30/10/2016 Sunday Politics Scotland

Morning folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.

Theresa May says she wants to help people who are

"just about managing" - so should she reverse

George Osborne's cuts to benefits that are supposed to help people

Prominent London Imam Shakeel Begg is an extremist speaker,

says the High Court, after claims made on this programme.

So why is Mr Begg still being allowed to advise the Police?

Hillary Clinton fights back over the FBI's renewed investigation

into her use of a private email server - is this the boost

Donald Trump needed to reignite his chances of winning the White House?

We'll be asking the Scottish Government's Higher Education

minister how she plans to ensure students from poorer backgrounds

And haunting the studio on this Halloween weekend,

the most terrifying political panel in the business -

Tim 'Ghost' Shipman, 'Eerie' Isabel Oakeshott and

First this morning, two new models of car to be built,

securing 7,000 jobs at the car plant in Sunderland and a further 28,000

The news from Nissan on Thursday was seized on by Leave campaigners

as evidence that the British economy is in rude health

This morning, the Business Secretary, Greg Clark, was asked

what assurances were given to the Japanese firm's bosses

Well, it's in no-one's the interest for there to be tariff

barriers to the continent and vice versa.

So, what I said is that our objective would be to ensure that we

have continued access to the markets in Europe and vice versa, without

tariffs and without bureaucratic impediments.

That is how we will approach those negotiations.

We're joined now from Newcastle by the Shadow Business

Welcome to the programme. Labour has been a bit sceptical about this

Nissan decision. Can we begin by making it clear just what a great

achievement this is, above all for the workers of Sunderland who have

some of the highest productivity in the world, have never been on strike

for 30 years, and produce cars of incredible quality. This is their

victory, isn't it? Andrew, you are absolutely right. The Nissan plant

in Sunderland is among the most productive in the world. The workers

of Nissan are amongst the most productive as well. And it's really

a victory for them and for the trade unions and the business

organisations, and everybody who campaigned to make sure that the

government couldn't ignore their future. It's our future. I'm the MP

for Newcastle. It makes a huge difference to the region. We are a

region that still likes to make things that work. It is a huge part

of our advanced manufacturing sector. So it's really something we

welcome as well as the job security. I'm glad we have got that on the

record from the Labour shadow business secretary. But your Shadow

Chancellor, John McDonnell, claims the government is ignoring

manufacturers and cares only about a small banking elite. In what way is

safeguarding 30,000 industrial jobs in the North safeguarding a

financial elite? As I said, we're really pleased that the campaigning

by trade unions and the workforce, and business organisations, meant

the government felt they couldn't ignore Nissan workers. Let's also be

clear that we want that kind of job security for all of those working in

manufacturing and in other sectors as well. And sweetheart deals for

one company, no matter how important they are, that does not an

industrial strategy make. Why'd you say it is a sweetheart deal? Greg

Clark told the BBC this morning that what was assured to Nissan is an

assurance he gives to the whole industrial sector? I was really

pleased to see Greg Clark felt he had to say something, even though

it's sad that we having our industrial strategy, you like, or

our approach to Brexit delivered piecemeal to the media rather than

to the British people and Nissan, actually. But he want published the

letter. He said he has told us what is in the letter and that

reassurances given on training, on science and on supporting the supply

chain for the automated sector. You must be in favour all -- of all of

that? We are in favour of an industrial strategy. Greg Clark,

unlike Sajid Javid, cannot say industrial strategy. I'm still

puzzling to find out what it is you disagree with. Let me put the

question. You said the assurances he has given to Nissan are available to

the car manufacturing sector in general and indeed to industry in

general. What is your problem with that? Two things. Let him publish

the letter so we can see that, let him have the transparency he's

pretending to offer. But also, we need an industrial strategy that

joined. He talked about electric joined. He talked about electric

cars and supporting green cars. That was in regard to Nissan. At the same

time the government has slashed support for other areas of green

technology. So what is it? That is not to do with the Nissan deal.

Labour implied at some stage there was some financial inducement, some

secret bribes, that doesn't seem to be the case. You are not claiming

that any more -- any more. Then you claimed it was a sweetheart deal for

one company. That turns out not to be the case. What criticism are you

left with on this Nissan deal? I would be really surprised if all

that Nissan got was the reassurances that Greg Clark is shared with us.

He didn't answer the question of what happens if we can't get

continued tariff free access to the single market, if we are not within

the single market or the Customs Union. Do you really think a

negotiator like Nissan, who are very good at negotiating, they would have

excepted making this significant investment without some further

reassurances? Do you think there is some kind of financial bride and if

so what is the evidence? I would like to see the letter published and

I would also like to understand what would happen... There are 27

countries which need to agree with the deal we have from Brexit. What

will Nissan, how will Nissan remain competitive? How will the automotive

industry remain competitive? Greg Clark says he reassured them on

that. But how will that be so if we do not get access? We haven't heard

anything about that. He talks about reassurances given to Nissan. We

need to make -- to know where we're going to make sure Brexit is in the

interest of all workers, not only those who work for a Nissan and not

only those who can get the attention of Greg Clark. He assured Nissan

that Britain would remain a competitive place to do business.

That was the main assurance he gave them. He would help with skills and

infrastructure and all the rest. Since you are -- intend to repeal

the trade union laws that have made strikes in Britain largely a thing

of the past, and you plan to raise corporation tax, you couldn't give

Nissan the same assurance, could you? We could absolutely give Nissan

the assurance that we will be, our vision of the future of the UK, is

based on having a strong manufacturing sector. Repealing

trade union laws? As we have seen at Nissan, the industrial sector is

dependent on having highly trained, well skilled workers. -- highly

skilled, well-trained. You don't have that by getting -- having an

aggressive policy and trade union laws or by slashing corporation tax

and not supporting manufacturing investment. Remember, the last

government took away the Manufacturing allowances which

supported Manufacturing and slashed corporation tax. That is their

solution. It is a low tax, low skill economy they want.

