25/10/2017 Politics Scotland

Good afternoon.

Welcome back to Politics Scotland.

On the programme today.

The First Minister Nicola Sturgeon

appeared before the Conveners Group

of the Scottish Parliament.

And fire stations are to be closed

and firefighters cut

as management say the current

system can't be sustained.

And here at Westminster,

the Brexit Secretary, David Davis,

has suggested MPs may not get a vote

on any Brexit deal until after

the UK has left the EU.

Hello and welcome.

With me today throughout

the programme is

political commentator

Rebecca McQuillan.

But before we talk to Rebecca let's

hear from Holyrood because

conveners there have been quizzing

Nicola Sturgeon this afternoon.

Our Correspondent Andrew

Kerr can tell us more.

Andrew, what have they been doing?

Good afternoon Gordon, this is the

group at the Scottish parliament,

they have spent one hour 20 minutes

going to the Scottish minister and

each member of the committee was

able to ask about their individual

area so we started with Brexit. The

First Minister was once more

critical of what she saw as a power

grab by the UK Government with the

powers coming back from Brussels she

is of course opposed to that and

says the devolution settlement is of

course affected. She was asked about

citizens's income, this income would

replace all benefits and citizens

would be paid a high level of income

as one kind of standard benefit, I

suppose. The First Minister not

committed to Ed Baird is committed

to looking at the feasibility of it.

She was talking about that as well.

I suppose one bit where we got to

the real grit of the matter, as it

were, the real politics of it, was

when MSP Niall Findlay talked about

the review of NHS targets, that

review being carried out by the

former Chief Medical Officer for

Scotland, Harry Burns looking at

these targets, Mr Finlay questioned

why this review had not been in the

public domain. Let's find what he

said about that to

we have not set a

publication date yet but it will be

published soon and the Health

Secretary will keep your committee

fully advised.

Has that a broad bean

across your desk...

I have not seen

the report. -- has that report bean

across the desk.

Will it see the

light of day this year?

I would hope

so. I'm not going to give you a

guarantee because we don't have a

date for publication yet. I will be

frank with you. This is work that is

important to the government.

OK, Andrew, Niall Findlay was having

a bit of ago but was the general

term interrogative? I seem to

remember when this was set up the

idea was that these committees was

supposed to be more powerful than

committees and Westminster were

supposed to be, grilling the First

Minister, holding her to account for

areas that they were responsible

for. Is that really happening?

That

point was made by Margaret Mitchell

the Conservative MSP who said the

committees were being treated like a

legislative machine. There is maybe

not that opportunity for scrutiny of

government. And in a way the

atmosphere at the meeting this

afternoon was Collegiate, in a way.

It wasn't hugely party political.

Perhaps the actual parliamentary

chamber, the plenary sessions, the

Forum for that party political

aspect, this was the committee

conveners, asking, in a perhaps

non-partisan way, but in a way that

concerned all members, whoever they

might be from, as you say, Gordon,

it didn't quite get to that real

political anger, or political point,

as it were, I think Niall Findlay

got the closest to it in that clip

that we saw. I suppose it's

worthwhile, the committee Conveners

grilling the First Minister like

this, not as exciting as we might

have wanted to see. In Westminster

the Speaker of that has of commerce,

John Berger, has been critical of

Theresa May because she has not yet

appeared in front of an equivalent

committee so at least we seen the

First Minister do that here at

Holyrood.

Andrew, thank you. De

Bakker, there is a general point

about this. This was supposed to be

part of this brand newfangled

democracy in Scotland. People like

the former Speaker have questioned

whether it is really working.

I

think

INAUDIBLE

Points that occur to me, listening

to that. One is, when the Scottish

parliament was set up, it was

supposed to be more collegiate. We

were supposed to get rid of that

confrontational atmosphere we have

in Parliament and Westminster.

Certainly didn't work in the main

chamber in Hollywood. We still have

First Minister's Questions basically

mirroring... The other side was that

committees were supposed to be more

powerful and in the spirit of

nonpartisanship, that did not mean

that they would not be grilling the

First Minister and saying, you

haven't done what you said you

would, we demand this. And there

have been criticisms of the

committee is particularly when the

SNP had a majority and a lot of

committee Conveners were SNP MSP is,

that they were not doing that job

properly. You could bring that

criticism and say that it could have

been a bit more confrontational and

held the First Minister to account a

bit more.

But in one sense it is not

that that doesn't happen in

Parliament. We do see that.

The

former Speaker had a list of reform

suggestions when she left, is anyone

taking that seriously, any

discussion going on?

I'm not sure.

But I think this will be a subject

of ongoing discussion, particularly

opposition MSP 's will want to know

that the First Minister is being

held to account.

All right, Rebecca,

don't go away, we'll talk to you in

a while.

Documents seen by the BBC show plans

are being drawn up to close

fire stations and cut

fire fighter numbers.

The papers, circulated

to senior management

in the Scottish Fire Service,

say the current model cannot be

sustained beyond the end

of the financial year,

but that public safety

will be their priority.

Our correspondent,

Lucy Adams, reports.

