better off backgrounds.

When that is their experience right

now on campus, no wonder they keep

thinking you are looking after the

better off and not the

disadvantaged.

Canterbury has the

best proportion of students went

university for the first time in

their families. Many of those would

not be at university at all had we

pursue the Jeremy Corbyn policy.

Jeremy Corbyn is promising to

abolish tuition fees so that would

make it easier for students to go to

university.

Once you make university

free you can't have a current policy

we have which is that the numbers

who can go to university are capped.

At a time when the numbers were not

capped, our own history, very few

people went to university and mentor

very few poor people went

university. A consequence of the

Conservative policy is a lot of

disadvantaged people are giving to

university for the first time and we

have a student finance scheme where

you do not pay a penny as a first

burner unless you in over £25,000

and after 30 years, whatever you

have managed to pay, is written. I'm

not saying is perfect.

That very

system is replacing grants for

poorer students with loans. Why? If

you are so keen to get disadvantaged

students into universities, wide

takeaway maintenance grants?

There

is a review looking at the whole

system, but when many students

complain about the student finances,

they focus on accommodation.

Somewhere like London, landlords

want to get the years rent in

advance. That is a difficult

situation for them and the cost of

living issues, rather than assuming

we know...

There's an interest rate

on a student loan of over 6% which

is way in excess of what people are

borrowing on mortgages etc.

The cost

of living in University...

They must

be worried about it.

Whatever your

level of earnings, you pay 9% of

your income, which means higher rate

in graduates pay more to the system

but I also think to narrow the

debate on student fees, students

have a lot of interest, not all

students think student fees is their

big issue. Someone to see their

politicians care about making the

world a better place. What kind of

world they are going into, they will

get on the housing ladder, housing

is big issue for them but the

economy prospers, so I think that's

why you have got to listen and not

assume all students have the same

view and there is one answer that

deals with all the problems of every

18-21 -year-old.

Mental health keeps

cropping up. I'm sure the university

's lecturers strike came up as well.

Now students are paying £9,000 in

fees, they are consumers as well as

students, so should they get a

refund for the lessons they have not

been taught?

Universities do not pay

lecturers on the day they strike,

they should not pocket those funds,

but look at compensation for

students and there are real ways of

compensating students.

Would you

compel them to do that?

I'm not in a

position to compel them to do that.

There is the regulator for

university who has a wide-ranging

remit. I'm encouraged some

universities are taking this

seriously. Kings College London will

offer financial compensation. I

think they should look at this very

seriously. I am disappointed I am

seeing lots of petitions out there

from Durham University, a petition

of 5000 students, asking for

compensation. I want to university

to respond constructively, because

we are in the age of the student and

we are there to serve.

One quick

question, talking about Russia on

the programme so far this morning, a

story this morning in the papers

saying over £800 million has been

donated to the Tory party from

Russian link to donors since Theresa

May took over, even notice that you

wanted an arms length relationship.

Is that something that should be

discouraged in the future and should

the money be returned now?

To make a

donation to a political party in

this country you have to be a

citizen Dungannon

citizen Dungannon -- and betting

needs to be taken place. Modern

Britain is made up by people from

all sorts of places. Some groups of

people cannot participate in Aber

Democratic life to the fall, and we

have got to be clear, these are

British citizens from Russia. Not

the Kremlin donating to the

Conservative Party.

Of course not,

but there could be a question of

where those funds came from in the

first place for the wedding end up

on the front page of a Sunday

newspaper saying this much money has

been donated to the Conservative

Party, maybe it would be better to

think again where you receive your

large donations from?

It's not just

the letter of the law but vetting

should be thorough.

Sam Gyimah,

thank you very much for coming in to

talk to us.

It's coming up to 11.40.

You're watching

the Sunday Politics.

Still to come, we'll be

discussing the economy.

Is it time to end austerity?

First though, its time for

the Sunday Politics where you are.

Good morning and welcome

to Sunday Politics Scotland.

Coming up on the programme....

Smiles and glad hands

at the conference.

But behind the scenes,

how big a problem has

Scottish Labour got over

the single market?

