02/11/2016 Politics Scotland

Hello and welcome to Politics Scotland.

Coming up on the programme this afternoon:

will face questions on her handling of the NHS following a critical

And could it be the end of the controversial

MSPs will vote on the issue later this afternoon.

And here at Westminster, the Prime Minister wades

into the row over whether Scotland and England football players should

be allowed to wear poppies when they face each on Armistice

Theresa May calls the FIFA ban "outrageous".

Shona Robison will face questions from MSP's today on her handling

of the NHS following a critical report from the public spending

The annual review of the financial performance of the health

service found pressures of costs and lack of preparation

for combining hospital services with care in the community.

Andrew Kerr has more from the Scottish Parliament.

What's going on? It is a really busy afternoon at

Holyrood. We have the NHS statement from Shona Robison. Audit Scotland

looking at the state of the NHS and opposition MSPs saying it is in a

state with rising staff costs, missing seven out of eight targets,

and rising drug costs. And a lack of moving away to care in the

community. That has not been happening. Ruth Davidson called it a

scandal. The Health Secretary will be giving a statement and then

taking questions from MSPs. Also this afternoon, related to that,

we've got a Conservative health debate where they will be looking

again at this Audit Scotland report. As you were mentioning in the

headlines, another Conservative debate, an attempt to call a motion

to repeal the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act. It is really

interesting today because when you take those debates on the health

service and the football, we are looking at a government defeat, we

think, on those issues. We are looking at a double defeat this

afternoon which makes it an interesting day at Holyrood.

Does that mean they have to get rid of the act?

It doesn't when it comes to the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act

but the motion is calling for a repeal. There is also a Memphis

motion calling for it to be appealed so ministers will really have to

think again. And actually of course ministers here like to think about

the will of the parliament, maybe when it comes to a European issue,

post-Brexit. Well, the will of the parliament will be going against the

Offensive Behaviour at Football Act. The ministers will want to try to

respect that and they will be looking for something probably from

them, whether that is some kind of statement or agreeing to look at it

again and address some concerns. It will be an interesting one, Gordon.

It will be an interesting one, Gordon.

The education secretary has been setting out

the thinking behind plans for new regional education boards.

John Swinney was under examination by MSPs on Holyrood's Education

Our Education Correspondent Jamie McIvor was watching.

We didn't learn anything new today about what powers the boards

will actually have or how they will operate.

What we did learn more about is why Mr Swinney thinks

The government's looking at changes to school governance.

It wants to give as much power as possible to individual schools

But it also wants to create these new boards that will work

Now Mr Swinney says there are several good reasons for wanting

An OECD report encouraged more co-operation to help push

And closing the attainment gap is a top priority of course.

But here's the bit that Mr Swinney's critics in local

He said it was unacceptable that some education

authorities were making more progress than others -

that the capabilities of different authorities varied.

You've got to remember that education is the single biggest -

arguably the most important - council service.

You can imagine his critics will be interested to hear that.

And within local government some talk of a 50 year process

What they fear is that they will be squeezed.

Now there's no suggestion of taking schools out

What some councils are wondering about is just what their actual

On the one hand, headteachers look set to gain more official powers.

And the question is will these boards devolve power down

from Edinburgh or suck power up from councils.

But remember the government's also looking at the idea of a funding

formula for schools which could potentially reduce

the practical powers of a council too.

The local government body COSLA is yet to respond -

though in general it's been critical of moves which could reduce council

control of schools and it isn't convinced about the direction

It says it has noted the comments with interest.

The largest teachers union the EIS says that rather than focussing

on structural changes, the government's review of school

governance should concern itself with how teaching and learning can

be enhanced and professional collaboration supported.

The role and remit of the proposed regional boards, and any value

that this additional structural layer might bring, remains unclear

and the key question over the benefit this would bring

to schools, teachers and pupils remains to be answered."

Well, to discuss the day's stories I'm joined by the

Daily Record's political editor, David Clegg.

Education is interesting, David, because Nicola Sturgeon sticks her

reputation on it. For once the politicians can't come out with hot

air and they need to meet their targets.

John Swinney is going to be judged on this whatever happens. It was

Nicola Sturgeon's number one priority. The Brexit vote has made a

difference to that and there is now more time, energy and scrutiny being

exerted on that rather than the education system but I think the SNP

are clear that come the next Holyrood election, how they move

towards narrowing this attainment gap we always hear about will still

be a big issue. It is a very difficult and tricky issue.

I read the speaking to John Swinney a couple of weeks ago and he said

there will be targets and benchmarks set out so the public know how to

judge whether we've done what we said we would do. It gives the hard

edge to this because it can't just be as, for example, has been

criticised in the health service that they have a vague target about

integrating health and social care but according to Audit Scotland

there are no benchmarks, nobody knows how much it would cost and

then there is staff. In education it is going to have to be more precise.