It is an instantly recognisable

service and one the public relies

on. It has changed over time but

managers say the current model is 70

years old and now needs a radical

overhaul. In 2013 Scotland's eight

Fire brigades were reorganised into

one service. Since then around 1000

staff have been cut, and the front

line protected. But leaked documents

say the current model is not

sustainable beyond this year and

some stations will have to be closed

and some firefighters cut. But there

is a quid pro quota of staff agree

to the changes and taking an new

responsibilities including tackling

terrorism and providing emergency

medical care they will get a great

player offer than their counterparts

in England and Wales. The union says

dozens of fire engines already have

to be taken off operational duties

each day because of insufficient

crewmembers. So cuts will have an

even bigger impact.

We are concerned

that if you remove those operational

firefighters and appliances which

are a reason, and they haven't been

removed as a response to the risk

that still exists in those

communities so they been removed for

a financial reason has to be some

consequence of compromise somewhere.

But the fire chief of Scotland says

changes essential.

Do we need the

number of fire stations with God? Is

it appropriate in a modern service

delivery model? Is that the best way

to improve outcomes and the outcome

is what I'm talking about does it

help us to save lives. It's not

about numbers of firefighters, not

about numbers of buildings, it is

how do we put those resources

together in a way that helps us to

do what we are all about?

The

Scottish Government says it has

increased funding and it is up to

the Fire Service to decide how and

where it is spent. But in January

before the service makes any changes

it will ask the public what they

think.

Well, in the Scottish Parliament

today, Scottish Labour's

justice spokesperson,

Claire Baker, was granted

an emergency question on the issue.

Here is what the community 's safety

Minister Annabelle Ewing said.

Firefighters play a vital role in

protecting communities and the Fire

Service continues to deliver the

highest service required to keep

Scotland safe. Since the

establishment of the Fire and Rescue

Service in 2013 have been no

compulsory redundancies and front

line services have been protected

with no closure of any fire stations

in Scotland. A Scottish Fire and

Rescue Service is currently

exploring and developed to meet the

new emerging risks facing

communities such as her

transformation of service delivery

could see the service to more for

the people of Scotland. No decisions

had been made on what that

transformation would look like and

the transformation process will

involve liaison and discussion with

staff, partners and the public. The

Presiding Officer of the Scottish

Government has increased the overall

budget of the service this year by

£21.7 million, to support investment

in equipment and resources. I am in

regular discussion with the Chief

Fire Officer and the Scottish Fire

and Rescue Service chair on the

Scottish Government's funding of the

service next year and beyond.

It's a

bit complicated, do you understand

this?

Not in detail.

One of the

issues seems to be because these

retained firefighters have other

jobs, so that fire engines in fire

stations, which are lying there for

a day, during daylight hours because

they can't get a full crew for them,

so you've got a lot of kit that

isn't used and they seem to be

suggesting getting rid of some of

the stations, and perhaps using some

of these part-timers in full-time

fire stations as well. Is that

roughly understanding?

Roughly along

those lines. It sounds as if a lot

of those so-called retained

firefighters, part-time

firefighters, are particularly

predominate in rural areas where the

majority of these fire stations are.

The difficulty has arisen their

because as Lucy Adams said in that

report you had a situation 50 years

ago where people might live locally,

now in a community people might

commute to work, a long way, and do

jobs that don't allow them to

respond to emergency calls.

Before

it sounds as if we are just doing a

management consultation exercise

about how to plan the Fire Service,

presumably the unions would say that

if you paid people instead of using

part-time firefighters the kit would

be used!

Listening to Annabelle

Ewing in her statement there, she

talks about £21 million increase in

funding to the Scottish Fire and

Rescue Service. Yes, there may have

been a rise but or the unions are

saying is that in real terms they

are facing a cat, and in fact last

year report was done on the Scottish

Fire and Rescue Service and said

that by the end of the decade they

could face a funding gap of £43

million. So we are talking about

more money at the back of all of

this.

And the line from the

government, we give them money,

everything else is an operational

matter for the Fire Service. It's

like Jeremy Paxman and Michael

Howard floating before my eyes.

Now, it's been a busy

week at Westminster.

The Labour MP for Sheffield Hallam,

Jared O'Mara, has been

suspended from the party,

and the Brexit Secretary,

David Davis, is speaking

to the Committee for Exiting

the European Union.

Our Westminster correpondent,

David Porter, has the latest.

First, Jared O'Mara.

David, first tell us about this

business to do with Jared O'Mara.

That seems to have escalated

dramatically in the last few hours.

Yes, it has. From what Labour say

privately, it is perhaps because new

information and new allegations have

come to light. He has been suspended

from the Labour Party in the

official parlance, he has had the

whip withdrawn. Jared O'Mara, those

with good memories will remember

that he was the Labour candidate who

defeated Nick Clegg, the Liberal

Democrat leader, in the Sheffield

Hallam seat. A number of tweets have

come to light from several years ago

which suggested sexist and

misogynist comments, he has

apologised, it seems one of his

constituents complained about him

more recently and there may be more

information which has come to light

and they feel that they should

suspend him while they investigate.