I'll be asking their leader,

Richard Leonard, whether

Jeremy Corbyn's remarks

on immigration were xenophobic.

And the Scottish Youth Theatre

gets set to close.

I'll be asking Creative Scotland

if there's any chance

of an 11th-hour funding reprieve -

the answer appears

to be, yes, there is.

At the Scottish Labour Conference,

its new leader, Richard Leonard,

promised a fundamental change

in the Scottish economy and said

he would not only stop future

Private Finance Initiative deals,

but bring existing ones back

into the public sector.

But was he really threatening

to cancel contracts?

He also ran into a row over

a speech by Jeremy Corbyn

which Nicola Sturgeon and some

in the Labour Party itself said was

using the language of Nigel Farage.

Well, a little earlier

I spoke to Richard Leonard.

You said in your speech yesterday

that not only under you would do no

longer be any PFI contracts but you

wanted to bring existing ones in

house. How exactly do you propose to

do that?

Well, there are around 130

both PFI PPP and not-for-profit

contracts out there and they are in

large measure all different and it

would be a case of renegotiating

each one of them. Some of them

frankly are coming towards the end

of their lives, some are in

of their lives, some are in the

hands of companies who would

probably look forward to an

opportunity to get themselves out of

those contracts. So I think the

environment for negotiation is good

at the moment. Whilst I said in my

speech yesterday that under a future

Scottish Labour government, we would

not sign any new PFI deals or NPD

deals, I think there is action that

could be taken at the moment and we

have a debate tabled in the next few

days and the Scottish Parliament on

this whole question of public

infrastructure, hopefully we will

call for a review of the Scottish

Futures Trust.

To be clear, if I am

a contractor who has one of these

PFI contracts and I am listening to

you, I do not need to worry that you

will somehow break the contract?

This will only be if I am willing to

negotiate with you?

Well, it will be

a negotiation, absolutely, again, I

have said that there are priorities,

the priorities would be what you

might call the low hanging fruit of

those contracts coming to the end of

the alive, so let us look at how

they can excel and bringing that

into the public sector, but for

reasons that I am sure that you

understand, I am keen to see the

removal of private contractors from

the National Health Service. So

where did our facilities and

management companies who are

currently delivering services in our

hospitals, I would like to see the

contracts brought out as a matter of

urgency.

But if I am one of these

contractors and I do not want to

negotiate with you and I have a

contract and I want to stick to

that, I would be allowed to do that?

Well, the point of entering into a

negotiation is to try to find a

settlement.

What if I do not want to

negotiate and I want to settle with

my current contract?

Well, in the

commercial world, my experience of

over 20 years as a trade union

negotiator, it is that in the end

people are prepared to reach

settlements and to go through a

negotiation process to find that. So

I would be very surprised if there

were any contractors involved in

delivering public services in

Scotland that would not be at least

open to a conversation about how an

earlier termination of the contract

could be reached.

Sorry, why? If I

had a contract and I built a PFI

hospital or a bold and I have lots

of money coming in from it and for

the next ten years, I am telling you

I am happy with this, thank you, I

am making a lot of money out of it.

Yes, but Gordon, this is in the

context of seeing the collapse of

Carillion, one of the biggest

providers of public contracts in the

public realm, not just in Scotland,

but throughout the UK. There are

other major players in that field

whose share prices have dropped.

Others are giving up profit

warnings, so I think that the

climate is right, to start opening

up negotiations with these

companies. It is

companies. It is a good time to have

this conversation.

I am interested

in how much of your rhetoric

yesterday involved forcing people to

do things. In that one that is up

for negotiation. You also spoke

about local authority pension funds

and getting them involved in

financing council houses. Again,

presumably, this is a good idea that

you would like to tell them, you

cannot mandate local authority

pension funds to do that?

No, local

authority pension schemes are

managed by the trustees of those

schemes.

Exactly.