Thank you. Sorry I had to rush you. I'm grateful for you joining us.

I'm still struggling to see what is left of Labour's criticism? Yeah,

except for this. This was a valid point she just made. What we know

for sure is that Greg Clark could say to Nissan, my aim is to get

tariff free deal. There is no way he could guarantee that. None of us

know that. I don't think that was enough. I think clearly there was a

more detailed package involving training and other things. He has

acknowledged this, albeit we do not know the precise mechanism. What I

think is interesting about this is if you reverse what happened this

week, at a time when the government says Britain is open for business

and it is going to have an industrial strategy, so far it is a

bit vaguely defined. Nissan hadn't made this commitment. Imagine what

would have happened? It is an impossible scenario. The government

seems to me was obliged to make sure this didn't happen. Let's not forget

Nissan has invested hundreds of millions in the north-east. It has

been a huge success story. When I spoke to workers from Nissan, they

were so proud because they went to Japan to teach the Japanese had to

be more productive. The idea that Nissan was just going to walk away

from this given its track record, its importance, wasn't really

credible. The government had some bargaining chips. Absolutely, of

course they weren't going to walk away. The majority of people in the

area in which Nissan is braced -- based, voted for Brexit. Nissan

knows it is in a powerful position because it is an emotive sector.

Clearly the government didn't want to have some big showdown. I

honestly don't think this is a smoking gun. The Labour Shadow

minister really struggled to articulate what exactly she thinks

the government is hiding. I think the reassurances were given were

pretty anodyne, really. They were anodyne and general. And what Greg

Clark was setting out was an objective and he made the right

noises, and Nissan exercised its right to sabre rattle. It does have

a history of doing that. The one thing that would now be clear given

Greg Clark's performance this morning on the BBC, is that if we

were to discover some kind of financial incentive directly linked

to this investment, not more for skills or infrastructure, that is

fine, but some direct financial investment, compensation for

tariffs, which would be illegal under World Trade Organisation

rules, what you might call a financial bride, the sect -- the

business Secretary's position would be untenable? He would be in a very

difficult position indeed. Just released the letter. There is

nothing to hide. Put it out there. The most revealing thing is that

people are getting wildly excited about the fact Greg Clark announced

Britain's negotiating position would be that we would like tariff free

trade with Europe. This is regarded as an insight into what this comment

is doing and it says a great deal about how little we have been told

in Parliament and the media about what they are up. Do you think it is

exciting we are going for tariff free trade? We're easily excited

these days. We don't know. This is where these things are at such a

tentative phase. We don't know how the rest of the European Union is

going to respond to Britain's negotiating hand. We know Britain

once the best of everything, please. It is a starting point. But that is

not how it is going to end up. We are getting wider than that. We have

will have to see. Now, Universal Credit,

a single payment made to welfare claimants that would roll together

a plethora of benefits whilst encouraging people into work

by making work pay. But have cuts to the flagship

welfare scheme reduced work incentives and hit the incomes

of the least well-off? Well, some of the government's

own MPs think so, and, as Mark Lobel reports,

want the cuts reversed. Theresa May says she wants

a country that works for everyone, that's on the side

of ordinary, working people. It means never writing off people

who can work and consigning them to a life on benefits,

but giving them the chance to go out and earn a living and to enjoy

the dignity that comes But now some in her party

are worried that the low earners will be hit by changes

to Universal Credit benefit system originally set up to encourage

more people into work. We also need to focus tax credits

and Universal Credit Concern centred on the Government's

decision in the July 2015 budget to find ?3 billion worth of savings

from the Universal Credit bill. Conservative MP Heidi Allen

is working on a campaign to get MPs in her party to urge

the Prime Minister to think again. I want her to understand for herself

what the outcomes might be if we press ahead

with the Universal Credit, Do you think Theresa May, right now,

understands what you understand? To be fair, unless you really

get into the detail, and I have through my work

on the Work and Pensions Select Committee, I don't

think anybody does. Independent economic analysts

at the IFS agree with Heidi Alan that cuts to Universal Credit weaken

incentives to work. One of the key parts

of the Universal Credit system That is how much you can

earn before your credit As the Government has

sought to save money, both under the Coalition and now

they Conservative Government, both under the Coalition and now

the Conservative Government, that work allowance has been cut,

time and time again. The biggest cuts happened

in the summer budget of 2015. That basically reduces the amount

of earnings you get to keep It weakens the incentive people have

to move into work. What do changes to the Universal

Credit system mean? The Resolution Foundation think-tank

has crunched the numbers. If you compare what would have

happened before the July 2015 summer budget to what will happen by 2020,

even if you take into account gains in the National Living Wage

and income tax cuts, recipients will be hit

by annual deductions. Couples and parents would receive,

on average, ?1000 less. A dual-earning couple with two

children under four, with one partner working full-time

on ?10.50 an hour and the other working part-time on the minimum

wage for around 20 hours a week, they would

receive ?1800 less. Hit most by the changes

would be a single parent with a child under four,

working full-time I think, if I'm honest,

it is unrealistic, given the economic climate,

to expect everything to be reversed. What I would like to see

is an increase in the work allowances to those people

who will be hardest hit. That is single parents and second

earners hoping to return to work, because they are the people we need

to absolutely make The Sunday Politics understands that

about 15 to 20 Conservative MPs are pushing for changes ahead

of the Autumn Statement. A former cabinet minister told us

that they believed further impact analysis should be done to find out

if any mitigation measures Former Work and Pensions Secretary

Iain Duncan Smith, an architect of the system, now says

the cuts should be reversed. But his former department has told

us that it has no plans to revisit the work allowance changes announced

in the budget last year. What I would say to Heidi Allen

and IDS, they got it right the first time and they should stick

to the vote they cast last year, because these reforms actually

do make sense. What interests me is the fact

we are trying to move people off welfare into work,

we are raising the wages people earn by massively increasing

the minimum wage and this People are coming off

welfare and into work. Campaigners are pushing for savings

to come from other areas to relieve The other thing we have to start

looking at is the triple Financially it has been a great

policy, and it was absolutely right that we lifted pensioners

who were significantly behind, for many years, in terms of income

levels, but they have I think it is time for us to look

at that policy again, because is costing us an awful

lot of money. With just over three weeks to wait

until the Conservative leadership's new economic plan is unveiled

in the Autumn Statement, its top team is under pressure

from within its own ranks to use it And I'm joined now by former Work

and Pensions Secretary, Welcome back to the programme.

