:00:37. > :00:45.Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:46. > :00:54.My Lords, they have voted, contents 289, not contents, 272.
:00:55. > :00:55.Unelected peers are accused of committing
:00:56. > :00:57.a "constitutional outrage" as they frustrate the will
:00:58. > :01:00.of the elected Commons on cuts to tax credits.
:01:01. > :01:03.George Osborne says the Lords will have to be "dealt with" - but how?
:01:04. > :01:05.The Chancellor also says he's in listening mode
:01:06. > :01:10.But can he save face - and money - whilst softening the impact
:01:11. > :01:15.Jeremy Corbyn cedes some control of the Scottish Labour Party -
:01:16. > :01:19.can it help turn around the party's fortunes?
:01:20. > :01:25.We'll be talking to the party's leader in Scotland, Kezia Dugdale.
:01:26. > :01:28.And it may have an appalling human rights record, but is Britain's
:01:29. > :01:36.relationship with Saudi Arabia too important to put at risk?
:01:37. > :01:40.All that in the next hour and with us for the whole of the programme,
:01:41. > :01:46.the journalist and writer Toby Young.
:01:47. > :01:48.Someone who loves causing outrage, constitutional or otherwise. Welcome
:01:49. > :01:57.to the programme. Good afternoon. In the past few minutes, the
:01:58. > :02:01.Chancellor has faced the Commons, and the first time since last
:02:02. > :02:06.night's defeat, at Treasury questions. Let's listen to some of
:02:07. > :02:11.the exchanges. On five occasions in the last decade have the House of
:02:12. > :02:15.Lords blocked a statutory incident, never on a financial matter, and we
:02:16. > :02:20.had a whole range of opinions from Lord Butler to constitutional
:02:21. > :02:23.experts telling us yesterday that this was unprecedented. It is
:02:24. > :02:27.something we are going to have to address, the Prime Minister has made
:02:28. > :02:31.that very clear and that is what we are going to do, in order to make
:02:32. > :02:33.that very clear and that is what we sure the elected House of Commons is
:02:34. > :02:37.responsible for the tax and spend decisions that affect the people of
:02:38. > :02:42.this country. This is not a constitutional matter. They will
:02:43. > :02:46.lose ?1300 a year. Given what happened in the other place last
:02:47. > :02:55.night, can I reassure the Chancellor that if he brings forward proposals
:02:56. > :02:58.to reverse the cuts to tax credits fairly and in fall, he will not be
:02:59. > :03:05.attacked by this side of the House. Indeed... Indeed, he will be
:03:06. > :03:12.applauded. But can he assure us that whatever proposals he brings
:03:13. > :03:16.forward, he will not support any that an independent assessments
:03:17. > :03:21.demonstrates will cause any child to be forced to live below the poverty
:03:22. > :03:22.line? John McDonnell ending that piece.
:03:23. > :03:25.With me now are the Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Owen Smith and
:03:26. > :03:34.David Davies, what do you want to George Osborne to do precisely in
:03:35. > :03:40.his Autumn Statement to mitigate the impact of the tax credit cuts?
:03:41. > :03:44.Directly or indirectly to stage this change. The problem is what George
:03:45. > :03:47.wants to do is to have the increasing minimum wage,
:03:48. > :03:54.wants to do is to have the wage, take on the burden from the
:03:55. > :03:58.taxpayers. The trouble was, all of the
:03:59. > :04:01.taxpayers. The trouble was, all of national minimum wage does not get
:04:02. > :04:02.to its proper peak until the end of the parliament. Just put them in
:04:03. > :04:08.step, it is simple, the parliament. Just put them in
:04:09. > :04:14.would be satisfied and you think your colleagues would be satisfied?
:04:15. > :04:19.Broadly, yes, that's right. Do you agree with that, or do you want
:04:20. > :04:23.something more radical, some sort of reversal in the tax credit cuts
:04:24. > :04:28.themselves, not just an extra bit of money or a staging of the transition
:04:29. > :04:32.to mitigate the impact of those cuts? We have argued for repeal of
:04:33. > :04:37.them and we will be voting against in a couple of hours' time for
:04:38. > :04:41.repeal and the reason is, David is right, it will mitigate part of the
:04:42. > :04:48.change, even if George Osborne were to raise the national minimum wage
:04:49. > :04:51.to ?9 20, his excellent ambition, by 2020, even if you were to do that
:04:52. > :04:56.immediately, people on average would be worse off as a result of the
:04:57. > :05:00.cuts. It won't offset the amount of money the average family is set to
:05:01. > :05:04.lose as a result of the tax credit changes. Throw in the childcare
:05:05. > :05:08.allowance, throw in the personal tax allowance, add them up and they will
:05:09. > :05:13.still be, on average, worse off, so it is a bit of smoke and mirrors. So
:05:14. > :05:21.there is a divergences in what you want to see changed. I rest my case
:05:22. > :05:24.that it is complicated. This is a very complicated system and we have
:05:25. > :05:28.got some fine tuning to do but the simple truth is the staging will
:05:29. > :05:33.deal with most of the problem. Was this really the way to do it, to
:05:34. > :05:37.take on George Osborne and the Government in this way? I mean, he
:05:38. > :05:41.had already said, or rather he had sent out people representing him to
:05:42. > :05:46.say he was in listening mode. Wouldn't it have been better to hear
:05:47. > :05:51.what he had to say? That was quite late on. I voted against this back
:05:52. > :05:55.in September and the difficulty was we had a statutory instrument. It is
:05:56. > :06:00.very technical again, but it is put to the House of Commons in take it
:06:01. > :06:03.or leave it form. If you really want to reform it, there is a
:06:04. > :06:07.Parliamentary procedure, an act of Parliament and you go through
:06:08. > :06:11.reform. You don't say, here it is and I will think about it after the
:06:12. > :06:17.event. It is too difficult important and complex. That was a mistake, a
:06:18. > :06:19.tactical and strategic error, if you are just looking at it from up a
:06:20. > :06:25.little Parliamentary terms from George Osborne's perspective, to
:06:26. > :06:29.give the House of Lords room to say this is not a piece of legislation
:06:30. > :06:33.that we are forced to vote on because it is a money matter, we can
:06:34. > :06:37.take it as a welfare matter. It wasn't announced in the manifesto,
:06:38. > :06:42.we can vote against it in all good conscience. The Conservatives did
:06:43. > :06:46.say in the manifesto that they would find ?12 billion of savings from the
:06:47. > :06:50.working age welfare bill, so I don't think you can say it wasn't flagged
:06:51. > :06:56.at all. This is what the Lords will say. It was clearly right to get
:06:57. > :07:00.this change through as quickly as possible because George Osborne need
:07:01. > :07:04.to reduce the welfare bill if he is to meet his deficit target of
:07:05. > :07:08.bringing the books into balance in this Parliament. It may have been,
:07:09. > :07:11.in retrospect, quicker to include it in a Finance Bill but I think that
:07:12. > :07:15.is because he didn't anticipate that the House of Lords would behave so
:07:16. > :07:22.outrageously. And this judgment on his part? -- a misjudgement. And
:07:23. > :07:26.this judgment perhaps, but he probably didn't think they House of
:07:27. > :07:29.Lords would try and supplant the Labour Party as Her Majesty's
:07:30. > :07:34.opposition, which it effectively had to do because the Labour Party has
:07:35. > :07:38.abdicated from that role. Toby, one issue here, this is not coming into
:07:39. > :07:46.effect until April, there was plenty of time to take it through. You
:07:47. > :07:55.probably would have tried to have an end a Finance Bill. That is my job.
:07:56. > :07:58.Frank Field motion on Thursday only asks the Government to reconsider
:07:59. > :08:02.the impact, and that is what they have agreed to do in the Autumn
:08:03. > :08:08.Statement, so why ask them to do something they have agreed to do?
