:01:11. > :01:11.Coming up on Sunday Politics Scotland:
:01:12. > :01:14.Kezia Dugdale makes a pitch to reclaim progressive policies with
:01:15. > :01:16.a pledge Labour will use tax and welfare powers to restore tax
:01:17. > :01:41.cuts to tax credits finally came to a head last week with a defeat
:01:42. > :01:45.in the Lords and serious dissent among Tory MPs in the Commons.
:01:46. > :01:47.George Osborne has gone back to the drawing board on tax credits
:01:48. > :01:51.and promised to "deal with" the House of Lords, whose actions
:01:52. > :01:58.The Prime Minister set up a review of the Lord's powers.
:01:59. > :02:01.That review is being headed by hereditary Tory peer
:02:02. > :02:06.He had agreed to do an interview with us this morning but 10
:02:07. > :02:15.Downing Street phoned us yesterday to pull him from the show.
:02:16. > :02:25.We think the government does not want us to talk about tax credits,
:02:26. > :02:29.so let's talk about tax credits. Janan, will the Chancellor now get
:02:30. > :02:34.away with some fine tuning, with some tweaking, or does he have to
:02:35. > :02:40.start from scratch? Even the tweaking is very difficult. It is
:02:41. > :02:44.technically difficult to reform the policy while simultaneously helping
:02:45. > :02:47.people who stand to lose out. It is fiscally difficult because the
:02:48. > :02:53.current policy saves about ?4 billion, a third of the ?12 billion
:02:54. > :02:59.he pledged to fine from welfare. There is no managerial way of doing
:03:00. > :03:03.it. What could be done is either projecting, or hoping for
:03:04. > :03:09.projections of higher tax receipts so he has to cut less. The deficit
:03:10. > :03:15.is not as bad. Or move the target for getting rid of the deficit and
:03:16. > :03:21.achieving the surplus year later. It is a much more fundamental solution.
:03:22. > :03:26.It was only a few months ago the Tory press thought Mr Osborne walked
:03:27. > :03:33.on water. His reputation has taken a real battering from this. In a very
:03:34. > :03:36.short time, three weeks since the Tory party conference when they
:03:37. > :03:41.walked out in a state of Triumph and euphoria. This budget looks like
:03:42. > :03:47.another omnishambles and considerably more serious. Last time
:03:48. > :03:52.it was funny with pasty taxes. This time, can he really drive through
:03:53. > :04:00.all these cuts? At the moment he is trying to put imposed 40% cuts which
:04:01. > :04:06.are undoable, like local government. This is only the first of many more
:04:07. > :04:10.that will come, this undertaking. Ministers will cave in and accept
:04:11. > :04:19.the cuts, but their departments will fall apart and they will rebel.
:04:20. > :04:23.Against a weaker Chancellor. Yes. As Janan says, there is no tweaking
:04:24. > :04:28.available. He gives back exactly the same amount of money he takes away,
:04:29. > :04:33.or these hard-working people will be out of pocket. What do you hear
:04:34. > :04:37.about what might be in the pipeline? We have got the Autumn
:04:38. > :04:41.Statement and a comprehensive review, a three-year rolling
:04:42. > :04:48.spending plan. It is on the last Wednesday of this month and now we
:04:49. > :04:54.are in November, what is he up to? He is going to pony up and pony up
:04:55. > :04:58.megabucks thanks to Rupert Harrison, his former economics
:04:59. > :05:01.adviser and he devised the deficit reduction plan in the last
:05:02. > :05:06.Parliament and the plan to target the surplus in this Parliament. It
:05:07. > :05:12.sounds really hard line, there is no change from plan A, but it always
:05:13. > :05:16.has written into it plan B and planned sea. He has delayed by one
:05:17. > :05:20.year the targeting of the surplus and he could delay it by a further
:05:21. > :05:26.year and still reach it by the time of the general election. Or he could
:05:27. > :05:30.say because the OBE I will revise down economic growth forecasts by
:05:31. > :05:36.the time of the Autumn Statement, the 10 billion he is meant to
:05:37. > :05:40.achieve by 2019-2020, that could come down. The Chancellor is in a
:05:41. > :05:44.hole and he is not stupid and he is going to get out of it and he is
:05:45. > :05:51.going to spend a lot of money, but he will sound hard line by duffing
:05:52. > :05:55.up the House of Lords. Do we take it seriously, the duffing up of the
:05:56. > :06:01.House of Lords to reflect from the tax credits strimmer? Strimmer,
:06:02. > :06:08.rumpus, whatever you want to call it. There was a lot of talk about
:06:09. > :06:14.them stuffing the Lords... With Tory peers? Which ended badly the last
:06:15. > :06:18.time it happened about 100 years ago. I cannot believe they will do
:06:19. > :06:24.anything as provocative as that, but if he wired House of Lords another
:06:25. > :06:27.incident like this and you make the argument for your own abolition.
:06:28. > :06:34.There is a good argument for reform and abolition. I do not see why the
:06:35. > :06:42.Lords should not do this as often as they want as long as the government
:06:43. > :06:45.refuses to have a democratic debate. Willie Whitelaw is not of the most
:06:46. > :06:51.ferocious people in the entire political system. We could have put
:06:52. > :06:55.him through the fire this morning, but at least we did not talk about
:06:56. > :06:58.Now, how far should the security services be able to spy
:06:59. > :07:02.This week the Government will publish draft legislation to create
:07:03. > :07:05.new powers and a new framework for the security services as they adapt
:07:06. > :07:07.to the ever-growing challenges of digital communications being used by
:07:08. > :07:09.the bad guys - terrorists, criminals,
:07:10. > :07:11.paedophiles. But is there still a danger the privacy of innocent
:07:12. > :07:15.Joe public gets gets violated as the power to intrude is extended?
:07:16. > :07:26.There is not one person at MI6 who is not talking about it.
:07:27. > :07:31.What, the upcoming draft Investigatory Powers Bill?
:07:32. > :07:38.Sadly, my invite to the premiere of the new film got lost in the post,
:07:39. > :07:45.In the new Bond film in which he drives this, one of the themes is
:07:46. > :07:49.surveillance in the Internet age, and Westminster is revving up
:07:50. > :07:54.for a potential row about how much the police and intelligence agencies
:07:55. > :08:02.Because in the Goldfinger years of the '60s, it was easy to spy
:08:03. > :08:06.on the villains, tail their Rolls or tap their phone.
:08:07. > :08:09.Now, in the Daniel Craig era, the spooks need new weapons to track
:08:10. > :08:19.One source told me that the work at places like the listening post
:08:20. > :08:22.GCHQ has shifted from looking for a needle in a haystack to finding a
:08:23. > :08:26.piece of hay in a haystack, and so a big question will be, how does the
:08:27. > :08:30.goverment handle what is called bulk data? In other words,
:08:31. > :08:35.looking at everyone's web activity to isolate the dodgy stuff.
:08:36. > :08:39.Not something to worry about, say security types.
:08:40. > :08:41.They are not interested in whether Lord West is having
:08:42. > :08:45.They do not care, they do not look at that.
:08:46. > :08:49.What they want to know is, am I talking to a bomb maker in the
:08:50. > :08:52.Yemen who is talking to someone who they know has carried out an attack
:08:53. > :08:55.in the Middle East before, who is talking to some American group that
:08:56. > :08:58.we know are terrorists, that is talking to some people
:08:59. > :09:04.When they get all these linkages, they hone it down and hone it down,
:09:05. > :09:08.they use big data in the sense they use other techniques to refine it,
:09:09. > :09:10.then they will say, this is extremely worrying, there is
:09:11. > :09:14.something going on and then they will say, we want to go and look
:09:15. > :09:19.at the detail of what is in these e-mails, or on social media.
:09:20. > :09:21.But it scares the living daylights out of
:09:22. > :09:29.The big issue for her, whether judges get to be involved.
:09:30. > :09:33.At the moment, if someone wants to tap your telephone,
:09:34. > :09:36.it is the Foreign Secretary or the Home Secretary who decides.
:09:37. > :09:39.Normally in democracies we think there is a role for the judiciary in
:09:40. > :09:44.This has not happened in the UK compared to the US or elsewhere
:09:45. > :09:50.We also need to look to see the extent to which the security
:09:51. > :09:54.agencies seek more power, do they want the power to hack our
:09:55. > :10:02.Something that was considered outrageous when journalists did it,
:10:03. > :10:08.is it now going to be OK for the spooks?
:10:09. > :10:13.When the last Bond film came out three years ago, Parliament was
:10:14. > :10:17.fighting over the so-called snoopers' charter, which would have
:10:18. > :10:23.compelled Internet companies to keep and hand over a lot of our data.