Theresa May said she is on the side of the just managing, the working

poor. But they are about to be hit from all sides. Their modest living

standards are going to be squeezed as inflation overtakes pay rises,

they will be further squeezed because top-up benefits in work are

frozen. Incentives to work are going to be reduced by the cuts in

universal benefits. So much for being on the side of those just

managing? Theresa was right to focus on this group. The definition has to

be the bottom half, in economic terms, of the social structure. It

doesn't look good for them? This is the point I am making, it is an

opportunity to put some of this right. One of the reasons I resigned

in March is because I felt the direction of travel we had been

going in had been to take far too much money out of that group of

people when there are other areas which, if you need to make some of

those savings, you can. The key bit is that the group needs to be helped

through into work and encouraged to stay in work. There was a report

done with the IFS, when we were there, at Universal Credit. It said

Universal Credit rolled out, as it should have been before the cuts,

people would be much more likely to stay in work longer and earn more

money. It is a net positive, but that is now called into question.

Let's unpick some of the detail, but first, do you accept the words of

David Willets? It says on the basis of the things I read out to you that

the just managing face a significant and painful cut in real terms if we

continue on the way we are going. I do, in essence. That is the reason

why I resigned. I felt Heidi raised that issue as well, that we got the

balance wrong. It is right that pensioners get to a certain point,

when they are on a level par, doing the right thing over five years.

Staying with that process has cost us ?18 billion extra this year, in

total. It will go on costing another 5 billion. Then there is the issue

of tax allowances. I want to remind you and viewers what David Cameron

told the Conservative conference in 2009. If you are a single mother

with two children, earning ?150 a week, the withdrawal of your

benefits and the additional taxes that you pay me on that for every

extra you earn, you keep just 4p. What kind of incentive is that? 30

years ago, this party won and election fighting against 98% tax

rates for the Rex richest. I want us today to show even more anger about

96% tax rates for the very poorest in our country. Real anger, and

effective rate of over 90%. Universal Credit reduces that. Some

will still face, as they lose benefits and pay tax, a marginal

rate of over 75%. That is still too high? Yes, it is the collision

between those going into work at the moment they start paying tax. A

racial Universal Credit is set at 65%. You can call that the base

marginal tax rate. 1.2 million will face 75%? That is the point about

why the allowances are so important. The point about the allowances which

viewers might not fully understand is that it was set, as part of

Universal Credit, to allow you to get certain people, with certain

difficulties, as they cross into work, to retain more benefit before

it is tapered away as they go up in hours. A lone parent, who might have

various issues, you want her to have a bigger incentive than a single

person that does not have the same commitments. It is structured so

that somebody who has difficulty going to work, they all have

slightly different rates. What happened is that last year a

decision was taken to reduce tax decision was taken to reduce tax

credits, and, on the back of that, to reduce allowances. I believe,

given everything that happened now, we need to restore that to the point

where it helps those people crossing over. You say a decision was taken,

it was a decision by the former Chancellor George Osborne in the

summer budget. Other decisions were taken in successive Budgets to raise

the Universal Credit budget, which resulted in the disincentive being

higher than many people wanted. Do you accept that has been the

consequence of his decisions? I was in the Government, we take

collective responsibility. I argued this was not the right way to go,

but when you are in you have to stay with it if you lose that argument.

There was another attempt before the spending review last year to

increase the taper, so the marginal rate would have gone up. I managed

to stop that. I'm Sibley saying, what we made as a decision last

year, given the circumstances and given that the net effect of all of

that, I think it is time for the Government to ask the question, if

we are in this to help that group of people, Universal Credit is

singularly the most powerful tool. One of the Argentine aid in the

paper published on Thursday, we are set going on doing two more races of

the tax threshold, taking more people out of tax. That has a

diminishing effect on the bottom section. Only 25p in that tax rate

will help any of those. Most of it goes to middle income? You and I

will benefit more from that. With Universal Credit, every pound you

put into that will go to the bottom five tenths. That is why I designed

it like that. He pressed the button and immediately start to changed

circumstances. Should the cuts in Universal Credit that Mr Osborne

introduced, against your argument, should they be reversed? I believe

so. I believe you can do it even if there is concern about spending. I

don't believe you need to go through with the continuing raise the tax

threshold. Cost is dependent on inflation, but give or take. It is

in the Tory manifesto? Has more than doubled. What is in the manifesto,

and Lasse Prime Minister made this clear in conference, we want to

improve the life chances of people. Today's announcement on the Green

paper is what I wrote over the last two and a half years. Big changes

necessary to how we deal with sickness benefit. That can now be

done because of Universal Credit, because people can go back to work

and it tapers away their benefits. It is the most powerful tool to sort

our people that live in poverty, Universal Credit. We need to make

sure it lands positively. If Mr Osborne's cuts were reversed, what

you and some of your backbench Tory colleagues want to do, how would

that improve the incentives of the working poor, as they try to get on

in life? They have to pay more tax, they lose some benefits. How would

it improve it? Would many still face a 75% rate? The key question is,

first and foremost, as people move through income to the point where

they are getting taxed, that group will be enormously benefited by the

re-emergence of these allowances at the right level. That is what the

IFS have said, that is what the Resolution Foundation are saying,

and the Centre For Social Justice is saying. You have to get that group,

because they are most likely to be drifting into poverty and less

incomes are right. Would it help those who face a 75% margin? We

don't face that. Exactly right. People much poorer than us do. I

would love to get the marginal rate down to testify percent, and lower,.