It certainly became apparent of a

late yesterday and last night and

this morning that there were a

number of women, Labour MPs, who

felt that the comments that he had

been alleged to have made were

inappropriate and they had come out

on the record and said he should be

suspended and that is exactly what

has happened now.

David Davis.

You can have a vote on something,

only after we have done it.

This is

a novel way of dealing with politics

and democracy. It seems curious that

you say, you can have a vote on this

issue, but you can have a vote on it

when we have decided what is going

to happen. What has been happening,

he was giving evidence to the

Committee for Exiting the European

Union and it was put to him, what

happens if the negotiations go down

to the wire? He said he believed

that could be true, we could be

negotiating with the EU up until the

life date in March 2019. And, could

those negotiations go on so late

that MPs do not have a chance to

vote on it before leaving the EU? He

suggested that was the case. The

premise is said that would not be

the case. It does seem an

extraordinary scenario that we could

have left the EU and MPs get asked

to approve the deal. It is fair to

say on the committee, there was a

bit of puzzlement about that, and

there will be a lot of anger by MPs

if they thought there was any

possibility that this could happen.

David Davis should phone Nicola

Sturgeon and Derek Mackay, they

would love the idea that the

Scottish budget could be voted on

only after it has been gone through.

Yes, that is a new way of doing

democracy and is like saying,

democracy is all about the voting,

but the real power lies in the

people who count the votes. On the

face of it, it seems an

extraordinary proposition to get to

a situation whereby you are asking

MPs to vote on something that

happens and basically was an

accomplished task because we had

left the EU and that goes down to

where you say, watch this space.

Both these issues, Jared O'Mara and

the David Davis comments, came at

PMQs and this is a flavour of what

happened.

Last week, Mr Speaker, the

House voted by 299-0 to pause the

roll-out of Universal Credit. Will

the Prime Minister respect the will

of the House?

As I have said before,

we acknowledge the fact that there

are concerns people have raised with

Universal Credit, that is way as we

have been rolling it out, we have

been listening to those and changes

have been made. Perhaps I could

update the House on where we are and

that roll-out of Universal Credit.

Currently, of people claiming

benefits, 8% on Universal Credit. By

January next year, that will rise to

10%. The roll-out is being conducted

in three phases and the intention is

it will be completed by 2022. So it

is done in a measured way and I am

pleased to say that four out of five

people are satisfied or very

satisfied with the servers that they

are receiving. -- service. Universal

Credit helps people into the

workplace and it make sure that work

pays, and that is what the welfare

system should do.

The sad truth is that Universal

Credit is in such a mess that

councils are forced to pick up the

bill. I will give an example,

Croydon Council, which piloted the

scheme, is now spending £3 million

of its own budget to prevent tenants

from being evicted due to rent

arrears caused by Universal Credit.

Does the Prime Minister think it is

right or fair that the hard-pressed

local authorities, having their

budget cut by central government,

are having to dip into what little

money they have left in order to

prevent people being affected when

they know it is the responsibility

of this Government and its system of

Universal Credit that is causing the

problem!

For the vast majority of people on

Universal Credit, this is not an

issue managing their budget. And

after four months, the number of

people on Universal Credit who are

in arrears has fallen by a third.

But we recognise the issue, so we

are working with landlords. We have

built flexibility into the system so

that landlords can be paid directly.

And I want to be clear that nobody

can be legally affected from social

housing due to short-term rent

arrears.

-- convicted. Yesterday, the

Scottish Parliament voted by 91-28

to ban fracking in Scotland. Can I

ask the Prime Minister why she would

not consider following Scotland's

lead and introducing a moratorium in

the rest of the United Kingdom in

order that we can have a full

evaluation of the health and

environmental consequences of this

and in order that the public can be

consulted?

Can I say the honourable gentleman

that this is an issue on which he

and I simply going to disagree I

believe that shale Gast does have

the potential to power economic

growth and it will support thousands

of jobs in the oil and gas

industries and other sectors and

will provide a new domestic energy

source. We have more than 50 years

of drilling experience in the UK and

one of the best records in the world

for economic development while

protecting our environment. Shell

Wealth fund will provide up to £1

billion of additional resources to

local communities, local councils

will retain 100% of the business

rates they collect from shale gas

developments. We will bring forward

further proposals for this, but this

is an important new source of energy

and I think it is right to ensure

that we use this and take the

benefit from it for our economy,

jobs and people's futures. PMQs from

earlier today. I am pleased to say I

am now joined by a group of Scottish

MPs to discuss PMQs.

And Brexit. And

behind us, we have protesters with

EU and union flags. Never let it be

said, Gordon, we don't try and get

protesters who at least on the

subject today. First, met me

introduce you to our panel. Alistair

Comey call for the Liberal

Democrats, Deirdre rock for the SNP

and Colin Hart for the

Conservatives. And for Labour... We

have had the Brexit Secretary today

say MPs may get a vote on the Brexit

deal, but only when we have left the

EU.

That is just typical of the

contempt for Parliament to the

Conservative government has shown

for Brexit and it is unacceptable

that is known meaningful ability to

scrutinise this deal. The idea to

drop out of the EU Wid no deal is a

disaster and as a democratic body,

we have no meaningful way of

influencing that, it is outrageous.