:08:09. > :08:12.They have not said anything specific. Stage it, is what I am
:08:13. > :08:16.asking. You will find a number of Tory MPs standing up in that debate
:08:17. > :08:20.talking about the sort of thing they want to see, it should be productive
:08:21. > :08:23.for a Government. It seems needlessly rebellious given that the
:08:24. > :08:26.Chancellor has conceded and will reconsider the impact of the changes
:08:27. > :08:33.on the low paid in the Autumn Statement. This is the House of
:08:34. > :08:36.Commons, it is our job to represent our constituents. Some of them will
:08:37. > :08:40.lose quite a lot of money out of this, people who can't afford to, so
:08:41. > :08:44.it is not just, yes, we will do something, it is what you are going
:08:45. > :08:48.to do, what the detail is, what the grand strategy is. You will hear on
:08:49. > :08:53.Thursday Tories and Labour, I suspect, all parties, we want to see
:08:54. > :08:56.the deficit dealt with in this Parliament and there are ways to do
:08:57. > :09:02.this which don't have that effect and that is the proper way to do it.
:09:03. > :09:07.Toby, let me put a question to you, because in the end, George Osborne
:09:08. > :09:10.and it seems you are blaming the Lords, calling it a constitutional
:09:11. > :09:14.outrage, but actually, this is what a lot of Tory MPs felt, they had
:09:15. > :09:19.stood up and made it very clear that they had a real problem with this
:09:20. > :09:22.tax credit cuts because of the impact on their constituents. We
:09:23. > :09:25.heard from David Willetts, even the Sun newspaper was criticising the
:09:26. > :09:32.Government, so in the end, the Lords did the deed but it was some people
:09:33. > :09:38.feel what a lot of people felt. If Conservative MPs felt they could not
:09:39. > :09:43.support this particular statue statutory instrument, they had three
:09:44. > :09:46.opportunities to vote against it, which is why it is outrageous that
:09:47. > :09:53.the unelected chamber has rejected it. All bills are voted on three
:09:54. > :09:56.times before they get to the House of Lords, it is another bogus
:09:57. > :09:59.argument. The House of Lords spoke for the country yesterday and 60% of
:10:00. > :10:03.people in Britain think George Osborne has got this wrong and we
:10:04. > :10:07.should not be penalising hard-working people for working
:10:08. > :10:10.hard, not balancing the books on their backs, which is why the House
:10:11. > :10:16.of Lords was dead right to reject this and the constitutional crisis
:10:17. > :10:20.is a total smoke screen. The House of Lords didn't straightforwardly
:10:21. > :10:23.rejected, they just said let's see if they plan to ameliorate it impact
:10:24. > :10:28.the first three years of its light, make the reforms to the tax credit
:10:29. > :10:32.system but don't let them kicking for three years, effectively nearer
:10:33. > :10:35.the election and have a greater penalty on the Conservatives. Would
:10:36. > :10:40.George Osborne be wrong to lessen the impact and should he stick to
:10:41. > :10:45.his guns? I think if he can find the way of meeting his deficit reduction
:10:46. > :10:49.target, finding those savings in the welfare budget that his party said
:10:50. > :10:52.they would find... And ameliorate the impact on those hardest hit, of
:10:53. > :10:59.course, but it is easier said than done. Do you think politically he
:11:00. > :11:03.should just stay firm, which is what some people are advising? It depends
:11:04. > :11:07.what you mean by state firm. He has already said he is going to look at
:11:08. > :11:10.way of ameliorating the impact on the hardest hit in the Autumn
:11:11. > :11:13.Statement and I don't suppose they will introduce another statutory
:11:14. > :11:17.instrument or include these measures in the Finance Bill until after the
:11:18. > :11:21.Autumn Statement. Which is the spot academics smart way to do it but the
:11:22. > :11:24.true that the moment is we don't know -- the smart way to do. The
:11:25. > :11:28.Treasury have never publish the interim figures and I have asked
:11:29. > :11:31.them several times. If we have those numbers, we can make a proper
:11:32. > :11:35.judgment and at the moment, we can't. There is one thing from a
:11:36. > :11:41.timing point of view and I will come to you in a moment, want ministers
:11:42. > :11:46.to delay the tax credit cuts or put in some sort of transitional stage.
:11:47. > :11:50.Over three years or in three years' time, that will be a year until the
:11:51. > :11:55.next General Election which will be then when the next cuts coming, it
:11:56. > :11:59.will be very difficult your party... I don't read the motion that way, I
:12:00. > :12:03.read it as changing year by year. In other words, each time the national
:12:04. > :12:07.minimum wage or the living wage goes up, you cut back on tax credits a
:12:08. > :12:11.bit more. That is why it is complex, but it is year by year, you can have
:12:12. > :12:16.a changing every year, that is one of the difficulties, but that
:12:17. > :12:19.doesn't put it all in for the General Election. John McDonnell
:12:20. > :12:23.said Labour would not make political capital out of this if George
:12:24. > :12:27.Osborne changed his mind. So we are not going to hear any criticism or
:12:28. > :12:31.mocking from the Labour Party since George Osborne has said he is going
:12:32. > :12:34.to do something about it? All you are going to hear from me is
:12:35. > :12:37.delighted that George Osborne has effectively admitted that he does
:12:38. > :12:42.need to revisit these plans, that it is going to hit the hard-working
:12:43. > :12:45.people of this country much harder than people had appreciated, that
:12:46. > :12:49.George Osborne and David Cameron lied to the British public when they
:12:50. > :12:52.said they weren't going to do this before the last election. That is
:12:53. > :12:56.why the House of Lords felt so strongly that they were able to make
:12:57. > :12:59.this statement. Is that making political capital out of it in the
:13:00. > :13:03.way the John McDonnell said he wouldn't? I am stating the truth.
:13:04. > :13:06.When a Prime Minister says on network television that he wasn't
:13:07. > :13:14.going to do something and then does it the other side... You are shaking
:13:15. > :13:21.your head. He was talking about child benefit. No, child tax
:13:22. > :13:28.credits. Did he lie? Do not talk over each other. David Davis, did he
:13:29. > :13:31.live? I don't think so, one of the problems was the Government started
:13:32. > :13:35.eliminating too many things and left a very small number of things to
:13:36. > :13:46.cut, that is where we ended up, but... Like pensions? I would prefer
:13:47. > :13:50.him to cut are things like free travel for pensioners. A lot of
:13:51. > :13:54.pensioners these days are quite well. We will have this conversation
:13:55. > :13:56.another time. Now the Mayor of London Boris
:13:57. > :13:57.Johnson not with George Osborne, his rival
:13:58. > :14:02.for the Conservative leadership - And he resisted the opportunity to
:14:03. > :14:06.have a sly dig at the Chancellor when he was asked about
:14:07. > :14:09.the tax credits defeat. I think George Osborne is absolutely
:14:10. > :14:12.right to want to reform a system that basically subsidises
:14:13. > :14:14.huge corporations, to the tune of billions
:14:15. > :14:21.of pounds of taxpayers' money. He is right to want
:14:22. > :14:28.to reform a system because what happens is they get
:14:29. > :14:31.their tax credits withdrawn as soon as they earn just a little
:14:32. > :14:34.bit more, and I think it is wrong of the House
:14:35. > :14:40.of Lords to get in the way of the sovereign expression
:14:41. > :14:50.of the will of Parliament. We're joined now by the
:14:51. > :14:55.Conservative MP Oliver Dowden, who, before the election, was one
:14:56. > :15:03.of David Cameron's closest advisors Welcome back. You may have heard
:15:04. > :15:06.David Davis talking about what he thinks the Chancellor should do,
:15:07. > :15:09.what do you think he is going to do to mitigate the impact of these
:15:10. > :15:13.cuts? I think the Chancellor has been very clear that first of all we
:15:14. > :15:16.need to stick with this overall direction of tax credit reform. We
:15:17. > :15:21.have to continue to reduce the deficit, both of which we promised
:15:22. > :15:24.during the election campaign. We promised to cut ?12 billion worth
:15:25. > :15:26.from welfare and get into a surplus but he has accepted there is a need
:15:27. > :15:36.appropriate time to do that is but he has accepted there is a need
:15:37. > :15:37.the Autumn Statement. You said he has been listening but he only acted
:15:38. > :15:47.after the defeat last night. It is interesting, this discussion.
