01/11/2015 Sunday Politics Scotland

Coming up on Sunday Politics Scotland:

Kezia Dugdale makes a pitch to reclaim progressive policies with

a pledge Labour will use tax and welfare powers to restore tax

cuts to tax credits finally came to a head last week with a defeat

in the Lords and serious dissent among Tory MPs in the Commons.

George Osborne has gone back to the drawing board on tax credits

and promised to "deal with" the House of Lords, whose actions

The Prime Minister set up a review of the Lord's powers.

That review is being headed by hereditary Tory peer

He had agreed to do an interview with us this morning but 10

Downing Street phoned us yesterday to pull him from the show.

We think the government does not want us to talk about tax credits,

so let's talk about tax credits. Janan, will the Chancellor now get

away with some fine tuning, with some tweaking, or does he have to

start from scratch? Even the tweaking is very difficult. It is

technically difficult to reform the policy while simultaneously helping

people who stand to lose out. It is fiscally difficult because the

current policy saves about ?4 billion, a third of the ?12 billion

he pledged to fine from welfare. There is no managerial way of doing

it. What could be done is either projecting, or hoping for

projections of higher tax receipts so he has to cut less. The deficit

is not as bad. Or move the target for getting rid of the deficit and

achieving the surplus year later. It is a much more fundamental solution.

It was only a few months ago the Tory press thought Mr Osborne walked

on water. His reputation has taken a real battering from this. In a very

short time, three weeks since the Tory party conference when they

walked out in a state of Triumph and euphoria. This budget looks like

another omnishambles and considerably more serious. Last time

it was funny with pasty taxes. This time, can he really drive through

all these cuts? At the moment he is trying to put imposed 40% cuts which

are undoable, like local government. This is only the first of many more

that will come, this undertaking. Ministers will cave in and accept

the cuts, but their departments will fall apart and they will rebel.

Against a weaker Chancellor. Yes. As Janan says, there is no tweaking

available. He gives back exactly the same amount of money he takes away,

or these hard-working people will be out of pocket. What do you hear

about what might be in the pipeline? We have got the Autumn

Statement and a comprehensive review, a three-year rolling

spending plan. It is on the last Wednesday of this month and now we

are in November, what is he up to? He is going to pony up and pony up

megabucks thanks to Rupert Harrison, his former economics

adviser and he devised the deficit reduction plan in the last

Parliament and the plan to target the surplus in this Parliament. It

sounds really hard line, there is no change from plan A, but it always

has written into it plan B and planned sea. He has delayed by one

year the targeting of the surplus and he could delay it by a further

year and still reach it by the time of the general election. Or he could

say because the OBE I will revise down economic growth forecasts by

the time of the Autumn Statement, the 10 billion he is meant to

achieve by 2019-2020, that could come down. The Chancellor is in a

hole and he is not stupid and he is going to get out of it and he is

going to spend a lot of money, but he will sound hard line by duffing

up the House of Lords. Do we take it seriously, the duffing up of the

House of Lords to reflect from the tax credits strimmer? Strimmer,

rumpus, whatever you want to call it. There was a lot of talk about

them stuffing the Lords... With Tory peers? Which ended badly the last

time it happened about 100 years ago. I cannot believe they will do

anything as provocative as that, but if he wired House of Lords another

incident like this and you make the argument for your own abolition.

There is a good argument for reform and abolition. I do not see why the

Lords should not do this as often as they want as long as the government

refuses to have a democratic debate. Willie Whitelaw is not of the most

ferocious people in the entire political system. We could have put

him through the fire this morning, but at least we did not talk about

Now, how far should the security services be able to spy

This week the Government will publish draft legislation to create

new powers and a new framework for the security services as they adapt

to the ever-growing challenges of digital communications being used by

the bad guys - terrorists, criminals,

paedophiles. But is there still a danger the privacy of innocent

Joe public gets gets violated as the power to intrude is extended?

There is not one person at MI6 who is not talking about it.

What, the upcoming draft Investigatory Powers Bill?

Sadly, my invite to the premiere of the new film got lost in the post,

In the new Bond film in which he drives this, one of the themes is

surveillance in the Internet age, and Westminster is revving up

for a potential row about how much the police and intelligence agencies

Because in the Goldfinger years of the '60s, it was easy to spy

on the villains, tail their Rolls or tap their phone.

Now, in the Daniel Craig era, the spooks need new weapons to track

One source told me that the work at places like the listening post

GCHQ has shifted from looking for a needle in a haystack to finding a

piece of hay in a haystack, and so a big question will be, how does the

goverment handle what is called bulk data? In other words,

looking at everyone's web activity to isolate the dodgy stuff.

Not something to worry about, say security types.

They are not interested in whether Lord West is having

They do not care, they do not look at that.

What they want to know is, am I talking to a bomb maker in the

Yemen who is talking to someone who they know has carried out an attack

in the Middle East before, who is talking to some American group that

we know are terrorists, that is talking to some people

When they get all these linkages, they hone it down and hone it down,

they use big data in the sense they use other techniques to refine it,

then they will say, this is extremely worrying, there is

something going on and then they will say, we want to go and look

at the detail of what is in these e-mails, or on social media.