:10:24. > :10:26.It was thrown out when Nick Clegg played the role of Dr No
:10:27. > :10:36.A security minded Conservative told me this could be another car crash,
:10:37. > :10:39.because there are enough Tory MPs worried about civil liberties that
:10:40. > :10:42.the government will need Labour support in the Commons,
:10:43. > :10:50.So, will your browsing history remain for Your Eyes Only,
:10:51. > :10:53.do you trust Her Majesty's Secret Service, or are the worriers just
:10:54. > :11:03.Stay tuned for Theresa May's new legislation, coming soon.
:11:04. > :11:11.Hopefully they do not ban bad James Bond puns.
:11:12. > :11:15.Well, James Bond puns are unlikely to be outlawed but on the
:11:16. > :11:17.Andrew Marr Show this morning the Home Secretary, Theresa May,
:11:18. > :11:20.did confirm that internet service providers would have to keep
:11:21. > :11:25.She was also asked about whether judges would need to
:11:26. > :11:32.As I say, the three reviews came up with three
:11:33. > :11:36.David Anderson was clear that he thought, partly
:11:37. > :11:38.in relation to future proofing on future legislation, future legal
:11:39. > :11:41.challenges, perhaps, judicial authorisation was the right way.
:11:42. > :11:44.The parliamentary committee, the intelligence and security committee
:11:45. > :11:47.of Parliament, said there should be executive authorisation, i.e.
:11:48. > :11:50.the Secretary of State should still do it because
:11:51. > :11:57.We have looked at all of those arguments and listened to what
:11:58. > :11:59.people have said, and we will be bringing forward the government's
:12:00. > :12:03.position on Wednesday, but as I say, I am very clear that what we will
:12:04. > :12:05.bring forward has very strong oversight arrangements.
:12:06. > :12:08.We're joined now by the Shadow Home Office Minister and former Director
:12:09. > :12:14.of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer.
:12:15. > :12:22.Welcome, this is the first time we have had due on. It is. As a general
:12:23. > :12:26.principle do you support stronger have had due on. It is. As a general
:12:27. > :12:32.powers for the intelligence services in accessing digital data? There is
:12:33. > :12:38.a case for a new law. We have been patching up for a very long time,
:12:39. > :12:42.the law is out of date. It is very important we have no go areas for
:12:43. > :12:50.those involved in serious offending like terrorism and child sexual
:12:51. > :12:54.abuse. And organised crime. And organised crime and when I was DPP
:12:55. > :12:59.we rarely prosecuted without relying on data and this is important for
:13:00. > :13:03.protecting the public. Is judicial as opposed to ministerial approval
:13:04. > :13:11.of warrants to be able to do this, is that a red line issue? It is. We
:13:12. > :13:16.have the chance to have a modern, comprehensive law that sets out the
:13:17. > :13:20.powers for law enforcement and the security services and at the same
:13:21. > :13:26.time we have the chance, a historic chance, to get the safeguards
:13:27. > :13:30.right. One of the safeguard is judicial authorisation of intercept
:13:31. > :13:35.roles. There is a big difference between data and content. By content
:13:36. > :13:41.you mean what are people actually saying to each other? That should be
:13:42. > :13:46.signed off by a judge. That is what happens in other countries. That is
:13:47. > :13:52.the real issue. In fairness, Theresa May has backed off from the original
:13:53. > :13:58.plans and faced up to some of the criticism, but it is really a chance
:13:59. > :14:02.now for all of us to agree a framework for the future that is on
:14:03. > :14:08.the one hand giving the authorities the powers they need, but on the
:14:09. > :14:12.other hand entrenching in law the right safeguards and judicial
:14:13. > :14:15.oversight is important in that. We do not know exactly what she is
:14:16. > :14:23.going to say, she has to tell Parliament first, but in the Sunday
:14:24. > :14:31.Times there is the ideal of a 2 tier system that an initial warrant, for
:14:32. > :14:37.example what is my browsing history? The initial one would be issued by
:14:38. > :14:40.the Home Secretary, but if you want to get into the content of what is
:14:41. > :14:45.in these websites and what I have been sending, that needs to be a
:14:46. > :14:55.judge. That is one idea that has been mooted, what is your reaction
:14:56. > :15:00.to that? I am not in favour of took your system. If you're going to go
:15:01. > :15:07.for content, we should go to a judge straightaway. Roughly speaking,
:15:08. > :15:10.there are about 2500 warrants per year for interceptions. That is a
:15:11. > :15:14.very high number for a Home Secretary to deal with. In reality,
:15:15. > :15:18.that means that a lot of the preparation is done by her team, for
:15:19. > :15:23.her to look at. There is nothing wrong with that and I am not being
:15:24. > :15:28.critical of the team, but it would be far better if it was done by a
:15:29. > :15:34.judge, independent of any of the operations, independent from all the
:15:35. > :15:38.parties. It is a classically judge test, is it necessary,
:15:39. > :15:41.proportionate, focused on the right person? This is what is done in
:15:42. > :15:46.other countries and this would settle this dispute and allow
:15:47. > :15:49.everybody to move on, the consensus is important. This could be a
:15:50. > :15:55.historic moment if the Home Secretary will allow it. She has
:15:56. > :15:59.stepped in the right direction. If she completes on that by having the
:16:00. > :16:07.right safeguards, that is a prize worth having. However, who would be
:16:08. > :16:12.accountable if a judge refused a warrant, not a politician, what a
:16:13. > :16:18.judge, and as a result, there was a terrorist attack? Who do we hold
:16:19. > :16:22.accountable? One idea would be to have a panel of judges, a commission
:16:23. > :16:26.of judges. There are many judges that are clear to do this sort of
:16:27. > :16:37.work. Individual decisions have to be made. In the main, we hope the
:16:38. > :16:40.decisions are right. We could not hold a judge accountable? If the
:16:41. > :16:42.Home Secretary gets it wrong, she's accountable, she has to appear
:16:43. > :16:44.before Parliament, come on television, it could be the end of
:16:45. > :16:49.her job. The judge would be accountable? We have always had a
:16:50. > :16:52.system of accountability with judges that relies on the right person
:16:53. > :16:56.making the decision in the first place and after the event,
:16:57. > :17:01.investigation and looking at the warrants that had been issued. That
:17:02. > :17:05.system did continue. It is difficult, we are arguing in the
:17:06. > :17:08.dark, but I do not accept the proposition that if you put it to an
:17:09. > :17:16.independent judge that is a lesser safeguard than if you put it to the
:17:17. > :17:18.Home Secretary. These are decisions about how privacy is too precious to
:17:19. > :17:22.be left with the Home Secretary. It should be done by a judge. Within
:17:23. > :17:27.these constraints, I take it you think that the Internet browsing
:17:28. > :17:32.history of every computer net device should be kept by Internet providers
:17:33. > :17:36.by 12 months? That is the position that David Anderson, the independent
:17:37. > :17:43.reviewer, proposed. We will have to see what is in the bill, but it
:17:44. > :17:46.needs to be as clearly can just rained -- clearly constrained as
:17:47. > :17:57.possible for as short a time as possible. How much, who accesses it,
:17:58. > :18:00.and what conditions, this is key. Your leader and deputy leader in the
:18:01. > :18:06.Labour Party has been opposed to this type of legislation. Mr Corbyn
:18:07. > :18:12.called previous attempts a massive intrusion into people's lives. What
:18:13. > :18:16.do you say to him? It is a massive intrusion, any interception of
:18:17. > :18:20.Communications is. The question is whether it is justified. I have
:18:21. > :18:25.worked with the police, Lauren Forstmann and the security services
:18:26. > :18:28.for five-year is, when I was Director of Public Prosecutions. I
:18:29. > :18:33.know how important it is that we get access to the material we need to
:18:34. > :18:41.get access to, not just in terrorist cases. As you say, you have been
:18:42. > :18:44.director of public and is. How much more difficult would it have been
:18:45. > :18:50.for you to get major convictions in serious cases without both the 2004
:18:51. > :18:54.and 2006 terrorist acts which Mr Corbyn opposed? Very difficult. We
:18:55. > :18:59.use them on a regular basis. I said that when I was in the job. I made
:19:00. > :19:03.the case that we should not lose capability and I am not going to
:19:04. > :19:08.change my mind. It is not just your leader or his deputy, many of the 22
:19:09. > :19:12.Labour MPs who voted against this previous piece of legislation on
:19:13. > :19:17.this subject area, they are the ones who nominated Mr Corbyn for Nader
:19:18. > :19:22.and they are now in power is the position and influence in your
:19:23. > :19:29.party. Do you see a serious split on this issue? I do not think so. I
:19:30. > :19:34.think Jeremy Corbyn listens to colleagues in policy response to the
:19:35. > :19:42.government. We will make a response when we have heard what the Home
:19:43. > :19:46.Secretary has said. We should seize the opportunity for proper
:19:47. > :19:49.safeguards. In fairness, in the past, Mr Corbyn and others were
:19:50. > :19:54.emphasising the case for safeguards which they did not think were strong
:19:55. > :20:01.enough. To clarify, I have been told that you have squared Mr Corbyn on
:20:02. > :20:07.this. In your view, if it is proper judicial oversight, then Mr Corbyn
:20:08. > :20:11.will go along with those measures? I would not use that expression but we
:20:12. > :20:15.have had a discussion. There is clarity in agreement that proper
:20:16. > :20:20.powers where they are needed, it is right to have proper safeguards. He
:20:21. > :20:24.is with you on that? Uncompromising on the safeguards is the position we
:20:25. > :20:29.should adopt, but do not stand in the way of the powers that are
:20:30. > :20:31.necessary for law enforcement and the security services where they are
:20:32. > :20:39.needed. You squared it, because you have got the agreement of the Labour
:20:40. > :20:45.leader on that. That is the position on what we have agreed. As an Andy
:20:46. > :20:49.Burnham biker in the election, how is Jeremy Corbyn doing, better or
:20:50. > :20:56.worse than you expected? Jeremy Corbyn got a massive mandate to lead
:20:57. > :21:01.the party. He has put together a broad team to lead the party. We are
:21:02. > :21:05.developing policy in response to the government's programme. We have a
:21:06. > :21:09.government at the moment that is extreme in the sense that it is
:21:10. > :21:13.pushing through provisions furiously and fast that it odd to be holding
:21:14. > :21:17.back and looking out to be scrutinised more carefully. I think
:21:18. > :21:25.we are doing fairly well in this exercise. You are London MP. London
:21:26. > :21:30.Labour got easily the most votes in the capital at the general election.