To put it mouthy, it seems strange

as an elected MP you could vote on

this one is we are officially out of

the EU.

Angela Merkel has made the

point of this week that we are going

to get some sort of agreement. This

is a negotiation and as has been

said this week, how could we

negotiate a price when we do not

know what we are buying? This is a

grown-up negotiation with Europe, it

is complex and David Davis is doing

a great job.

We know that you do not

agree with the UK Government on the

very principle of Brexit. The

argument from David Davis is, this

could go to the wire and it probably

will go to the wire. So we may find

we are out before you as MPs get a

chance.

It just doesn't make sense,

does it? I don't think Labour or the

Conservatives are in a position to

argue about Brexit, still not clear

on Labour's position and there was

so little discussion at PMQs, it was

quite shameful, it is such an

important issue and it was a

throwaway remark from Jeremy Corbyn.

Is it tenable that you could not

vote on something as big as this?

The truth is, the Conservatives

don't want to give anybody a say

because they are wanting to manage

this through their own interests and

not the national interest. And as

far as David Davis is concerned, it

has got to be said, any vote in

Parliament is going to struggle to

be meaningful. This was a process

that was started with a referendum

and it should be concluded with a

referendum. Once we know the terms

of the deal and what Brexit is

actually going to be, what is being

offered, at that point, there should

be a referendum on that, that is the

only way you will ever thought that

she will ever settle this.

It

appears the Scottish and UK

governments have done it economic

assessments on the potential impact

of Brexit. Yet we're not getting

that information.

Nobody wants to

say what it is they are finding. The

SNP are doing exactly the same thing

as the Conservatives in London, they

are managing this through their own

party interests, rather than the

national interest. If we are to get

to the point of the national

interest, then this should be put

out in the public domain, and if

they have nothing to hide, they

should have no problem publishing

it.

That is ridiculous, actually.

The SNP have been arguing for that

impact report to be released from

weeks, months, we did ask the

Secretary of State yesterday at

Scottish affairs and he admitted for

the first time I think that such a

report actually existed, which was

progress, and that he was going to

give it to us. We need this

information as soon as possible,

this is the most erratic situation

facing the UK since the world wars

and we are not give any information

to prepare people for the effects of

Brexit in the future.

We understand

the argument you what giving the

negotiating position away, but you

as an MP and more importantly the

general public and the vote should

know what Brexit could mean and the

latest research on that?

It is

pretty remarkable that the United

Kingdom since the Brexit vote and

the general election with the two

main parties standing on the Brexit

position, that we are still

discussing a further referendum.

This offers opportunities and if we

are anything in the Government, we

are optimistic we will get a good

result and for the economy of this

country. Whether it is SNP, the

Liberals, there is constant

pessimism. The economy is doing

relatively well, we have to get

behind it.

Actually, everything is

going to be fine, let's just have a

bit of confidence?

It is quite

remarkable the biggest single risk

to this country's economic

prosperity is this hard Brexit. Yet

there is no opportunity to

scrutinise or to look at the

information rationally because it

has been buried by the Government,

what a contemptuous attitude towards

our democracy, it is absolutely

outrageous!

We have the life that

there, thank you very much. Gordon,

we bring you nice weather, we bring

you flags from Westminster, what

more could you want?!

You say nice weather, when have you

ever brought was anything else?

You

know what they say, the Sun shines

on the righteous! That is what they

told me to say, anyway! Lets not to

tempt fake. Stick with it while it

is going well.

They are waving flags

right in your honour behind your

head! Fangs.

Fergus Ewing is making a ministerial

statement on Common agricultural

policy.

Nothing has happened. As I have said

before, the review is important

because it will highlight the vast

discrepancies in payment rates North

and South of the border. The review

would highlight that hill farmers

are paid around 600 euros per

hectare and we can only pay ours

around ten -- 60 euros. The open

sheepskin is not used elsewhere in

the UK and this brings payments to

help farmers up to around 30 euros

per hectare. Although not directly

comparable, farmers in Wales there

even better than English bombers on

average. I recently raise the issue

again with Michael Gove at a

multilateral meeting in September.

I'd can say Michael Gove agreed to a

meeting to discuss the convergence

issue which has been arranged for

November the six and I am hopeful we

can find a satisfactory resolution.

Helpfully, our stakeholders have

also been on the case. A joint

letter signed by seven of our key

stakeholders was said to Michael

Gove on the 11th of September and it

mirrors the Scottish Government

position on convergence. It was sent

over a month ago, but I understand

they have still not had a reply. So

that is our case. I am determined to

get a fairer deal for our farmers.

Especially those most disadvantaged.

It is a clear matter of principle.

And it is not just about

repatriation of the convergence

funds that the EU plainly intended

for farmers, farmers who received

the lowest payment rates per hectare

in the EU, it is also about setting

a baseline for future agricultural

funding. Unless the UK Government

acknowledges that Scottish farmers

were poorly treated in this last

round, how can we rely on them to

treat our farmers fairly in future

Russian mark in conclusion, I am

grateful for the strong support that

has been given to government's

position from members across the

chamber and I trust I can rely on

members, all members to continue

their support on the matter.