But it scares the living daylights out of

The big issue for her, whether judges get to be involved.

At the moment, if someone wants to tap your telephone,

it is the Foreign Secretary or the Home Secretary who decides.

Normally in democracies we think there is a role for the judiciary in

This has not happened in the UK compared to the US or elsewhere

We also need to look to see the extent to which the security

agencies seek more power, do they want the power to hack our

Something that was considered outrageous when journalists did it,

is it now going to be OK for the spooks?

When the last Bond film came out three years ago, Parliament was

fighting over the so-called snoopers' charter, which would have

compelled Internet companies to keep and hand over a lot of our data.

It was thrown out when Nick Clegg played the role of Dr No

A security minded Conservative told me this could be another car crash,

because there are enough Tory MPs worried about civil liberties that

the government will need Labour support in the Commons,

So, will your browsing history remain for Your Eyes Only,

do you trust Her Majesty's Secret Service, or are the worriers just

Stay tuned for Theresa May's new legislation, coming soon.

Hopefully they do not ban bad James Bond puns.

Well, James Bond puns are unlikely to be outlawed but on the

Andrew Marr Show this morning the Home Secretary, Theresa May,

did confirm that internet service providers would have to keep

She was also asked about whether judges would need to

As I say, the three reviews came up with three

David Anderson was clear that he thought, partly

in relation to future proofing on future legislation, future legal

challenges, perhaps, judicial authorisation was the right way.

The parliamentary committee, the intelligence and security committee

of Parliament, said there should be executive authorisation, i.e.

the Secretary of State should still do it because

We have looked at all of those arguments and listened to what

people have said, and we will be bringing forward the government's

position on Wednesday, but as I say, I am very clear that what we will

bring forward has very strong oversight arrangements.

We're joined now by the Shadow Home Office Minister and former Director

of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer.

