21/09/2016 Scotland 2016

The women whose financial plans are in tatters because of changes

Should the Government find an extra ?8 billion to bail them out?

The SNP urges the Government to compensate women who've lost out

We hear from Westminster's youngest MP.

As new homes are built to deal with the housing shortage,

what about the pressure on local healthcare?

And, no more branch office of London?

Scottish Labour gets new powers over policy and people.

Equality for women in the workplace means it's only fair

that they should have to work as long as men before qualifying

Changes brought in in 2011, though, mean the retirement age

for women will rise faster than previously expected,

Almost 250,000 women in Scotland alone are affected.

Now the SNP is urging the UK Government to spend ?8 billion to go

In a moment, we'll hear from Mhairi Black, who's been

championing the cause of women caught up in the change.

But first, we asked the former Pensions Minister Ros Altmann

what she thought of the SNP's proposal.

Well, I am pleased to see that the SNP is still looking at ways in

which we can try and help some of the women who have been affected by

this relatively short notice change in state pension age and who didn't

know about it. I think the issue for me is that an ?8 billion cost is

difficult to imagine actually being agreed anywhere across Government.

The figure is enormous. I had hoped that we might be able to help at

least some of the women affected and especially those who are facing real

hardship as a result of this change, they didn't know about it, the

Government clearly didn't do enough to tell them properly about what was

coming. Why is ?8 billion such a difficult figure to sell to the

Government or to the public in general? All I can tell you is that

I tried really, really hard to get any money at all, to at least help

some of the women who were worst affected and even at much, much

lower figures than that to help some of the women and indeed I think it

is also important to say that men's state pension age is going up and I

wanted to find a way to help men statement if they were suffering

hardship as a result of the change coming but the Government was

completely unwilling to do anything at all whatsoever to spend any extra

money on this state pension age issue. So, from a position where I

can tell you that I was trying to find much, much less than ?8 billion

and there was an absolute roadblock and no chance, to imagine they will

suddenly say we are going to spend ?8 billion is very difficult.

Well, we invited the Pensions Minister, Richard Harrington,

on to tonight's programme, but he was unavailable.

However, his department gave us this statement.

Well, shortly before we came on air I spoke to the SNP's Mhairi Black,

Westminster's youngest MP, who has been campaigning

for the women affected by these changes to retirement age.

We heard the former pensions Minister there. She gress about the

hardship that some women face, that they didn't get enough information

soon enough but she thinks ?8 billion is a non-starter, it's not

going to happen. I think for a start when you listen to what Ros Altman

said there, she's changed her tune from a couple of months ago when I

was sitting in committee with her and she was saying there was nothing

we can do whatsoever. So I find the flip-flopping opinion quite hard to

stomach. But I think when you look at the figure of ?8 billion we are

talking about ?8 billion over five years. This is a one-time cost, this

isn't something that's going to spiral for generations. So, when you

look that in the context of what the UK Government has spent money on

since the first time this issue was brought to the House, we have spent

a blank cheque on nuclear weapons, air strikes in Syria and the very

building that Ros was standing in front of there, we heard that we are

prepared to do it up for ?7 billion. It seems that the Government can

find money when it suits them but not when it comes to pensions. Do

you think you are being realistic in asking for this? She said she asked

for much less and was met with a roadblock? Entirely. What is

unreasonable is to expect women to be paying in national insurance for

all their working lives and then at the last Mintel them, by the way,

you are not getting a pension. -- at the last minute tell them by the way

you are not getting a pension. Tough, that's unreasonable. So I

think it's perfectly do-able the proposal that is we have put forward

to say ?8 billion over five years, I think that'sed a kwat. Well, the

Department for Work and Pensions are actually querying the calculations

in the report. They're saying it is seriously underestimating the cost

and they say it would be more like ?14 billion. I wish I had the same

maths when it came to other spending costs! They're saying they're

modelling is comprehensive. This report we have done, we have spent

months piling into this, Howard who wrote the report has done phenomenal

work, phenomenal drafts on it. I think the very fact that we are able

to produce something and effectively we have done the Government's job

for them. This is the onus put on the SNP to roll up our cleefs and we

are going to look into things. -- our sleeves and we are going to look

into things. The Government would be daft to say they're underestimating

it, they need to at least look at it. The Government has already made

concessions, it's given an extra six months' worth of pension to women

affected Atsu cost of over ?1 billion. -- at a cost of over ?1

brl. Should it be spending billions more of taxpayers' money on this?