:15:48. > :15:50.The measure was approved three times by the House of Commons than we had
:15:51. > :15:53.the extraordinary spectre of the Liberal Democrats, remember
:15:54. > :15:54.the extraordinary spectre of the fought against them in the election
:15:55. > :15:58.campaign, won the argument on welfare, they were reduced to eight
:15:59. > :16:01.MPs then welfare, they were reduced to eight
:16:02. > :16:03.legitimacy to use their welfare, they were reduced to eight
:16:04. > :16:04.the House of Commons to welfare, they were reduced to eight
:16:05. > :16:06.something introduced by a majority welfare, they were reduced to eight
:16:07. > :16:10.Government which was promised and clearly signalled
:16:11. > :16:11.Government which was promised and campaign. Are you
:16:12. > :16:12.Government which was promised and MPs were completely happy with the
:16:13. > :16:17.tax credit proposals MPs were completely happy with the
:16:18. > :16:20.opposition from people, from David MPs were completely happy with the
:16:21. > :16:22.Davis to David Willets, two backbench MPs and the Sun newspaper,
:16:23. > :16:26.that there backbench MPs and the Sun newspaper,
:16:27. > :16:29.your own site? Of course there was reservation to
:16:30. > :16:33.your own site? Of course there was properly debated in the House of
:16:34. > :16:43.Commons. We debated and opposition Day motion, the points were
:16:44. > :16:45.considered, but the considered view of the elected representatives,
:16:46. > :16:47.people who were elected by the electorate to go and represent them
:16:48. > :16:53.on matters of tax and spending, decided by a majority to endorse it
:16:54. > :16:55.and then unelected peers representing two parties, brand to
:16:56. > :16:59.be defeated in the last election chose to overturn it, and it is
:17:00. > :17:04.he giving you? The Chancellor has he giving you? The Chancellor has
:17:05. > :17:09.said all along he will listen, but he will not give in... Rightly or
:17:10. > :17:13.wrongly he has been forced to give in, he has pretty much accepted
:17:14. > :17:17.that. You will have to wait and see what he says in the Autumn
:17:18. > :17:21.Statement. He has been clear that we have a problem here, and the problem
:17:22. > :17:25.is that people on low pay have been paying tax on the minimum wage,
:17:26. > :17:29.having it recycled through the welfare system and then used to
:17:30. > :17:33.top-up their wages. So why doesn't he stick to his guns and take on the
:17:34. > :17:45.House of Lords? I think you will find he is sticking to his guns, to
:17:46. > :17:47.the principle that we have to reform tax credits. We cannot have this
:17:48. > :17:50.crazy situation where spending has gone from ?6 billion to ?30 billion.
:17:51. > :17:53.We need to deal with it and I think you will find he will deal with it.
:17:54. > :17:56.He said he would not budge and David Cameron said, we think the changes
:17:57. > :18:01.we have put forward are right, higher pay and lower taxes, but we
:18:02. > :18:05.-- but he has accepted they have to do something so he is, to some
:18:06. > :18:08.extent, not on the broad principle, going to have to give in and fold in
:18:09. > :18:15.what he wanted to do because of the defeats. Again, you made the point,
:18:16. > :18:19.which is that on tax credits we have a clear programme for reform. There
:18:20. > :18:23.are questions about the transition which the Chancellor has said he
:18:24. > :18:27.will address but on the fundamental principle, we promised to fight ?12
:18:28. > :18:30.billion of savings from welfare, ?4 billion from tax credits, we have
:18:31. > :18:36.defined it from there because if we do not it will be cuts to spending
:18:37. > :18:40.on health, maybe high taxes or Labour's position, which seems to be
:18:41. > :18:44.carrying on borrowing forever. I don't think you will find the
:18:45. > :18:48.Chancellor would embrace that. It was as a result of pressure put on
:18:49. > :18:53.him, it seems he made a mistake in the light of what has happened. It
:18:54. > :18:57.is a bruising defeat for the Chancellor personally, isn't it? As
:18:58. > :19:00.I said, it is a defeat from the unelected house, the House of
:19:01. > :19:04.Commons, the elected representatives, have endorsed him
:19:05. > :19:08.on three occasions. This is a major problem that the unelected house is
:19:09. > :19:12.designed to overturn us on a measure of tax and spend, going back to
:19:13. > :19:21.principles of no taxation without representation. That is why the
:19:22. > :19:23.problem comes from. If those unelected Labour and Liberal
:19:24. > :19:26.Democrat peers had not voted against the Government, this would be law
:19:27. > :19:29.now. But it is a bruising defeat all the same. He had a programme, he was
:19:30. > :19:32.confident about it, he said he would not change, the Treasury were public
:19:33. > :19:36.consistently in saying they would push ahead with this despite
:19:37. > :19:40.resistance before last night from within the party, and he is having
:19:41. > :19:46.to change tack. At a personal level, you know him, this is difficult for
:19:47. > :19:50.him? Nobody wants to lose a vote in parliament, and that is what has
:19:51. > :19:55.happened. As I said, it is a vote in the Lords, but I think you will find
:19:56. > :19:59.the Chancellor remains absolutely committed to what we promised in our
:20:00. > :20:04.election manifesto, which is to move from a low wage, high tax, high
:20:05. > :20:08.welfare economy to a high wage, lower tax and lower welfare economy,
:20:09. > :20:12.and the Chancellor will absolutely stick to that, and I would imagine
:20:13. > :20:20.he is more determined than ever, seeing the way in which unelected
:20:21. > :20:23.members of the House of Lords... Was he always intending to make changes
:20:24. > :20:26.in the Autumn Statement? The Chancellor has said all along he
:20:27. > :20:29.will listen to people and the appropriate moment to take on board
:20:30. > :20:33.those concerns is the Autumn Statement. So he always had it in
:20:34. > :20:37.mind that he would perhaps spend some money somewhere, ease the
:20:38. > :20:42.transition to these tax credit cuts in the Autumn Statement? He, in your
:20:43. > :20:46.mind, had already decided he would do that? Members of parliament
:20:47. > :20:49.raised somebody to make concerned about transition measures. The
:20:50. > :20:57.Chancellor said all along he would listen to those concerns, and I
:20:58. > :21:00.think he will bring forward measures to deal with that. Right, do you
:21:01. > :21:03.think, then, that he should have come out himself to say that more
:21:04. > :21:06.clearly? He sent out his emissary is, if you like, at the weekend, we
:21:07. > :21:09.heard from Nicky Morgan talking about this, would it have been
:21:10. > :21:14.better if George Osborne himself had stood up and said, I am going to do
:21:15. > :21:21.something? You saw him speaking in the house today... Know, before. The
:21:22. > :21:24.House of Lords seemed pretty determined to abuse their powers to
:21:25. > :21:28.frustrate the Government willy-nilly. There would not have
:21:29. > :21:31.been any different if George had come out. We will never know, of
:21:32. > :21:35.course, but do you think it would have been better for Tory MPs to
:21:36. > :21:39.have heard George Osborne stand up and say, I will deal with this in
:21:40. > :21:45.the Autumn Statement? I think we will see on Thursday, won't we? We
:21:46. > :21:49.will see what happens with Frank Field's motion on Thursday. I think
:21:50. > :21:55.it is unlikely. On that listening point, I remember being at the 1922
:21:56. > :21:58.committee where he stood in front of Conservative MPs last week and said
:21:59. > :22:01.he was listening so it is not true to say he has not signalled he will
:22:02. > :22:07.listen. Although that was not public, it was a private meeting.
:22:08. > :22:11.What do you think this does to his leadership ambition? David Cameron,
:22:12. > :22:15.I'm glad to say, has said he will remain Prime Minister until the
:22:16. > :22:20.end... We all know what he has spoken about. Does it damage it for
:22:21. > :22:23.him? What people will see is a Chancellor that is determined to
:22:24. > :22:28.deliver on promises to reform welfare, and if we don't give it
:22:29. > :22:31.now, we have rapid growth in wages, falling unemployment, and national
:22:32. > :22:36.live in wage, future generations will not thank us for not grasping
:22:37. > :22:39.the nettle of welfare reform. The Chancellor will grasp that metal and
:22:40. > :22:44.people will thank him for it. The elections for the new leader of the
:22:45. > :22:49.Conservative party are a very long way off. That is true. Thank you.