-- down to 65%. It is a balance of how you spend the money. I would

prefer to do that rather than necessarily go ahead with threshold

razors. I think the coronation of the marginal reduction of 65%,

getting it down to 60%, plus more allowances, will allow Universal

Credit to get to the group that is going to be, and the report written

by the IFS and ourselves, it shows it is going to be the most dynamic

and direct ability of a Government to be able to influence the way that

people improve their incomes in the bottom five deciles. Would you take

on extra work if you knew you were going to lose 75% of it? Even 65%?

This has been my argument all along. Universal Credit can help that

enormously. One point that goes missing, 70% of the bottom five

deciles will be on Universal Credit. Whatever change you make to

Universal Credit has a dramatic and immediate effect I am arguing,

genuinely, it is time to rethink this. The Prime Minister wants to

make this a priority. I am completely with her on this. I think

she made a really good start. To deliver this, we need to... You have

a lot of work to do to deliver it. Because it is a manifesto

commitment, or because they want to do it, stopping increasing the

personal allowances are not acceptable, what about bringing to

an end, by the end of the parliament, the pension triple lock

that pensioners enjoy to improve and put more money to the working poor?

What about that? Well, you are absolutely right that there is now

the danger, I think, of a mess balance between the generations.

Quite rightly at the beginning, when we came in, we have a commitment as

a Conservative Party in a manifesto to get pensions back onto earnings.

It was moved to a triple lock that guaranteed a minimum. What about

ending up now? I understand it is a promise through the Parliament, but

after 2020? I am in favour of getting it back to innings and

allowing it to rise at reasonable levels. Moving from earnings to the

triple lock has cost ?18 billion this year. Here was a high, under

pressure, as the Government was scratching around to pay more money

out of working age areas, when the budget was almost out of control on

the pension side. I'm in favour of helping pensioners, but now they are

up to a reasonable level, at a steady rate, that can be afforded by

Government, which takes the pressure off, working age people have to pay

for that. In years to come, time to end the triple lock

and use the savings to help these people we have been talking about?

As part of a load of packages, yes. It would also help with the

intergenerational fairness argument. Thank you for being with us.

Now, a prominent London Imam called Shakeel Begg -

who is Chief Imam the Lewisham Islamic Centre - is an extremist.

That was the verdict of the judge in a libel action that Mr Begg took

against the BBC, after we described him as an Islamic extremist

Mr Begg had complained about a short segment in an interview in November

2013 with Farooq Murad, the then head of the Muslim Council

of Britain, an organisation which claims to represent British

In that interview, we described Mr Begg as an extremist speaker

who had hailed jihad is the greatest of deeds.

From his base of the Lewisham Islamic Centre, Mr Begg has been

involved in a number of community organisations, including

the Police Independent Advisory Group in Lewisham,

Lewisham Council's Advisory Council on Religious Education

and as a volunteer chaplain at Lewisham Hospital.

But in his judgment, Mr Justice Haddon-Cave called

Mr Begg a Jekyll and Hyde character - a trusted figure in his local

community, but when talking to predominantly Muslim audiences

he shed the cloak of respectability and revealed the horns of extremism.

The judge cited one speech made by Mr Begg at a rally

outside Belmarsh Prisonm- the high security prison that houses

terrorists - as particularly sinister.

The judge said the imam was expressing admiration and praise

Following Friday's judgment, the hospital trust have told us that

Mr Begg's status as a voluntary chaplain has been terminated.

We have been told by Lewisham Council he is no longer

on their Religious Education Committee.

The Metropolitan Police have confirmed that

Mr Begg remains a member of their Independent Advisory Group

in Lewisham, as well as the borough's faith group.

I am joined by Haras Rafiq, chief executive of the Quilliam

Foundation. Welcome to the programme. I have here in my hand a

statement from the trustees of the Lewisham Islamic Centre. They reject

the judge's ruling as fanciful and say they are unequivocal and

unwavering in their support of Shakeel Begg as their head imam.

What do you make of that? To be honest, it doesn't surprise me. At

the end of the day he is only the imam of that mosque because he

belongs to the same theological fundamentalist views that the mosque

would portray. If they were to say he was an extremist, they would be

saying in fact that they have allowed extremist preaching and

extremist theology within their walls. I think this is a very

important decision and a very important judgment by the judge.

First of all, these people like to operate in a linear, under a veneer

of respectability. When that veneer is taken away, there are a number of

things that can happen. First of all, the BBC did very well to stand

by their guns and say, we're not going to be intimidated by somebody

who is threatening to taking -- to take us to court for potential

libel. Many other media companies have done that in the past and

people have capitulated. Also, this has exposed him. Legally now, here's

some deal can be classified as an extremist preacher, somebody who

promotes religious violence. I think the mosque really needs to take a

step back and say, how we part of the problem that we are facing

within society? Or are we going to be part of the solution? It really

concerns me. The High Court judge says that Mr Begg's speeches were

consistent with an extremist Salafist is the most worldview. What

is Salafist is and how widespread is it in UK mosques? -- mosque. It

comes from the Middle East. It is from Saudi Arabia. The enemy for

them was the old colonial Ottoman Empire. There is the quiet Salafist

to get some with their lives, lives outside society. There is a

revolutionary who tries to convert other people to their worldview. And

then there is the Salafist jihad ease. People like Islamic State etc.

