Ruth Davidson Ask the Leader

We're putting the leaders of the SNP, the Conservatives,

Labour and the Liberal Democrats on the spot this week.

They'll each face questions from a live studio

And I'll try to press them for the answers.

If you'd like to join in the debate on social media,

We heard from Willie Rennie and Kezia Dugdale

earlier in the week, and we'll speak to Nicola

But tonight it's the turn of Ruth Davidson, leader

of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party.

And the first question for her comes from Susan Kelso.

Thank you. Hello, Ruth. I am worried about the Brexit negotiations. This

week we had seen Theresa May crumble in the face of questions from the

public and journalists. How will she stand up to the remaining EU

countries when she can't even stand up to Jeremy Paxman?

I think you heard today from Theresa May, she made a big speech on

Brexit. She stalked the country through the issues she wants to

raise as we go forward. She's talked about her priorities for Brexit, the

way in which we want to approach the negotiations, things like ensuring

we get the right deal and cooperation for crime and Security,

making sure we not only secure the EU nationals here's rights but

abroad, to make sure we get a comprehensive free trade deal, so we

can still trade freely, and these are things a whole country can get

behind. I don't doubt there will be challenges. This is a case of making

sure we have the right person at the table. I'm not sure what Jeremy

Corbyn's priorities for Brexit are, I don't think he has laid out to the

country in the same way the Prime Minister has. That is the decision

the country will have to make. I have seen Theresa May work, the

application she puts in, the hard work she does, the diligence she has

in number ten and I think she will absolutely rise to the challenge.

The three she keeps using is she offers strong and stable leadership.