:21:31. > :21:37.Many people say this is a Labour city by and large. If Labour does
:21:38. > :21:43.not win the 2016 election for mayor, does that indicate that a general
:21:44. > :21:49.election victory under Mr Corbyn is a long, tough stretch? Listen, this
:21:50. > :21:54.time last year I was about to start a selection exercise to be selected
:21:55. > :21:57.as Frank Dobson's replacement as Labour candidate. We were all
:21:58. > :22:02.predicting what the general election would hold. I am not going to fall
:22:03. > :22:07.into the trap of trying to work out what will happen in 2020. I will say
:22:08. > :22:12.it is really important that Labour win that election. You need to win?
:22:13. > :22:17.We need to win London, local elections and the general election
:22:18. > :22:22.in 2020. It is an important test for Mr Corbyn, London? If you cannot win
:22:23. > :22:29.London, how would you win the country? It is a test for all of us.
:22:30. > :22:31.I accept that. We must win next year, the local election and the
:22:32. > :22:37.general election. We should focus on that. You have said that Jeremy
:22:38. > :22:43.Corbyn is not the Messiah. I do not think that came as a surprise even
:22:44. > :22:49.to those who voted for him or even Jeremy Corbyn. Is he John the
:22:50. > :22:53.Baptist? I said that Jeremy has broken or a space in which we could
:22:54. > :22:59.have a discussion about the project for the future. We had been lacking
:23:00. > :23:03.that. That space is there. Jeremy Corbyn is not the Messiah. He does
:23:04. > :23:11.not have all the answers and if you touch on, you are not healed. I was
:23:12. > :23:19.seeing, the heavy lifting for the future has to be done by all of us.
:23:20. > :23:24.Keir Starmer, thank you. It has been awhile since somebody has led the
:23:25. > :23:26.Labour Party with your name. Thank you.
:23:27. > :23:29.Now, it's been a torrid few weeks for the government on the issue
:23:30. > :23:31.of tax credits with senior Conservatives such as Boris Johnson
:23:32. > :23:34.and David Willets expressing unease about the Chancellor's proposed
:23:35. > :23:35.cuts, unease which turned into a pretty
:23:36. > :23:38.frightful week for the inhabitants of 10 and 11 Downing Street.
:23:39. > :23:40.Peers created a nightmare for the Chancellor by voting,
:23:41. > :23:43.in the House of Lords, to delay tax credit cuts and to compensate
:23:44. > :23:48.Later in the week, 20 Tory backbenchers, including Bernard
:23:49. > :23:51.Jenkin, Heidi Allen and Jacob Rees-Mogg, also sent shivers up
:23:52. > :23:53.Mr Osborne's spine when they backed a motion from Labour's Frank Field
:23:54. > :23:57.calling on the government to mitigate
:23:58. > :23:59.And there may have been sleepless nights for
:24:00. > :24:02.the Prime Minister over at number 10, too, with the EU once more
:24:03. > :24:08.He jetted off to Iceland where he courted controversy by appearing to
:24:09. > :24:12.some to be scare-mongering about life outside the EU.
:24:13. > :24:21.Mr Cameron had said the so-called "Norway option"
:24:22. > :24:24.of having access to the EU single market but little say over EU rules
:24:25. > :24:28.wrong for the UK and that he would "guard very strongly" against it.
:24:29. > :24:30.Now there's trouble brewing for the government over the spooks',
:24:31. > :24:34.Next week the government will unveil a draft Investigatory Powers Bill
:24:35. > :24:37.which former Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg described as
:24:38. > :24:46.And we're joined now by the former Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis.
:24:47. > :25:01.Welcome back to the Sunday Politics. If you go -- but judicial review,
:25:02. > :25:06.would I do it for you? Almost, it is not judicial review, it is judicial
:25:07. > :25:11.authorisation. I beg your pardon, authorisation of warrants by a
:25:12. > :25:16.judge, not a politician. That is 90% of the way they are. We have too
:25:17. > :25:21.much surveillance because they are not proper constraints or checks. If
:25:22. > :25:25.we got back, I would largely lose interest in the area, because it is
:25:26. > :25:29.no longer a real threat to our liberties. What about your attitude
:25:30. > :25:34.towards what I was speaking about with Keir Starmer, because it was
:25:35. > :25:37.briefed on from the Home Office, the 2-tier approach, an initial approach
:25:38. > :25:44.to find out what websites I am looking at, that comes from the Home
:25:45. > :25:49.Office, but to dig down to get into the content of what I have been
:25:50. > :25:53.doing, that needs a judge? No. The best guidance on this is the
:25:54. > :25:58.independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson, who
:25:59. > :26:04.issued a strong report on this. He said it has got to be independent
:26:05. > :26:08.and ideally overseen by the judiciary. It cannot be a policeman
:26:09. > :26:13.in the office next door, it cannot be a spy in the office next door, or
:26:14. > :26:19.the Home Secretary, it has to be independent. If you do that, you do
:26:20. > :26:26.not need a 2 tier system, you have a uniform approach. Our politicians
:26:27. > :26:29.not more accountable than judges? Any time I have asked a question of
:26:30. > :26:32.any minister on a security matter, even what Lord did you do this
:26:33. > :26:45.under, they never comment. There is no accountability. -- law. Look at
:26:46. > :26:47.America. 9/11. There were clear errors in the handling of
:26:48. > :26:56.intelligence. The head of the CIA went. Nobody paid a price for that.
:26:57. > :27:01.They should not have done in my view, but they did not pay a price.
:27:02. > :27:05.We take a very soft approach to this. Ministers are not really
:27:06. > :27:12.accountable. If they were, and string questions in Parliament, it
:27:13. > :27:15.would be different, but they are not. They may not be accountable
:27:16. > :27:17.enough, but many people will think they are more accountable than
:27:18. > :27:23.judges who have jobs for life. One minister said, judicial oversight of
:27:24. > :27:31.interception warrants is a bad idea, he did not mean oversight, he meant
:27:32. > :27:35.authorisation. If a bomb gets through because a judge refused to
:27:36. > :27:42.sign a warrant, what will happen? There is a much better way of doing
:27:43. > :27:47.it. Anderson points this out. Also, the other important report on this
:27:48. > :27:52.points this out. You have a proper oversight procedure as well. It
:27:53. > :27:59.backs up things. You have judges that do it, a single panel. They
:28:00. > :28:03.look in retrospect? Yes, add everything that is done, before or
:28:04. > :28:09.after any mistakes. They find them. The aim is to protect the public,
:28:10. > :28:13.that is aim. At the moment the Home Secretary does about ten of these
:28:14. > :28:19.warrants in a working day. It is impossible forward person to do
:28:20. > :28:23.this. It is bad practice, bad managerially, bad legally and bad in
:28:24. > :28:29.terms of counterterrorism. People who take your view of the quarter
:28:30. > :28:33.are lies, Canada, Australia, the United States, New Zealand also of
:28:34. > :28:37.judicial authorisation of warrants. I was looking at the figures, US
:28:38. > :28:44.judges approved 99.6% of all warrants. In the end, it makes no
:28:45. > :28:49.difference. The warrants are given. The warrants are given. The US
:28:50. > :28:54.Judges have been pulled up on this, it has been tightened up. They have
:28:55. > :28:59.somebody to put the other case which they did not have before. If you
:29:00. > :29:03.have a decent system, you do not take a bad warrant. You do not go to
:29:04. > :29:07.them with the expectation of being turned on, you make sure you have
:29:08. > :29:12.the right person at the rate basis. The percentage does not tell you
:29:13. > :29:16.much. If you do not get judicial authorisation, will you challenge
:29:17. > :29:20.this bill in the courts as you did the last bill? No, because the last
:29:21. > :29:23.one went through the Commons in the courts as you did the last bill? No,
:29:24. > :29:27.because the last one went through the Commons on Wednesday it had not
:29:28. > :29:30.been properly tested, so I thought, let's tested elsewhere. Parliament
:29:31. > :29:34.is a better test than court if it is allowed to do the job. I do not
:29:35. > :29:38.think this bill will get through the Commons or the House of Lords
:29:39. > :29:41.without judicial authorisation. Even if the government comes out without
:29:42. > :29:46.it this week, it will have to change again? There is a new consensus on
:29:47. > :29:52.this across the board, across the experts, the Spriggs, the parties
:29:53. > :29:55.and the Houses of Parliament. The Prime Minister consistently claims
:29:56. > :29:59.that he rules nothing out in Europe, but is it not the case that by
:30:00. > :30:01.rubbishing the Norwegian option as he did last week, it is clear he is
:30:02. > :30:24.determined to stay" Mac -- to stay. He wants to get an outcome which
:30:25. > :30:31.allows him to stay in. Attacking the Norwegian option is irrelevant.