:22:50. > :22:53.The question for today is, which celebrity peer was flown in
:22:54. > :23:01.from New York to vote in last night's debate?
:23:02. > :23:05.Was it Alan sugar, Julian Fellowes, Fluellen Benjamin or Andrew Lloyd
:23:06. > :23:06.Webber? At the end of the show, Toby will
:23:07. > :23:10.give us the correct answer. Now, the Government has said that
:23:11. > :23:12.there are clear constitutional issues that they say will
:23:13. > :23:15."need to be dealt with" after the series of votes in the Lords last
:23:16. > :23:19.night which included two defeats. The first vote last night was on the
:23:20. > :23:24.Lib Dems' fatal motion rejecting the This was won comfortably by the
:23:25. > :23:30.Government - just 99 voted in favour Next was an amendment proposed
:23:31. > :23:41.by a crossbench peer, Baroness Meacher, to delay the cuts and send
:23:42. > :23:44.the proposals back to the Commons On this, the Government suffered
:23:45. > :23:49.its first defeat with the motion Finally,
:23:50. > :23:56.peers voted on Labour's amendment to stop the cuts until the Government
:23:57. > :23:59.designs a compensation scheme for This motion was also passed -
:24:00. > :24:06.the Government losing narrowly with 289 votes for the motion
:24:07. > :24:13.and 272 against. The Conservatives are well short
:24:14. > :24:16.of a majority in the House of Lords with just 249 peers out
:24:17. > :24:19.of a total of 816. The Lords have been increasingly
:24:20. > :24:23.rebellious in recent years - the coalition Government suffered
:24:24. > :24:26.almost 100 defeats in the Lords And the new Conservative Government
:24:27. > :24:34.has already been defeated 19 times in the Lords in the five months
:24:35. > :24:40.since the general election. But this is the first time
:24:41. > :24:43.in 100 years that the second Chamber has voted down a financial package
:24:44. > :24:46.backed by the Commons. Here's a taste of yesterday's debate
:24:47. > :24:52.in the House of Lords. I have been to see the Chancellor
:24:53. > :24:56.this morning at Number 11. And I can confirm that he would
:24:57. > :25:00.listen very carefully were the House ..in the way that it is precedented
:25:01. > :25:14.for us to do so. My motion clearly leaves the matter
:25:15. > :25:17.in the hands of the elected House. The justification for
:25:18. > :25:24.a delay is that the House of Commons will have a full-day debate on
:25:25. > :25:27.these issues, as I said, on I understand that dozens
:25:28. > :25:29.of Conservative backbenchers are urging the Chancellor to adjust
:25:30. > :25:32.the tax credit reforms to protect Yes, there have been three votes
:25:33. > :25:35.on tax credits in the House of Commons won by the Government, but
:25:36. > :25:46.Conservative MPs, not me, say they did not have the information they
:25:47. > :25:49.needed when they voted for the I hear that many
:25:50. > :25:52.of them are now livid about this. The fact is there was a vote in
:25:53. > :25:57.the other place last week, there was a clear majority and not a single
:25:58. > :26:01.Conservative member voted in the The point is this was
:26:02. > :26:09.a budgetary matter and budgetary matters are the prerogative of the
:26:10. > :26:12.elected House, and that is a most This was designed to reduce
:26:13. > :26:15.the budget deficit, which everybody agrees has to be
:26:16. > :26:18.eliminated on all sides All those arguments pale
:26:19. > :26:28.into insignificance when compared to the greater argument, the argument
:26:29. > :26:32.that the general public, millions of people outside of this
:26:33. > :26:37.House are considering today. That being statements given
:26:38. > :26:40.during the course of the And, in particular, Mr Cameron,
:26:41. > :26:55.who deliberately misled the British public, and the British public would
:26:56. > :27:01.regard what he said now as a lie. It's not a constitutional crisis,
:27:02. > :27:06.that is a fig leaf possibly disguising tensions in the Commons
:27:07. > :27:08.between members of the Government. My Lords, we can be supportive of
:27:09. > :27:13.the Government and give them what they did not ask for, financial
:27:14. > :27:17.privilege, or we can be supportive instead of those three million
:27:18. > :27:23.families facing letters at Christmas telling them on average they will
:27:24. > :27:33.lose up to around ?1,300 a year. I say to the Government that these
:27:34. > :27:39.proposals are morally indefensible. OTHER MEMBERS:
:27:40. > :27:40.Hear, hear. It is clear to me
:27:41. > :27:46.and I believe to very many others that these proposals blatantly
:27:47. > :27:48.threaten damage to the lives A flavour of last night's debate
:27:49. > :27:59.in the Lords Vernon Bognador, is talk of a
:28:00. > :28:13.Paul Tyler Vernon Bognador, is talk of a
:28:14. > :28:20.constitutional crisis over Vernon Bognador, is talk of a
:28:21. > :28:20.problems, firstly with the Lords rejecting a financial
:28:21. > :28:22.problems, firstly with the Lords which, as you said a few moments
:28:23. > :28:26.ago, which, as you said a few moments
:28:27. > :28:30.years. But secondly the question over whether the fact Labour and
:28:31. > :28:35.Liberal Democrat peers outnumber the Conservatives enabled the Lords to
:28:36. > :28:38.become no longer a revising chamber but an opposition chamber, which is
:28:39. > :28:42.not appropriate for an unelected house. It is not appropriate, you
:28:43. > :28:48.have changed what the basic role of the House of Lords is? The chance
:28:49. > :28:52.bungled this. If he wanted to keep it as a financial measure he could
:28:53. > :28:53.have, as David Davis said a few minutes ago here, he could have
:28:54. > :28:57.amended the Finance Bill, which minutes ago here, he could have
:28:58. > :29:02.would have remained firmly in the Commons, or introduce a tax credit
:29:03. > :29:06.Amendment Bill, and it was made clear during our debate yesterday.
:29:07. > :29:09.What he did was try to get a short cut to put it into secondary
:29:10. > :29:14.legislation, which we had every right in the House of Lords,
:29:15. > :29:17.repeated endlessly, it does not matter what the subject matter is,
:29:18. > :29:25.we have every right to vote down and SI. How do you argue with that? It
:29:26. > :29:28.is not unlawful for the Lords to reject regulations but they do it
:29:29. > :29:32.rarely because the Parliament act, which restrict the powers of the
:29:33. > :29:37.Lords, does not apply to regulations. When it was passed in
:29:38. > :29:41.1911 there was very little secondary regulation. Precisely because the
:29:42. > :29:45.Lords have this supreme power in regulations, they ought to use it as
:29:46. > :29:50.an unelected chamber very, very rarely. It is a kind of nuclear
:29:51. > :29:54.option and in fact, until recently, the 1960s, the Lord never rejected a
:29:55. > :30:06.regulation, and since then very, very sparingly, and it makes it even
:30:07. > :30:08.more serious when it is a financial matter on which the privilege of the
:30:09. > :30:11.Commons is absolute. In terms of reviewing the Lords, this rapid
:30:12. > :30:14.review that is being used by the Government, what are the options
:30:15. > :30:17.available? There is talk of swamping the Lords of Conservative peers but
:30:18. > :30:21.I think that would be foolish, especially when the Government is
:30:22. > :30:24.thinking about reducing the size of the House of Commons. It would be
:30:25. > :30:29.odd to reduce the elected chamber and increased the unelected
:30:30. > :30:34.chamber! The right thing would be to put the convention into statutory
:30:35. > :30:37.law so things were precluded -- so the Lords were precluded by law from
:30:38. > :30:41.doing what they did last night. Do you support that and agree it would
:30:42. > :30:46.not be a good look to swamp the House of Lords with 100, 150 Tory
:30:47. > :30:50.peers to end the fact they do not have a majority?