Thank you, we moved to questions,

Peter Chapman.

Thank you, Presiding Officer...

Before we talk about this Brexit

business, just tell us about the row

about late payments which dominated

things earlier, has that been

resolved now?

It is being resolved,

I would not say it has been entirely

resolved. The Scottish government

have had huge challenges in making

the IT system work efficiently and

effectively and delivering payments

both in 2015, 2016 and is now in

2017. At the Scottish Government

have taken our advice and guidance

and have stepped in again to deliver

another so-called loan scheme for

2017 which means a lot of payments

are going out to Scottish farmers as

we speak, which is providing

much-needed money ahead of what

promises to be a very challenging

winter indeed.

And the hope,

presumably, is that the IT system is

sorted for the next round?

The

sooner the better for everybody.

Clearly, you can have all sorts of

enquiries and statements about the

functioning of the IT system, but it

has failed spectacularly over a

number of years to deliver CAP

payments to Scottish farmers in a

timely fashion.

But I am not here to rake over the

coals, and reignite arguments about

that, I think the sooner we get on

with it the better because we really

have to focus on the future.

On this

big issue of what happens to

agriculture after Brexit, the row is

being presented as a debate between

the Scottish Government and the

British government about whether

powers of the common agricultural

policy immediately become devolved

powers to Scotland or returned to

the UK and the UK then devolves them

after that. Is that the way that

farmers see it all is it more

complicated?

I see it is more

complicated if we delve into where

we are now under the common

agricultural policy with the UK

being the key member state the UK is

then divided again into the four

devolved administrations. Because of

devolution we have the ability to

set our own agricultural and rural

policies and implement the common

agricultural policy in a way that

best suits Scotland's needs. That is

something we will argue for very

strongly going forward. What would

be unacceptable to NFU Scotland

would be if we ended up with a Defra

- centric approach, a one size fits

all approach. Because what might

suit various parts of England with

its huge proportion of arable land

as opposed to grazing and livestock

production is the reverse of what is

needed in Scotland. We've got

significant areas of rough grazing

at best. Its hill cattle and hill

sheep which dominate a lot of our

agricultural profile. Therefore we

need the tools and the tool box, if

you like, to fit a new agricultural

policy to the needs of Scotland's

farmers and crofters. That means

having a significant degree of power

autonomy or even subsidiarity few

want to use that word in Edinburgh

to deliver what is right for

Scotland.

Subsidiarity, everyone's

favourite word! Would you, on the

other side of that, except the need

for what they call a UK single

market in agriculture. In other

words that some control over things

like standards and the rest of it

has to be kept at a UK level if you

are going to have the equivalent of

Europe in Britain.

I would agree. I

think it's important that on certain

standards and regulatory matters

that govern things like animal

health and welfare matters and

pesticide use, how we manage our

fantastic environment, and so long,

it has to take place on almost a

commonly agreed, and I mean a

commonly agreed by the devolved, not

just imposed by Defra, bases across

the UK so that everyone is operating

to that same level playing field in

that respect. But when it comes to

do delivery of schemes and measures

that enable farmers to be more

competitive and deliver more in

terms of environmental gains and be

viable in the longer term and

contribute to our growing food and

drink sector in Scotland, then we

need the ability to then deliver

those aspects in Scotland. So there

is it degree in commonality that is

required but equally I think the key

is enabling Scotland to deliver an

agricultural policy that works first

Scotland's feed sector.

Briefly,

Jonnie, because we don't have time

to go into a lot of detail, how do

farmers see Brexit? The devolution

of power that you've talked about,

do you see that as a matter of power

is coming from Brussels to London or

to Edinburgh, or do you see it more

as a chance to tear up the whole

system as it is at the moment and

design something fundamentally

different?

I do not think we are

going to rip it lobs entirely...

But

just set aside things and rethink

the way things are done.

It's a

great opportunity to do that, we are

describing this is all about change,

change is inevitable that we wanted

to be managed change rather than

chaotic. We see real opportunity in

creating an agricultural policy and

auroral development policy that is

much more fitting Scotland's needs.

To end up with more profitable, more

market focused agriculture which

also delivers the animal welfare

standards upon which the prominence

of our food and drink is built. We

are not going to throw that out of

the window but we do want a system

that allows those who can and want

to farm in the most effective manner

and be competitive to do so, while

at the same time safeguarding our

environment.

Jonnie Hall, thank you.

Rebecca, this is quite competitive.

It has been reduced to a fight about

who gets what but it is not just

that.

No. You raise the issue of the

UK framework. I think even the

Scottish Government accepts that in

the midst of this tussle with the UK

Government over the UK withdrawal

bill, which they cannot sign up to,

they can't recommend that the

Holyrood parliament endorsed it just

yet because they feel, they call it

a power grab. In the UK Government

's position, which it hasn't

articulated very well in my view, is

that they need to set certain

frameworks before the powers that

are due to be devolved to Cardiff

and elsewhere. I think that the key

point is that the Scottish

Government that is have to be this

framework. You are talking about

food standards, food labelling for

example, it also applies in areas of

agriculture as well. At the moment

there is no resolution to that

although this talk going on.