:30:32. > :30:38.Sure, he wants to be able to negotiate to stay in. But the EU is
:30:39. > :30:43.in crisis. Many people on your side say it is such a crisis at the
:30:44. > :30:49.moment that a British exit could be a catalyst for the whole demise of
:30:50. > :30:53.the EU project. So why doesn't the Prime Minister make much tougher
:30:54. > :31:00.demands as the price for staying in? It would be a catastrophe if Europe
:31:01. > :31:05.was to lose us. He is caught in a conundrum. I broadly would agree
:31:06. > :31:09.with that argument. He should make extremely tough demands. Tell the
:31:10. > :31:16.British public it is a negotiation, you will not get everything, but we
:31:17. > :31:20.will put the outcome to you. The problem is any failure to achieve a
:31:21. > :31:25.complete success would be used as a weapon to beat him with and
:31:26. > :31:27.therefore he will aim lower in the hope to gain 100% success. It is the
:31:28. > :31:47.wrong analysis. The high We tried to get tough demands and
:31:48. > :31:53.didn't get everything. We were outnumbered. 14 to one. Now it is 26
:31:54. > :31:57.to one. 27 to one. Of course you don't get everything. Here, for the
:31:58. > :32:03.very reason you say, Europe is no longer in a position, in a strong
:32:04. > :32:08.position, its primary experiment, the bureau, is in a terrible state.
:32:09. > :32:13.Therefore we have stronger argument. Isn't it inevitable, given
:32:14. > :32:15.that, that when you finally get to know what the Prime Minister is
:32:16. > :32:22.asking for in some detail, and we may get that by the time of the
:32:23. > :32:25.summit in December, isn't it just the blunt truth that a huge chunk of
:32:26. > :32:32.your party, maybe most of it, is going to be deeply disappointed by
:32:33. > :32:36.the possibility of his demands? I don't think so. I think the truth of
:32:37. > :32:41.the matter is that everybody has condition to the fact the demands
:32:42. > :32:47.will be not the sort of substantive constitutional changes that some
:32:48. > :32:50.others wanted. People are therefore beginning to shake the position to
:32:51. > :32:56.the stance they take. One of the things about this, however, is that
:32:57. > :33:01.there is the option of a referendum, they have that option to exercise
:33:02. > :33:07.and they will try to get a resolution that way. That will
:33:08. > :33:11.pacify the situation. Tax credits. Should Mr Osborne tweak his tax
:33:12. > :33:17.credit plan to make it more acceptable? Or should he junk it and
:33:18. > :33:22.go back to the drawing board? Two things. He needs to achieve a reform
:33:23. > :33:25.in the tax credits process. It is just too expensive for what it
:33:26. > :33:31.does. He also needs to achieve fiscal balance or better by 2020.
:33:32. > :33:36.Those two things are absolute requirements, really. He doesn't
:33:37. > :33:42.need to do it all ratio. That is the issue. I sponsored a debate on
:33:43. > :33:46.Thursday in the Commons. It got amazing uniformity across the house.
:33:47. > :33:51.What came out of that was a simple feeling of, look, whatever you do,
:33:52. > :33:56.so long as it doesn't penalised the working poor, particularly the
:33:57. > :34:01.dependence, then we will go with it. That is the criteria. That is more
:34:02. > :34:07.than a tweak. A lot more. The simple truth is, look, if you are a single
:34:08. > :34:15.parent working, raising two kids, you can lose up to ?2000. You can't
:34:16. > :34:20.afford to lose a pound, actually. We will do more than a tweak, but
:34:21. > :34:23.getting to the same place in 2020 is good enough. The financial markets
:34:24. > :34:28.will actually accept that. They will say it's the end game that matters,
:34:29. > :34:30.not the stages on the way. Thank you for being with us today.
:34:31. > :34:33.We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now
:34:34. > :34:41.Good morning and welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland.
:34:42. > :34:47.Kezia Dugdale accuses the SNP of being too scared to set out what
:34:48. > :34:50.they'll do with additional tax and welfare powers -
:34:51. > :35:01.as she sets out new proposals on tax credits, education and the NHS.
:35:02. > :35:06.By using both at the Scottish Labour in May, you are voting to use new
:35:07. > :35:07.powers of the Scottish Parliament to restore the money lost through tax
:35:08. > :35:08.credit cups. Do poorer students in Scotland have
:35:09. > :35:11.fair access to university funding? We'll be asking the Education
:35:12. > :35:17.Secretary, Angela Constance. Now, the Scottish Labour Party is
:35:18. > :35:21.rounding off its conference in Perth with a debate about Trident nuclear
:35:22. > :35:24.weapons - we'll know the result Kezia Dugdale, the new leader,
:35:25. > :35:27.used her speech yesterday to announce plans to stop cuts
:35:28. > :35:30.in tax credit and give funds to The strategy is pretty obvious -
:35:31. > :35:36.to challenge the SNP's claim to be I'm joined from the conference
:35:37. > :35:52.in Perth by I got the impression that they were
:35:53. > :35:57.all a bit gloomy earlier in the weekend. Has Kezia Dugdale banished
:35:58. > :36:04.to cheer them up? I think she has. -- managed. They are having an
:36:05. > :36:07.authentic debate right now, taking place on Trident, it has added to
:36:08. > :36:13.that. There was a round of applause when it was suggested that it was a
:36:14. > :36:16.good thing that there were open decisions. It is the most lively
:36:17. > :36:20.conference debate I've seen for a long time. It was like the debate
:36:21. > :36:27.held in the same hall about whether the SNP would commit an independent
:36:28. > :36:32.Scotland to join Nato or not. A series of elements to the debate.
:36:33. > :36:36.There is the majority -- morality. There is the cost, associated with
:36:37. > :36:45.it. There is also the question of the jobs and, as well as patients
:36:46. > :36:54.pieces -- speeches against Trident, there are also speeches in favour of
:36:55. > :36:57.jobs. They are covering bases, talk of defence diversification was
:36:58. > :37:01.simply a fairy tale jobs. Against that, you have had two arguments.