How pupils are performing is quite easily judged and we know there is

going to be some kind of standardised testing which will

allow them to do that. I have to say we are a good number of months from

the election and there isn't a great deal of clarity about what exactly

these proposals are going to involve. These regional education

boards, that is a radical departure from previous policy.

John Swinney said it could mean money goes directly into schools

rather than via local authorities. It is unclear whether this is a bit

of tinkering around the edges or whether this looks more like the

kind of thing happening in England. It feels like it is quite a Tory UK

Government education reform. There is no talk of increased funding. It

looks like it will have to happen within any existing funding

framework so how exactly you get better performance without spending

more money is unclear. It is also politically dangerous,

isn't it, because with the greatest sympathy for the Scottish

Government, what they have staked their reputation on is something

which by its very nature, inequality gaps... It is a bit like public

sector deficit. It is a residual so it is difficult to target. Something

like this, you can target, we will make more people pass but to target

we will reduce inequality, there are so many faxes.

We don't perhaps know all of the factors. And they are all deeply

entrenched and over a long period. There has been a lot of talk for a

lot of use, since the SNP came into power or most, about a switch to

early years education and early intervention that you only start to

see the fruits of that five, ten, 15 or 20 years down the line. Whenever

you are trying to get quick results, I think this is tricky.

It is going to have to be something like getting more people from

lower-income families into universities, but even that...

Say you try to do that over the next five years, that means they are

already teenagers already so by that stage a lot of their educational

outcomes have been set from childhood and all of those different

factors. I don't know that we are going to see any great benefit in a

few years. It is more about how primary schoolchildren are

performing and the attainment gap there is something they could look

at more quickly. The other point is this is going to require a massive

fight with teaching unions. They are going to the reluctant about a lot

of the requirements here. There is an implicit philosophical

shift as well because all of this curriculum staff, which all seemed a

bit touchy-feely and let's do more and suddenly we have a new exam

system or a new testing system right through primary and secondary

school. That isn't really compatible.

It is difficult and it is different. I think there is a general

acceptance that if you want to focus on attainment you have to have some

way of judging how to do it so how you can do it without some kind of

testing, and equally if the test results are being collated how did

you end up without league tables,? Shona Robison, the damning Audit

Scotland report. The criticisms in there, they say they are going to do

all of these things but there are no systems in place so we know whether

they have done it or not, that is the kind of thing they can't afford

to do in education. The NHS report from Audit Scotland

is one of the most damning reports I've read about the current Scottish

Government because it isn't just saying there isn't enough money in

the system, which the Scottish Government will inevitably say it is

due to a Westminster funding settlement, it is about what they

are not doing. They are not planning properly.