Everyone is making fun of David

Davis for suggesting that the Brexit

vote could be after the deal is

permitted. Where he has a point is

that people are thinking of this

negotiation as everyone coming out,

there's a photo, and we will here,

there's a deal between the European

Union. That isn't the way it works.

What will happen is that there will

be a last minute fight going on with

various countries will put in

last-minute demands and see them

veto the thing. The thing will go

on, whatever the deadline day is, it

will go on till five o'clock in the

morning, some bleary eyed official

will emerge and read out a short

piece of paper and even then they

might not have agreed on the

details.

Yeah. That's probably fair

comment. On the other hand, the

government has committed to what

they call a meaningful vote on the

final deal.

Are you clear what that

vote is supposed to be?

No more than

anyone else. But they are trying to

bind together the trade deal and the

exit steals, in my understanding.

Labour seem to be suggesting, if we

reject the deal we stay in the EU.

The Lib Dems seem to be saying, we

accept the deal or we have another

referendum. I'm not sure what the

government says.

Its view was, take

it or leave it. So you just drop

out.

So if you vote against the deal

in parliament we will just leave the

EU, full stop.

If that is what is on

the table what's David Davis is

suggesting isn't so different.

Because the question is, how do you

have a meaningful vote on this.

Leaving aside issues of timing, can

you force the government back to the

negotiating table if the EU 27 do

not want to negotiate? There are

lots of questions about having a

meaningful vote. There's probably a

majority in the UK Parliament to say

we do need some sort of hoped that

matters.

OK. We'll be back with you

later, Rebecca. MSP 's have voted

overwhelmingly to support a ban on

fracking in Scotland.

That's unconventional

drilling for oil and

gas from shale rock.

The ban was supported yesterday

on the basis it would be written

into national planning guidelines,

as called for by Labour

and the Greens.

A Liberal Democrats amendment,

stressing the focus of the future

should be on renewable energy,

was also carried.

But a Conservative amendment,

which disagreed with the fracking

ban, claiming it was "ill-thought

out" and disregarded scientific

evidence, was voted down.

On the third October I sat at the

conclusion of the Scottish

Government 's investigation into

unconventional oil and gas. I made

it clear that following our

assessment of the evidence the

Scottish Government does not support

the development of unconventional

oil and gas in Scotland and a ban is

in place pending the outcome of the

assessment. I reaffirm that position

honouring the commitment I made on

eight and November lasted, giving

Parliament an opportunity to endorse

our carefully considered position on

unconventional oil and gas. In

reviewing research findings I have

particular concerns over the

insufficiency of evidence on health

impacts, highlighted by health

protection Scotland. Of production

Scotland also noted that an

unconventional approach is

unwarranted on the base of the

evidence. The position we have taken

on this is a clear deployment of the

precautionary principle. The

committee on climate change out that

the emissions generated by

unconventional oil and gas

extraction in Scotland would mean

meeting our existing climate change

targets more challenging. I've noted

calls made by some groups to ban

calls for fracking. They view is

predicated on the opinion that... I

am confident that our approach is

sufficiently robust to control this,

I'll try to bring Mr Wakeman and

later. I wrote to the Secretary of

State for business, energy and

industrial strategy setting up a

position on the future of

unconventional oil and gas in

Scotland seeking his assurance that

licensing powers will be transferred

to this Parliament as as soon as

possible and that no such power grab

by the UK Government will take

place. When those powers are fully

devolved we're discharge them in

line with our position on

unconventional oil and gas. After

this debate will issue a written

policy statement on our position on

unconventional oil and gas, this

will support our position on an

environmental assessment which will,

jointly and be continued in 2018.

We'll then formally set out our

position.

Professor Paul Younger, at

Glasgow University, somebody held up

by the SNP in the past as a member

of expert scientific panel, has

slammed the government 's position,

saying the justification for a

moratorium was "All made up" and

"Completely fake". He said he felt

violated as a professional following

the announcement of a moratorium.

Even the former Greenpeace leader

Stephen Tindale has said the Green

movement needs an urgent rethink

other energy sources and it's time

for green campaigners to stop saying

frack off and start saying frack on.

Sodhi we have a Scottish Government

that commissions its own report from

experts that it then ignores and

deals with contempt. We've a body of

scientific opinion, very clear that

fracking should proceed and can be

done safely, and that is also

ignored. What we have is an SNP

government dancing to the tune of

the Green party rather than

listening to the experts and to the

science.

As this Parliament

scrutinises the climate change Bill,

climate change plan and energy

strategy it is welcome to know that

fracking is firmly out of the

question. The long term damage

outweighs any short-term value that

might be gained, and value

significantly overinflated by the

industry. My concern was that the

Scottish Government 's position was

not robust enough, given it could be

reversed by a feature minister or

government with ease. Labour's

amendment today offers a layer of

protection and the level of

parliamentary scrutiny and

comfortable with. Not only would be

public consultation that the next

review of the National planning

Flame D'Hooghe frame and it would be

subdued to vote. Fundamental as it

prevent ministerial direction from

and indefinite moratorium being

changed on a whim.