:37:02. > :37:07.One, the cost is unsustainable and could be better used in other ways,
:37:08. > :37:11.and two, regardless of the cost, regardless of the jobs, it was just
:37:12. > :37:16.morally wrong to have that nuclear deterrent. The politics of this, I
:37:17. > :37:19.presumably they are trying to give themselves up to campaign in the
:37:20. > :37:24.elections next year. One imagines a lot of new people coming into the
:37:25. > :37:28.Labour Party are fed up of going out in the streets and don't want to go
:37:29. > :37:33.out and campus if they are being taunted by nuclear weapons by the
:37:34. > :37:36.SNP. That is an issue, certainly with the tax credits thing you
:37:37. > :37:43.mentioned earlier. It is an issue with Trident, however much they
:37:44. > :37:51.adopt, and I think they will vote for an anti-temp one -- for
:37:52. > :37:59.anti-Trident. I expect it will take a position against Trident. What
:38:00. > :38:01.about the wider UK party? This is a Westminster decision, decision will
:38:02. > :38:07.be made in the House of Commons as to whether to read -- to renew
:38:08. > :38:10.Trident or not. Two views. One saying the position here is futile,
:38:11. > :38:18.that the UK party will decide anyway. No, you heard argument that
:38:19. > :38:24.a vote here could be a lever for the wider UK party to say that the bomb
:38:25. > :38:28.should be banned entirely. You are right, it fits into a wider debate
:38:29. > :38:32.about the nature of the Scottish Labour Party and its fair and we
:38:33. > :38:34.have been looking at that and looking at the current condition of
:38:35. > :38:36.the Labour Party at this conference. Here is a report of that from my
:38:37. > :38:42.colleague. This week, Labour supporters have
:38:43. > :38:50.been reflecting on a giant of their movement. The great founder of the
:38:51. > :38:55.Scottish Labour Party... It is now 100 years since the Scots socialist
:38:56. > :38:59.campaigner who became the UK's first Labour MP. This weekend, a Scottish
:39:00. > :39:04.Labour conference paid its respect from lines from some of its
:39:05. > :39:08.best-known speeches. Socialism implies the inherent equality of all
:39:09. > :39:12.human beings. The danger which comes from allowing men to grow rich and
:39:13. > :39:18.permitting them to use their wealth to corrupt the press, to silence the
:39:19. > :39:26.pulpit. I am an agitator. My work is consisted of trying to start up a
:39:27. > :39:30.divine discontent with wrong. While Labour is was happy to talk about
:39:31. > :39:34.the achievements of characters like Akira Hardy, the party also knows it
:39:35. > :39:38.has to look to the future and not simply dwell on the glory days of
:39:39. > :39:41.the past. The theme of this conference is about asking voters
:39:42. > :39:46.who were turned away from Scottish Labour to have a fresh look at the
:39:47. > :39:49.party. The problem is that the SNP is so massively popular right now
:39:50. > :39:58.that that's challenge may prove insurmountable. Cue the fresh talent
:39:59. > :40:02.to sort things out. Jeremy Corbyn is a left winger and as a socialist,
:40:03. > :40:08.the new Labour leader was keen to draw on the hardy ethos to take
:40:09. > :40:12.forward the Labour message. Our mission is the same as that which he
:40:13. > :40:16.laid out just 21 years into our party's life, when he said the
:40:17. > :40:23.movement would not rest until the sunshine of socialism and human
:40:24. > :40:27.freedom break forth upon our land. But is this the right message? One
:40:28. > :40:31.of Labour's big problems is the huge number of voters they have lost to
:40:32. > :40:36.the SNP as the Nationalists have positioned themselves as the real
:40:37. > :40:40.party of working people. Why are some determined to stick with
:40:41. > :40:47.Scottish Labour? I have never liked SNP, I don't think Scotland would be
:40:48. > :40:53.able to go on its own. I'd rather have the United Kingdom than on our
:40:54. > :40:58.own. Support the union, but I also supports devolution, as well. I
:40:59. > :41:07.think the Scottish parliament should have more power, but it can't be
:41:08. > :41:11.controlled by one party. Labour presents me better opportunities for
:41:12. > :41:14.myself going forwards and the country going forwards. With all the
:41:15. > :41:18.troubles we are facing, the SNP doesn't seem to have the best record
:41:19. > :41:22.at the moment on something. Getting voters back to Labour is the key
:41:23. > :41:25.challenge facing Scottish leader Kezia Dugdale. Her plan is to make
:41:26. > :41:32.the party distinctly different from the SNP, especially where it comes
:41:33. > :41:35.from new tax and wealth or power devolved to Holyrood. Before the UK
:41:36. > :41:39.elections, our opponents said there was no difference between Labour and
:41:40. > :41:49.Tories. I hope they can see that's difference now. A Labour government
:41:50. > :41:53.introduced tax credits, a Tory government will cut them. At the
:41:54. > :41:56.Scottish elections, if people ask what is the difference between a
:41:57. > :42:01.Scottish Labour government and an SNP government, this is the
:42:02. > :42:05.difference. A Scottish Labour government will restore the
:42:06. > :42:09.much-needed tax credits and SNP, left to their own devices, will
:42:10. > :42:16.leave those Tory cuts in place. As Labour draws a bit strategy for next
:42:17. > :42:20.year's Scottish election, could the words of Hardy hinder rather than
:42:21. > :42:22.help? You may have helped sow the seeds of labour, but it is one that
:42:23. > :42:23.is now past his prime? Joining us now from
:42:24. > :42:36.the conference is Ian Murray MP. He is Scotland's only remaining
:42:37. > :42:39.Labour MP. On this tax credits business, can we be clear what it is
:42:40. > :42:45.you are promising? Are you saying he will not implement any of the cuts
:42:46. > :42:53.in either working tax credits or child tax credits? This comes from
:42:54. > :42:56.the new powers in the Scotland Bill and the new powers allow the
:42:57. > :43:01.Scottish Parliament to top up any reserve benefits, so what would
:43:02. > :43:04.happen is we would take the losses that people have incurred through
:43:05. > :43:07.the reduction in tax credits. We're not sure of the quantum of that's
:43:08. > :43:12.because the House of Lords have forced the Chancellor this week to
:43:13. > :43:16.go and look at mitigation measures, but if we take where we are today,
:43:17. > :43:20.we would introduce a top up devolved power that would allow us to
:43:21. > :43:26.mitigate the effects of that tax could change. All of them? That was
:43:27. > :43:32.the bold thing that was announced by Kezia Dugdale yesterday. All of the
:43:33. > :43:36.cuts? That was the emitter and that has been made. We're looking at that
:43:37. > :43:41.and we have costed that I'm fully costed that on basis of the grid
:43:42. > :43:44.position today. Obviously, we don't know, and we hope the Chancellor
:43:45. > :43:48.will either scrap these changes or he will listen to the House of Lords
:43:49. > :43:52.and put in place the mitigation of facts so that the poorest are not
:43:53. > :43:57.white stuff. As we stand here today, before any of those mitigation
:43:58. > :44:00.measures are put in place, we would restore the losses of the tax
:44:01. > :44:02.credits to Scottish working families. If George Osborne goes
:44:03. > :44:07.back in his Autumn Statement and says, I am going to change tax
:44:08. > :44:14.thresholds, that will mitigate this, your policy would only be to use the
:44:15. > :44:20.powers of the Scottish Government to make up for the losses? It might be
:44:21. > :44:25.a lot less than it would be now. That is correct. The house of lords
:44:26. > :44:28.on Monday voted to send the Chancellor and the House of Commons
:44:29. > :44:32.a way to think again on these. It is said they would not approve the
:44:33. > :44:36.strategy instrument to make changes to the tax credit system, unless the
:44:37. > :44:39.Chancellor came back with mitigation measures for the poorest. This
:44:40. > :44:44.policy has been costed and looked at on the basis of where we stand
:44:45. > :44:47.today, but if the Chancellor goes back and our Shadow Chancellor has
:44:48. > :44:50.said, if he comes back and says he will either cancel these or fully
:44:51. > :44:53.mitigate the effects for the very poorest in society on the basis of
:44:54. > :44:58.the tax credits, we will support him on that and that is the right thing
:44:59. > :45:05.to do. If George Osborne does what Jeremy Corbyn and John -- John
:45:06. > :45:11.McConnell had fast integer, which is to make sure nobody misses out, the
:45:12. > :45:15.new policy disappears? We would be delighted if the Chancellor came
:45:16. > :45:18.back and didn't hit the quarter of a million families in Scotland with
:45:19. > :45:22.these working tax credit cuts. These are people who are in work,
:45:23. > :45:25.Conservative backbenchers are uncomfortable, the House of Lords
:45:26. > :45:31.spoke very loudly on Monday night to see it was unexpected bull. This --
:45:32. > :45:35.unacceptable. There are people in work, doing the right thing, doing
:45:36. > :45:38.everything that is asked of them. The previous Labour government
:45:39. > :45:41.brought these tax credits in to make sure that people were not in a
:45:42. > :45:45.benefit trap. People getting up, doing the right thing, preparing for
:45:46. > :45:49.the families unable to progress to the work system. He mitigates any of
:45:50. > :45:52.those troubles with regards to people not losing out, we will
:45:53. > :45:55.support him, and I think we would all rejoice in the fact that the
:45:56. > :45:59.poorest and most honourable in society are not paying for the backs
:46:00. > :46:03.of what happened in the economy eight years ago. You say this is
:46:04. > :46:11.fully costed by yourselves, what is your estimate of the cost of this?