We are going to interrupt you because Shona Robison is doing

precisely that right now. Here she is. Our clear vision to

achieve this change has been acknowledged by the auditor general

who said last week that the Scottish Government has got a real vision to

reshape services. We have made significant investments

in our NHS. Our resource budget has increased by 8.2 pursuant since

2010. This government will go further to ensure that the NHS

receives the resources it needs to be equipped for the future. For

example, we are increasing the NHS revenue budget by ?500 million over

inflation over this Parliament however it is important to invest

more than money and it is imperative we try reform. As well as progress

with integration we have taken the steps to excel the shift in care

into delivery of health and care services, increasing demands mean we

are accelerating change. We have shifted more NHS funding to support

social care, published a national clinical strategy and a medicine

report, accelerated plans for an investment of ?200 million in our

new elective sectors and reviewing targets and indicators through work

being led by Sir Harry Burns. As part of a plan to increase health

spending by almost ?2 billion by the end of this Parliament we will take

the share dedicated to primary services to 11% of front line NHS

spending. We will increase investment in primary care by an

additional ?500 million, helping to shift the balance of care and having

at least half of our front line NHS spend being invested in acute

hospitals. Despite the challenges our NHS is performing well and staff

are to be thanked for working to address increase in demand for

services. We now have almost 1.5 million outpatient attendances every

year. And since 2005, there have been 25% more hip replacements that

are being carried out but waiting times have reduced by 50%. For

cataracts we are seeing a 30% increase in procedures with a 40%

reduction in waiting times. Nor patients than ever before are

being treated for cancer with over 1,000 new being treated to the

standard. Performance against the 62-day standard is lower than we

want. That's why we are investing ?100 million over the next five

years to I prove cancer care. Scotland's core A departments have

been the best performing in the UK, outperforming England by 8

percentage points in August 2016. The audic Scotland reports confirms

that NHS staffing is at historically high levels, with over 11,000 more

staff working in the health service than when we took office. We are

acting to ensure our medical workforce grows further. Increasing

the number of undergraduate medical school and speciality training

place... As well as creating a graduate entry medical school. We

are working to establish national workforce planning to help develop

the clinical strategy and protect our commitment to no compulsory

redundancies. And reducing agency spend. We'll use workforce planning

efforts to make better use of a staff bank system and framework

contract when supplementary staff are needed. We have consistently

prioritised investment in the NHS and have increased front line health

spend and will continue to prioritise front line health

services as we increase the NHS refer knew budget by ?500 million

more than inflation over the course of this Parliament. NHS territorial

boards received a 5% increase this years. That is an increase of ?24

million, delivering an above inflation increase, and an

additional ?250 million when the We'll consider the Audit Scotland

proposal for a flee year budget management to examine how to provide

NHS boards withflect. Within the context of the accounting and

framework set out by the Treasury. Despite this record level of

resource we recognise the challenge of meeting increased demand. As the

Auditor General made clear, more needs be done than simply giving the

NHS extra money. I can confirm that by the end of this year we'll set

nowt a single framework a transform arable change plan to bring together

the different strands of reform I have set out. I will keep Parliament

informed of the progress. Audit Scotland has been clear that

reorganisation of services will be required. But that doesn't mean that

every proposal made by every board will be approved. We are committed

to robust evidence of the policy making that delivers better

outcomes. However, to stand against any change anywhere in acute

services is not credible. Where change is advocated we must ensure

that local boards explore any issues and benefits. I want tory that it'll

any major change proposals must be subject to formal public

consultation and ministerial approval. Within this I will take

the opportunity to update Parliament on the specific service changes

debated last month. On cleft surgery the recommendation endorsed by the

Royal College of surgeons to consolidate on a single site in

Glasgow is distinct in that it relates to specialist services. I am

now considering the proposal in line with the precedents of Ministers

making the final decision on national specialist services. I've

met with clinical teams in Glasgow and Edinburgh. And in the light of

the discusses and full consideration of the evidence I expect to make a

decision by the end of the year. NHS Lanarkshire's longer term plans as

part of their local clinical strategy have been designated as

major change by the board. Boards can choose to dedicate changes as

major without the need to ask Ministers. These plans were subject

to formal public consultation between 2 August and yesterday. The

board intends to consider the outcomes of this at their meeting on

30th November, informed by the report on the consultation. Any

board decision made on associated specific major change, service

proposals, will be subject to my approval. What is beyond question is

that all three acute hospitals will retain their A department for the

benefit of local people. The NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde board

agreed in October that their proposals op paediatric services at

the royal Alex Dr Hospital should be designated major. The board is

scheduled to consider the outcomes by spring of next year, as informed

by a report on the consultation by the Scottish health council. Any

board decision made on these service change proposals will then be

subject to my approval or otherwise. Presiding Officer, in terms of the

remaining proposals from NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, those affecting

deliveries at the community maternity units at the Inverclyde

Royal Hospital, those affecting care and those affecting light burn

hospital are subject to ongoing public engagement. This cannot be

prejudged. Some may not proceed at all. The Scottish health council

continues to monitor the engagement activity and will offer a view on

the designation of the proposals at the end of the activity, likely to

be in December. Ministers will consider the views from the Health

Board and health council and come to a decision. The board will consider

the next steps as informed by the designation decisions at its meeting

on 20th December. While I will not prejudge these proposals they must

be consistent with national policy. Such as the review of maternity

services due to publication soon. I want to put on record this

Government's commitment to the vision and to say that any proposals

for light burn must address the decisions of 2011. I'll keep

Parliament informed with these proposals. In conclusion, I believe

there's a clear case to further shift from acute to primary and

community services. I am confident there's a broad consensus on this

and that the Audit Scotland report supports this view. Certainly so far

no-one and no party in this chamber has brought forward and alternative

way forward. I believe this consensus can be underpinned by the

recognition that our NHS continues to require increased investment

understand it must reform to ensure that it remains true to its founding

principles, publicly owned and free at the point of need. That was the

Health Secretary, Shona Robison. The Scottish Government says it

would be "supportive" of a plan for a safe injecting facility

for drug users in Glasgow, subject to the business case for it,

"being acceptable." The Public Health Minister,

Aileen Campbell, was responding to a topical question

at Holyrood yesterday. The Minister was also

pressed on the legality Glasgow city joint integration board

agreed yesterday for a business case to be developed to pilot safer drug

consumption facility in Glasgow. We see value in this proposal and are

supportive of it subject to the business case to be presented in

February 2017 being acceptable. I thank the Minister for that answer.