It's taxpayers that are looking for their pensions. I think what you

have to do is look at this in the context of how this problem arose.

This started in 1995 when consecutive governments didn't tell

women that their pension age was taking a huge leap. Women did not

know about this. Where the fault of this Government is, is that in 2011

they said we are going to steamroll another rise and of course this is

just a massive double whammy for many women. This idea that six

months is enough is just completely unrealistic. It's about realising

the situation that women are in. When you make a big change like

this, this is all about making pensions sustainable, somebody's

going to have to lose out as we heard Baroness Altman saying men are

facing hardship, as well, it's unavoidable? I don't think so. There

I would say why? Why should someone always have to lose out? You need to

remember this is a group of women who have lived their entire lives in

an unequal society. Many of these women didn't have the opportunities

and the different chances that men did. They didn't have the same

standard of pay. At this very last hurdle yet another thing is going

against them. And again to point back to the 1995 Act, men, their

retirement age through the 2011 act was going from 65 to 66. For many

women it was from 60 to 66. It's taking in realistically what the

difference is. The Government's making it pretty clear tonight that

they're not going to budge on this. If they don't, what then? If they

don't, I think it says more about them. I find it quite astounding

that a Government can say, you know what, doing up a building is more

important to us than making sure that people have their pensions. I

think they're completely underestimating time and time again

just how many women this is affecting and how drastically it's

affecting many women's lives. Would you support them in legal action?

Well, I am not a lawyer, but if that's the route people have to go

down, why not? Because they've been paying in. I tell you this, the

other thing is that this isn't just about one group of women. This is

about pensions overall. Why should people happy pay into national

insurance if this Government makes clear that any future Government can

say, sorry you are not getting your pension at any age, where is the

incentive there? Thank you for coming in.

There was yet another warning this week that Scotland faces a crisis

in the family doctor service, with a predicted shortfall

Now the Royal College of General Practioners says

new housing schemes built without any thought about the impact

on local medical centres could just add to the pressure and jeopardise

the quality of patient care they offer.

We'll debate the politics in a moment.

New houses need infrastructure, gas, electricity, water and sewage. But

the people who live in them need shops, schools, and family doctors.

To developers and planners take that as seriously as they should? There

is new houses going up. We expect the projection is for the population

to grow by about 8,000 over the next three or four years. We have also

seen new care homes go up and a project for a new nursing home. They

all require to be serviced by general practice. Do you get any

sense that the planners and developers think about the impact on

GPs' practices when they give a go-ahead to do schemes? They don't.

A minimum level they expect to put buildings up and expect local

practices to absorb the increasing population without any consideration

of the existing service or pressure that it's already under.