:46:12. > :46:18.The estimated cost by 2021 is ?440 million per year as we sit here
:46:19. > :46:22.today. We have taken the figures from Scottish reports. They want to
:46:23. > :46:27.cut air passenger duty with new powers in the Scotland Bill and then
:46:28. > :46:29.ultimately scrap it. That is 250 million per year up until the end of
:46:30. > :46:35.this Parliament. We wouldn't implement, because we get in contact
:46:36. > :46:39.powers, the upper threshold for income tax rising from 43,000 up to
:46:40. > :46:45.50,000 that the Chancellor has already put in place. Those are
:46:46. > :46:50.already clear in the red book that accompanies the Budget. When John
:46:51. > :46:54.Swinney said to his party conference, that he couldn't stop
:46:55. > :46:59.the cuts in tax credits, and he said the full effects of Iain Duncan
:47:00. > :47:03.Smith's welfare reforms were about ?6 billion a year in Scotland, and
:47:04. > :47:08.that he couldn't stop that happening, are you disputing his
:47:09. > :47:12.figures? I would need to see where those figures have come from, but it
:47:13. > :47:16.is pretty clear that the red book which is produced by Her Majesty's
:47:17. > :47:18.Treasury and signed off by the Office for Budget Responsibility,
:47:19. > :47:26.which is independent from government, has said that this in
:47:27. > :47:30.Scotland would create ?440 million of people working on child tax
:47:31. > :47:33.credits. We would restore that ?440 million by a combination of not
:47:34. > :47:38.taking the air passenger duty cut and then taking -- not taking the
:47:39. > :47:42.threshold increase for the upper rate tax payers. Not a penny of
:47:43. > :47:46.additional tax should be paid by Scottish taxpayers with this
:47:47. > :47:52.proposal. Presumably you would: Scottish Government to implement
:47:53. > :47:56.this. I don't care who implements this. I don't care if the House of
:47:57. > :47:59.Lords after defeat the government, or if George Osborne says he is
:48:00. > :48:02.sorry and will reverse these. I don't care if he mitigates them or
:48:03. > :48:07.of the Scottish governments do it. What we are saying is if we are in
:48:08. > :48:09.government in May 2016, with the powers of the Scotland Bill
:48:10. > :48:12.transferred to the Scotland climate, the Labour Party, the
:48:13. > :48:17.Scottish Labour Party, will commit to reversing these tax credit cuts.
:48:18. > :48:20.If anybody else wants to do it, we will be delighted because this is
:48:21. > :48:25.about supporting working families and making sure they have an income
:48:26. > :48:27.that they can survive on. I don't really care who implements this
:48:28. > :48:31.policy, but this is a Scottish Labour policy. It is a radical
:48:32. > :48:37.policy from Kezia Dugdale and we will do it if no one else will. You
:48:38. > :48:39.said a moment while -- month ago that there wouldn't be any tax rises
:48:40. > :48:46.that there wouldn't be a plan to rise the test -- rise the threshold.
:48:47. > :48:50.People in Scotland he would have benefited will not benefit. They
:48:51. > :48:58.will end up playing ?1200 a year more than people in England. Are you
:48:59. > :49:01.happy to go to the better off amongst your constituents in
:49:02. > :49:07.Edinburgh and say, look, you won't get that advantage, in order to pay
:49:08. > :49:15.for not cutting the tax credits, some money of which may go to people
:49:16. > :49:18.who are not in jobs? Gordon, everyone, I think, across the
:49:19. > :49:21.country, including in Edinburgh, will realise these tax credit cuts
:49:22. > :49:25.are an abomination to Scotland and the wrong thing to do. The
:49:26. > :49:29.Chancellor has failed every single policy in terms of them trying to
:49:30. > :49:34.balance the books at government level. He has then decided he will
:49:35. > :49:38.take money out of the very poorest in society, who are in work. That is
:49:39. > :49:42.the main thing. These are working tax credits. That is the main point
:49:43. > :49:47.here. People are actually in work. People in my constituency will not
:49:48. > :49:52.pay a penny more in tax with regards to this. We will not implement the
:49:53. > :49:56.increase in the personal allowance of the 40p rate. People will be no
:49:57. > :50:01.worse off, they will pay not a penny more tax and we will use the money
:50:02. > :50:04.we receive from not increasing the threshold to make sure the poorest
:50:05. > :50:13.and most vulnerable in society, who are actually in work and not having
:50:14. > :50:16.these cuts imposed upon them at the working tracks level. That is the
:50:17. > :50:20.right thing to do. The vast majority of reasonable people think that is
:50:21. > :50:26.the right thing to do, as well. Your new proposals on autonomy, have you
:50:27. > :50:32.worked out how they're going to work yet? As an in Westminster, who do
:50:33. > :50:35.you now consider yourself accountable? Let's forget about
:50:36. > :50:39.Trident, because you have said repeatedly you will vote against it,
:50:40. > :50:43.no matter what the Scottish Westminster party tell you to do.
:50:44. > :50:47.If, in the future, for example there was a policy on tax credits which
:50:48. > :50:52.Jeremy Corbyn had a different view on it from the Scottish party, would
:50:53. > :50:56.you feel bound to vote in the House of Commons the way you are told by
:50:57. > :50:58.the government whips, sorry, by the Labour whips, or by the way you are
:50:59. > :51:07.told to by the Scottish Labour Party?
:51:08. > :51:17.A First in a UK Government whip. The letter of intent that was signed by
:51:18. > :51:21.Jeremy Corbyn and Kezia Dugdale on Monday makes it clear there would
:51:22. > :51:26.have to be a process but you would still have to take the UK Labour
:51:27. > :51:30.Party whip because you are at Westminster. There would be a
:51:31. > :51:35.process tween the National executive committee, the Scottish executive
:51:36. > :51:38.committee in between the UK and Labour parties. It states that
:51:39. > :51:43.clearly in the letter of intent. That clearly in the letter of
:51:44. > :51:49.intent. That's what we speak. It is clear that the moment it would have
:51:50. > :51:53.to be a process to allow Scottish Labour MPs to have that Scottish
:51:54. > :52:01.conflict resolution put into place. At the moment they would take the
:52:02. > :52:05.Labour Party whip. I have no idea. Unless the individual wanted to take
:52:06. > :52:09.the whip. I have no idea what you said means. It sounds like you would
:52:10. > :52:18.still be wept in the UK Labour whips up maybe not. Is that right? What I
:52:19. > :52:22.am saying is, the letter of intent that was signed by Kezia Dugdale and
:52:23. > :52:26.Jeremy Corbyn makes it has to be a process worked out for conflict
:52:27. > :52:31.resolution when the Scottish Labour Party has a different policy from
:52:32. > :52:34.the UK Labour Party and the intention is at the moment a
:52:35. > :52:39.Scottish Labour MP would still take the UK Labour whip but there has to
:52:40. > :52:43.be processed in terms of conflict resolution to resolve that. I know
:52:44. > :52:46.you said you do not want to talk about trade which surprises me given
:52:47. > :52:50.that is what we have spoken about over the last few months but that is
:52:51. > :52:56.a prime example where the Scottish Labour Party might take a different
:52:57. > :52:59.tack to the UK Labour Party. These decisions are taken all of the world
:53:00. > :53:05.when you have a tournament and federal party aching this something
:53:06. > :53:11.we have to work out, it is something -- nothing new here. I said about
:53:12. > :53:18.Trident you would vote in favour of which whip to vote about it. If the
:53:19. > :53:20.UK Labour Party changed their position on Trident and we are going
:53:21. > :53:24.through that debate in the Shadow Cabinet at the moment, Jeremy said
:53:25. > :53:29.he wants to have that debate, that may not be the case, the position
:53:30. > :53:34.may change on that. Individual issues are difficult to talk about
:53:35. > :53:38.hypothetical science but there will be processed place in the letter of
:53:39. > :53:41.intent that clear. Thank you for joining us. We will leave it there.
:53:42. > :53:43.The former First Minister Alex Salmond famously
:53:44. > :53:46.said that "the rocks would melt with the sun" before he allowed tuition
:53:47. > :53:49.Those words were later carved onto a commemorative stone.
:53:50. > :53:51.But Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson called on
:53:52. > :53:54.Nicola Sturgeon this week to "ditch the stone carvings" and instead
:53:55. > :53:56.focus on practical solutions for getting more students from deprived
:53:57. > :54:00.During First Minister's Questions, the Scottish Labour leader Kezia
:54:01. > :54:04.Dugdale accused Nicola Sturgeon of reneging on a promise to eliminate
:54:05. > :54:06.student debt, saying the SNP have instead created a "debt mountain"
:54:07. > :54:08.that stands at two point seven billion pounds.
:54:09. > :54:25.The value of student debt in Scotland is more than the combined
:54:26. > :54:31.cost of the new Forth road crossing and the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in
:54:32. > :54:35.Glasgow. In fact, the value of the accumulated debt of students in
:54:36. > :54:40.Scotland, it is now the government of's biggest single financial asset.