There is no question that something must be done to tackle drug

addiction, not only in Glasgow but across Scotland. There's been a

significant increase in the number of drug-related deaths in Scotland,

which is why the SNP's decision to cut drug and alcohol funding in last

year's budget is so baffling and misguided. Professor Knell McKechnie

of the centre for substance use research has cautioned that there's

a danger we are moving away from a commitment to get addicts off drugs.

What can did Minister say to ensure the chamber that getting people off

illegal drugs and preventing drug use remain key priorities of the

Government's drugs promise From this Government's point of view in terms

of the significant funding by our commitment to help people help

themselves and help people become more stable in life and tackling

associated risky cavers that we have a clear commitment to tackle and do

all we can to help Scotland become much more healthy as a nation and

ensure that people can live their lives without being unnecessarily

dependent upon illegal drugs. Possession of heroin is of course an

offence. But it is also an offence to permit premises to be used for

the supply of heroin. What is the Scottish Government's position on

whether the criminal law should be enforced in the circumstances that

we are talking about? And what does the Minister make of the suggestion

by the UN's international near International Narcotics Control

Board that fix rooms could breach international treaties? The Lord

Advocate would need to authorise any proposal for an injecting facility.

Surely somebody with his knowledge would have understood that. I don't

think we should get into this debate in looking at this from a point of

view that something is right or wrong or black or white. We need to

look at the issues people have face with drug dependency issues. There

are issues around homelessness and the trauma that has led them down

this path. The 20% cut is one of the most retrograde steps in tackling

substance misuse. It has led to an outbreak of HIV in Glasgow. The

chair of Edinburgh's integrated joint board, that will lead to a

total 1.3 million year on year cut to services in our nation's capital.

That is a fire sale. Does the cabinet agree that initiatives, we

should embrace it for Scotland and will she commit to reversing the cut

to ADPs, the cost of which is measured out in human lives? From my

perspective and this Government's perspective, the fact that we have

some encouraging signs of drug taking amongst our younger

population being lower than for some considerable time, many of our

approaches are working. We need to work across the Parliament. This is

a Scotland-wide issue which requires all portfolios, housing and social

security, to ensure we can give people the opportunity to move

forward with their lives with dignity and respect. Minister, the

Scottish Green Party support community based supervised medical

intervention such as this. This is an additional provision to deal with

long term users, for whom absence recovery isn't on the horizon. Would

applaud the aim of saving lives and acknowledge if this were rolled out

across Scotland there is an opportunity to save even more lives?

Again, I think we need to make sure that the evidence is robust. That's

what the IJB yesterday agreed to for that case to be made. We need to

look at this evidence. If that is given the go ahead, need to look at

that pilot and look at the evidence that that produces.

David Clegg, what do you make of this?

It is a very bold proposal. It has the support of the Scottish

Government. Several local Glasgow SNP MPs have been supportive of it

publicly. I am quite surprised that it has been proposed and seemingly

accepted with what's been quite a limited criticism. I think a few

years ago it what have been, there would have been more reaction to

this than there has been this week. There is around 500 drug users in

Glasgow who are publicly injecting drugs. That's disturbing for the

people in the communities that they live. In it's dangerous for the

addicts involved. It is also dangerous for people with children

that are playing in areas where there is discarded needles. You say

you are surprised by the lack of criticism of this, but is there a

danger there will be a backlash? You can imagine people saying, hang on a

minute, why are we using public Metropolitan Police to support

people taking drugs? Adam Tomkins from the Conservatives, who you

would generally feel are likely to be the party most critical of

reluctant to endorse these type of proposals, his questions there were

largely untechnical and litre matters: How will this work? Will

this cause us problems with international legal agreements? How

will it be enforced by the Crown Office. But the answer in law is we

fudge it. We fudge already, let's face it, possession of cannabis. The

law is there and what happens is something different. He wasn't

making philosophical objections. It was a technical scrutiny he was

carrying out there. The there's been some drug experts that have raised

concerns about whether this is the right way to go, but I don't think

there's been just in principle this idea is wrong, that you have

something which could be argued to be state-endorsed drug consumption.

There hasn't been a great deal of that which I found surprising.

I'm joined by Ben Macpherson from the SNP, the Conservatives'

Oliver Mundell, Mark Griffin for Labour, and Ross Greer

Sorry, from the Greens. I almost made you a Tory. Unless you want to

become a Tory. I might forgive you that it will

take some time. Let's start with the Conservatives.

Oliver, we had the statement from Shona Robison about health policy,

the debate you instigated. Were you satisfied with what she said? I

don't think so. We have seen missed target after missed target and a

real staffing crisis in the NHS. I think it is easy to forget the

Scottish Government have been in power for almost ten years. They

haven't even begun to tackle these problems and it isn't good enough.