Was it strong not to turn up to the BBC debate? 2010 was only leaders

debate, leader wide, that there's been. David Cameron took part. He

didn't do it in 2015. There's only one that's ever happened. If you're

looking at an example where you can trust the leadership of Jeremy

Corbyn and Theresa May there is a good Scottish example. When Nicola

Sturgeon was demanding a second independence referendum, Theresa May

laid out her reasons very clearly that now is not the time. You had to

see what the two options looked alike, nor could you be dragged back

there when the country didn't want to. Let me show the contrast, you're

asking me to talk about potential leaders. Let me ask you, I'm sure

you'll get the chance to make your point. Jeremy Corbyn did say he

would be absolutely fine with the second independence referendum and

said he would negotiate with Nicola Sturgeon about it. There is an

example of strong and stable leadership from Theresa May but not

Jeremy Corbyn. Is it an example of strong and stable leadership of

Theresa May to backtrack on her plans to make changes to national

insurance contributions in the last budget? I think we want to make sure

we have the right deal for the country. We want to ensure we have

an income that can support our public services but we also don't

want to hamper business organisations. OK, but was it an

example of strong and stable leadership for Theresa May to

reverse her proposals in the manifesto on social care? They

haven't been reversed, it's about making sure in the English system,

and it's a separate system in Scotland, the long-term challenge of

care is addressed. These are difficult decisions, really complex

issues. She wants to make sure there is ?100,000 of the well maintained

for residential care. In Scotland it is only 26,000 500. These are tough

questions. Government is about tough questions but she is grasping the

nettle of these tough questions. She certainly has been when it comes to

independence. Let's go back to the question, what is your own view? My

concern is Theresa May is good at sound bites and standing up a podium

and reading a rehearsed script... APPLAUSE

But when she is questioned on it she crumbles and comes over as weak and

wobbly, and that is my concern when she faces the EU countries. If you

want a reality TV star, look to America. I want her to stand up for

her views. You have one of the longest serving Home Secretary is on

record, who has faced down terror threats in this country. She

crumbles. I don't believe that is the case. OK, one thing she has said

is she wants this election to have her own mandate, a stronger mandate

and that somehow that will strengthen her hand in the Brexit

negotiations. How? She will have to sit across the table from 27 other

readers and asked the country to come behind her. How do you

demonstrate that people abroad? If you have won an election, that's how

you demonstrate the country is behind you. If she wins, no matter

how big her mandate, she will still be the Prime Minister of one country

against 27. That doesn't change anything? You saw before the general

election was called, you had other leaders, including Nicola Sturgeon

on social media, saying she had no mandate at all and didn't speak to

Britain. People abroad can see that. They can see what other people in

the political sphere in the UK are saying about the Prime Minister of

the UK, will have to try and get the best deal for this country. I think

if she is being challenged to have a mandate, and that challenge is made

public, she is right to go and get it. If she offers such strong and

stable leadership, why does it appear that Labour is narrowing the

gap in the opinion polls? If you look at the opinion polls, and I'm

not sure after 2015, Brexit or the American election you should trust

them, but if you look at what's there, the biggest landslide in my

political lifetime as Tony Blair in 1997. 43% of the vote. The UK

Conservatives are currently polling 45%, even higher than 97 Lions wide.

Jeremy Corbyn is creeping up. -- and 97 landslide. Polls quite often

narrow before the vote. I want to bring in more voices from our

audience on this. The lady in the middle with the blue top. Just

following what you said about Jeremy Corbyn, not really putting out case,

I think at least he showed up last night and addressed the nation on

how he was going to be that strong and stable leader. APPLAUSE

The young man at the back. It's humiliating she tweeted her answer

to that question and wasn't there to answer. The gentleman? We need a

free trade agreement, it took Canada six years. We have 666 days to leave

the European Union, any trade deal, there won't be a deal when we leave,

it will cost households ?1700. Brexit will be a disaster and

Theresa May is not the person to be at the helm of that ship. APPLAUSE

I think the difference between us and other countries is we have

already been within the EU, so we already comply to all of the

regulations, all the other things that need to be worked out with the

free trade agreement. Some of the elements that have to be decided

upon. We already comply with so much of this. We are starting further

ahead in the great, if you like, than another country like Canada

would. When you are campaigning for Remain in the EU referendum, and you

were one of the leading campaigners for that site, you said Brexit would

result in the UK crashing the economy. When did you change your

mind? I think if we don't get a good deal it could be very challenging.

That's why I'm so supportive to make sure we have the right people

leading the country and I think that is Theresa May. User Brexit would

mean we would crash our economy. I think there are huge challenges.

Have you changed your mind about that was still very worried? I would

still Vote Remain, if the question was asked, I campaigned for it. The

differences, and this might be more potent in Scotland than anywhere

else, if you as a politician say there is a massive decision that the

country has to make and it is so big it has to be taken out of the hands

of politicians in Parliament and has to be made by the country as a

whole, then to just turn around and say, I didn't like that result,

let's redo the election again and again and the referendum again and

again, then I don't think... I say we shouldn't do that on Scottish

independence, I have the right -- I don't have the right to say that the

Brexit either. I have to now make sure we have the strongest position,

because that's the decision that was made year. Let's look at something

you said in the aftermath about the sort of deal you thought we should

get after the referendum. You would like to stay in the single

market? Yes. Even if a consequence of that is maintaining free movement

of labour? Even so, yes. When did you change your mind on that? The

reason I campaigned for Remain and believe in free markets is on the

centre-right politician. I want Scottish businesses to trade freely

across the continent. You are no longer arguing you want to be in the

single market? If you let me just carry on a second to explain why I'm

saying that. The system we had, the system I was campaigning for within

Remain was we stayed within the way in which we were allowed to do that.

The framework was the single market. Now, the Prime Minister says as we

leave, and that was a decision taken by the entire country, not just

politicians, that as we leave she wants to ensure we still have the

ability to trade freely across the continent through combines a free

trade agreement. We can quibble about the framework but if it allows

Scottish businesses to trade freely across the continent, of course I

support that. You said you would be prepared to accept the free movement

of people but your party has rejected that as a core principle of

the Brexit negotiations. Because they decided or agreed that was one

thing the people rejected in the vote itself. It was on the ballot

paper? Being part of the European Union was one of the integral parts.