Welcome, this is the first time we have had due on. It is. As a general

principle do you support stronger have had due on. It is. As a general

powers for the intelligence services in accessing digital data? There is

a case for a new law. We have been patching up for a very long time,

the law is out of date. It is very important we have no go areas for

those involved in serious offending like terrorism and child sexual

abuse. And organised crime. And organised crime and when I was DPP

we rarely prosecuted without relying on data and this is important for

protecting the public. Is judicial as opposed to ministerial approval

of warrants to be able to do this, is that a red line issue? It is. We

have the chance to have a modern, comprehensive law that sets out the

powers for law enforcement and the security services and at the same

time we have the chance, a historic chance, to get the safeguards

right. One of the safeguard is judicial authorisation of intercept

roles. There is a big difference between data and content. By content

you mean what are people actually saying to each other? That should be

signed off by a judge. That is what happens in other countries. That is

the real issue. In fairness, Theresa May has backed off from the original

plans and faced up to some of the criticism, but it is really a chance

now for all of us to agree a framework for the future that is on

the one hand giving the authorities the powers they need, but on the

other hand entrenching in law the right safeguards and judicial

oversight is important in that. We do not know exactly what she is

going to say, she has to tell Parliament first, but in the Sunday

Times there is the ideal of a 2 tier system that an initial warrant, for

example what is my browsing history? The initial one would be issued by

the Home Secretary, but if you want to get into the content of what is

in these websites and what I have been sending, that needs to be a

judge. That is one idea that has been mooted, what is your reaction

to that? I am not in favour of took your system. If you're going to go

for content, we should go to a judge straightaway. Roughly speaking,

there are about 2500 warrants per year for interceptions. That is a

very high number for a Home Secretary to deal with. In reality,

that means that a lot of the preparation is done by her team, for

her to look at. There is nothing wrong with that and I am not being

critical of the team, but it would be far better if it was done by a

judge, independent of any of the operations, independent from all the

parties. It is a classically judge test, is it necessary,

proportionate, focused on the right person? This is what is done in

other countries and this would settle this dispute and allow

everybody to move on, the consensus is important. This could be a

historic moment if the Home Secretary will allow it. She has

stepped in the right direction. If she completes on that by having the

right safeguards, that is a prize worth having. However, who would be

accountable if a judge refused a warrant, not a politician, what a

judge, and as a result, there was a terrorist attack? Who do we hold

accountable? One idea would be to have a panel of judges, a commission

of judges. There are many judges that are clear to do this sort of

work. Individual decisions have to be made. In the main, we hope the

decisions are right. We could not hold a judge accountable? If the

Home Secretary gets it wrong, she's accountable, she has to appear

before Parliament, come on television, it could be the end of

her job. The judge would be accountable? We have always had a

system of accountability with judges that relies on the right person

making the decision in the first place and after the event,

investigation and looking at the warrants that had been issued. That

system did continue. It is difficult, we are arguing in the

dark, but I do not accept the proposition that if you put it to an

independent judge that is a lesser safeguard than if you put it to the

Home Secretary. These are decisions about how privacy is too precious to

be left with the Home Secretary. It should be done by a judge. Within

these constraints, I take it you think that the Internet browsing

history of every computer net device should be kept by Internet providers

by 12 months? That is the position that David Anderson, the independent

reviewer, proposed. We will have to see what is in the bill, but it

needs to be as clearly can just rained -- clearly constrained as

possible for as short a time as possible. How much, who accesses it,

and what conditions, this is key. Your leader and deputy leader in the

Labour Party has been opposed to this type of legislation. Mr Corbyn

called previous attempts a massive intrusion into people's lives. What

do you say to him? It is a massive intrusion, any interception of

Communications is. The question is whether it is justified. I have

worked with the police, Lauren Forstmann and the security services

for five-year is, when I was Director of Public Prosecutions. I

know how important it is that we get access to the material we need to

get access to, not just in terrorist cases. As you say, you have been

director of public and is. How much more difficult would it have been

for you to get major convictions in serious cases without both the 2004

and 2006 terrorist acts which Mr Corbyn opposed? Very difficult. We

use them on a regular basis. I said that when I was in the job. I made

the case that we should not lose capability and I am not going to

change my mind. It is not just your leader or his deputy, many of the 22

Labour MPs who voted against this previous piece of legislation on

this subject area, they are the ones who nominated Mr Corbyn for Nader

and they are now in power is the position and influence in your

party. Do you see a serious split on this issue? I do not think so. I

think Jeremy Corbyn listens to colleagues in policy response to the

government. We will make a response when we have heard what the Home

Secretary has said. We should seize the opportunity for proper

safeguards. In fairness, in the past, Mr Corbyn and others were

emphasising the case for safeguards which they did not think were strong

enough. To clarify, I have been told that you have squared Mr Corbyn on

this. In your view, if it is proper judicial oversight, then Mr Corbyn

will go along with those measures? I would not use that expression but we

have had a discussion. There is clarity in agreement that proper

powers where they are needed, it is right to have proper safeguards. He

is with you on that? Uncompromising on the safeguards is the position we

should adopt, but do not stand in the way of the powers that are

necessary for law enforcement and the security services where they are

needed. You squared it, because you have got the agreement of the Labour

leader on that. That is the position on what we have agreed. As an Andy

Burnham biker in the election, how is Jeremy Corbyn doing, better or

worse than you expected? Jeremy Corbyn got a massive mandate to lead

the party. He has put together a broad team to lead the party. We are

developing policy in response to the government's programme. We have a

government at the moment that is extreme in the sense that it is

pushing through provisions furiously and fast that it odd to be holding

back and looking out to be scrutinised more carefully. I think

we are doing fairly well in this exercise. You are London MP. London

Labour got easily the most votes in the capital at the general election.

Many people say this is a Labour city by and large. If Labour does

not win the 2016 election for mayor, does that indicate that a general

election victory under Mr Corbyn is a long, tough stretch? Listen, this

time last year I was about to start a selection exercise to be selected

as Frank Dobson's replacement as Labour candidate. We were all

predicting what the general election would hold. I am not going to fall

into the trap of trying to work out what will happen in 2020. I will say

it is really important that Labour win that election. You need to win?

We need to win London, local elections and the general election

in 2020. It is an important test for Mr Corbyn, London? If you cannot win

London, how would you win the country? It is a test for all of us.

I accept that. We must win next year, the local election and the

general election. We should focus on that. You have said that Jeremy

Corbyn is not the Messiah. I do not think that came as a surprise even

to those who voted for him or even Jeremy Corbyn. Is he John the

Baptist? I said that Jeremy has broken or a space in which we could

have a discussion about the project for the future. We had been lacking

that. That space is there. Jeremy Corbyn is not the Messiah. He does

not have all the answers and if you touch on, you are not healed. I was

seeing, the heavy lifting for the future has to be done by all of us.

Keir Starmer, thank you. It has been awhile since somebody has led the

Labour Party with your name. Thank you.

Now, it's been a torrid few weeks for the government on the issue

of tax credits with senior Conservatives such as Boris Johnson

and David Willets expressing unease about the Chancellor's proposed

cuts, unease which turned into a pretty

frightful week for the inhabitants of 10 and 11 Downing Street.

Peers created a nightmare for the Chancellor by voting,

in the House of Lords, to delay tax credit cuts and to compensate

Later in the week, 20 Tory backbenchers, including Bernard

Jenkin, Heidi Allen and Jacob Rees-Mogg, also sent shivers up

Mr Osborne's spine when they backed a motion from Labour's Frank Field

calling on the government to mitigate

And there may have been sleepless nights for

the Prime Minister over at number 10, too, with the EU once more

He jetted off to Iceland where he courted controversy by appearing to

some to be scare-mongering about life outside the EU.

Mr Cameron had said the so-called "Norway option"

of having access to the EU single market but little say over EU rules

wrong for the UK and that he would "guard very strongly" against it.

Now there's trouble brewing for the government over the spooks',

Next week the government will unveil a draft Investigatory Powers Bill

which former Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg described as

And we're joined now by the former Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis.