Then, what struck me in the Audit Scotland report was not so much

missed targets, it was on this flagship supposedly policy of

integrating Health and Social Care Act, the report said the Scottish

Government doesn't know how much it'll cost, has no benchmarks in

place to know whether we actually achieve it or not and there is no

policy and staffing to with it. As Oliver says, you have been in power

for almost ten years and it seems extraordinary could.

extraordinary The implication in the integration

is an ongoing process but what we have just heard about the cause of

the last ten years. There are 11,000 more staff working in our NHS...

Hang on, let's not do a list of what you think is good. Could you explain

why there are low targets in place to benchmarks the integration of

social care with the NHS? And no budget in place?

Overall budgeting is increasing in the NHS. We know that but that isn't

the question. That is exactly where we are at. The

overall health budget has been increased by ?2 billion. There is an

extra ?500 million going into primary care, which will address

some of these points specifically. Why would you address the specific

question, which you know is a different question than the one you

are answering. Why are there are no plans in place to benchmark whether

or not you are achieving the integration of health and social

care and why is it the Scottish Government, according to Audit

Scotland, does not know how much it'll cost?

You have heard the in response to the report from the Health Secretary

in the Jones just specified. In terms of the benchmarking, that is

something I don't have a specific answer on just now and I'm not going

to pretend that I do. The more general points I am making are all

completely relevant to this integration of health and social

care. Increased spending, more staff and a focus towards preventative

spending, where we are investing in GP practices and training places.

Mark Griffin, I presume you are going to say you are not happy with

the government response but I would say Labour is just as guilty. One of

the points that the Audit Scotland report makes is the integration of

health and Social Care Act creates the SNP government. There was talk

about it under the Liberal and Labour coalition. Under them it was

just as much waffle as it is now. I think the points you made has been

made well, there is no benchmark from the government as to how they

are going to measure any level of success and I think the reason

behind that is local government budgets have been cut to the bone.

On one side, there is local government services people rely on

and they are being cut to the bone. It is clear...

I'm not sure what the connection is. I accept your point about cutting

budgets but I can't understand why you can't have benchmarks and that

was the problem and Labour as well. There was glad he is talk about

doing things and nobody ever says, this is how you're going to know

whether or not we've done it. I think that's the point, the reason

the government is running away from benchmarking is they know the

targets because of the disastrous impact the cuts are going to have on

local government. Ross Greer, I've done it again! I

keep calling you Scott! And a Tory! There is another side to this, Ross

Greer, behind all the jokes about benchmarks, and we heard Shona

Robison talking about this, there are tough choices here because it is

politically unpopular to... If you're going to revamp, you need to

close acute unit and put money into the community to achieve integration

and every time anyone proposes a specific thing about cutting a

hospital or a unit in a hospital, all hell breaks loose and there is

public opposition. I think you've created a false

choice as an either or situation. If we want to increase spending on

prevention and care in the community or whatever it might be we can make

the choice is to raise the money needed to spend on that rather than

spend somewhere else, maybe to close a hospital like children's services

in Paisley. The whole point about integrating

Health and Social Care Act was partly because it benefited patients

because people preferred to live at home. Also it was an efficiency

saving and you would save huge amounts of money by stopping what

they call bed blocking in hospital. It is a question of money as well.

You can't just say let's bend ever more money on it.

I think you are creating a false choice, saying we can all either

spend on one thing all the other. It is possible for proposals made by...

Proposed to the government about losing departments or hospitals

might be bad ideas. We have seen quite a view exceptionally bad

proposals for cutting services across hospitals in the West of

Scotland. The idea to create successful the health and social

care integration, you have to close hospital departments, it seems

bizarre. I wonder if you agree, Mark Griffin.

Proposals to close hospital departments to achieve precisely the

goals the SNP government wants to achieve was one of the reasons

Labour lost the 2007 election. The SNP were elected on the basis of

promises to keep the service is open. You can keep a parallel with

the election there it. You had other local SNP candidates promising to

keep services open and now the Health Secretary is saying no, we

have to wait and see what different people are saying. It didn't stop

them saying they would keep them open before the election. What has

changed? Oliver, you would back closing some

of these facilities, would you? Know. I think it's about reducing

the pressure on those facilities by following our idea of putting more

money into primary care, making sure that people can get treatment at the

pharmacy. The whole point about integration

was that you save the money to put into the primary care that you are

talking about by closing some acute facilities or rationalising acute

care because if you get your increased money in primary care

there should be less demand for acute care.