Within days of the referendum result leave you are talking up the

possibility of staying in the single market and retailing free movement

of people. I was asked about my position. I believed in those things

because that's what I voted for a few days before it was filmed. Let's

bring in the audience, the lady in the front row with glasses and then

the gentleman at the backstop don't you talk about Theresa May's Brexit

priorities. Why has it not been a priority to guarantee EU nationals

here? Shouldn't people be a priority? Absolutely. She made an

approach to other EU leaders to ask if we could do this before Article

30 and the negotiation process and was rejected on that request. She is

right to say we need to get this sorted first and foremost. She is

also right to make sure the millions of British people living abroad also

have security that is given to them, as well as making sure we get

security to EU nationals here. She could have taken the lead. She did.

She should've said the UK were guaranteeing the right of EU

nationals. As Prime Minister of the UK she has a responsibility to Brits

who live elsewhere. Let me bring in the gentleman in the back row. What

do you think of our stance to only involve a handful of Cabinet

ministers in the decision-making process? Why isn't it going back to

Parliament? We have agreed it will go back to Parliament and in terms

of having a negotiating team, people have their different tasks. Don't

think for one second that in the last year that haven't been

unbelievable amounts of meetings with ministers, officials, advisors,

with all of the different interest groups, individual sectors, with

unions, with others, about what it is they want. One of the things I

found quite surprising, because I was quite surprising about the EU

result last year, was within days of it, the amount of people knocking at

my door with a wholly rational response saying, this is what my

company or this is what my sector or this is what my area of expertise is

worried about when we leave, so this is what we have to get right. All

this is what I have always hated about the European Union, if we come

out, can we change it? Whether it was the fishermen 's Federation, NFU

Scotland, the financial services sector. They wanted to make sure

I've said that in and they could get meetings and these meetings have

been going on, to make sure the government understand not just what

organisations in Scotland want but right across the UK. Let me move on

to another topic. We are rapidly getting through our time. This

question comes from Jane Reid, submitted from home. She asks, where

do you stand on the triple lock for pensioners? The triple lock was

brought in because under the last government there was quite a lot of

very small rises in the pension, way below inflation. One year it was

only 10p a week. I should explain what the mechanism does. It means

pensions, state pension is operated by either... Inflation, wages or

2.5%, whatever its highest. The reason it was brought in was so that

it caught up. That party was going to guarantee the triple lock stays

until 2020 and after that it will be a double lock, rising with wages or

information. Once we have self rated, it will never drop below that

again. But it is likely, is it not, that over time, that will slow the

pace at which pensions increase? That depends on inflation wages. It

will take money away from pensioners? It will go up every year

and it won't be going up by 10p every year like we saw under Gordon

Brown. It will be significant rises every year. You say that... But it

wouldn't be guaranteed rise if there was no inflation and if earnings

weren't rising? There would be no rise? Can you point me to a time,

that has never happened, Glenn! You are confident it will continue to

rise. The research into this between 2010- the present suggests that had

we not had the triple lock, the 2.5% guaranteed. Which the Conservatives

brought in and every other party voted against. They are supporting

it at this election. Every time you put it through budget. The research

carried out by the Telegraph said the pension would be worth ?107 less

if the 2.5% part of the triple lock had been applied.