We have seen of increased in recent decades because of money that has,

growing from the Middle East. When that is mixed with a political

ideology, it becomes potent. Do we have a political -- particular

problem in Britain with this in our mosques? Absolutely. Without the

theology that says hate the other, hate other Muslims, that

excommunicate other people, that says it is OK to fight and is good

to fight when you have got an enemy, we wouldn't really have a jihadi

problem. Really that is something we have to tackle. The number of

mosques and institutions supporting Salafist and Islam is has been on

the increase. Do we have a problem with what the judge called Jekyll

and Hyde characters who hide their extremism except when they are

speaking to specific groups? Absolutely. One of the things we

have focused on in the past, a number of hate preachers now in

prison, people like Anjem Choudary, and everybody focused on them. But

there is a range of people operating under that level. People who will

show one face to the community because they actually need that for

a respectability. They need that for a legitimacy. They need that to

operate. When they are behind closed doors and talking to their

constitution, that is when you will see the real face of what these

people believe. It is an increasing phenomenon. We are seeing it more.

people believe. It is an increasing And we're going to carry on seeing

it. Not just has the Lewisham mosque stuck by him, but given the clarity

of the judge's ruling, are you surprised that the Metropolitan

police would wish to continue with Mr Begg as an adviser? I'm

absolutely shocked that that decision. What Uzzy going to do?

Advise them on how to deal with extremist preachers and promote

religiously motivated violence? I don't know what he's going to advise

them on. Because we now have a judge that has ruled against him and

actually classified him as an extremist and somebody who promotes

religious violence, we actually have a possibility for the CPS to

actually prosecute him. There is a law that has been in place since

2005 called religiously motivated violence. If he has been classified

as somebody who promotes this, there is a potential for the CPS to

prosecute. I want to called into question other organisations,

interfaith organisations, other Muslims groups, who say they want to

interfaith organisations, other fight extremism, I call on them to

say, this guy is an extremist preacher, we should cut our ties

from him. This was a very high risk strategy by the BBC. The exposure

could have been over ?1.5 million of licence payers money. Will this make

it more difficult for Jekyll and Hyde characters to behave as Mr Begg

has behaved? Absolutely. It will do. One of the things they will now have

to make sure is that they are a lot more careful. Careful with what they

say to their own constituency. It won't solve the theological problem.

But it will actually stop other people from operating in this manner

and allow other media organisations to have the confidence to expose

them when they do. Haras Rafiq, thank you for joining us.

It's just gone 11.35, you're watching the Sunday Politics.

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland, who leave us now

Good morning and welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland.

Coming up on the programme: As student grants fall and loans

increase, I'll ask the minister responsible how that squared

with the SNP's pledge to reduce inequality of access to education.

And with Brexit and talk of Indyref2 still looming large,

is the Scottish government taking its eye off the ball

The Scottish Government's announced a review of the system which helps

fund people from less-well off backgrounds to go to

Official figures out this week showed the number of students

getting bursaries or grants has fallen by 35% since the SNP

And elsewhere, higher education is facing continuing

One university principal has warned its effect

This college would have its campus and Galashiels have, like many other

further education institutions has Scotland look-mac students from less

well off backgrounds who made the vital financial support. Is the

system working as well as it should? The principal ones to see college

and university students treated on an equal basis.

There is a gap for people who come from families who do not quite

qualify for means testing, the bursary, but who cannot actually

afford to fund their college place and in the college system loans are

not available to those students. Someone who wants to train to be a

teacher can access a loan and go to university but someone who wants to

be a joiner does not have that opportunity.

She also says there just is not enough money to help out all the

students who need it but there is another concern.

The other thing we must keep an eye on our changes to the welfare

system. It can be the situation right now in Scotland where someone

can be getting less from the bursary than if they were receiving welfare

which is a huge barrier to education.

Across Scotland, there were questions about whether students get

their access to financial support. Official figures show the number of

students getting bursaries or grants fell by almost 5% in a year and the

Scottish Government has launched an enquiry into whether the system

should be changed. Another concern which could affect the ability of

University of Warwick, UK's vote to leave the EU. This week -- the

university 's ability. There is a large amount of

uncertainty and when you run the different models it ranges from bad

to awful to catastrophic. University leaders say some progress has been

made. We have an assured and current EU

students and EU students entering in 2017 well have beer after Brexit

three protected. We have had reassured us from the UK Government

that if you apply for European research funding and your project

plan is on beyond Brexit the UK Government will ensure that funding

is still continued to be provided. But there is no way to tell how

things are, they might go. Principles are in a different

position because the UK Government cannot guarantee that they cannot

give absolute assurances. They can advise people on entitlement and

such things but there remains a fundamental uncertainty we do not

know what the status of EU citizens in the UK will be a porcelain

Brexit. These changing times for higher

education gave rise to other concerns. This week students at the

Glasgow School of Art protested at what they see as a plan to put

expansion ahead of quality teaching, management says it wants to make

things better for students. Higher education is moving quickly

and we have been directly engaging with the students and we plan to do

more of that. Back in Borders College things are

more serene and over the next few years we could see change what

affects the whole further and higher education sector.

Well, a little earlier I spoke to Lucy Hunter Blackburn,

a former civil servant who headed up Higher Education at

Basically, Lucy, grants are down, loans are up, grants bound by around

35% in the SNP came to power, -- drags down. Why? The reason is set

out in a report the Government issued this week but said the reason

grants have been cut in 2013 was to protect free tuition fees. In that

sense, cutting grants is paying for not having tuition fees? That is

very much what that report says and that would be a reasonable reading

of the numbers published over the past few years, it explains why the

Government had to go after grants, because it cannot touch the subsidy

from the look-mac for free tuition. Critics say, of course, not having

tuition fees does not benefit students from lower income

backgrounds as much as having a proper grants system. Is there is

merit in that argument? If what you are interested in it who

ends up with all the depth and we should be interested in that, it is

clear when he got grants the people who take on debt are the poorest

students whose families cannot help them out and sort the more you push

your money into the subsidies further up the income scale the less

money you have to help people further down that scale from taking

out larger student loans. The Scottish Government was quite

vulnerable on this and recently but in England the amount they are

abolishing grants and everyone will have a loan. I guess Scottish

Government can say, grants may have been falling here, times are tough,

but we are not doing anything as dramatic as an angler.

That is fear, the in England is a very poor outcome for students and I

completely agree. It is a shame the only ever look at include because

you could look at the other devolved nations and they would find they

have kept much higher levels of grants and we now have.