Exactly. You have to invest in primary care first, reducing the

burden before... You can't remove acute services when there is still a

very high demand for them. That is why we have seen a lack of vision

and strategy and a lack of long-term preparation. We are facing the same

issues in the NHS now as we did when Nicola Sturgeon with the health

minister. We have not taken any steps to actually start investing in

the areas of health that can actually help make savings further

down the line. Then, in Shona Robison 's speech she

went through a number of specific proposals for rationalising

different units at different hospitals and she kept emphasising

the final decision would be taken by her. What was your interpretation of

that? Was it really about politics and she may block rationalisations

even if the health board so they can go ahead?

I think the one that is most useful for me to speak on is one I've been

involved in myself, to do with cleft surgery in Edinburgh. There were

many concerns raised with constituents directly and with other

MSPs and as a consequence of that and also through consideration of

how to deliver the best service for that particular treatment, the

Health Secretary is looking very carefully at that service and how

best to deliver the sort of specialist treatment that is

required. There is a real sense around how do we consider giving

them the best possible treatment with the specialisms that are there.

That is an example of where the Health Secretary is thinking very

carefully. Do you think we all have to think in

a broader way about this so we might have to accept that if we are going

to have more care in the community and we are going to be able to stay

at home as we get older instead of Hospital, in the meantime we might

have to travel further to a specialised centre for some of these

other things? That is a trade-off. And in fact we might get better

treatment by travelling. That is the ethos of the clinical

strategy but as I articulated in my last dancer there are technicalities

dot in the context of an ageing population and increasing demand on

the health service we have to remember the Scottish NHS and

economy in general is performing well compared to the rest of the UK

and the challenges that face us in this area are international

challenges. I have a close family member who is a geriatric physician

so I understand how challenging these areas are. We have to bear in

mind the specific investment the government has made, including the

elective treatment centres which will bring in treatment to the

community. Thank you all very much. I should

stress that Ross Greer is called Roche clear and he is a member of

the Green party, not 70s. That is right, isn't it? That sounds

One of Scotland's biggest energy providers says onshore wind

development will come to a standstill if the UK Government

The Conservatives made a general election pledge to end

But Scottish Power says it needs to create a new framework

for when those subsidies are withdrawn in March.

Our environment correspondent, Kevin Keane, reports.

It is a Windrush and from the outcome of the scale of these

construction work is clear. This is one of eight wind farm projects

being undertaken by ScottishPower Alan. To qualify for subsidies, they

have to be running by the end of March. What happens to this industry

then is unclear. The industry will come to a

standstill. It is impossible for us to move forward without some kind of

framework and mechanism to work with the government to allow activity

like this to carry on. On the ground, thousands are being

employed in the construction phase. The industry says there is more

potential for an shore wind in Scotland and jobs. The UK Government

is committed to ending subsidies with no alternative framework being

proposed. Campaigners say that is the right

position. It is saturated. Talk to people surrounded by wind farms and

they think we have got enough. We are already producing too much wind

electricity in Scotland for us to be able to move ourselves so it is

either being exported or it is being constrained off.

The UK Government says its focus is on offshore wind, which will be

subsidised. Renewable firms think Scotland is being let down.

The UK Government has locked it out the energy market. Our own advisers

say if we have any chance of meeting climate change targets we need to at

least double our renewable energy capacity so it is vital the UK

Government tells us what the future of onshore wind is going to be and

it will allow it to compete. The race is now on to get all of

these wind farms finished before the deadline at the end of March. What

happens after that is up in the air. That was our environment

correspondent reporting, or shouting. No two prime ministers

questions, where Theresa May has described football 's world

governing body is utterly outrageous for banning English and Scottish

footballers from wearing poppies during their qualifying match on

Armistice Day. The beginning of the session was dominated by exchanges

about the welfare system. According to Sheffield Hallam

University study, one in five claimants that are being sanctioned

became homeless as a result of it. Many of those included families with

children. Mr Speaker, could I recommend the Prime Minister

supports British cinema? And takes herself along to the cinema to see a

prize-winning film I, Daniel Blake. And as she is doing so, can she take

the Work and Pensions Secretary with her because he described the film as

monstrously unfair and then admitted he had never seen it. He has

obviously got a very fair sense of judgment on this. I will tell the

premise to what is unfair, ex-servicemen like David Katz and

dying without food in its home due to the government's sanctions

regime. It is time that we ended this institutionalised barbarity

against very vulnerable people. I have to say to the right

honourable gentleman that of course it is important that in our welfare

system we ensure that those who need the support the state is giving them

through the benefits system are able to access that. It is also important

in our system that those who are paying for it feel that the system

is fair to them as well. That is right, that is why we need to have

work capability assessments and sanctions in our system. Scottish

Limited partnerships were established by this house in 1907

and they are being aggressively marketed internationally, especially

in Eastern Europe. The International monetary Fund has warned that the

fight against global money-laundering and organised

crime. It is now a a matter of public record that they have been

friends for websites peddling child abuse images and part of major

corruption cases in Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Latvia, Moldova and