:30:51. > :30:57.It is the nuclear option. The difficulty the Government faces is
:30:58. > :31:03.if it decides in to pass primary legislation to limit the Lords'
:31:04. > :31:06.ability to delay legislation, to include statutory instruments, then
:31:07. > :31:10.the Lords could then vote against that, they could use the Labour and
:31:11. > :31:13.Lib Dem majority to vote against it and the Government would have to
:31:14. > :31:16.invoke the Parliament act and the whole thing could take two years and
:31:17. > :31:21.in the meantime, the Government's legislative programme for which it
:31:22. > :31:24.has won a clear mandate, would be frustrated by the unelected chamber.
:31:25. > :31:30.So do you think drastic action should be taken? I think it remains
:31:31. > :31:33.to be seen. The Lords, it is not just what they did yesterday, last
:31:34. > :31:37.week they breached the Salisbury Convention as well when they
:31:38. > :31:43.rejected the proposal to end subsidies for onshore wind farms
:31:44. > :31:46.which, again, was unprecedented. That is nonsense. The Salisbury
:31:47. > :31:50.Convention was killed off in 2006. The joint committee said it was
:31:51. > :31:54.obsolete and boathouses agreed. We keep hearing about the unelected
:31:55. > :31:57.Lords. The coalition Government brought forward a Bill to deal with
:31:58. > :32:05.this issue and as killing bag of loot Ken Clarke has said, the
:32:06. > :32:08.obvious thing to do is, we have heard this, unelected chamber,
:32:09. > :32:13.unelected chamber, Ken Clarke says the 2012 Bill, which has a large
:32:14. > :32:18.majority in the House of Commons but was stymied by a combination of
:32:19. > :32:20.Labour and Tory rebels... So are you effectively admitting you are taking
:32:21. > :32:24.advantage of the situation to advance a Lib Dem proposal that was
:32:25. > :32:28.rejected in the last parliament? It wasn't the Lib Dem proposal, it was
:32:29. > :32:31.the coalition Government, supported by the Prime Minister and the
:32:32. > :32:36.Chancellor. At the insistence of Nick Clegg. Not at all, it was in
:32:37. > :32:39.the Conservative manifesto. We ought to be having a review of the
:32:40. > :32:43.relationship between the two houses. This particular issue, as I
:32:44. > :32:48.have just explained, is because entirely the Chancellor is trying to
:32:49. > :32:52.take a short cut. OK. But we should use the opportunity to think better
:32:53. > :32:55.about the relationship. Until the House of Lords becomes an elected
:32:56. > :33:01.chamber, if that is what you want, how can you justify something that
:33:02. > :33:04.was clearly in the manifesto, something like abolishing the
:33:05. > :33:09.onshore wind farms. That is not the issue, the issue was
:33:10. > :33:11.is it important that the House of Lords as the House of Commons to
:33:12. > :33:15.think again, which is critical to the Constitution. The whole idea of
:33:16. > :33:20.having two Houses of Parliament is they should be a second look on
:33:21. > :33:23.issues of this sort. Is it an issue that Tory majority governments are
:33:24. > :33:27.not necessarily used to having a case where they are not the majority
:33:28. > :33:30.in the House of Lords? I understand that during Tony Blair's time, there
:33:31. > :33:34.were quite a lot of the beats and there certainly have been fatal
:33:35. > :33:40.motions in the past to kill of legislation is -- quite a lot of
:33:41. > :33:43.defeats, but this is the real politic of having two houses on the
:33:44. > :33:48.right to flex their muscles. Let's have a look... Let's forget about
:33:49. > :33:57.what it is for, that is how it works. The Conservatives were very
:33:58. > :34:01.careful not to abuse it when there was a Labour Government in order to
:34:02. > :34:07.not undermine the validity of the House of Lords but Labour and Lib
:34:08. > :34:10.Dems have not been like that. Because we have independent members
:34:11. > :34:13.of the House of Lords who are not members of any party, one of the
:34:14. > :34:18.successful amendments was a move by a crossbencher, Lady Meacher. But
:34:19. > :34:23.your leader Tim Barron has described the Lords as wholly undemocratic you
:34:24. > :34:28.are not democratically accountable, as you have said yourself, you want
:34:29. > :34:32.an elected chamber, but you are frustrating the will of an elected
:34:33. > :34:36.Government. That in itself appears hypocritical at the very least. It
:34:37. > :34:41.is the fact is political life, that is our job, what is the point of
:34:42. > :34:43.having a second house? With these particular responsibilities, we are
:34:44. > :34:47.supposed to be there to look at these issues were now put before us.
:34:48. > :34:54.In the Chancellor did not want that, he had other routes he could
:34:55. > :34:56.take and he bungled it. Are you overstepping the mark and
:34:57. > :34:59.overreaching yourselves and in the end, you will bring about a head-on
:35:00. > :35:02.collision with the Commons? It will be extremely important that Mr
:35:03. > :35:06.Cameron, who has kept his counsel on what would be the effective way to
:35:07. > :35:09.deal with this issue, how he will come forward with proposals for the
:35:10. > :35:14.long-term reform at the House of Lords. Any tinkering would be absurd
:35:15. > :35:17.at this stage, we have to do what they themselves committed themselves
:35:18. > :35:23.to into elections, and that was wholesale reform of the House of
:35:24. > :35:26.Lords. Do you agree with that? I think Paul Tyler is right that this
:35:27. > :35:29.raises the whole issue between the House of Commons and the Lords and
:35:30. > :35:33.whether we should have an elected House of Lords. An elected House of
:35:34. > :35:36.Lords would have powers that the unelected House of Lords doesn't
:35:37. > :35:40.have but that would not solve the constitutional problems and could
:35:41. > :35:44.worsen them. In Australia, you had a huge constitutional crisis between
:35:45. > :35:48.the elected Senate and the elected lower house in 1975 because the
:35:49. > :35:52.elected Senate refused to give the Government funds, and it ended very
:35:53. > :35:56.controversially when the Governor general sacked the Prime Minister.
:35:57. > :36:00.The question is, do we want these kinds of conflicts here and on what
:36:01. > :36:03.basis would the upper house be elected? Liberal Democrats say it
:36:04. > :36:07.would be on a federal basis but Britain isn't really a federal
:36:08. > :36:11.state. We have parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
:36:12. > :36:14.but not in England. Do you think the Government has the appetite for
:36:15. > :36:19.that, again, the sort of programme of reform to the Lords? I think the
:36:20. > :36:25.likeliest way in which they will deal with these troublesome Lords is
:36:26. > :36:29.to introduce a bill in which they limit the powers of the Lords even
:36:30. > :36:34.further and of the Lords reject that... You can understand why
:36:35. > :36:36.because it wasn't just yesterday, there have been other examples and
:36:37. > :36:42.you are putting forward another fatal motion this evening which
:36:43. > :36:45.kills off the legislation. We asked -- we are asked specifically by
:36:46. > :36:50.Parliament specifically to do so. It is different to last night, it is
:36:51. > :36:55.our job to do this by law, in statute. Is that true because this
:36:56. > :36:59.is to do with individual electoral registration and there is a fatal
:37:00. > :37:05.motion on cuts to asylum seeker benefits. Is it the right of the
:37:06. > :37:08.unelected house to do this? The Lords can survive only if it
:37:09. > :37:12.exercises a sense of self restraint. It can ask the Government to think
:37:13. > :37:15.again, that is absolutely right. But if they determined Government wants
:37:16. > :37:20.to proceed, the Lords has to give way, it shouldn't go beyond that.