You did a report earlier this year on the broader question of access to

higher education and you showed access to higher education for young

people for the most deprived areas in Scotland lags other nations of

the UK, particularly in God. To give a figure, if you are from --

particular in England. If you are from the well of patronage or four

particular in England. If you are times more likely to go to

university, the figure was 2.4 times in England. Why is the gap so big

between Scotland and England? A lot of our young people who come from

disadvantaged areas go to college instead of University and some of

them will move to university. What we have not done in Scotland is

expand the opportunities for direct entry to university as much as they

have done in England so it is clear the chance of getting into

universities suffer here and the entrance requirements are higher and

we have far more courses were high requirements.

The figures for young people from lower income backgrounds pipping

straight into universities are better not just in England but also

in Wales and Northern Ireland. -- getting straight into. All the other

UK nations have a higher proportion of disadvantaged children going

straight to university. There has been a fast improvement in

Scotland even though we lag behind other UK nations, but you found

almost all of that increase in young people into higher education from

lower income backgrounds, they were going into sub degree courses in

college. There is anything that looked at the

all entrances into higher education up to the age of 30 and when you

look at that the growth has been an entry into college-level courses. So

look at that the growth has been an higher National diploma which are an

important part of the Scottish education system, but the change in

proportion of people getting into university by the age of 30, going

directly into university, had been a very small and rather static.

There is a plan in England to increase the number of universities,

the Government outlined various proposals on this. They have not

been taken up in Scotland but what the given what you just said would

it not be a good idea to have an expansion of universities in

Scotland? There are two things. You need either new institutions or more

space in the coloured ones. In England it is to allow, make it

easier for private providers to come into the education sector. -- or

more space in the current universities.

We have a well established university system but the space in

it is tight because we subsidised places so heavily and what that

means is we could see the acceptance rate proportion of Scots being

accepted hasn't not quite sharply through UCAS over the last nine or

so years whereas we have not increased in the proportion of

people from outside Scotland. -- win as we have increased. -- whereas we

have increased. Should we build more universities, as is the plug on

England's? I would expand the one we have got. For a small nation we have

a number, 18 institutions designated as universities or higher education

institutions, that is not a bad number for a country of 5 million,

it is more about the space we have currently. They may need to expand

to build more space but we are not talking about massive expansion,

just a debt of breathing space means we can get back to the kind of

success rates for applicants from Scotland to Scottish universities we

would have seen nine or so years ago. -- just a bit of breathing

space. Thank you. Well, the Scottish Government

minister responsible for Higher Education is Shirley-Anne

Somerville. I spoke to her

earlier this morning. The figures out this week show the

amount of money the Scottish Government is giving out in

bursaries and grants has gone down by 35% since the SNP first came to

power. Why is that? The changes we made in 2013 to the student support

package was built with stakeholders at that time to ensure that students

have the maximum amount of money in the pockets. That is what we

delivered up time, and that is a combination of bursaries and loans.

I know now that stakeholders have concerns that bad Allens has not

reflected well on students and how they are experiencing this system,

which is why we have launched a review of student support this week,

to make sure we take a fresh look at what is going on. If you review says

the balance is wrong, we need to give more money in bursaries and

loans, a rebalancing, you will do that? The review group has to be

aware of the financial context the government is working in. It has be

based on a realistic view of the financial context we are in,

particularly when we are going financial context we are in,

through Brexit. I am not saying rebuke to have to deliberate one way

or the other, the entire point of having a rebuke -- review group

chaired by a review... As the figures show in England, you come

chaired by a review... As the from a well-off backgrounds, you are

four times more likely to go to university than someone from a

low-income backgrounds. Sorry, in Scotland, you were four times more

likely. In England, only 2.5 times. There is not just a big inequality

in access to higher education, there is a big difference between Scotland

and the other nations in the UK. We are the worst. Why do you think that

is? We measure things differently appeared and we do down in England.