include the arms industry. Given the seriousness of this issue, the Prime

Minister's commitment to deal with criminality but the lack of progress

on SLPs, will she agreed to meet with me to agree a joint way

forward? The right honourable gentleman

raises issues around criminality and investigations into criminal

activity that's taking place and he talks about the issue of websites

peddling child exploitation. It is in order to increase our ability to

deal with this criminal activity that we've created the National

Crime Agency, that we've been working on other issues with the

City like money laundering and we are looking at the whole question of

how we can ensure that we are taking effective action on criminal

activity. This Government's record on immigration detention is

disgraceful, with the UK being the only country in EU with no time

limit on detention. The people of Renfrewshire want no part of these

practices. Will she give us an opportunity to rethink the detention

policy and end this stain on our human rights record? It is important

that where there are people who are due to be removed from this country

and the prospect is that they could be lost to the system if they are

not detained, there are circumstances in which it's the

right to detain people in the immigration estate. We need to make

sure we have got that estate right. A lot of work has been done on this.

The fundamental point is, I suspect he doesn't think we should detain

anybody in relation to immigration enforce: We believe there are some

who are rightly detained before being removed from this country. Has

the Prime Minister spotted the ludicrous refusal to Fifa to allow

footballers to wear poppies. Will she tell them that in this country

we decide when to wear poppies and we'll be bearing them at Wembley? I

think the stance that's been taken by Fifa is utterly outrageous. Our

football players want to recognise and respect those who are given

their lives for our safety and security. I think it is absolutely

right that they should be able to do so. Our footballers, it is for our

Football Associations but a clear message is going from this House. We

want our players to be able to wear those poppies. I have to say to

Fifa, before they start telling us what to do, they jolly well ought to

sort their own house out. Now, the sun shine downs on David Porter at

Westminster. He has some MPs with him. I have indeed, MPs and two

members of the House of Lords. We finished PMQ there is on the

issue of poppies. Can you understand how Fifa have got themselves into

this situation? I think that they have got themselves slightly out of

step here. I'm not convinced that this is what people want to see. I

think the SFA and the FA have made clear Thames it is in their view a

sensible idea that people should have the choice. I would support

these perspectives. Our football players should have the choice to

wear a poppy if they want to. Many will want to remember those who died

in the war and I back them. They are arguing that they cannot support

political or religious emblems. That steams be their argument in this

case. I'm perplexed by their argument. This is a match between

Scotland and England, a UK match. Poppies are a tradition of this

country. It is has British game of football. If you are having Scotland

or England versus a European country I could see a slight argument,

although I disagree. I cannot see any arguments when it's Scotland

versus England. George Foulkes, you are well known for your love of the

game of football. Yes. Is it a case that if Fifa don't change their mind

that Scotland and England, the FA ought to say if you want to wear

poppies do it and face the consequences? For once surprisingly

I agree with the Prime Minister. It is outrageous of Fifa to do this.

Heart, irrespective of Fifa, will be wearing poppies on their shirts. I

brought along, remember the battle of the Somme, 1916 to 2016. We've

done it every year in November. Fifa have said nothing about it. And we

are doing it against this year. Scotland and England should do the

same and give two fingers to Fifa. I think there is going to be

(Inaudible) on this subject. I I imagine you agree with what your

colleagues have been saying. I agree strongly. Fifa is an organisation

that is trying to restore its reputation. All it is doing is

bringing itself into further disrepute. I hope that a way can be

found for every play who wants to wear the poppy, and I hope there'll

be a big reaction from the crowd in the match and every member of the

crowd is wear argue poppy. And something is done to symbolise their

disgust with what Fifa are doing here. People are angry about this.

That match takes place in just over a week. In exactly a week's time, we

will probably know who the next President of the United States is

going to be. I don't think I'm going to be surprised if I suggest to you

that you will not be hoping that it is one Donald Trump? Again, there

might be unanimity here. I would be surprised if there were too many

British politicians looking forward to a Trump presidency. It is getting

closer. There is no doubt it is getting too tight... Do you honestly

believe he can win? From the articles I'm reading, there is one

reputable website that's got the result called correct in the last

several elections and they are putting Hillary as over 80% likely.

Today she has dropped to just over 70% likely to win. This is a pass

for Trump to win. For me that is genuinely scary. I hope it doesn't

happen, but I worry it is a bit like Brexit. It's a bit like the opinion

polls that he had for the Conservative Party when they

surprisingly pushed up their vote in the actual election higher than they

were polling. I think there are a lot of people in the United States

who won't admit to be supporting Trump but may yet go out and vote

for him. Anything could happen over the next few hours. It is going to

be tighter than many people in this country would wish I would think.