Welcome back to the Sunday Politics. If you go -- but judicial review,

would I do it for you? Almost, it is not judicial review, it is judicial

authorisation. I beg your pardon, authorisation of warrants by a

judge, not a politician. That is 90% of the way they are. We have too

much surveillance because they are not proper constraints or checks. If

we got back, I would largely lose interest in the area, because it is

no longer a real threat to our liberties. What about your attitude

towards what I was speaking about with Keir Starmer, because it was

briefed on from the Home Office, the 2-tier approach, an initial approach

to find out what websites I am looking at, that comes from the Home

Office, but to dig down to get into the content of what I have been

doing, that needs a judge? No. The best guidance on this is the

independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson, who

issued a strong report on this. He said it has got to be independent

and ideally overseen by the judiciary. It cannot be a policeman

in the office next door, it cannot be a spy in the office next door, or

the Home Secretary, it has to be independent. If you do that, you do

not need a 2 tier system, you have a uniform approach. Our politicians

not more accountable than judges? Any time I have asked a question of

any minister on a security matter, even what Lord did you do this

under, they never comment. There is no accountability. -- law. Look at

America. 9/11. There were clear errors in the handling of

intelligence. The head of the CIA went. Nobody paid a price for that.

They should not have done in my view, but they did not pay a price.

We take a very soft approach to this. Ministers are not really

accountable. If they were, and string questions in Parliament, it

would be different, but they are not. They may not be accountable

enough, but many people will think they are more accountable than

judges who have jobs for life. One minister said, judicial oversight of

interception warrants is a bad idea, he did not mean oversight, he meant

authorisation. If a bomb gets through because a judge refused to

sign a warrant, what will happen? There is a much better way of doing

it. Anderson points this out. Also, the other important report on this

points this out. You have a proper oversight procedure as well. It

backs up things. You have judges that do it, a single panel. They

look in retrospect? Yes, add everything that is done, before or

after any mistakes. They find them. The aim is to protect the public,

that is aim. At the moment the Home Secretary does about ten of these

warrants in a working day. It is impossible forward person to do

this. It is bad practice, bad managerially, bad legally and bad in

terms of counterterrorism. People who take your view of the quarter

are lies, Canada, Australia, the United States, New Zealand also of

judicial authorisation of warrants. I was looking at the figures, US

judges approved 99.6% of all warrants. In the end, it makes no

difference. The warrants are given. The warrants are given. The US

Judges have been pulled up on this, it has been tightened up. They have

somebody to put the other case which they did not have before. If you

have a decent system, you do not take a bad warrant. You do not go to

them with the expectation of being turned on, you make sure you have

the right person at the rate basis. The percentage does not tell you

much. If you do not get judicial authorisation, will you challenge

this bill in the courts as you did the last bill? No, because the last

one went through the Commons in the courts as you did the last bill? No,

because the last one went through the Commons on Wednesday it had not

been properly tested, so I thought, let's tested elsewhere. Parliament

is a better test than court if it is allowed to do the job. I do not

think this bill will get through the Commons or the House of Lords

without judicial authorisation. Even if the government comes out without

it this week, it will have to change again? There is a new consensus on

this across the board, across the experts, the Spriggs, the parties

and the Houses of Parliament. The Prime Minister consistently claims

that he rules nothing out in Europe, but is it not the case that by

rubbishing the Norwegian option as he did last week, it is clear he is

determined to stay" Mac -- to stay. He wants to get an outcome which

allows him to stay in. Attacking the Norwegian option is irrelevant.

Sure, he wants to be able to negotiate to stay in. But the EU is

in crisis. Many people on your side say it is such a crisis at the

moment that a British exit could be a catalyst for the whole demise of

the EU project. So why doesn't the Prime Minister make much tougher

demands as the price for staying in? It would be a catastrophe if Europe

was to lose us. He is caught in a conundrum. I broadly would agree

with that argument. He should make extremely tough demands. Tell the

British public it is a negotiation, you will not get everything, but we

will put the outcome to you. The problem is any failure to achieve a

complete success would be used as a weapon to beat him with and

therefore he will aim lower in the hope to gain 100% success. It is the

wrong analysis. The high We tried to get tough demands and

didn't get everything. We were outnumbered. 14 to one. Now it is 26

to one. 27 to one. Of course you don't get everything. Here, for the

very reason you say, Europe is no longer in a position, in a strong

position, its primary experiment, the bureau, is in a terrible state.

Therefore we have stronger argument. Isn't it inevitable, given

that, that when you finally get to know what the Prime Minister is

asking for in some detail, and we may get that by the time of the

summit in December, isn't it just the blunt truth that a huge chunk of

your party, maybe most of it, is going to be deeply disappointed by

the possibility of his demands? I don't think so. I think the truth of

the matter is that everybody has condition to the fact the demands

will be not the sort of substantive constitutional changes that some

others wanted. People are therefore beginning to shake the position to

the stance they take. One of the things about this, however, is that

there is the option of a referendum, they have that option to exercise

and they will try to get a resolution that way. That will

pacify the situation. Tax credits. Should Mr Osborne tweak his tax

credit plan to make it more acceptable? Or should he junk it and

go back to the drawing board? Two things. He needs to achieve a reform

in the tax credits process. It is just too expensive for what it

does. He also needs to achieve fiscal balance or better by 2020.

Those two things are absolute requirements, really. He doesn't

need to do it all ratio. That is the issue. I sponsored a debate on

Thursday in the Commons. It got amazing uniformity across the house.