:37:21. > :37:23.There is a great danger I believe now that the Labour and Liberal
:37:24. > :37:26.Democrat peer are using it as a chamber of opposition, having lost
:37:27. > :37:35.the election, trying to frustrate Government policy through the upper
:37:36. > :37:39.house. What do you say to that? That is what it will look like, eight
:37:40. > :37:41.MPs, no standing in the House of Commons in terms of exerting
:37:42. > :37:45.opposition, this is where you can do it? The practical politics is it is
:37:46. > :37:49.our job. Are you doing it with such relish because you can? No, I was
:37:50. > :37:52.involved with the House of Lords before this Government and we have
:37:53. > :37:55.had to do this job regularly, but with a coalition Government and
:37:56. > :38:00.previously. I think you can look forward to more of those. You are
:38:01. > :38:02.saying you have just asked the Government to think again and if it
:38:03. > :38:06.does and comes back with more of the proposal to reform it, will you
:38:07. > :38:12.accept it? I don't think it will come to it, because it will be dealt
:38:13. > :38:16.with with some amendment to some specific bill. Coming back to the
:38:17. > :38:20.finance aspect, the Treasury were briefing last week that the House of
:38:21. > :38:23.Lords should be suspended. Frankly, the last person who tried to stop
:38:24. > :38:28.the House of parliament doing its job was King Charles I. I think a
:38:29. > :38:32.little respect for history would show it wasn't a clever thing to do,
:38:33. > :38:35.he lost his head. That wasn't reasoned, of course, but thank you
:38:36. > :38:37.very much for that slightly ominous N.
:38:38. > :38:40.Jeremy Corbyn has struck a deal with the Scottish Labour
:38:41. > :38:42.leader, Kezia Dugdale, allowing the party in Scotland more autonomy.
:38:43. > :38:44.It's a controversial plan to turn around
:38:45. > :38:47.the party's fortunes in Scotland after they lost all but one of their
:38:48. > :38:51.Kezia Dugdale addressed Labour MPs at their weekly meeting
:38:52. > :38:53.in the Commons last night, and our Scotland political correspondent
:38:54. > :39:04.What did they say? Well, she certainly got polite applause at the
:39:05. > :39:08.beginning and the end of the address. There were some questions
:39:09. > :39:12.during get from MPs that were concerned that autonomy of the
:39:13. > :39:15.Scottish Labour Party may mean that the United Labour Party, the
:39:16. > :39:20.Unionist Labour Party, comes to an end. She says that is not the case
:39:21. > :39:26.and this is about devolution and not a division of the UK party. There
:39:27. > :39:30.were also questions from some MPs about the policy diversions that
:39:31. > :39:35.this may mean in future, for instance on issues like defence, the
:39:36. > :39:39.nuclear deterrent, for one, and taxation, which is another issue
:39:40. > :39:42.which may it, in the end, mean that Scotland and the rest of the UK
:39:43. > :39:48.Labour Party have different policy positions. Now, the MPs that emerged
:39:49. > :39:51.from the meeting did not seem entirely convinced that they had
:39:52. > :39:56.heard everything that they needed to about this, but Kezia Dugdale's
:39:57. > :40:00.pitch to them was that if Labour's fortunes are to be turned around in
:40:01. > :40:03.Scotland in time for next May's Scottish elections, she needs more
:40:04. > :40:08.autonomy for the party and she needs to be able to set policy positions
:40:09. > :40:12.to decide on candidates and not be a branch office of London, which, of
:40:13. > :40:16.course, one of her predecessors accused the party of being. If the
:40:17. > :40:19.changes are to go ahead, how would it
:40:20. > :40:25.changes are to go ahead, how would terms of setting up, if you
:40:26. > :40:25.changes are to go ahead, how would rest of the UK's
:40:26. > :40:28.changes are to go ahead, how would Dugdale, I think, will argue it is
:40:29. > :40:32.not a Dugdale, I think, will argue it is
:40:33. > :40:37.a devolution of the party, it wouldn't be completely independent,
:40:38. > :40:41.she says, but it would have control over its affairs over policy
:40:42. > :40:47.positions, that it would be able to depart actively to decide at Party
:40:48. > :40:53.Conference, positions that may be different to a UK party. She says we
:40:54. > :40:57.will have to go to the NEC, the Scottish executive, and a special
:40:58. > :41:00.conference before it is approved, but she signed the deal with Jeremy
:41:01. > :41:04.Corbyn, a statement of intent and they say that is the road down which
:41:05. > :41:06.they think they want to go, despite the concerns of some in the party.
:41:07. > :41:07.Tim, thank you. And the Scottish Labour Leader,
:41:08. > :41:16.Kezia Dugdale, Kezia Dugdale, just listening to
:41:17. > :41:21.that, you want more autonomy for the Labour Party in Scotland. Has that
:41:22. > :41:27.been prompted by the Labour Party swapping one North London leader for
:41:28. > :41:30.another? No, I would say it has been caused by the fact that we lost all
:41:31. > :41:35.but one of our seeds in the General Election and it is my job as new
:41:36. > :41:38.leader here in Scotland with a huge mandate to turn around the fortunes
:41:39. > :41:42.of my party to listen to that very strong message the people of
:41:43. > :41:45.Scotland sent us. There is a perception, fair or otherwise, that
:41:46. > :41:50.were too long the Scottish Labour Party was run for London by
:41:51. > :41:54.Westminster and it simply has to change. That is why I have made the
:41:55. > :41:58.case of a more autonomous Scottish Labour Party, said decisions around
:41:59. > :42:01.policy, directions we take, are made here in Scotland by me and my team
:42:02. > :42:06.and I think that is what voters in Scotland would act rapidly to
:42:07. > :42:10.expect. I had taken it to the Labour Parliamentary party to say this is
:42:11. > :42:14.not an Independent Labour Party, I didn't spend two and a half years to
:42:15. > :42:17.campaign for a no vote in independence referendum for a
:42:18. > :42:20.separate party, this is about devolution, the Labour Party
:42:21. > :42:23.devolving power within its own structures and I think it is high
:42:24. > :42:27.time we took up that opportunity. We will come up to some of the policy
:42:28. > :42:32.decisions that you might have to go your separate ways on, but sticking
:42:33. > :42:36.with Jeremy Corbyn, he has been the MP for Islington North since the
:42:37. > :42:40.early 1980s. You would accept he is hardly going to be any more popular
:42:41. > :42:44.in Scotland than Ed Miliband was, he doesn't really have any connection
:42:45. > :42:49.to Scottish Labour, does he? I think you have made a very rational
:42:50. > :42:52.judgment about Jeremy Corbyn. Both Jeremy and I want our respective
:42:53. > :43:00.leadership contests, the party membership in Scotland is on the
:43:01. > :43:04.up, we now stand at 30,000... Do think that as a result of Jeremy
:43:05. > :43:07.Corbyn? It is a result of both was putting forward radical suggestions
:43:08. > :43:10.to change the fortunes of our party and I look forward to working with
:43:11. > :43:15.him. The reality is I have to set out a different pattern here in
:43:16. > :43:19.Scotland to determine the Pappas and the Scottish interest and it is
:43:20. > :43:22.about strengthening the UK Labour Party. Tim Reid referred to the
:43:23. > :43:25.strong difference between something that is an act of devolution and
:43:26. > :43:30.something viewed as division. This is entirely about the principle of
:43:31. > :43:34.devolution, the idea of getting more power into Scotland so we can
:43:35. > :43:37.determine our own fortunes. Do you agree with your predecessor Joanne
:43:38. > :43:42.Lamont that Scottish Labour has in the past been treated like a branch
:43:43. > :43:49.office? As I said in my opening remarks, there is no doubt that that
:43:50. > :43:52.is a very strong perception people have in Scotland. It is not about
:43:53. > :43:54.what politicians thing, it is what is happening on the doorsteps in
:43:55. > :43:57.communities around the country. We were sent a thumping message in May,
:43:58. > :44:01.we have to get that message, we have to reform and renew our party and I
:44:02. > :44:04.won the leadership election here with 72% of the boat with a mandate
:44:05. > :44:10.to do exactly this, to make a more autonomous Scottish Labour Party --
:44:11. > :44:14.of the vote. But I also promised to re-democratise the party and we go
:44:15. > :44:17.into the conference this weekend with a lively programme to do things
:44:18. > :44:22.differently and I am excited about that. I am also excited to lay out
:44:23. > :44:25.my radical platform for how I intend to transform this country. Let's
:44:26. > :44:29.talk about policy issues, what happens when you disagree with
:44:30. > :44:32.Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell on a policy over a non-devolved issue.