But in the end

they are accountable to the pension

holders, to the employees, two

people contributing to those

schemes. To the employers

contributing to those schemes

including local authorities. So I

think it is a perfectly sensible

proposition to put the local

authorities, to employers, who are

investing in these pension schemes,

to say, instead of putting money

into stock San Siro the Far East,

why do we not look at how we can

reinvest in our local economies? Let

us look at AB of generating steady

income streams through investment in

public housing. Also meeting the

public need as well.

My point is

about forcing people to do things.

Trustees of a pension fund might

tell you, sorry, these derivatives

that we are investing in, we think

these are better deal for our

pension fund members and we hear

what you are telling us about

council houses but no thank you.

There is nothing you can do about

that?

My school of Democratic

Socialism is founded on the

principle of persuasion and not

coercion. So I am not suggesting

that we would seize assets or force

people to do things, I am telling

you that we would look at ways of

bringing about a change in the

culture, and behaviour and a change

in practice. And I think it is

eminently sensible to open up

conversations and there are examples

already of pension funds, Local

Government Pension Scheme is used to

invest in local infrastructure. I

think Manchester Council, Islington

Council and even Falkirk Council in

Scotland have looked at this as a

possible way forward.

It is an idea

whose time has come. When Jeremy

Corbyn at your party conference

talked about wanting to be outside

the single market because he wanted

to prevent employers from being able

to import cheap agency labour to

undercut the Labour Party -- labour

in this country, Nicola Sturgeon,

the First Minister said that he was

using the sort of language that she

is more used to hearing from Nigel

Farage, that sentiment has been

echoed today by former Secretary of

State for Scotland, sorry, Shadow

Secretary of State for Scotland, Ian

Murray, and your former Deputy

Leader, they all have a point, do

they not?

I think that they are

wrong, I recognise that emotions in

this debate are very high and that

people have very strong views, about

what they would like to see the

future shape of both Scotland and

the UK was mad relationship with the

European Union look like after

Brexit, but I just think that it is

wrong to try to equate anything that

Jeremy

Jeremy Corbyn has said with Nigel

Farage. Why? Because the truth of

the matter is that Jeremy Corbyn

throughout his entire life is one of

the most anti-racist campaigners I

have known, he has always stuck for

workers' rights and represents one

of the most multicultural

constituencies with the large amount

of immigration in that of any within

the entire UK. To suggest that the

Jeremy Corbyn is in anyway looking

towards a blog to any access to the

single market because of what it

might do to migration is false.

But

that is precisely what he said. Let

me read you what he said, one of the

reasons for being outside the single

market was to prevent employers

being able to import cheap agency

labour to undercut existing pain

conditions in the name of free

market orthodoxy and the point that

the Nicola Sturgeon and Kezia

Dugdale and Ian Murray would make

about that is that the problem with

undercutting pay is with the

practices of employers in this

country, who also sometimes undercut

pee and do not pay the minimum wage

to indigenous British workers. It

has nothing to do with immigration

from Europe in the manner that

Jeremy Corbyn has a -- suggest the

debtors because of cheap labour from

Europe.

If you are suggesting that

the problem in that scenario is with

the employer, I would agree with you

because it is the employer who is

doubly exploiting workers in that

situation. But there is a point and

it has been in the Labour Party

manifesto in the last two elections

that we would like to see a practice

where UK

where UK employers deliberately go

out to source labour from parts of

the European Union in order to bring

them in on a less than going rate

basis. We should be arguing for all

kinds of the trade union going rate

in these industries and that is

extremely important, fundamental

principle of the trade union

movement and the Labour Party.

That

is what you implement in this

country, you do not do it like you

are suggesting, the connection with

the single market is completely

irrelevant in this case.

I have

watched all of my life against the

exploitation of workers and against

the double exploitation of workers,

expressed are those who are migrant

workers that are often brought in in

order to be paid a lesser rate than

the going rate for local workers. It

is about making sure that people

have equality of treatment,

something I have walked for all of

my adult life and that Jeremy Corbyn

has campaigned for as well.

Are you

not embarrassed about this? Surely

from the point of view of the Labour

Party, the idea that a party with

your international traditions can be

criticised for parochialism and

xenophobia by Scottish

Nationalists... Anyon, things have

come to a pretty pass, have they

not?