What came out of that was a simple feeling of, look, whatever you do,

so long as it doesn't penalised the working poor, particularly the

dependence, then we will go with it. That is the criteria. That is more

than a tweak. A lot more. The simple truth is, look, if you are a single

parent working, raising two kids, you can lose up to ?2000. You can't

afford to lose a pound, actually. We will do more than a tweak, but

getting to the same place in 2020 is good enough. The financial markets

will actually accept that. They will say it's the end game that matters,

not the stages on the way. Thank you for being with us today.

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now

Good morning and welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland.

Kezia Dugdale accuses the SNP of being too scared to set out what

they'll do with additional tax and welfare powers -

as she sets out new proposals on tax credits, education and the NHS.

By using both at the Scottish Labour in May, you are voting to use new

powers of the Scottish Parliament to restore the money lost through tax

credit cups. Do poorer students in Scotland have

fair access to university funding? We'll be asking the Education

Secretary, Angela Constance. Now, the Scottish Labour Party is

rounding off its conference in Perth with a debate about Trident nuclear

weapons - we'll know the result Kezia Dugdale, the new leader,

used her speech yesterday to announce plans to stop cuts

in tax credit and give funds to The strategy is pretty obvious -

to challenge the SNP's claim to be I'm joined from the conference

in Perth by I got the impression that they were

all a bit gloomy earlier in the weekend. Has Kezia Dugdale banished

to cheer them up? I think she has. -- managed. They are having an

authentic debate right now, taking place on Trident, it has added to

that. There was a round of applause when it was suggested that it was a

good thing that there were open decisions. It is the most lively

conference debate I've seen for a long time. It was like the debate

held in the same hall about whether the SNP would commit an independent

Scotland to join Nato or not. A series of elements to the debate.

There is the majority -- morality. There is the cost, associated with

it. There is also the question of the jobs and, as well as patients

pieces -- speeches against Trident, there are also speeches in favour of

jobs. They are covering bases, talk of defence diversification was

simply a fairy tale jobs. Against that, you have had two arguments.