:44:33. > :44:40.On Trident, for example? What happens? I have a mandate from the
:44:41. > :44:42.party membership here to re-democratise our conference and I
:44:43. > :44:47.am welcoming the prospect that there might be a debate on Trident this
:44:48. > :44:51.weekend. What happens if you end up with two different policies question
:44:52. > :44:54.mark come next election, voters are a Scottish MP are faced with a
:44:55. > :44:58.Labour candidate that will be standing for a party with two
:44:59. > :45:03.different positions on a key policy, how does that work? I do understand
:45:04. > :45:07.this question and I have faced this over the last few days. You are
:45:08. > :45:10.focusing on a hypothetical which we may face bore or five years down the
:45:11. > :45:15.line but let me answer it specifically. We are going to create
:45:16. > :45:18.the space for our party membership to have a debate on this particular
:45:19. > :45:22.issue this weekend. Should it be the case that in five years' time,
:45:23. > :45:25.hypothetically, that we are in a different position to the rest of
:45:26. > :45:29.the UK party then like many other countries across Europe that operate
:45:30. > :45:33.the federal type solution, there will be a process for working
:45:34. > :45:39.through it. It is not new in terms of being a concept. It is new for
:45:40. > :45:42.the Labour Party. I signed the statement of intent with Jeremy
:45:43. > :45:45.Corbyn yesterday about the direction of travel, the relationship between
:45:46. > :45:49.the Scottish Labour Party and the UK Labour Party. There is now, I have,
:45:50. > :45:53.prospect for debate across the whole of the movement about what might
:45:54. > :45:57.happen in Wales, across England and other parts of the country. The end
:45:58. > :46:02.point of this would be next year's Party Conference, when any real
:46:03. > :46:06.changes might take place, that is 11 months where various stakeholders,
:46:07. > :46:10.MPs, MSP is, party members, unions, can come to the fore and talk about
:46:11. > :46:11.how we might want to resolve the rare occasions where positions might
:46:12. > :46:19.be conflicted. You say they are rare occasions and
:46:20. > :46:25.you have time, which is true, but did you put pressure on Jeremy
:46:26. > :46:29.Corbyn and John McDonald to change the fiscal charter? I spoke to them
:46:30. > :46:34.and put forward my views on that. I don't profess to save that my view
:46:35. > :46:40.was the thing that made them change their minds. I paraphrase, but you
:46:41. > :46:43.say something like if they did not change their mind it would be
:46:44. > :46:46.explosive as far as you are concerned in Scotland and the SNP
:46:47. > :46:56.would make a? I did not use those words. I made the case about strong
:46:57. > :47:02.anti-austerity measures. That it was not their position, was that? A few
:47:03. > :47:08.machinations around that and it wasn't exclusive to the Labour
:47:09. > :47:11.Party, but let me put it this way, I have regular conversations with
:47:12. > :47:15.colleagues and friends across the Labour movement, I am in direct
:47:16. > :47:19.contact with Jeremy Corbyn, Tom Watson, the rest of the team, all
:47:20. > :47:22.the time. We are part of one movement, we are determined to turn
:47:23. > :47:27.around the fortunes of the Scottish Labour Party and build a Labour
:47:28. > :47:31.Party fit for the future. It is a massive opportunity. The principle
:47:32. > :47:36.of devolution must apply. You say there are rare instances, which
:47:37. > :47:39.areas of policy do you think you will need the freedom to disagree
:47:40. > :47:44.with the National party? Look at the example that we will face in the
:47:45. > :47:47.next few weeks around tax credit and welfare reform. Soon we will know
:47:48. > :47:51.which of those powers are coming to the Scottish parliament but I would
:47:52. > :47:55.like the position to set out those new powers and design our welfare
:47:56. > :47:58.system and security system in Scotland that protects the people in
:47:59. > :48:05.Scotland based on their needs. I will have the freedom to do that, it
:48:06. > :48:09.is a good thing. But when you disagree with the leader of the
:48:10. > :48:14.Westminster party, how will Scottish leaders vote in parliament? This is
:48:15. > :48:17.an 11 month process, we will look at how to work through things when
:48:18. > :48:22.there is complete. But the principle is sound, it is fundamentally about
:48:23. > :48:28.devolution. The Labour Party has had different positions on education for
:48:29. > :48:32.16 or more years. These are devolved issues, it is really where these
:48:33. > :48:37.things are... But the principle is the same. It is different with a
:48:38. > :48:42.non-devolved issue. Looking at your predecessors as leader of Scottish
:48:43. > :48:46.Labour, Wendy Alexander, Johann Lamont, Jim Murphy, they presided
:48:47. > :48:51.over the party during a period of decline. What makes you different? I
:48:52. > :48:56.understand how big a task there is ahead. I was not unaware of that
:48:57. > :49:01.when I put my name forward for the job, but I love my party and I
:49:02. > :49:04.believe it has a bright future. The values of the Labour Party are as
:49:05. > :49:07.relevant now as they have ever been. The challenges and
:49:08. > :49:10.opportunities of the future can be realised and that is why I put my
:49:11. > :49:15.name forward, because I want to turn around the fortunes of my party. I
:49:16. > :49:27.have worked with a number of Labour leaders at close quarters, I have
:49:28. > :49:30.seen these events close hand and have learned from that. All of those
:49:31. > :49:33.people you name I would still call friends and close colleagues who
:49:34. > :49:36.provide me with advice, and I know I am not alone, I have a strong team
:49:37. > :49:38.of MSPs in the Parliament, a growing movement of party members and
:49:39. > :49:41.supporters across the country who believe in the party and our values
:49:42. > :49:43.and beliefs we have the answers to nationalism and will set out those
:49:44. > :49:45.bright ideas for the future this coming weekend at the party
:49:46. > :49:50.conference. I am upbeat and optimistic about my party's future.
:49:51. > :49:55.Isn't it the reality that voters in Scotland, having experienced
:49:56. > :50:00.devolution, see the SNP at far more effective at bashing the Westminster
:50:01. > :50:05.Government and getting more the Labour and will continue to vote in
:50:06. > :50:10.the SNP in Scotland and, well, differently down in Westminster,
:50:11. > :50:14.obviously, but that will be the situation? What a travesty to assume
:50:15. > :50:18.the one purpose of the SNP is to bash the Government in Westminster.
:50:19. > :50:22.We sit in an incredibly powerful parliament just 500 metres from
:50:23. > :50:27.where I am sitting now. A ?30 billion budget, powers over health,
:50:28. > :50:30.education, welfare powers, tax powers, powers to transform the life
:50:31. > :50:33.chances of people the length and breadth of book and treat and after
:50:34. > :50:39.eight years of the SNP Government the gap in other schools between the
:50:40. > :50:43.richest and poorest pupils is the widest it has ever been. A flagship
:50:44. > :50:49.hospital in Scotland where one in four people which more than four
:50:50. > :50:52.hours to be seen in A The record of the SNP Government has to be
:50:53. > :50:57.exposed and understood across the United Kingdom, it is about far more
:50:58. > :51:02.than Westminster obedience. Kezia Dugdale, thank you.