:54:41. > :54:46.The student debt monster the SNP once promised to dump is now a debt
:54:47. > :54:50.mountain. Did the First Minister ever have an intention of keeping
:54:51. > :54:57.that promise? Domiciled students and here I will talk about tuition fees,
:54:58. > :55:02.do not have to be fees of up to ?20,000 charge for tuition elsewhere
:55:03. > :55:06.in the UK. That is the real saving that does not become a debt in
:55:07. > :55:10.Scotland in the way it does in other parts of the UK. Currently at the
:55:11. > :55:13.least well-off students in England and Scotland took up the maximum
:55:14. > :55:19.amount of student loan available to them during the term of the degree
:55:20. > :55:23.of English students would accumulate debts of around ?12,000 more than
:55:24. > :55:28.Scottish students. The reality is that too it is easier to be poor and
:55:29. > :55:34.get to uni in England even under the Tories that it is in Scotland under
:55:35. > :55:39.the SNP. There has been a 50% increase since 2006 and applications
:55:40. > :55:44.to university from the 20% most deprived areas in our country. Young
:55:45. > :55:46.people are more likely to participate in higher education by
:55:47. > :55:54.the time they are more likely to participate in higher education by
:55:55. > :55:56.the time all graduates who their university education to playback a
:55:57. > :56:01.contribution once they got a decent job. That money could then be used
:56:02. > :56:04.to increase bursaries for good students who under the current
:56:05. > :56:08.scheme cannot get a foot through the door. This plan is sensible,
:56:09. > :56:14.moderate and would help those most in need. Can I ask what reason,
:56:15. > :56:20.other than an ideological one, with this First Minister have or not
:56:21. > :56:24.considering it? We have an honest disagreement. I believe in free
:56:25. > :56:29.education, I benefited from it as a young person and I believe I have no
:56:30. > :56:33.right to take it away from any other young person today. This SNP
:56:34. > :56:38.government has singularly failed to close the gap between rich and poor
:56:39. > :56:43.in access to university in more than eight years of office. Presiding
:56:44. > :56:47.Officer, we have a solution, and it works. All we ask is that the First
:56:48. > :56:53.Minister has the courage to ditch the stone carvings and the vanity
:56:54. > :56:59.projects and to move to practical solutions for our tourist students,
:57:00. > :57:02.will she? Ruth Davidson calls it ideological, I called principle, it
:57:03. > :57:06.will be for the people of Scotland to make up their minds.
:57:07. > :57:08.Well, the Education Secretary, Angela Constance is with me
:57:09. > :57:21.The National union of students who were very critical of the tuition
:57:22. > :57:26.fees have called on you to cut grant aid, will you do that? We will
:57:27. > :57:30.remain in close Ighalo with the National union of students, we have
:57:31. > :57:38.a good relationship with them. What about changing the policy? We have
:57:39. > :57:50.to remember that in 2012, can we do that again? I said 20,012. We are
:57:51. > :57:57.live! Of Newport. Forget me, I thought it was a pre-recorded. In
:57:58. > :58:01.2012 the NUS were supportive of the changes we made to the student
:58:02. > :58:03.support package which was all about increasing the overall level of
:58:04. > :58:09.support package which was all about support available to the tourist
:58:10. > :58:13.students and our focus was... I know you said that the figures that
:58:14. > :58:17.you're on student awards agency Scotland produced this week show
:58:18. > :58:25.that nonrepayable grants, let's leave loans to one side, they have
:58:26. > :58:31.gone down by 20% since 2006. The total paid out in nonrepayable
:58:32. > :58:36.grants has gone down by 36% and the number of students supported as gone
:58:37. > :58:40.down by 11%. Given your policy is to try to get more students from lower
:58:41. > :58:45.backgrounds into higher education how can it possibly help to cut
:58:46. > :58:49.grants like that? We are getting more students from poor backgrounds
:58:50. > :58:53.into higher education. We want to increase the pace and pick up the
:58:54. > :58:59.pace. How does cutting the grants help that? What I was trying to
:59:00. > :59:07.explain earlier was that in 2012 we, in an effort to increase more
:59:08. > :59:10.money going into the pocket of the Buddhas of students, we increased
:59:11. > :59:15.the overall amount of money available to our tourist students
:59:16. > :59:22.and in 2011 we were re-elected... When you say overall amount of money
:59:23. > :59:25.you mean debt? So now poor students are increasingly borrowing more
:59:26. > :59:29.money than richer students to go through university in Scotland
:59:30. > :59:33.because you have cut the grants? We can look at the detail of those
:59:34. > :59:35.beggars. Scottish students have cut the grants? We can look at the
:59:36. > :59:42.detail of those beggars. Scottish students at the lowest to the poor
:59:43. > :59:53.students in England, the coolest students in England still accumulate
:59:54. > :00:03.more student debt. -- Forest. -- Cannes. We changed from bursaries to
:00:04. > :00:10.loans which was a effort to increase the money in the pockets of the
:00:11. > :00:16.poorest students. That was welcomed by the NUS at the time. You say you
:00:17. > :00:26.can put the situation with down south. Figures from UCAS show that
:00:27. > :00:30.while the number of students from lower backgrounds are increasing in
:00:31. > :00:34.Scotland it is increasing at a higher level and increasing faster
:00:35. > :00:41.in England. If your policies are so brilliant wires that the case? We
:00:42. > :00:44.inherited a greater problem from our predecessors but it is important to
:00:45. > :00:50.recognise we are closing the gap by a faster rate. According to UCAS
:00:51. > :00:55.figures we are closing the gap at a faster rate than our counterparts in
:00:56. > :01:01.England. That is just not true. It is not what UCAS says. If you look
:01:02. > :01:07.at the UK entry level the number of students from disadvantaged
:01:08. > :01:11.backgrounds we are closing the gap at a faster rate than our English
:01:12. > :01:16.counterparts. We would fully recognise we want to pick up the
:01:17. > :01:19.pace and in the years that I have been Education Secretary we have
:01:20. > :01:25.increased bursaries provision to the Buddhist students. We have increased
:01:26. > :01:28.income thresholds and improve the wider access commission. It is an
:01:29. > :01:33.interim report that will be available in the next few weeks
:01:34. > :01:37.because that agenda is broader than just student support. It is used
:01:38. > :01:45.throughout our education system. Let's not take the UCAS figures. The
:01:46. > :01:49.Scottish funding level, it says figures are not compatible, between
:01:50. > :01:56.Scotland and England, it does some work of its own and said 9.2% of
:01:57. > :02:01.graduate students came from the most deprived areas in 2007 when your
:02:02. > :02:10.government came to power. If 2013 that had gone up to 10.4%, so hardly
:02:11. > :02:15.moved, why is that? What we know about 18-year-old is from the most
:02:16. > :02:21.disadvantaged communities going to university has increased by 50%.
:02:22. > :02:24.What proportion of those, as you want to talk about these figures,
:02:25. > :02:30.what proportion of these 18-year-olds go to higher education
:02:31. > :02:36.in Scotland? Is a 50% increase. What is the proportion? In terms of young
:02:37. > :02:42.people... What proportion of those people you have just measured go
:02:43. > :02:49.into further education in Scotland and what proportion in England? In
:02:50. > :02:54.terms of young people from the 20% most disadvantaged communities, 15%
:02:55. > :03:00.of those are denied education. And how many in England? Excuse me. With
:03:01. > :03:07.the UCAS figures are important in terms of the detail, the UCAS
:03:08. > :03:11.figures include young people who are in higher education there the
:03:12. > :03:17.college sector but do not include those figures. What the with
:03:18. > :03:27.England? I will tell you what is important in Scotland. No one is
:03:28. > :03:33.disputing we have more work to do in access. So you do not dispute more
:03:34. > :03:38.people in England end up in higher education than in Scotland, you do
:03:39. > :03:41.not dispute that? What I am not disputing is that we have indeed
:03:42. > :03:47.made good progress under this government. Why can't you just give
:03:48. > :03:53.a straight answer to my question? That is not a good argument for
:03:54. > :03:58.removing free tuition. I am just asking you to agree with me that
:03:59. > :04:01.more people from Lincoln families end up in higher education in
:04:02. > :04:08.England at the proportion than in Scotland. -- low income families.