I think that is why it is often difficult to have a cross boundary

discussion on that. When I spoke to John Swinney about this recently, he

expected that this gap was there, as I remember. So you can't just say it

is down to a blizzard of statistics. No, we could get into a debate about

whether we use a different measure of statistics. Lets not. If you are

young person from a low-income in England, you are considerably more

likely to get into university than you are in Scotland. Let's not put

numbers on it. Why is that? There are a number of reasons why the

Scottish education system is different. Many people here can

going to college and turns university, and that's a different

course of action Pennington. We can also just do a degree at a college

in Scotland, but you don't get immigrants. We're not being

complacent, and that's exactly why the Scottish Government has accepted

the recommendations of the widening access commission, that was in the

last Parliament, and we are now going for it to come up with

stakeholders and universities, ensure that those recommendations

are put in place. Are you saying that because of this difference that

we have appear, or young people can sometimes go to college and then to

university, that the difference between Scotland and England is an

illusion, or you saying... No, I'm saying it is not as stark as the

figures you presented. I accept that we do have more to do, and that's

exactly why we are taking actions. There has been an improvement over

the last few years. We are seeing more people from the most deprived

communities gaining access to university. But that is entirely

down to people going into sub degree courses and colleges. Not anything

wrong with doing now, but that's what accounts for the improving

figures. You're not getting more people straight into university. No,

that I think one of the other aspects is looking at the murder

journey. This idea of leaving school, going to university and if

you don't make that decision you had your chance. Mass-mac the learner

journey. We are looking to ensure that any person wants to go to

college first and then university, or does a university degree or

diploma at a college, that is equally as important and valid as

someone that goes to university. We need to ensure we are developing the

Scottish education system. It's not as linear as we might have had in

the past, when you or I were at university. The problem for you is

that Nicola Sturgeon has staked a reputation as first Minister on

doing something about this issue. What targets do you have? Is it not

by the end of your current period in office, you will be able to come

back on this programme and tell me that, however you measure it, the

gap in opportunity for young people from lower income backgrounds in

Scotland's is now the same as in England? No, the commission that

target the government has accepted, as has the stakeholders, too ensure

that by 2020 we have many more people going from the most deprived

communities will stop the targets are about the government and the

universities. Why is it not your aspiration that people from lower

income backgrounds should have the aspiration that people from lower

same opportunities as in England? I want them to have better

opportunities than England. But they have considerably worse

opportunities at the moment, so wouldn't the benchmark -- a

benchmark be to say we want it to be the same as it went? No, we are

setting the benchmark -- benchmark higher. How will opportunities for

young people from lower income backgrounds in Scotland differ from

those in England by the end of the period in office? The commission

looked at many examples, but one of them is to ensure that those who

work from your areas and skills where they might not have the same

attainment levels as those that are in more affluent backgrounds,

actually have what is called a contextualised admissions into

universities. One of the key areas we are looking at is that people who

were in a high school from April backgrounds need to be able to get

into university, and is not all about grades. The time when you

could measure whether a student was good or bad simply by their graves

has long gone. We are ensuring a contextualised admissions process is

fair. Universities are doing this already. By the end of your period

in office, through this contextualised admissions preceding

that you have just described, a young person from a lower income

background in Scotland will have more chance, because you said you

wanted to do better, more chance of getting into university than they do

in England? If that is the right decision for them. So that is the

benchmark we should judge you on? The benchmark is set out in the

commission report. That you have just said you want them to have

better opportunities than just said you want them to have

England, where they don't have that we can say you failed? The

recommendations are there for all to see. Absolutely, they are there for

myself and the government to be judged on. We are taking access

within the commission's recommendations widening access

already. But those with care experience, for example. We are

already doing short-term measures to improve widening access to those

with -- those within particular groups. This is a long-term issue.

By 2020, we will see great development. Can you point to any

evidence from Scottish Government researchers which shows that the

policy of having no tuition fees is leading to greater access to

university, or indeed to college, for students from lower income

backgrounds? The figures have shown in the last few years that the

number of people from disadvantaged backgrounds that are applying to

university has increased, and the number of entrants has also

increased. Can you point to any research which shows that that is

connected in anyway with adding low -- having no tuition fees? I can

point to an absolute printable as to why tuition is there. So this

principle doesn't require any evidence? No, it is a founding

principle of the education policy. Even if it could be demonstrated, as

Lucy Hunter Blackburn argued, that having a policy of no tuition fees

was meaning that grants would be cut, making it more difficult than

people from lower income backgrounds to get to university, it is the

principal overriding any evidence that could count against it? She has

given her opinion. You have said it is a principle which you have just

accepted, you can point to any evidence that shows no tuition fees

is increasing the chances for a lower income young people. There is

no evidence to suggest that free tuition fees are preventing people

from lower backgrounds. At best it is neutral? It is a matter of

opinion. We have a principle within the SNP that you should be able to

go to university based on your ability to learn and not your

ability to pay. Is the defining policy of your governments is to

reduce inequalities in access, surely to say it is a matter of

principle which overrides evidence, or a matter of opinion, isn't good

enough? There is no evidence to say that free tuition is putting people

off. She gave her opinion and she is privately entitled to it. I believe

that the free education... Wouldn't it be a priority for you to go to

your civil servants, the once you are still bear, not ones like Lizzie

Hunter Blackburn who have left, and said, we have this policy, at least

to put my mind at rest, can we find out if there is any evidence that it

is doing anything to increase access? You don't seem to have done.

I look at the evidence of the amount of people coming from worst of

backgrounds and I look at what is happening down south. Will you

commission such a study now? I look at what is happening down elsewhere

they do have 27 thousand pounds worth of debt that it could link the

ball. And access to university for young people from low background is

utterly better. -- considerably better. It will be interesting to

see what happens now that they have abolished maintenance grants. I

don't think England's as a policy that we would support here. That is

a different issue. I accept that they're doing now is, but there is

no evidence that having the tuition fees -- having no tuition these is

to tearing people from lower income backgrounds. You have a better

chance of going to university in England only do in Scotland. There

are myriad of reasons why these things will happen. One of the

reasons is that we have an entirely different type of education system.

People will go to college to study and use... People have to end, but

it seems slightly extraordinary that you haven't commissioned your civil

servants to look at the evidence in England and here and find out

whether there is any connection chewing tuition fee policy and...

Our government policy is that free education is integral and you should

be able to go to university regardless of how much money your

parents have all stop we will have to leave it there. Thank you very

much. Now, as well as higher education,

problems have also been mounting in other areas

like health and policing. Analysis of the National Health

Service here by Audit Scotland found that only one its targets

was met last year. Meanwhile, Police Scotland

are looking at a likely overspend in their budget for this

year of ?17.5 million. I'm joined now by George Adam

from the SNP and Miles Briggs I wonder, is the Scottish Government

focusing too much on independence and neglecting its duties to run

Scotland's? I am taking a wild guess here, but I suspect you'd think they

are. Absolutely. I think this week's audit report has demonstrated that

more than ever. The government has now missed seven out of eight of its

NHS targets. It has been in power for ten years, and patients are

suffering. I think it's clear from that that the Scottish Government

have taken their eye off the job. I think you have to look at this and

the actual context, which is that there are 18 pieces of legislation

currently being consulted on, that the government is dealing with a lot

of the issues and the day-to-day and the day job. One of the biggest

issues is the fact that Brexit is going to take ?11.2 billion, if it

is a Tory had exit. We have to stand up Scotland and make sure we that.

Brexit doesn't explain why your party can't run the health service.