:51:03. > :51:06.The problem that the Corbyn fans have is they said during his
:51:07. > :51:11.campaign that the reason Labour fared so badly in Scotland in May is
:51:12. > :51:14.because they did not embrace the same anti-austerity politics that
:51:15. > :51:19.the SNP did. Actually, now that Corbyn is leader, it does not look
:51:20. > :51:23.like Labour will fare any better in the Scottish regional elections next
:51:24. > :51:27.year. Well, we will have to see. The Tories don't really have anything
:51:28. > :51:32.either. It looks like Labour will wipe out, Corbyn will make no
:51:33. > :51:37.difference. To me, it feels like advanced damage control, we are
:51:38. > :51:40.intending to devolve power to the Labour Party in Scotland, let Kezia
:51:41. > :51:42.lead that, it is not our fault. The Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn
:51:43. > :51:45.isn't short of critics - in the right-wing press, in the
:51:46. > :51:49.left-wing press, in the Conservative And now
:51:50. > :51:59.he's got some in the Middle East. the Ministry of Justice scrapped
:52:00. > :52:02.a ?6 million deal to provide prison Here's the message Jeremy Corbyn
:52:03. > :52:12.delivered to David Cameron during ..threatened
:52:13. > :52:40.with the death penalty for taking part in a demonstration
:52:41. > :52:44.at the age of 17 and, while you're about it, terminate that bid made by
:52:45. > :52:47.our Ministry of Justice to provide prison services for Saudi Arabia,
:52:48. > :52:51.which would be required to carry out the sentence that would be put
:52:52. > :52:59.down on Ali Mohammed al-Nimr. Although many might agree with
:53:00. > :53:11.Mr Corbyn, is it unwise to upset one Middle East? Conservative MP Alan
:53:12. > :53:14.Duncan think so, but journalist James Bloodworth says we should not
:53:15. > :53:17.be shy about human rights. They join me now.
:53:18. > :53:19.Did Jeremy Corbyn influence the Prime Minister's decision to cancel
:53:20. > :53:23.the present contract? Prime Minister's decision to cancel
:53:24. > :53:26.I do think so but I Prime Minister's decision to cancel
:53:27. > :53:29.stuck with the contract because I think if we can be
:53:30. > :53:32.stuck with the contract because I reforming their present it is a good
:53:33. > :53:34.thing. We had someone who was supposedly going to be lashed, I
:53:35. > :53:38.don't think it was going to happen but that is what our local headlines
:53:39. > :53:42.said, and if we were part of it we would be in a better position to
:53:43. > :53:46.influence the judicial decisions. The bigger issue, though, is that
:53:47. > :53:50.the whole of the Middle East is a mess and if you just have this
:53:51. > :53:54.megaphone self-righteousness you risk making it messier, and the
:53:55. > :53:57.Saudi regime is far more moderate than their own people, and if you
:53:58. > :54:03.want to bin the regime and replace it with a sort of non-democratic
:54:04. > :54:07.Isis all over Saudi Arabia, you would very, very quickly regret
:54:08. > :54:11.having done that. Do you think it risks making it messier, the
:54:12. > :54:16.situation of relations with Saudi? It depends how far you go. We should
:54:17. > :54:20.not advocate overthrowing the Government in Saudi Arabia but I
:54:21. > :54:23.would like to see less of the obsequious treatment of the Saudi
:54:24. > :54:28.royal family by the Government. We had to be half flying of the British
:54:29. > :54:33.flag when King Abdullah passed away. Saudi Arabia is the largest arms
:54:34. > :54:37.market for British arms companies. I think Jeremy Corbyn is right to draw
:54:38. > :54:41.attention to that. But at the same time I think he has his own problem
:54:42. > :54:47.with a lack of consistency in that he stands on platforms with outfits
:54:48. > :54:52.supported by the Iranian Government, and is also soft on Putin's Russia,
:54:53. > :54:58.so it is about consistency. Sticking with Saudi Arabia, you say this
:54:59. > :55:02.megaphone politics is not anything that could prevent the abuse of
:55:03. > :55:06.human rights, all the lashings of a young boy, or a grandfather. Isn't
:55:07. > :55:11.anything that stops that a good thing? I'm not saying one should not
:55:12. > :55:15.talk about it, discuss it, tell them what you think in private. All I'm
:55:16. > :55:19.saying is that simplistic grandstanding like we heard from
:55:20. > :55:23.Jeremy Corbyn, let's intervene to stop the lashing, is total fantasy.
:55:24. > :55:26.What you have got to be here is realistic, you have to be realistic
:55:27. > :55:31.about the nature of resumes in that part of the world, their history,
:55:32. > :55:36.what you can and cannot change, and what would replace what is there now
:55:37. > :55:41.if there were a vacuum that needed to be filled. Aren't you tiptoeing
:55:42. > :55:45.around the regime here, somewhat? No, you need a lot of understanding
:55:46. > :55:50.about the nature of Saudi society, the people themselves but also the
:55:51. > :55:53.regime, where they rule with a measure of consent in the sense that
:55:54. > :55:57.if they don't have collected approval by quickly replaced. There
:55:58. > :56:00.is quite a lot going on now within the regime which we will not know
:56:01. > :56:04.about which is straining a lot of the stability we are seeing. What
:56:05. > :56:09.sort of relationship should we have with Saudi Arabia? I have many of
:56:10. > :56:13.the same reservations as James about human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia,
:56:14. > :56:17.the fact women are not allowed to drive, bloggers are routinely
:56:18. > :56:21.prosecuted, in some cases flogged and so forth, but the risks of
:56:22. > :56:25.withdrawing from our relationship with Saudi Arabia is that we lose
:56:26. > :56:36.any possible positive influence we might have, and I think there
:56:37. > :56:40.should, qualified response is better -- Margaret and I think a measured,
:56:41. > :56:46.qualified response. Was it right to drop the prison contract? I think it
:56:47. > :56:51.was, considering how unjust it is. People would have read it as us, if
:56:52. > :56:55.you like, being involved, even at a distance, to some of the abuses that
:56:56. > :57:01.go on in the presence? It is a difficult decision of whether to
:57:02. > :57:05.become involved or not with a regime like that. When I was a minister we
:57:06. > :57:09.try to have a lot of processes with regimes like that, you could say,
:57:10. > :57:13.don't go near them because it is a messy process, or try to make it
:57:14. > :57:17.better. It is a difficult moral call, and absolutism in these
:57:18. > :57:21.issues, and I agree with Toby, is actually a bad position to hold.
:57:22. > :57:26.James, would things change dramatically under a Jeremy Corbyn
:57:27. > :57:30.leadership? I think so. If he does win, which is unlikely at this
:57:31. > :57:35.point, if he does win a general election things would change, but I
:57:36. > :57:37.think the danger is it would go to buy the other way, so you would lose
:57:38. > :57:42.cooperation with Saudi Arabia on things like Bashar al-Assad, on
:57:43. > :57:46.terrorism, but Jeremy would be too soft on countries like Iran and
:57:47. > :57:51.Russia, which is another side of the human rights abuse coin, I think.
:57:52. > :57:54.You have worked in oil producing countries in the past, Saudi Arabia
:57:55. > :57:58.is the biggest, does it come back to oil and money? Oil if it viable
:57:59. > :58:03.commodity, it does not matter what we say to Saudi Arabia, if prices go
:58:04. > :58:05.up and down it is the same for everybody so there is no direct
:58:06. > :58:10.benefit that comes from talking about oil with Saudi Arabia, no
:58:11. > :58:16.special flow or supply at a special price. It is equal misery. So what
:58:17. > :58:20.is the point of flattering them and keeping them onside? The point is
:58:21. > :58:24.the Middle East matters to us. Of course oil does matter, try doing
:58:25. > :58:28.without it! But for us to be in the mix with golf countries and
:58:29. > :58:32.roundabout, like Yemen and the nearer Middle East with Palestine
:58:33. > :58:36.and Israel, it is essential, I think, that we are a respected voice
:58:37. > :58:40.in the mix, and if we withdraw by saying, you are all bad, Little
:58:41. > :58:48.Britain becomes even smaller. Does it make a difference on terrorism? I
:58:49. > :58:52.think it does, we are not privy to all the information, but at the same
:58:53. > :58:57.time Saudi Arabia spreads messages across the world... I have to
:58:58. > :59:00.quickly get to the quiz. Can you remember the question?
:59:01. > :59:03.The question was, which celebrity peer was flown in from New York
:59:04. > :59:13.Andrew Lloyd Webber. It was. I love the idea of him being flown in all
:59:14. > :59:17.the way from New York, it has a sort of glamour about it. People have
:59:18. > :59:21.criticised him, saying he has gone to great lengths to vote for the tax
:59:22. > :59:25.credit cuts, but the Conservatives had a whip in operation, they had to
:59:26. > :59:29.do that in response to the whipping of the Lib Dem and Labour peers. You
:59:30. > :59:32.got it in! That is it from us, goodbye!