The UK climate

change committee judged that

widespread fracking would not be

compatible with our climate targets,

it is for that reason that we

underline the need for the blank

section on fracking in the energy

strategy to be billed with a

fracking ban -- filled with abandon.

These forms of extreme energy are a

distraction from the vision and

investment needed to transform our

energy system to one that is

infinitely renewable, democratised

and smart.

The Scottish Lib Dems

welcome this debate and the thrust

of the approach taken by the

government in relation to

unconventional oil and gas. On

environmental grounds we know that

shale gas is a high carbon energy

source and has large quantities of

carbon dioxide and methane. Our

pledge to limit the temperature

increases to below 2% leads us to

conclude that opening up a new

carbon front is unwise, unwanted and

unnecessary.

Let's go live to the

Garden Lobby of the Scottish

Parliament.

Our line-up of MSPs today includes

Stuart McMillan from the SNP,

Liam Kerr, from the Conservatives.

James Kelly, from Labour.

And Alex Hamilton from the Liberal

Democrats. James Kelly, what do you

say to people in the trade unions,

some of whom are saying, hang on,

this could have been an entire

industry that would have provided

jobs for members of trade unions in

Scotland. Why on earth is the Labour

Party not only going along with the

SNP but campaigning for tighter ban

on the basis of no evidence

whatsoever?

I think if you look very

closely at what people have been

telling us in local areas and

communities, people are very

concerned about the environmental

aspects and also the health aspects.

That is what Labour responded to.

Claudia Beamish threw an excellent

campaign on this, and I am glad that

the government have responded with

this ban, we need to be close to

what people are telling us in

communities and that is what Labour

responded to.

Your response to a

trade unionist saying that you've

just prevented an industry, you say

to them, you are saying this is a

trade unionist but once you go home

you'll realise that on environmental

grounds we were right?

The majority of responses made the

very strong point that they were

having real health concerns and

environmental and to go ahead with

fracking would have been to those

communities and that was a step we

were not prepared to take.

That

raises another issue, and it is

perfectly reasonable for the

Scottish Government to say,

politically, we do not want to do

this, but the claim, as James Kellie

has just done, that this is on the

basis of evidence, it is effectively

like saying, we have found that fish

stocks are being depleted, but we

did a social media poll which said

that herring stocks were great so we

are going to fish them anyway. That

is the logic of this.

The evidence

we know about climate change and the

impact of continual reliance on

fossil fuels is sufficient enough to

warrant this ban.

The evidence is

the Scottish Government commissioned

a scientific study of fracking which

said it was reasonable and safe to

go ahead with it.

It may say it is

reasonable and save and their

opportunities and costs with every

governmental decision, but this is a

new seam of reliance of carbon fuel

technologies. At a time when the

cost of this will be measured by our

children and children's children,

Liberal Democrats think this is too

high a price to pay for short-term

fixes to our energy problems.

Even

if perhaps people who do not want

fracking, if the Scottish Government

had just said, people who support

the SNP and Labour and Liberal

Democrats do not like fracking so we

will not have it, fair enough. But

they are claiming this is some

evidence-based procedure where they

have ignored their own scientific

advice, and that is what concerns

people. It is the idea of

evidence-based policy which has gone

out of the window?

No, the evidence

of it is safe to do so.

So they are

doing the opposite of the evidence.

That evidence you describe may say

that we could do fracking, it does

not say we should do it, that is a

political decision and it was taken

yesterday by this Parliament and it

is the right view.

You have said

what I said, just in different

words. You can have as much evidence

as you like, if it is the incorrect

evidence, it doesn't matter?

That is

not true. The Minister yesterday in

the chamber spoke very clearly about

the importance of this decision and

why this decision was taken. And

there is a huge body of public

support for fracking to not take

place in Scotland.

Maybe you are

right, but the scientific advice you

got was the opposite. And when the

Minister says, most of our responses

were against fracking, that is like

replacing scientific evidence with

an opinion poll. I suppose

politically, it is justifiable to do

it, but at least be honest about it

and say, we are going to ignore the

scientific advice because our own

political -based is not wanted.

I

disagree in terms of the opinion

poll. Research was undertaken and if

a Scottish Government did not

consult and asked the population as

to what they thought, they would be

criticised for any decision they

took. Yesterday, a decision was

taken by this Parliament minus the

Conservatives, about fracking not to

go ahead in Scotland and that is

something I personally welcome. And

so do the majority of my

constituents.

Liam Kerr, the

scientific evidence may have been

ignored, but will it agree,

ultimately, that is fine, isn't it?

Different countries do not want

different things, for different

reasons. There may well be evidence

in France that fracking could help

the French economy but the French

have decided they do not want that

and that is fair enough.

I don't

think it is, two issues.

Economically, in the context of the

current government's wilful

mismanagement of the Scottish

economy, this is an energy source

that could bring Scotland back up to

where it should be. Gigli in the

context of the North East region. We

are crying out, we have the

expertise, we can deliver this and

do it safely, that is what the

Government's evidence said. And

secondly, the level of hypocrisy to

say, we're not going to do this in

our backyard, but it is all right to

import it from the US and do it from

their backyard because we don't want

it here. And to talk about the

environmental argument and beep

heavily comfortable to bring in gas

to Scotland is frankly a

bewildering.