:04:09. > :04:13.You are comparing the figures in Scotland. You were including them
:04:14. > :04:16.yourself just a minute ago. We can compare things when you like the
:04:17. > :04:23.comparison but not when you do not like the comparison? UCAS figures by
:04:24. > :04:27.their own admission do not include the proportion of young people who
:04:28. > :04:33.enter higher education in Scotland there are further education but they
:04:34. > :04:38.do in England. In Scotland 17% of higher education is provided in
:04:39. > :04:44.college. How does that compare with England? In England the proportion
:04:45. > :04:49.is five or 6%. Where do we get the figures your government has prepared
:04:50. > :04:51.to show the incompatibility? Will you produce figures making the
:04:52. > :05:00.comparison yourself? They don't take into account the
:05:01. > :05:05.proportion of young people in Scotland that go into higher
:05:06. > :05:08.education... We can argue about figures for years. The bottom line
:05:09. > :05:12.is, I don't think you would dispute, let's put it simply, that there is
:05:13. > :05:16.no greater progress, particularly in Scotland than getting low income
:05:17. > :05:23.students into higher education. We're closing the gap quicker. Work
:05:24. > :05:29.any pointers the data that shows tuition fees policy has any effect
:05:30. > :05:34.on it benefits students of all backgrounds. That was the manifesto
:05:35. > :05:38.pledge we made in 2011. Nicola Sturgeon wants her premiership to be
:05:39. > :05:42.judged on getting more people into university from low-income
:05:43. > :05:46.backgrounds. We have also delivered on a manifesto pledge to introduce a
:05:47. > :05:51.minimum income guarantee which was supported by the National Union of
:05:52. > :05:57.Students. And we are succeeding in getting... We are succeeding in
:05:58. > :06:02.getting more disadvantaged Scots into higher education, but we have
:06:03. > :06:05.more work to do. We want to pick up the pace, that is why we have
:06:06. > :06:10.introduced the access commission. That is why I have introduced
:06:11. > :06:14.improvements to the current student living costs package. It is why we
:06:15. > :06:18.are doing radical work in early years, why we are trying to close
:06:19. > :06:22.the gap in primary school and why we are ensuring more people in
:06:23. > :06:23.secondary school have more choices and chances. Thank you very much
:06:24. > :06:24.indeed. It's time to have a look
:06:25. > :06:27.at what's been happening this week I'm joined from Perth by the former
:06:28. > :06:49.Labour MSP Pauline McNeill and Neill -- let's talk about the Labour
:06:50. > :06:57.Party conference, as you are there. You seem quite impressed by Kezia
:06:58. > :07:01.Dugdale's speech. It was a very good speech. I think it was a far better
:07:02. > :07:08.speech than anyone had the right to expect. Sometimes, it is more like a
:07:09. > :07:11.casual Ward -- casualty ward teleconference, giving the enormous
:07:12. > :07:15.defeat Labour suffered at the general election. She delivered a
:07:16. > :07:19.speech which had a lot of content in it and clearly located the party to
:07:20. > :07:24.the left of the SNP. Particularly on this issue of tax credits, saying
:07:25. > :07:27.they would use their tax raising powers of the Scottish parliament
:07:28. > :07:34.for the first time since 1999, use the tax-raising powers to reverse
:07:35. > :07:39.the Tory cuts in tax credits to low-income families. It was very
:07:40. > :07:42.significant and the Labour Party has turned a corner here in Perth. Just
:07:43. > :07:47.now, we were listening to an extraordinary debate on Trident,
:07:48. > :07:50.something we haven't heard at the UK Labour Party, is, because they
:07:51. > :07:55.bottled it in Brighton last month, and it has been a very good debate.
:07:56. > :07:59.The old divisions are not causing the kind of problems they may have
:08:00. > :08:07.had in the 1980s. This is much more intelligent form of debate and
:08:08. > :08:12.disagreement. Pauline, do you think Kezia Dugdale... You have some
:08:13. > :08:16.experience, presumably personally, in trying to fight off an SNP who
:08:17. > :08:20.claimed they are to the left of the Labour Party nowadays. Do you think
:08:21. > :08:27.Kezia Dugdale has carved out a new niche? I think she has certainly
:08:28. > :08:30.laid down a challenge for the SNP, because I think she has framed a
:08:31. > :08:33.debate for the first time that a Labour leader has done in Labour
:08:34. > :08:39.turns. The first half of her speech was a positive speech, talking about
:08:40. > :08:44.what she would do. She has also demonstrated on that particular
:08:45. > :08:47.policy, which is that in power, Labour would restore tax credits,
:08:48. > :08:51.that they would not reduce air passenger duty to do that. She has
:08:52. > :08:54.also demonstrated that there are sometimes hard choices that have to
:08:55. > :08:59.be made and I think that has thrown down a challenge to the SNP, but I
:09:00. > :09:04.don't think we have responded to that policy yet, to be in
:09:05. > :09:07.government, if you are going to be progressive, and your policies are
:09:08. > :09:11.about achieving things for working class children, they are going to be
:09:12. > :09:17.hard choices to make, there are going to have to be other policies,
:09:18. > :09:23.a passenger duty. I think what she got in the hall was a great sense of
:09:24. > :09:27.relief and she got constant applause, which I've never really
:09:28. > :09:31.seen for many years for a Labour leader, the thing that is a sense of
:09:32. > :09:36.will that exists in the Labour Party. I think people are realistic,
:09:37. > :09:42.they know that we have turned a corner here, or it is our last
:09:43. > :09:47.chance. All very upbeat. After that bit of a boost, what is your general
:09:48. > :09:52.assessment of the mood of the conference? One obvious criticism of
:09:53. > :09:58.what Kezia Dugdale said yesterday it was, it is just going to attract a
:09:59. > :10:02.core vote of what people used to vote Labour, not necessarily a
:10:03. > :10:05.party, it might be, but not necessarily a policy that will make
:10:06. > :10:13.the Scottish middle classes very happy. This clearly is the issue,
:10:14. > :10:16.because she said that if you are going to have left-wing policies,
:10:17. > :10:19.this was her main criticism of the SNP, if you have left wing policies,
:10:20. > :10:24.you have to find the means of paying for them and somebody has to pay for
:10:25. > :10:30.them. That is going to mean people will have to pay more tax in
:10:31. > :10:33.Scotland. Inevitably, it will be the middle classes or those who believe
:10:34. > :10:40.themselves to be middle earners who will have to pay rather more in tax.
:10:41. > :10:43.She is not proposing to actually increase the rates of taxation. What
:10:44. > :10:52.she is saying is that they will not increase the threshold is -- the
:10:53. > :10:56.threshold for higher rate tax. The will be a marginal increase in
:10:57. > :11:02.taxation for people earning between 40 and ?50,000. Whether they notice
:11:03. > :11:06.is another issue. It may well be that many of these people in
:11:07. > :11:10.Scotland, who have been voting for left-wing parties like the SNP and
:11:11. > :11:17.Labour, consistently over the last 50 years, they may be prepared to
:11:18. > :11:23.accept a modest hit on their earnings and also accept things like
:11:24. > :11:27.not cutting air passenger duty. If it means you can avoid having these
:11:28. > :11:31.tax credit cuts hitting very low income families in Scotland. We
:11:32. > :11:34.don't necessarily know this will be a vote loser. The assumption
:11:35. > :11:41.generally along the political classes is that any discussion in
:11:42. > :11:45.changes in tax will inevitably be suicide at the polling booths.
:11:46. > :11:49.Scotland has a different political culture from south of the border. It
:11:50. > :11:54.is not as toxic and issue as it is in the south. Pauline, we have just
:11:55. > :11:58.been hearing about some of the details of theirs and I suppose the
:11:59. > :12:01.problem for you... You would say you would be delighted if George Osborne
:12:02. > :12:07.scrapped his plans to cut tax credits, but what Ian was saying is
:12:08. > :12:12.that if he mitigated, it won't cost us much. In an ideal world, from
:12:13. > :12:18.your point of view, George Osborne would make sure that the people
:12:19. > :12:22.don't lose any money from the cuts in tax credits. The trouble for you
:12:23. > :12:31.is a new flagship policy then evaporates. Well, that remains to be
:12:32. > :12:37.seen. I think that the policy commitment here, apart from anything
:12:38. > :12:42.else, Kezia Dugdale had to nail the question which is, what is the
:12:43. > :12:46.purpose of labour and what does Labour stand for? Right here and
:12:47. > :12:52.now, where we face the prospect of a reduction of tax credits for working
:12:53. > :12:58.class families, and let's not forget it was the heart of the UK Labour
:12:59. > :13:01.government's progress in government. She has to say what she
:13:02. > :13:07.would be prepared to do. I think that is what most people will take
:13:08. > :13:11.out of her conference speech. I think the issue is obviously the
:13:12. > :13:14.test for Scottish Labour and for UK Labour, how they respond to what
:13:15. > :13:18.ever George Osborne is going to come up with. Labour has to be clear in
:13:19. > :13:25.Scotland if faced with a reduction for working families of over 300,000
:13:26. > :13:28.families, who stands to lose out of this, that we have two nail our
:13:29. > :13:33.colours to the mast and I think that is the tone of it. There are risks
:13:34. > :13:38.involved, yes, but clearly identifying what Labour stands for
:13:39. > :13:41.is very crucial at this stage. I am sorry to cut in, we have to leave it
:13:42. > :13:43.there. We are completely out of time. Sorry about that.
:13:44. > :13:48.Sunday Politics is back next week at the slightly later time
:13:49. > :14:14.What the actual... Who do you think you are?!