Scottish Nationalists hurl all

kind of insults at the Scottish

Labour Party, past, present and no

doubt future, but I do not pay too

much credence to the allegations

that have been made. I think it is a

cheap stunt to try to score a party

political points around what is a

very serious issue, because Brexit,

no matter what you think of single

market membership, Brexit is a

hugely important political challenge

that we all this and I would have

thought that over the course of the

last few weeks we have demonstrated

the importance of cross-party

working within the Scottish

Parliament to ensure that the

Continuity Bill is past.

We are

running out of time, on the single

market, if you are like the majority

possibly of the Scottish public that

think it is important to stay within

the single market, many young people

believe that is the case, and

probably a majority of your own

party think it is important to

remain in the single market, if

there is a general election shortly,

which is what both you and Jeremy

Corbyn would like, it issued advice

to be that if you want to remain in

the single market, fought Scottish

Nationalists or Lib Dem?

No, because

the SNP want to take us out of the

UK single market, which is worth

four times as many jobs as the

European Union single market is the

Scottish economy. So I do not think

voting for the SNP would solve any

problems whatsoever.

What about

Liberal Democrat?

I do not think

many people would consider the

Liberal Democrats are on the verge

of forming a UK Government.

But it

is that choice that must be made. If

I vote for the Labour Party I am

voting to come out of the single

market.

Gordon, the SNP can never

form a UK Government, the Lib Dems

do not look like they are going to

form one any time now. If people

would like to see a change in this

country, they

country, they must abort the Labour

Party in. But a vote for the Labour

Party is a vote to be the single

market. No. We will debate the

proposition that the conference this

morning which will include Keir

Starmer's six tests which include

how we can reclaim the benefits of

the single market and that is

broader Labour Party stands.

Richard

Leonard, thank you very much, we

will have to leave it there.

Thank

you, God, thank you so much. --

thank you Gordon.

Over the past 40 years,

The Scottish Youth Theatre has been

responsible for kick-starting

the careers of many young actors

which have gone on to huge success,

such as Karen Gillan,

Kate Dickie and Gerard Butler.

But this week, the organisation

announced its imminent closure,

after failing to secure regular

funding from the arts

agency, Creative Scotland.

A campaign's been launched to keep

the youth theatre open.

At the same time, there have

been questions about

the funding decision.

In a moment we'll hear from the boss

of Creative Scotland, but first,

Andrew Black reports on what's been

a tense week for

the arts in Scotland.

Add these Scottish Youth Theatre's

based in Glasgow, young actors are

walking on a performance based on

the theme of taking audacious steps.

These performers been working as a

part of the year Theatre's national

ensemble, which will tour Scotland

in the summer. As things stand, it

could be the last production it ever

puts on. For these performance, it

is vital the Youth Theatre stays

open.

There are rather youth

theatres, but there aren't ones that

can say they are Scotland's youth

Theatre. I've worked with people

from as far afield as Orkney and

Shetland and Inverness and Dumfries,

it is encompassing of everyone in

Scotland.

What SYT does is provide

extraordinary support for young

people who are not just going to be

actors, but support staff as well.

The bosses say it may close this

summer. A third of its budget is

provided but limited funds means it

may not be able to support the Youth

Theatre. One way it hopes to

continue is through securing direct

funding as part of national company

status for the Youth Theatre.

Were

not looking for a simple hand-out.

We want to be strategic with this.

We have a way to go to court weird

that title, but we're absolutely a

day for that. I just hope there is

enough of a conversation that can

get us somewhere quickly, because

time is not on our side.

Actress

Kate Dickie is one of several

international stars forgot how had

to make Scottish Youth Theatre.

I

feel we have to fight to keep SYT

going. It offers something unique.

Unique to our country and to bring

any kids and young people from all

over to work together and put on

plays, not just acting, directing,

writing -

it keeps that pathway open for our

young people.

The theatre has had

some good news -

and entrepreneur has put up cash to

allow the year theatre as Mike

national ensemble to tour in the

summer.