Now there is concern patient care could be put at risk if the impact

on health services isn't taken into account when planning decisions are

made. Any additional pressure on services that are being delivered

challenges the quality of care that we are able to provide so that

clearly has implications for patients and we are very concerned,

obviously, that we are able to maintain the quality and safety of

patient care. The Royal College of General Practitioners wants house

builders and planning authorities to have to take the impact of new

developments on family doctors into account. But they say the Health

Authorities don't always help. It's a two-way street. There needs to be

a greater transparency in terms of the capacity of existing doctors

surgeries and the ideas behind how services are going to develop from

the NHS boards. That's not always as transparent as perhaps it could be

that allow plansers to think about how they can plan. We are trying to

encourage more engagement in the service and the planning system,

much more upfront engagement where people can hear about what's going

on and contribute and influence things, as well. The Scottish

Government says local authorities can put conditions on new

developments, including making builders pay for social

infrastructure. I think every development that our members build

will have planning obligations on them. It might be building a new

primary school, community facilities, it's usually a long

shopping list and we are beginning to see health centres and GP

practices added to that list. However, even even if a developer

builds a new surgery we are not responsible for put ago doctor in

there. But the GPs say the current system isn't fit for purpose. In my

experience it doesn't work at all. My understanding from the Scottish

Government policy on planning, it doesn't actually specify or mandate

that due attention is given to healthcare services. So unless there

is a process that actually ensures consultation with healthcare

services then that isn't going to work and certainly in my experience

that does not happen. The planning system in Scotland is currently

under review. So how do we make it work better? I want us to all

recognise from the outset that this expanding population that we have in

Scotland is going to require services. Yes, they require houses

but they need to educate children. They need community facilities and

obviously they need GP practices, as well. Local and central Government

need to work together with the NHS and the private building industry to

make sure we are delivering new communities, not just housing

estates. Joining me now is

the SNP's Ivan McKee. And in Edinburgh is

the Conservative's Public Health Miles Briggs, first of all, the

picture painted in that report of a lack of planning when these

developments are proposed, is that a picture you recognise where you are?

Yes, it is. Especially in terms of where we are seeing huge expansion

and not being kept in toe with the services we require. The Government,

both Scottish Government and local Government, have made a pig's

breakfast of this. We need to see a joined up approach to put in place

services like GPs and local schools ahead of housing building actually

developed because we are seeing across Scotland many communities

built with maybe 10,000 houses and schools and GP surgeries

overcapacity. So, I really welcome the fact that the Royal College have

started this debate and with the review taking place it's really

important that we start to see how we get this right for the country.

So you are laying the blame for this firmly at the door of the Scottish

Government and local Government? Yes, at the end of the day they draw

up the plans and signed off to see whether developments will take

place. It is getting that writing each community. In the past it is

fair that we haven't got that right. -- getting that right in each

community. We have seen 10,000 homes developed without expanding a

medical centre there. This took place recently because of the

Conservatives campaigning for a medical centre to be doubled in size

to actually meet the plans of the local population. We need to think

beyond this and actually look towards how we are going to fund our

public services so that we have healthy and happy communities across

Scotland which are provided for properly. Ivan, obviously everybody

welcomes new housing developments, there is a housing shortage and we

need new homes. But where is the joined up thinking in all of this?

Well, you are absolutely right, the houses need to be built, and it is a

great success of the SNP government. We built 30,000 affordable houses in

the last Parliament and we will have 50,000 more affordable homes in this

Parliament. Why aren't these services being provided for? The

services should be there as well. The local authorities who do these

plans figure out what services they need. Often they build the houses

and there could be more thought that. Those decisions are made at a

local level the local authorities. The example, it is the SNP

government who have put the money up to upgrade the health centre. The

extra houses are being built there. Couldn't the Scottish Government

make this an obligation with local authorities? With the planning

review that is taking place now, we will see what comes out of that. It

is the local authorities who make these decisions, if the SNP get

involved in that than people like Miles will complain that we are too

centralist. Miles Briggs, that is a fair point, you would accuse them of

meddling too much, surely this is a local decision? We need to get this

right, that is what we really need to work towards. It has been quite

clear that we haven't been over the past ten years. I hope this review

of planning will give us an opportunity. Local government, the

end of the day, put together plans which will need the Scottish

Government to sign off on. Do you want them to be obliged to take this

into consideration? I think they should, especially new-build

developments, a lot of these are actually private-sector development

and they aren't actually coordinating public services, be

that expansion of the local primary school, all the local medical sand.

These things should be taken into account early on. Actually, joint

resources put in place to fund them. In many cases, resources or handed

over to the Council for these services, but they don't go towards

building important services which are needed. We need to see a joined

up approach to be able to make sure that the houses we are putting up in

Scotland and the services that families will need. Of course, Ivan,

this is against the backdrop of a shortage of family doctors already.

This is only putting more pressure on GPs' practices. It is pretty

urgent that this gets sorted out, isn't it? Yes, we need more GPs.