You have a fire red

engine tie on, what you make of this

suggestion, of these documents that

suggest that the numbers will be

cut.

The documents are very

concerning. What we need now, what

the public needs more than anything,

is clarity. What we have seen is a

service in trouble. We have seen

very brave and very courageous

firefighters and the backroom staff

who make this happen, doing the

absolute level best to maintain an

appropriate level of service. They

simply have not been given the

support of the Scottish Government.

That is the evidence. The Scottish

governance is a perfectly reasonable

that they have financed the Fire

Service, but it is up to the people

to decide how to run it.

The

Scottish Government is not financing

this is the way they said they would

and what we have seen in the report

today is that the budget pressures

brought to bear on the service are

having an impact. We have seen

response time is rising, the ability

of the service to deliver what it is

supposed to deliver is being

challenged, and the report is quite

clear that the budget issues are

causing an awful lot of these

problems.

I would say the budget

issues come from Tory government

austerity, but we will let James

Kellie discuss that. What you make

of it?

People will be really

concerned that the secret SNP plan

to close fire stations and cut

firefighter numbers...

They say it

is not an SNP plan, it is the Fire

Service, and the Fire Service has

managerial autonomy.

When the

Minister was asked about it in

Parliament today, she did not face

up to the fact that she has

responsibility for that service, and

she did not deny that she had

knowledge of the paper. So I think

it is quite correct to say it is a

secret SNP plan, and they heard

about it in Parliament rather than

on the BBC News this morning -- we

should hear about it in Parliament.

There are real concerns and people

look at local stations and

firefighters as important as back to

safeguard their community and they

will be concerned about the

potential rundown of the service.

What is your view on this, there you

are!

The Scottish Fire Service does

have the autonomy to manage the

service and that is what they have

done successfully since it came into

being after the merger in 2013 and

they have been very successful.

While that has been the case, there

has been no fire stations lost,

closed in Scotland, and this year

alone, an extra £21.7 million was

put into the service from the

Scottish Government. Finally, going

back to the issue of the finance. If

the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service

could get back the £50 million of

VAT that Westminster grabbed from

them, that the Tories have grabbed

off it, that would help in terms of

any financial pressures.

Let's swing

right round because I want to finish

this by getting each of you to tell

us the top vitally important thing

that you thought the conveners of

the committee managed to get out of

Nicola Sturgeon today? In one

sentence.

What was clear from the

club's answers is that she, like the

Liberal Democrats, wanted to see the

publication of the secret government

advice on Brexit and the full

impact. When that is revealed and it

is clear what the Conservative

government of Westminster have,

those Christ to stop Brexit and to

do what the Liberal Democrats want,

which is to have a second referendum

deal on the final terms...

With

fewer subordinate clauses! I thought

Nicola Sturgeon looked really

uncomfortable being questioned by

Neil Findlay about the health

service targets. And that shows the

help service is in crisis and the

Government are under pressure on

this and don't have the answers.

In

amongst a platter of issues that the

Government is having to address, I

actually think it is the health

service, I think Miles Ricks has

done a great job...

I asked you what

you learned from Nicola Sturgeon and

not how brilliant Conservative

members of the Scottish Parliament.

We learnt that Nicola Sturgeon needs

to look at what we are doing in

terms of GPs and the recruitment and

funding crisis we have in the health

service in Scotland.

What did you

learn? Once again, the First

Minister proved she is a First

Minister of extreme class and

standing and it has taken Scotland

forward.

What does extreme class and

standing mean?

Did she answered the

questions? You consider the

leadership of other parties in

Scotland compared to the First

Minister and she stands out head and

shoulders above any other leader

that we have in the Scottish

Parliament. Also, the UK, for that

matter.

Such a round of hilarity, we

need to swing back to get the shot

the viewers want to see! They are

all jealous!

Let's get some final

thoughts from Rebecca.

That was positively Chinese

Communist Party!

Yes, it was a bit.

Who knows? Maybe he was struggling

to find anything interesting in this

morning's offerings.

Fracking. I

guess the issue that might concern

some people is, I suppose it is fair

enough to say, the scientific is

there, we are going to do it, but at

least say you are going to do it.

Yes, there is a case for that. You

had the UK task force looking at

fracking last year and it concluded

that under strict regulations, it

could be done safely. What you have

to remember that it is not just

about public health, it is also

about this climate change issue. And

I think it would be politically

difficult for the Scottish

Government to start setting up the

infrastructure required for shale

gas extraction when they are

increasingly greenhouse gas

emissions to 19% by 2018.

Are we

getting anywhere on Brexit other

than more confused?

It certainly did

not feel like it today. If you had

asked me nuts before David Davis

opened his mouth, possibly yes. Not

so sure now -- if you had asked me

that.

Just when you think you

understanding it!

It gets more

confusing. Thank you very much.

That's all we've got time for today.

You can join my colleague

Brian Taylor tomorrow at 12:00

for First Minister's Questions.

And I'll be back this weekend

with Sunday Politics Scotland.

Until then, bye-bye.