I spent time with the

ensemble this week, these are young

kids ranging from 13 upwards. The

immediate thing you notice is their

confidence. It is bubbling out of

them. Big ten sing, they can dance,

they can do anything. Just at the

drop of a hat, at an age where I

would've run a from something like

that. You can see that plays a huge

role in their own self-esteem and

confidence.

It has been a tense time

at the Scottish Youth Theatre, its

leaders are hoping to agree a

long-term future solution when they

meet the Scottish Government next

week. Meanwhile, greater Scotland

says it is working with the theatre

and other funding options. --

Creative Scotland says it is working

with the Theatre.

I am joined by Janet Archer, the

chief executive Creative Scotland.

Why did you stop their money?

They made an application last year

alongside 184 other organisations

for a pot of money which was about

£33 million a year. We weren't able

to find all the applications.

But

waiting to fund then?

Obviously, I

can't go into the detail of the

application, what I can say is I had

a good conversation with Jacky

Hardacre on Friday, she told me she

is not asking for a reversal of the

decision we made about regular

funding. We have been talking to

Scottish Youth Theatre about other

options in terms of Creative

Scotland funding and we will

continue to do that.

So they are not

now asking for the money?

Scottish

Youth Theatre is asking for funding,

they have accepted that regular

funding decisions have been made, so

were talking about project funding,

a different programme that we run.

We find 121 organisations through

regular funding. We funded last year

321 organisations through project

funding, the type of funding we are

talking about now. It is a different

form of funding, not the same

amounts, but can apply for up to two

years' funding. For more than one

project, and it is flexible, you

don't have to wait for a deadline,

in the wake that you have with

regular funding.

Silica get some of

this project funding, perhaps?

Is

because an application, they could.

-- if they put in an application,

they could. It helps if they have

partners on board. With regular

funding, Creative Scotland is about

22% of the overall mix, so there is

a range of other backers and

supporters. It Scottish Youth

Theatre is able to galvanise support

from other places and the master us

for a funding application of a

different kind -- come to us for an

application of a different kind...

The point of regular funding as it

helps an organisation plan ahead

over a number of years. You're

simply can't do that?

You can apply

for up to two years through project

funding. It's not the same as

regular funding.

What kind of money

were talking about? They £200,000,

their budget is around 600,000 a

year. I were talking about much less

than that with project funding?

The

guidelines say you can apply for up

to £200,000 or 150 with

permission...

Is that per annum or

per project?

Per project, but some

organisations have managed to work

project funding in a way that helps

them the more flexible.

To be clear,

what you seem to be suggesting is

that if they put an application for

project funding, they could in

theory end up with the same matter

money they got out of regular

funding?

That is possible. It is

under huge pressure, so we are only

able to fund one in three of

applications that come in. However

there is a possibility that Scottish

Youth Theatre good apply for project

funding and be successful.

I still

don't quite understand the widely

can get regular funding? I take your

point that you have a lot of

applications, a but this is a

long-standing organisation that has

been successful, why did you decide

now that you couldn't continue to

fund them on a regular basis?

Obviously, we had to make decisions

based on the application were

received at the time, which was last

April. We had more applications...

The implication is that the

applications from people who got

money had more merit?

We base our

decisions based on the merit of the

applications we received. We also

wanted to extend opportunity for

audiences and people across Scotland

to be able to access the range of

art forms and companies of different

sizes across the country. So we had

to look at the applications that

came into us. We assess them on

their strengths of artistic content

and management validity. Some of the

others were better, yes. When

organisations are not successful,

that is the case.

One of the options

under discussion is the idea of

becoming a national company, which

is a technical designation which

means your money would not come from

you at Creative Scotland, rather

directly from the Scottish

Government. Do you think it's a good

idea for them to get that statist?

That's for the Government to

consider, I don't think it is

appropriate for me to comment on

that just now.

But and might be

helpful to then if you were to say

you supported that?

We're

disappointed they didn't talk to us

about this subject, because we are

in dialogue with them until a few

days ago and having what we thought

were productive conversations and

relations to options around funding

elsewhere.