One, the cost is unsustainable and could be better used in other ways,

and two, regardless of the cost, regardless of the jobs, it was just

morally wrong to have that nuclear deterrent. The politics of this, I

presumably they are trying to give themselves up to campaign in the

elections next year. One imagines a lot of new people coming into the

Labour Party are fed up of going out in the streets and don't want to go

out and campus if they are being taunted by nuclear weapons by the

SNP. That is an issue, certainly with the tax credits thing you

mentioned earlier. It is an issue with Trident, however much they

adopt, and I think they will vote for an anti-temp one -- for

anti-Trident. I expect it will take a position against Trident. What

about the wider UK party? This is a Westminster decision, decision will

be made in the House of Commons as to whether to read -- to renew

Trident or not. Two views. One saying the position here is futile,

that the UK party will decide anyway. No, you heard argument that

a vote here could be a lever for the wider UK party to say that the bomb

should be banned entirely. You are right, it fits into a wider debate

about the nature of the Scottish Labour Party and its fair and we

have been looking at that and looking at the current condition of

the Labour Party at this conference. Here is a report of that from my

colleague. This week, Labour supporters have

been reflecting on a giant of their movement. The great founder of the

Scottish Labour Party... It is now 100 years since the Scots socialist

campaigner who became the UK's first Labour MP. This weekend, a Scottish

Labour conference paid its respect from lines from some of its

best-known speeches. Socialism implies the inherent equality of all

human beings. The danger which comes from allowing men to grow rich and

permitting them to use their wealth to corrupt the press, to silence the

pulpit. I am an agitator. My work is consisted of trying to start up a

divine discontent with wrong. While Labour is was happy to talk about

the achievements of characters like Akira Hardy, the party also knows it

has to look to the future and not simply dwell on the glory days of

the past. The theme of this conference is about asking voters

who were turned away from Scottish Labour to have a fresh look at the

party. The problem is that the SNP is so massively popular right now

that that's challenge may prove insurmountable. Cue the fresh talent

to sort things out. Jeremy Corbyn is a left winger and as a socialist,

the new Labour leader was keen to draw on the hardy ethos to take

forward the Labour message. Our mission is the same as that which he

laid out just 21 years into our party's life, when he said the

movement would not rest until the sunshine of socialism and human

freedom break forth upon our land. But is this the right message? One

of Labour's big problems is the huge number of voters they have lost to

the SNP as the Nationalists have positioned themselves as the real

party of working people. Why are some determined to stick with

Scottish Labour? I have never liked SNP, I don't think Scotland would be

able to go on its own. I'd rather have the United Kingdom than on our

own. Support the union, but I also supports devolution, as well. I

think the Scottish parliament should have more power, but it can't be

controlled by one party. Labour presents me better opportunities for

myself going forwards and the country going forwards. With all the

troubles we are facing, the SNP doesn't seem to have the best record

at the moment on something. Getting voters back to Labour is the key

challenge facing Scottish leader Kezia Dugdale. Her plan is to make

the party distinctly different from the SNP, especially where it comes

from new tax and wealth or power devolved to Holyrood. Before the UK

elections, our opponents said there was no difference between Labour and

Tories. I hope they can see that's difference now. A Labour government

introduced tax credits, a Tory government will cut them. At the

Scottish elections, if people ask what is the difference between a

Scottish Labour government and an SNP government, this is the

difference. A Scottish Labour government will restore the

much-needed tax credits and SNP, left to their own devices, will

leave those Tory cuts in place. As Labour draws a bit strategy for next

year's Scottish election, could the words of Hardy hinder rather than

help? You may have helped sow the seeds of labour, but it is one that

is now past his prime? Joining us now from

the conference is Ian Murray MP. He is Scotland's only remaining

Labour MP. On this tax credits business, can we be clear what it is

you are promising? Are you saying he will not implement any of the cuts

in either working tax credits or child tax credits? This comes from

the new powers in the Scotland Bill and the new powers allow the

Scottish Parliament to top up any reserve benefits, so what would

happen is we would take the losses that people have incurred through

the reduction in tax credits. We're not sure of the quantum of that's

because the House of Lords have forced the Chancellor this week to

go and look at mitigation measures, but if we take where we are today,

we would introduce a top up devolved power that would allow us to

mitigate the effects of that tax could change. All of them? That was

the bold thing that was announced by Kezia Dugdale yesterday. All of the

cuts? That was the emitter and that has been made. We're looking at that

and we have costed that I'm fully costed that on basis of the grid

position today. Obviously, we don't know, and we hope the Chancellor

will either scrap these changes or he will listen to the House of Lords

and put in place the mitigation of facts so that the poorest are not

white stuff. As we stand here today, before any of those mitigation

measures are put in place, we would restore the losses of the tax

credits to Scottish working families. If George Osborne goes

back in his Autumn Statement and says, I am going to change tax

thresholds, that will mitigate this, your policy would only be to use the

powers of the Scottish Government to make up for the losses? It might be

a lot less than it would be now. That is correct. The house of lords

on Monday voted to send the Chancellor and the House of Commons

a way to think again on these. It is said they would not approve the

strategy instrument to make changes to the tax credit system, unless the

Chancellor came back with mitigation measures for the poorest. This

policy has been costed and looked at on the basis of where we stand

today, but if the Chancellor goes back and our Shadow Chancellor has

said, if he comes back and says he will either cancel these or fully

mitigate the effects for the very poorest in society on the basis of

the tax credits, we will support him on that and that is the right thing

to do. If George Osborne does what Jeremy Corbyn and John -- John

McConnell had fast integer, which is to make sure nobody misses out, the

new policy disappears? We would be delighted if the Chancellor came

back and didn't hit the quarter of a million families in Scotland with

these working tax credit cuts. These are people who are in work,

Conservative backbenchers are uncomfortable, the House of Lords

spoke very loudly on Monday night to see it was unexpected bull. This --

unacceptable. There are people in work, doing the right thing, doing

everything that is asked of them. The previous Labour government

brought these tax credits in to make sure that people were not in a

benefit trap. People getting up, doing the right thing, preparing for

the families unable to progress to the work system. He mitigates any of

those troubles with regards to people not losing out, we will

support him, and I think we would all rejoice in the fact that the

poorest and most honourable in society are not paying for the backs

of what happened in the economy eight years ago. You say this is

fully costed by yourselves, what is your estimate of the cost of this?

The estimated cost by 2021 is ?440 million per year as we sit here

today. We have taken the figures from Scottish reports. They want to

cut air passenger duty with new powers in the Scotland Bill and then

ultimately scrap it. That is 250 million per year up until the end of

this Parliament. We wouldn't implement, because we get in contact

powers, the upper threshold for income tax rising from 43,000 up to

50,000 that the Chancellor has already put in place. Those are

already clear in the red book that accompanies the Budget. When John

Swinney said to his party conference, that he couldn't stop

the cuts in tax credits, and he said the full effects of Iain Duncan

Smith's welfare reforms were about ?6 billion a year in Scotland, and

that he couldn't stop that happening, are you disputing his

figures? I would need to see where those figures have come from, but it

is pretty clear that the red book which is produced by Her Majesty's

Treasury and signed off by the Office for Budget Responsibility,

which is independent from government, has said that this in

Scotland would create ?440 million of people working on child tax

credits. We would restore that ?440 million by a combination of not

taking the air passenger duty cut and then taking -- not taking the

threshold increase for the upper rate tax payers. Not a penny of

additional tax should be paid by Scottish taxpayers with this

proposal. Presumably you would: Scottish Government to implement

this. I don't care who implements this. I don't care if the House of

Lords after defeat the government, or if George Osborne says he is

sorry and will reverse these. I don't care if he mitigates them or

of the Scottish governments do it. What we are saying is if we are in

government in May 2016, with the powers of the Scotland Bill

transferred to the Scotland climate, the Labour Party, the

Scottish Labour Party, will commit to reversing these tax credit cuts.

If anybody else wants to do it, we will be delighted because this is

about supporting working families and making sure they have an income

that they can survive on. I don't really care who implements this

policy, but this is a Scottish Labour policy. It is a radical

policy from Kezia Dugdale and we will do it if no one else will. You

said a moment while -- month ago that there wouldn't be any tax rises

that there wouldn't be a plan to rise the test -- rise the threshold.