That's not true. The health service got ?13 billion of funding this

year, more than ever. The patient surveys say there are more patients

saying the service is working better than ever before. This is the Tories

once again trying to take away from the issues that we need to discuss,

which is the day-to-day life which Brexit files cars are trying to move

away. Why is that wrong? Look at the facts that for ten years we have not

had an NHS workforce plan. Maybe facts that for ten years we have not

Gordon would like to... Maybe George would like to say why that is? I'm

not them to say, I don't have a clue! The first Minister failed to

answer that question. Like you have just seen earlier in your piece

about education, in each area where the SNP are responsible, we have

seen Scotland go backwards. Gomis ministers need to start to get a

grip of what they are responsible for. -- Scottish ministers. In that

audit reports, one of the big policies of the SNP government, and

one that many would agree with, is to try to integrate the NHS with

social care. That helps both patients and could potentially save

a massive amount of money. According to that reports, despite this being

talked about not just by the SNP but by previous governments for over a

decade, the SNP government has got no system of benchmarks in place to

know whether this policy will actually be implemented or not. It

has no idea how much it would cost and no plan in place for staff.

That's pretty shocking, isn't it? The idea is to integrate health and

social care and ensure people get the service they need when they need

it, that is important. We are working towards bats and there will

be challenges but we are getting working towards bats and there will

there and dealing with these issues. The point that Scotland makes is not

just you are not getting there quickly it is because there are no

proper benchmarks and planes you cannot have any idea if you are

getting there or not. There are tests and benchmark and

ordered Scotland have pointed to certain things we will take on

boards -- Audit Scotland. They keep talking about that we keep talking

about Brexit but that could potentially take 80,000 jobs away

from Scotland. That is keeping an eye on the day job and standing up

for Scotland. That is a reasonable point. It would

be remiss of the Government not to print much of its time both

analysing the possible effects print much of its time both

Brexit and trying to argue with the UK Government for what it sees as

the best way to handle it. It would be dereliction of duty not to do so.

I have not mentioned at Brexit but is where the focus on policy is in

Scotland and the UK Government want the Scottish Government to work

together to deliver the best possible Brexit and I only wish SNP

ministers would do that and stop was the grievance politics. Which we see

everyday. The Scottish Government is trying to draw up detailed proposals

for what it sees as a halfway house whereby Scotland could remain in the

UK but not suffer hard Brexit. It is perfectly reasonable, given the way

Scotland voted in the referendum and the mandate the Scottish Government

has, for them to do that. Negotiations are taking place now

and now is the time for these ideas to be put forward and the me said

that is there but the clear message I hear, as someone who voted to

remain, I do not want to see the Scottish Parliament use that to

peddle an independent agenda once more which two years ago we voted to

say no to. That is where we need to seek the Scottish Government move

forward. This is the Tories obsession with

independence. They are willing to discuss with the people in the

Sunderland about the Nissan jobs, they voted to leave so they are

willing to do that behind closed doors but the will not talk to the

Scottish Government to do likewise. Thank you both very much.

It's time to look back at the events of the past week and see what's

With me now are the political editor of The Herald, Tom Gordon,

and the former Labour MP for Glasgow North, Ann McKechin.

What did you make of that last point, Tom? There clearly are

mounting problems but it seems not unreasonable for the Government to

focus a bet on Brexit so perhaps they are both right. It is not a

binary choice, it just shows the business of Government is hard and

Brexit has made it even harder so I think you have to cut the Government

some slack. There are ?1 problems they must focus on the immediate

circumstances, they must deal with Brexit. -- there are long term

problems. If you take that Audit Scotland report, they have been in

power since 2007, it is quite shocking.

They were elected in 2007 on a promise of fighting for local

services and now they are trying to undertake the reforms that were

omitted about ten years ago. They have become the Labour Party. The

face the same dilemma Labour faced a decade ago. It is not easy because

labour did suffer from that because it is all very well talking about

doing this and that is what the problem is everybody now accepts to

rebalance the health service and promote this integration you must

close some acute facilities and perhaps people will have to travel a

bit more in order to release money you can put into care in the

community but as soon as you experienced, there are people on the

street saying you are closing our hospitals, this is outrageous. The

Audit Scotland report is a wake-up call that there must be a serious

debate about how we shift that call that there must be a serious

budget from acute health care into social care and the Audit Scotland

report says we have not even started that, despite the demographic

problems, rising ageing population... The Audit Scotland

report also makes the point, the Labour Liberal backed Government

were talking about that long before then. We spoke before the 2010

election about social care integration south of the border that

has been a similar discussion about how we do that, but cutting local

authority budgets by far greater extent than other public service

budgets, and Scotland has had a consequence and that is we do not

have the adequate level of care and our communities to care for a

greater number of elderly people. Tom, this discussion earlier about

how education, I think we may have got some pledges from Shirley but

this is a difficult one for the Government because Nicola Sturgeon

has staked her reputation on it. There is room for waffle is limited.

They must come up with hard targets and demonstrate they have met them.

She said Judge me at the end of this Parliament on whether I have

narrowed the attainment gap. You picked up on the point of the

principle of free education. This shows is a problem when the

principal becomes a commandment because Alex Salmond had halved in

stone but the rocks would melt before they got rid of this. They

are not locked into it, what may. Government have to be flexible and

pragmatic as conditions change and in the long term this principle may

have to be flexed but right now they are stuck with it. Labour's position

on tuition fees has been all over the place. I think you are against

them again, aren't you? Having ?9,000 fees a year, like in England,

is not sustainable. You think there could be smaller fees? There is a

need, as Tom said, change in circumstances you need to look again

at other ways in which to finance higher education. I am not here as a

party spokesman today but I think both sides of the border we do not

have a long-term and sustainable financial settlement in terms of

have a long-term and sustainable undergraduate students. What you

have just said, in the guide to what politicians say, the technical term

for what you said is blather. The technical and if we need to be

prepared for innovation and creative ways of resolving this and the

Minister to be failed to accept your point about the evidence clearly

showing we have not met the attainment gap and we are the worst

of all the home nations and we need to do better.

The danger for the Government is these things are so complicated and

if you set targets omitting them is not easy, not simple.

Something that came out in the health debate is we need a

consensual cross-party debate but there is no chance before the local

elections. I'll be back at the

same time next week.