Are using that if they

told you they might have to close

down, you would have given them some

money?

We will continue the

conversations around alternative

funding, not just from Creative

Scotland, because we are only one

part of the mix. I think at some for

everyone to recognise that a our

funding in the overall mix is 22%.

Can you perhaps not give a

guarantee, but some sort of

guarantee, do you think that between

yourself and the other people you've

been talking about getting involved

in this, perhaps, you can stop this

organisation having to close in

July, as they say they may have

today?

We have been having serious

conversations about options with

Scottish Youth Theatre, we as a

normalisation understand Youth

Theatre very well, I started my own

career at the Welsh Youth Theatre,

we would hope everyone with a stake

in Scottish Youth Theatre's future

to come forward. They have a

magnificent voice in support across

the country.

We have to leave it

there. Thank you for coming in this

morning.

Thank you.

To explore the future

of the Scottish Youth Theatre

a little further, I'm joined now

by Joan McAlpine MSP,

who's the convener of

Holyrood's Culture Committee.

First, I want is BT about Richard

Leonard. Nicola Sturgeon said he had

-- Nicola Sturgeon said Jeremy

Corbyn had used language that

sounded like Nigel Farage, which was

flatly rejected by Richard Leonard?

I think it was disappointing Richard

Leonard didn't condemn it, because

that type of language used by Nigel

Farage and others whips up

aggression towards immigrants as we

have seen that since the Brexit

vote. I

vote. I think it's our role as

responsible politicians to speak

against that. I agree that

immigrants have contributed

enormously to this country and

politicians in the Labour Party

should be doing the same thing.

As a

reason for staying outside the

single market, you will buy it?

It

is absurd. Richard Leonard talks

about his credentials as a trade

unionist, trade unions once us to

stay in the single market. In the

SNP, we want powers to come to the

Scottish Parliament but the Scottish

Labour Party didn't support us in

that.

OK, Scottish Youth Theatre,

you heard Janet Archer, the message

seems to be that we might well come

up with money?

I think this exposes

a real problem with creative

Scotland's regular funding process.

A couple of weeks ago, my committee

had Janet Archer in the chair in

front of the test act and were

dissatisfied with the answers given

on how they make those decisions.

This isn't the first decision they

have reversed. Although they are not

talking about reversing this

particular decision, Ducati the

reverse decisions a couple of weeks

ago as a result of outcry, and they

admitted before my committee the

process needed reviewed and they

came and gave an apology. So you

then have to look at organisations

like Scottish Youth Theatre who were

not successful in that process that

Janet Archer has already said was

flawed, no wonder they are upset.

She says they spoke to him and they

no longer want the regular funding?

They said they had been in dialogue

with Creative Scotland since the

decision was made, but I have been

speaking to the Scottish Youth

Theatre and they told me they had

had one meeting with Creative

Scotland when they were told there

is open project funding and nothing

else. This is a process that takes

time. Other companies that missed

out on regular funding were offered

transitional funding. Scottish Youth

Theatre were not, because they

weren't previously regularly funded

organisation. They had been here

before, Creative Scotland four years

ago wouldn't fund the Scottish Youth

Theatre and the Scottish Government

had to come in then. I know the

Scottish Government is working hard

on getting something together,

because I don't think you can treat

this organisation this in way as

others. This is our National Youth

Theatre. The arts Council of England

find a National Youth Theatre. Janet

mentioned her background in Wales.

If this was something going on in

Scottish Ballet or opera, you

wouldn't close them down, you would

find a way to fix it.

That brings up

another point, the companies you've

mentioned, these so-called national

companies, they're directly funded

by the Government, not Creative

Scotland. One idea is that the

Scottish Youth Theatre could become

a national company. The woman who

runs it said that she had a way to

go to get to that stage, do you

think that would be a good idea?

I

think that was honest of Jacky. We

have a number of national companies,

one particular dance company did get

regular funding from Creative

Scotland, and there are used for

choirs who get that funding as well.