People in Scotland he would have benefited will not benefit. They

will end up playing ?1200 a year more than people in England. Are you

happy to go to the better off amongst your constituents in

Edinburgh and say, look, you won't get that advantage, in order to pay

for not cutting the tax credits, some money of which may go to people

who are not in jobs? Gordon, everyone, I think, across the

country, including in Edinburgh, will realise these tax credit cuts

are an abomination to Scotland and the wrong thing to do. The

Chancellor has failed every single policy in terms of them trying to

balance the books at government level. He has then decided he will

take money out of the very poorest in society, who are in work. That is

the main thing. These are working tax credits. That is the main point

here. People are actually in work. People in my constituency will not

pay a penny more in tax with regards to this. We will not implement the

increase in the personal allowance of the 40p rate. People will be no

worse off, they will pay not a penny more tax and we will use the money

we receive from not increasing the threshold to make sure the poorest

and most vulnerable in society, who are actually in work and not having

these cuts imposed upon them at the working tracks level. That is the

right thing to do. The vast majority of reasonable people think that is

the right thing to do, as well. Your new proposals on autonomy, have you

worked out how they're going to work yet? As an in Westminster, who do

you now consider yourself accountable? Let's forget about

Trident, because you have said repeatedly you will vote against it,

no matter what the Scottish Westminster party tell you to do.

If, in the future, for example there was a policy on tax credits which

Jeremy Corbyn had a different view on it from the Scottish party, would

you feel bound to vote in the House of Commons the way you are told by

the government whips, sorry, by the Labour whips, or by the way you are

told to by the Scottish Labour Party?

A First in a UK Government whip. The letter of intent that was signed by

Jeremy Corbyn and Kezia Dugdale on Monday makes it clear there would

have to be a process but you would still have to take the UK Labour

Party whip because you are at Westminster. There would be a

process tween the National executive committee, the Scottish executive

committee in between the UK and Labour parties. It states that

clearly in the letter of intent. That clearly in the letter of

intent. That's what we speak. It is clear that the moment it would have

to be a process to allow Scottish Labour MPs to have that Scottish

conflict resolution put into place. At the moment they would take the

Labour Party whip. I have no idea. Unless the individual wanted to take

the whip. I have no idea what you said means. It sounds like you would

still be wept in the UK Labour whips up maybe not. Is that right? What I

am saying is, the letter of intent that was signed by Kezia Dugdale and

Jeremy Corbyn makes it has to be a process worked out for conflict

resolution when the Scottish Labour Party has a different policy from

the UK Labour Party and the intention is at the moment a

Scottish Labour MP would still take the UK Labour whip but there has to

be processed in terms of conflict resolution to resolve that. I know

you said you do not want to talk about trade which surprises me given

that is what we have spoken about over the last few months but that is

a prime example where the Scottish Labour Party might take a different

tack to the UK Labour Party. These decisions are taken all of the world

when you have a tournament and federal party aching this something

we have to work out, it is something -- nothing new here. I said about

Trident you would vote in favour of which whip to vote about it. If the

UK Labour Party changed their position on Trident and we are going

through that debate in the Shadow Cabinet at the moment, Jeremy said

he wants to have that debate, that may not be the case, the position

may change on that. Individual issues are difficult to talk about

hypothetical science but there will be processed place in the letter of

intent that clear. Thank you for joining us. We will leave it there.

The former First Minister Alex Salmond famously

said that "the rocks would melt with the sun" before he allowed tuition

Those words were later carved onto a commemorative stone.

But Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson called on

Nicola Sturgeon this week to "ditch the stone carvings" and instead

focus on practical solutions for getting more students from deprived

During First Minister's Questions, the Scottish Labour leader Kezia

Dugdale accused Nicola Sturgeon of reneging on a promise to eliminate

student debt, saying the SNP have instead created a "debt mountain"

that stands at two point seven billion pounds.

The value of student debt in Scotland is more than the combined

cost of the new Forth road crossing and the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in

Glasgow. In fact, the value of the accumulated debt of students in

Scotland, it is now the government of's biggest single financial asset.

The student debt monster the SNP once promised to dump is now a debt

mountain. Did the First Minister ever have an intention of keeping

that promise? Domiciled students and here I will talk about tuition fees,

do not have to be fees of up to ?20,000 charge for tuition elsewhere

in the UK. That is the real saving that does not become a debt in

Scotland in the way it does in other parts of the UK. Currently at the

least well-off students in England and Scotland took up the maximum

amount of student loan available to them during the term of the degree

of English students would accumulate debts of around ?12,000 more than

Scottish students. The reality is that too it is easier to be poor and

get to uni in England even under the Tories that it is in Scotland under

the SNP. There has been a 50% increase since 2006 and applications

to university from the 20% most deprived areas in our country. Young

people are more likely to participate in higher education by

the time they are more likely to participate in higher education by

the time all graduates who their university education to playback a

contribution once they got a decent job. That money could then be used

to increase bursaries for good students who under the current

scheme cannot get a foot through the door. This plan is sensible,

moderate and would help those most in need. Can I ask what reason,

other than an ideological one, with this First Minister have or not

considering it? We have an honest disagreement. I believe in free

education, I benefited from it as a young person and I believe I have no

right to take it away from any other young person today. This SNP

government has singularly failed to close the gap between rich and poor

in access to university in more than eight years of office. Presiding

Officer, we have a solution, and it works. All we ask is that the First

Minister has the courage to ditch the stone carvings and the vanity

projects and to move to practical solutions for our tourist students,

will she? Ruth Davidson calls it ideological, I called principle, it

will be for the people of Scotland to make up their minds.