That is why we make sure we brought it back to where it should be. It

will continue into 2020 and never fall below that level again. Another

question, Jonathan Bryson? I want to know what the Tories will

do to demonstrate that they will value disabled people again in the

future? One of the things we are trying to do. In the last general

election, we said we wanted to have the disability employment gap, so we

know there are barriers to people seeking to get into employment. We

changed DLA. There is Personal Independence Payments. One of the

reasons for that is to make sure we had parity of esteem between people

who had mental health issues and physical issues, but which impacted

on their ability in the workplace and perhaps weren't able to get into

work. So, these are changes that we've made. And I think what is

important as well is one of the things we are doing now, and you

know, this is, I think this is such a good idea. I wish we'd done it

sooner and wished it occurred to do it sooner, is we are putting more

work coaches into Job Centres to help with issues people with

disabilities have. They will help with CV writing, core skills and

helping to get a job. They should be able to help employers to feel as if

they are confident enough to take on disabled staff. We know sometimes

the difficulty is actually at the employer end rather than the ability

of the person presenting for interview. Your manifesto talks

about getting one million more disabled people into work over a

time. What is your own experience? Well, I just, I have a good

experience in terms of work, etc. I feel that the sentiment that is

around since 2010 is bad. When you have messages from the Budget, where

George Osborne said we will cut taxes for the top and then cut

benefits does not give a message that you value disabled people. It

gives a message... It gives a message that the strong

in society get spoils and those who are vulnerable are left to

themselves. And I think that is deplorable. George Osborne may have

gone, but I feel that that sentiment still exists. One of May's special

advisers says we will target the most needy disabled. That does not

make disabled people feel better. You have outlined some very

interesting micro-policies. There has to be a message coming back to

disabled people, saying, we value you. There is 30 million people,

according to Scope, who are disabled in this country. Only 11 million or

between 11 million-12 million people voted Tory in the last election. Why

aren't you saying, come on disabled people, vote for us. That is

something for all parties, I have to say. First of all, if you want a big

message, my big message is I want to see the ability, no not the

disability. That is one of the reasons why enabling people who are

able to work and want to work and find there are barriers on their...

Do you understand why Jonathan and others with disabilities feel they

are being penalised when benefits are taken away? Actually, in terms

of disability benefit, the movement to PIP means more people are on the

higher rate. I know that when you talk about statistics it does not

relate to people's own lives. It seems difficult to be able to do

that. One of the things we are trying to do is to make sure that it

is a more responsive benefit that does help people and also it is

about making sure that people have the help that they need, rather than

the fact that they are left. We don't want people to be left behind.

We want them to come on that journey. That is clear, but when you

have a situation where policy advisers say we are going to only

help the most needy disabled and in the same statement, in front of

Parliament, have a Chancellor who says, we are going to cut taxes at

the top and then leave the vulnerable with less, then I find

that difficult to deal with. Thank you very much for your

contribution. I know that others want to come in

on this. So, the gentleman in the middle with the baseball cap. You

have just said that you're going to introduce like coaches into Job

Centres - is this the same Job Centres that you guys are closing

down all over the city? The lady over here I would like to

ask if your party does get into Government if you would make, give

better training to Pep assessments. I have been to an assessment. I was

declined on the basis I didn't look like I had a mental health issue.

Tell us more about that. I was referred by two of my medical

professionals. I had chosen myself to come off of Disability Living

Allowance because I felt it was well controlled. I was not able to make

that choice myself. I'm epileptic and it is very well controlled

thanks to the NHS. Although they are understood funded with that at the

moment. When I went to my assessment it was for the mental health issues

which had come from it. I was told, you don't look, I looked in perfect

health, therefore I didn't qualify for any benefits. What impact did

that have on you? I put in an appeal. I wanted an appeal to have

people educated. I myself found that very difficult. I can only imagine

how difficult it would be for someone who potentially has much, a

much harder time coping. I'm in full-time work and things. It was a

horrific letter to receive. Mental health and disabilities are not

vizable for that reason. Is that how it's meant to work? I am happy to

take that case up with. It shouldn't work like that. We want to get it

right. We inherited a system which did not work well. We have done

revisions and retraining. With the assessments we make sure it is

medical staff doing it. There are questions about abilities, rather

than ability, you know, looking at a person. That is absolutely not how

it is meant to work. If that hasn't happened in your case I will take it

up for you. I was told my numbers didn't add up. It is not the

personal approach that the Government are putting it out there.

It is more personal, tailored to you. I will try and get the numbers

right. It is four or five revisions since we came into the system that

we inherited to get it better every time. I accept it is not perfect.

There may not be a perfect system out there. I don't know if there is

anywhere in the world. We want to try and get it right for individual

people. In your case you were badly let down. I am happy to take that

case up for you. I want to bring in another question, because time is

moving on quickly. Our next question from Kelly Given.