You would have to look at the

National youth performing companies

as a whole. The Government has a

great strategy for developing a

youth arts and it is very much about

giving access to everyone and

setting up youth hugs all over the

country. There is another strand,

which is your elite youth performing

companies, if you like, of your most

talented youngsters. Perhaps we need

to think a little differently about

that. In sports, we want all young

people to have access to sports,

Akashi we agree there are very

talented youngsters who could go on

medal at Olympic Games, and they

have additional investment. I think

that is the wager be

thank you very

much.

Now it's time to look back

over events and forwards

to the week ahead.

I'm joined now by a comedian who's

also a political commentator

and former political adviser

to senior Labour politicians,

Ayesha Hazarika.

And alongside her,

the political editor

of the Daily Record,

David Clegg.

Welcome both.

Richard Leonard, these remarks that

were very controversial that Jeremy

Corbyn made and have been criticised

by Nicola Sturgeon and by Ian Murray

and Kezia Dugdale, what do you make

of that? Do the Labour Party need to

tread carefully?

Yes, I think so. I

worry that this was more a badly

written line in the speech. I am not

sure that some of the context that

has been taken from it is correct.

Jeremy Corbyn has spoken in the past

about the way that immigration and

freedom of movement could

potentially lower wages. Is there

any evidence for that, it is

difficult to pinpoint Evra is. But

that is a different discussion to

suggest that he does not want

migrants coming in.

That is a

different issue. What do you make of

it?

Do you agree with David that the

language could have been different?

I was surprised that Jeremy Corbyn

went there. It was clumsy, whenever

the Labour Party goes into talking

about immigration, it is difficult.

Yes, Gordon Brown talking about

British jobs for British workers.

We

had an immigration mug that went

down badly at the 2015 campaign. To

take a step back, immigration was a

huge issue in terms of the Brexit

vote and was Labour Party members

are comfortable with it or not, at

some point we will have the article

it a policy on immigration. The idea

of equating Jeremy Corbyn to Nigel

Farage is ridiculous. The criticism

against them was that he was someone

who wanted open borders, Nigel

Farage has said that people from

other countries are ripping off our

NHS, he said that people from other

countries are bringing diseases and

things like that.

Arguably, even

from inside the Labour Party,

presumably, the argument would be

that that kind of language that

Jeremy Corbyn used is giving the

opportunity to other organisations,

quality the SNP of the Lib Dems are

the Conservatives, to suggest

otherwise. This is dog resting.

Any

time you talk about immigration

there is that danger. What he said

was about trying to stamp out

exploitation which we would all

agree with. There has been a list

out this week of companies in the UK

that are not paying the minimum wage

and many staff that are not getting

that the minimum wage are migrants.

I say this as the daughter of

immigrants, you have to protect

everyone across the piece.

everyone across the piece. But what

I also think is happening is

politics within the Labour Party.

David, on that, if this fact

becoming this conference that one

sentence or half a sentence, a

surrogate for a division of the

single market?

I think the single

market is a surrogate for a wider

division. The hard left and the

moderates. On immigration, a final

point, it is a failure of all the

political parties that they have not

made the case for immigration, they

have been scared about what voters

think on this and they have been

hesitant to actually suggest that

immigration could be great for the

country and this is why. It leads to

problems when you talk about that

issue. On the wider point of the

single market we have seen this big

bunfight in the last two days at the

Scottish Labour Party Conference

about other this morning there would

be a vote on the single market or

not and the immigration issue plays

into that but it is about a wider

split in the party which is between

supporters of Jeremy Corbyn and

moderates. The idea that the hard

left suddenly is not for the single

market and the moderates are all for

it, they are mapping themselves onto

this division based on a wider

split.

But there is the issue of how

radical Richard Leonard and Jeremy

Corbyn really are. That was my point

in asking Richard Leonard about PFI

contracts, because it sounded like a

revolutionist speech! It turns out

all he really means was that we will

have a chat with these companies and

we might ask them to the negotiate

but there's not much that they can

do about it.

There are some

explosive headlines and then when

you drill down to it, it is being

dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

What is interesting is that Jeremy

Corbyn gets elected as this

terrifying sort of radical, and as

he is doing better and better than