Scotland is in a much better position than the rest of the UK. We

have increased the number of GPs by 7% all the time we have been in

government, we have increased the number of doctors by 25% and are

taking steps at the moment to reduce more doctors into the GP side of the

activity, and also to work with other professionals -- to introduce

more doctors. There is a lot of work going on in the background, and we

are in a much better position in Scotland than in the rest of the UK.

Look at the housing situation, it is one of the best thing that you can

do to the health of the population to give them new homes. A lot of the

house-builder is to relieve the pressure on overcrowding. Those

people are moving into their homes. Just briefly, Miles, when you look

at the UK situation, Scotland is actually in a better position than

the rest of the UK, both in terms of GPs and the housing profession. I

don't think that Ivan was in the debate on health in the Parliament.

We were discussing the fact that by Scotland 2020 we will have a

shortage of GPs. I'm not quite sure if Ivan wanted to listen to some of

the arguments which Atchley we are hearing in the chamber, and as peas

were coming with different issues from across Scotland -- MSPs were

coming with different issues to show that our health system is in crisis

point. The Government but ?500 million into the health service over

the last five years. We will have to leave it there for this evening,

gentlemen. Thank you. Now, could this spell the end

to the London branch office image? Scottish Labour is set to get more

power over policy and people - making it more distinct

from the UK party. A series of reforms were confirmed

by the party's executive last night, and will go to the party's

conference for final approval. Here's our Political

Correspondent, Nick Eardley. Few resignations in recent Scottish

political history have been more damning. Johann Lamont's claims that

Scottish Labour was seen as a branch office was evidence that the party

was subservient to London. It has been trying to get away from that

perception ever since. And now its new leader thinks she has found a

solution. I'm delighted that we will put this before the Labour Party

members at conference next week. It is a very strong plan to make the

Scottish Labour Party to an autonomous body. Neighbour has

always fitted neatly together. What is changing? London currently have a

say on who the Scottish party puts forward for Westminster. There are

many who believe that as a matter for Scottish Labour. The changes

also give the party north of the board of the chance to set its

policy on known issues, that includes the parts that Westminster

controls. The changes could be significant. After some fear there

is an attempt to select some MPs who do not support Jeremy Corbyn,

Scotland will make its own decisions. They could also mean that

the Scottish party has different policies from the UK party. When it

comes to the UK general election manifesto, how would they bridge the

gap? Of course there will be a process where every part of our

Labour Party will come together in one room. You cannot miss the

significance of this, we will be able to determine all of our own

pause in Scotland. Leaving last night's meeting of Labour executive,

she has won like a personal seat of Scotland, which will be appointed by

her. That has raised eyebrows. She is demanding a democratically

elected representative who is accountable to us. This person will

not be. The reforms themselves, though, are broadly welcomed. The

SNP have dominated the last few years simply because they have been

the voice of Scotland, the party of Scotland. Being the more

independently the party in Scotland, we can start to get the mantle back.

-- independently the party. Will these changes solve the puzzle of

where the balance of power lies? Scottish Labour believe this could

be the last piece of the jigsaw. With me now to discuss that,

and other news of the day, are writer and commentator

Gerry Hassan, and the former editor of the Times in Scotland,

Magnus Linklater. Welcome to both of you this evening.

So, Gerry, what you make of this move by Kezia Dugdale? It has been a

very gradual move, for example of Labour's furniture in Scotland.