Politics aside, do you specifically, as a woman, truly believe in the

rape clause and what it represents for our most vulnerable women? What

we mean when we talk about the rape clause - there is a policy which

limits tax credit claims to the first two children. There are

exemptions for multiple births and for women who have a third child as

a result of rape. It is about giving women extra help. Women who have

been raped do deserve extra help. There is a big debate we can have on

whether we should have limited or unlimited benefits. I think in

exceptional cases there should be exceptions. I have said in the past

when people have challenged about the way in which it is carried out,

the way it is brought forward, is it is supposed to be, the way you

qualify for extra help is third party professionals fill out the

form for you. That is a system which currently works for people that have

been victims of domestic violence and it has cross-party support. That

was the best model we could see to work in this area. If as this rolls

out and it is coming in now, if it doesn't work well for the woman

involved, we can look at that again. You say if it doesn't work well for

women involved, what do you imagine it feels like for somebody who has

been raped and has had a child as a result of that to have to tell, to

relive their horrific experience, albeit through a third party, just

to claim a few quid in state benefits? It is very difficult when

you have got to fill, when you are asked to fill out a criminal

compensation form. Women who have been subject to rape already have to

do. One of the reasons we have asked third party professionals to help

fill it out so they don't have to go through the details. Every time I

hear you speak about this, you don't look comfortable. Rape is a very

difficult thing to talk about. I find it difficult when people walk

through my doors, in my surgeries, if you have been subject to

violence, I don't think there is any woman who hasn't been or doesn't

know somebody close to them who has been subject to sexual violence at

some points in their lives. I accept this is a difficult thing to talk

about. I go back to the question. If you think it is a difficult thing to

talk about, why are you making women talk about very painful experiences?

That's why they themselves don't have to fill out the form. That is

why it is for others to do it. They don't have to bring forward

evidence. They don't have to bring forward a crime report number. They

don't have to bring forward supporting convictions. It is about

making sure if they want extra financial support, it is there for

them. Do you not think it will be more of a deterrent. I personally

have not experienced anything like that, if I had, I would imagine that

being faced with a choice, if I was to have to fill out an eight-page

form or walk away without a few extra quid, I would probably do

that. Can one not argue it is a money-saving technique? To put

people off from making the claim? Absolutely not. There is a limit on

child tax credits. It is set at two children. There a debate on whether

you should have limited or unlimited benefits. If there are limits, there

should be exemptions when there are exceptional cases. And, you know,

like I say, if there is a way of doing it better, I want to hear it.

But I do think that women who have had children in the worst of

circumstances, if they want extra help it should be there for them.

You either make people answer the question, or you don't. If there is

a limit and somebody comes forward who has had a child in an, you know,

in a multiple birth or whether a child of rape, and that limit is

there, you, you know, there's got to be way to know. Maybe the underlying

policy is wrong. Again that is a question coming back to, do you have

a system of limited benefits or unlimited benefits. That is a

different debate. Let's see where the audience want to take this. The

gentleman in the back row? I've had like, I'm not myself experienced

anything like this, but I have friends that I know has experienced

sexual assault and rape, and, at least one of my friends I was

talking to very confident, I will not say any names, they said they

didn't want to come forewashed at all because to talk about this would

be to relive something for her which is really horrific. It puts someone

in that position to have relive, even go to a professional otherwise

or to go with poverty because they cannot afford to have the child

benefit for their child. That is morally offending policy. I don't

think you should defend it, Ruth. Well, look, like I say I have people

who come through my doors and you are right, some women do want to go

down a criminal justice route. Some don't. Some want to know what is

available to them. We will help them anyway we can. There is a limit on

this particular benefit at the moment. And if people want extra

help, then I think it should be available for them. Thank you very

much. We are into our final minute or so. A very brief question.

Why is it acceptable for the UK Government to block 16 and 17 year

olds from voting when they have proved their maturity in the

Scottish and local council elections? That is one where I am

losing. I have lobbied in public. I was acceptable and the referendum

happened and I am a convert. The work I and others... You cannot

persuade Theresa May to do one of her famous U-turns? I am working on

it. Watch this space! We are at the end of the time already. The half

hour has flown past. Thank you to Ruth Davidson for being here and to

you all for your comments and questions. The fourth and final ask

the leader will be on form night with Nicola Sturgeon. To everyone

here, watching in Glasgow, thanks for watching and good night.