George Foulkes circuits something that should concern us in Britain

how the Americans vote? Very much, so the President of the United

States is the most powerful person in the world, holding a huge amount

of power in his or her hands. I'll make a prediction, David. I predict

that Hillary Clinton will win and we have to pray that I'm right, because

it would be cast fer Trump got. In Hillary is a states person, whatever

criticisms there may be of her. She has proved herself as an

international states person. It is about time we had a woman President.

Indeed John Stevenson there is an argument for saying if the Americans

vote for Hillary Clinton they are merely catching one the United

Kingdom. They are merely catching one Scotland, where the top

politician is a woman? I think there's some British political

parties who have to catch one the Conservative Party and indeed the

SNP... We have in Scotland. Yes, you are still catching up. In American

terms I think it'd be significant if Hillary Clinton were elected as the

first female President of the United States. I think it'd be a good thing

for America. I think we are all pretty united about how we would

like to result to go next week. It is in the interests of the world and

the West we have Hillary Clinton as our President. That would get rid of

a degree of uncertainty that's out there. This is a period of time when

we do need certainty, a safe pair of hands, and I think Hillary Clinton

is that safe pair of hands. I don't think will be surprised by your

answer. Presumably you would be aghast if you thought that Donald

Trump was going to win? I certainly hope that Donald Trump does not win.

My view is that I stand for pretty much the opposite of what Donald

Trump stand for on every issue I can think of. His statements have been

regressive. They've been offensive. Derogatory to different minority

groups and to will. I can't think notice the interests of America to

elect a President with these kind of views. So I would hope that you're

right with your prediction and I hope we'll see Hillary Clinton win.

A quick question to each of you. Trump or Clinton, who is going to

win? Clinton. Clinton. I have already said Clinton. I very much

hope it is going to be Clinton but the markets are getting nervous.

We'll have to wait until the great voters of the United States make

their decision next week. Thank you very much. You know what, Gordon, I

think this is probably the first time I have ever done this interview

where they've all been agreeing. I think it says more about the

subjects that we've been discussing this afternoon. And who says that

politics is all about yah-boo? That it is all about knock-about. They

are still talking while I'm talking. If we can train them to be quiet

when I'm talks we might be making progress.

STUDIO: They've agree on everything from now on. I forecast it. That

could make life different or a bit boring. Hopefully next time we talk,

they'll fight. Thank you David. According to Andrew Kerr at the

beginning of the programme, he said he nis the SNP will lose two votes.

One on the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act and one on the health

service. Is that, has that happened before? It is quite feesable that

that will happen. The SNP lost their majority in the May Holyrood

election. There've been one or two defeats but we haven't seen any

great turbulence for them, but I think it is going to come. On the

Offensive Behaviour at Football Act, the politics are interesting. This

is symbolic, the vote this afternoon, but there'll, James

Kelly, the Labour MSP, is bringing a members bill to repeal. That will go

through the process and if they vote the way they think, Labour, the

Conservatives, Lib Dems and the Greens supporting the move to repeal

it, the SNP will lose and the bill will fall. What's been quite strange

is the SNP's response to this has been very, very muted. They haven't

moved on it at all. It is an Act that's been criticised by

campaigners. It has been publicly criticised by Celtic Football Club.

Fans believe they are being criminalised and the Scottish

Government is insisting that it is the right legislation and they are

going to stick with it despite the opposition parties uniting to have

it done away with. Some people are said to me, some time ago now, in

England the clubs take liability in a way that doesn't happen in

Scotland, and the idea is if you kind truce a similar system in

Scotland, they could afford to get rid of the Act, because the need for

white go away? That's one of the problems that the Labour Party have

with the politics of this. They are taking a very strong line. They are

on the front foot. They feel they have something they can hurt the SNP

with on this, on the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act, but they

have shied away with back strict liability, something the sectarian

charity nil by mouth want introduced. Football clubs are

reluctant to see that introduced as they could lose points or be fined

depending on the behaviour of their fans. If Labour are just repealing

this but don't have any solution to the sec turn problem, that doesn't

look good for the Labour party. I'm interested to see what solutions

they offer rather than say, get rid of this Act. And in the bigger

picture the NHS is more important than that, but in the narrow

picture, losing a vote on it is less significant, because it is all the

more vague, not as if a specific policy has to go? Yes, it is the

Parliament and the opposition pleaters be expressing a general

disenchantment with the Government's pursuits.

Join us for First Minister's Questions tomorrow on BBC

You can follow the outcome of the debate about the Offensive

Behaviour at Football Act on the BBC's Democracy Live page.