Every time that this has happened, it has been a place where we are

comfortable and everything has changed. Although there is a couple

of significant things, they have policy control overall reserved

issues, Trident etc. It is still not a fully autonomous Scottish Labour

Party, basically because they don't want it and they can't afford it. So

still, despite a little bit of movement, it is still going to be a

branch office and London Labour hung around them, and those are heavy

things to hang around Labour's neck that really hurt them. They hurt

them so bad, it is one of the reasons they are where they are. And

this isn't really an answer to that. Rob, does it sound like real

autonomy to you, Magnus? It is a move towards that, and I think it is

a move they have to make. It probably needs a go further. Kezia

Dugdale is a bit of a dilemma. Scottish Labour depends, it still

depends, on funding from the UK party. I mean, I don't know what

Scottish Labour finances are Mike. But I imagine they are not very

great at the moment. And they caught really afford to detach themselves

completely. -- brake really afford. As Gerry says, it sounds like they

are still tied to be a prince brings, so to speak. Do you think we

have seen rock bottom. Trust Labour? -- aprons brings. So many

predictions are now wrong. There on a downward curve, it looks like next

year will be very difficult with the local elections. The last two

council elections. Kezia Dugdale faces several problems. One of them

is she has supporters and resources to draw on in Scotland, but people

are on the bridge of the ship. People are actually voting to get

rid of her and turn the party in a different direction and used next

year's election. When you have infighting and not much resources,

that ship has got more to sink. We have had a real dilemma. On Saturday

I think we get the results of the Labour leadership. And Kezia Dugdale

has supported Alan Smith, who is almost certainly going to lose, I

would say. And so she will have a leader, Jeremy Corbyn, who she has

not supported. And he's going to take the Labour Party in England at

any rate further and further to the left. Kezia Dugdale I think is

trying to pull the Labour Party in Scotland just a little bit towards

the middle ground. So that is another headache she has got. And we

heard the woman from Momentum in the piece saying, you know, this is not

democratic, appointing a Scottish representative to the NEC. Are there

more problems storing up here? There are. Corbyn's agenda has written off

Scotland because of the few MPs. There is no positive Corbyn agenda.

Those sort of people have joined the SNP. Also, the democracy issue is

wider. Scottish Labour was not a party of democracy, it is a party of

doing deals and be establishment. They have got to recognise that SMB

use the establishment. And they come with a more populist, instinctual

agenda, that says that things are not right in Scotland. It is a

series of muddled messages and nobody is paying attention to these

sort of things, people have got better sort of things to do. Labour

doesn't stand for those things. More autonomy, this time in broadcasting.

We have heard a lot about the Scottish six. But today we have

heard that the SNP are to announce a Scottish seven. Are they storing a

march on the BBC? I think so. It is an interesting idea, it will make

the BBC set up and think thing. It is on something called STV too. I

haven't watched it myself. It must be quite a minority audience. So

what impact it will make, I don't know. And I think the key thing for

it and for a possible Scottish six is how much is going to be funded.

Because the quality of the programme will dictate whether it gets an

audience. And these are not cheap. So whether Scottish seven, which

will be up against Channel 4 News, very well funded, highly successful

programme, you know, we will see. We haven't really heard any detail

about what the programme is going to be like. But what is your hunch,

given what we know? I once watched something on STV too, I know that.

These are very, very small channels. It is not windowdressing, cheeky by

STV. It could be a proper programme. We need a Scottish six on the BBC,

these have been going 20 years. Scottish broadcasting is about

quality, it is also about news and current affairs. STV do some drama

25 years ago when they had money, they haven't done drama from that

period. Magnus used to edit the Scotsman. You would happily

incorporate UK and international news from a Scottish perspective.

You can wonder sometimes why people get their knickers in such a twist

about doing it on television. I think that is absolutely fair. I

think what has happened since the days I edited the Scotsman, which

was a very, long time ago, is that the choice now facing viewers is

enormous compared to what it was then. So that carving out an

audience for a Scottish seven is going to be much more difficult than

perhaps it was 20 or 30 years ago. Of course what this has done today

is just shine a light on what some people might see is dithering at the

BBC about this decision, how long can it take to make a decision like

this? When you wait 20 years for something, the problem that we have

is that it is 20 years behind, then it will not seem innovative. You

wanted to be a multimedia platform world, digital, the way people

consume media. BBC Scotland, and the BBC are going to have to change. You

cannot even upon is BBC Scotland as it is now, we're going to have to

change it much, much more, innovation. We have waited all those

years. Mind you, the BBC can watch this and learn from it. Maybe they

are quite happy just to see STV trying it out. There will have to

leave it. Magnus and Gerry, thank you for coming in.

Graeme's here tomorrow night, usual time.