Well, the Education Secretary, Angela Constance is with me

The National union of students who were very critical of the tuition

fees have called on you to cut grant aid, will you do that? We will

remain in close Ighalo with the National union of students, we have

a good relationship with them. What about changing the policy? We have

to remember that in 2012, can we do that again? I said 20,012. We are

live! Of Newport. Forget me, I thought it was a pre-recorded. In

2012 the NUS were supportive of the changes we made to the student

support package which was all about increasing the overall level of

support package which was all about support available to the tourist

students and our focus was... I know you said that the figures that

you're on student awards agency Scotland produced this week show

that nonrepayable grants, let's leave loans to one side, they have

gone down by 20% since 2006. The total paid out in nonrepayable

grants has gone down by 36% and the number of students supported as gone

down by 11%. Given your policy is to try to get more students from lower

backgrounds into higher education how can it possibly help to cut

grants like that? We are getting more students from poor backgrounds

into higher education. We want to increase the pace and pick up the

pace. How does cutting the grants help that? What I was trying to

explain earlier was that in 2012 we, in an effort to increase more

money going into the pocket of the Buddhas of students, we increased

the overall amount of money available to our tourist students

and in 2011 we were re-elected... When you say overall amount of money

you mean debt? So now poor students are increasingly borrowing more

money than richer students to go through university in Scotland

because you have cut the grants? We can look at the detail of those

beggars. Scottish students have cut the grants? We can look at the

detail of those beggars. Scottish students at the lowest to the poor

students in England, the coolest students in England still accumulate

more student debt. -- Forest. -- Cannes. We changed from bursaries to

loans which was a effort to increase the money in the pockets of the

poorest students. That was welcomed by the NUS at the time. You say you

can put the situation with down south. Figures from UCAS show that

while the number of students from lower backgrounds are increasing in

Scotland it is increasing at a higher level and increasing faster

in England. If your policies are so brilliant wires that the case? We

inherited a greater problem from our predecessors but it is important to

recognise we are closing the gap by a faster rate. According to UCAS

figures we are closing the gap at a faster rate than our counterparts in

England. That is just not true. It is not what UCAS says. If you look

at the UK entry level the number of students from disadvantaged

backgrounds we are closing the gap at a faster rate than our English

counterparts. We would fully recognise we want to pick up the

pace and in the years that I have been Education Secretary we have

increased bursaries provision to the Buddhist students. We have increased

income thresholds and improve the wider access commission. It is an

interim report that will be available in the next few weeks

because that agenda is broader than just student support. It is used

throughout our education system. Let's not take the UCAS figures. The

Scottish funding level, it says figures are not compatible, between

Scotland and England, it does some work of its own and said 9.2% of

graduate students came from the most deprived areas in 2007 when your

government came to power. If 2013 that had gone up to 10.4%, so hardly

moved, why is that? What we know about 18-year-old is from the most

disadvantaged communities going to university has increased by 50%.

What proportion of those, as you want to talk about these figures,

what proportion of these 18-year-olds go to higher education

in Scotland? Is a 50% increase. What is the proportion? In terms of young

people... What proportion of those people you have just measured go

into further education in Scotland and what proportion in England? In

terms of young people from the 20% most disadvantaged communities, 15%

of those are denied education. And how many in England? Excuse me. With

the UCAS figures are important in terms of the detail, the UCAS

figures include young people who are in higher education there the

college sector but do not include those figures. What the with

England? I will tell you what is important in Scotland. No one is

disputing we have more work to do in access. So you do not dispute more

people in England end up in higher education than in Scotland, you do

not dispute that? What I am not disputing is that we have indeed

made good progress under this government. Why can't you just give

a straight answer to my question? That is not a good argument for

removing free tuition. I am just asking you to agree with me that

more people from Lincoln families end up in higher education in

England at the proportion than in Scotland. -- low income families.

You are comparing the figures in Scotland. You were including them

yourself just a minute ago. We can compare things when you like the

comparison but not when you do not like the comparison? UCAS figures by

their own admission do not include the proportion of young people who

enter higher education in Scotland there are further education but they

do in England. In Scotland 17% of higher education is provided in

college. How does that compare with England? In England the proportion

is five or 6%. Where do we get the figures your government has prepared

to show the incompatibility? Will you produce figures making the

comparison yourself? They don't take into account the

proportion of young people in Scotland that go into higher

education... We can argue about figures for years. The bottom line

is, I don't think you would dispute, let's put it simply, that there is

no greater progress, particularly in Scotland than getting low income

students into higher education. We're closing the gap quicker. Work

any pointers the data that shows tuition fees policy has any effect

on it benefits students of all backgrounds. That was the manifesto

pledge we made in 2011. Nicola Sturgeon wants her premiership to be

judged on getting more people into university from low-income

backgrounds. We have also delivered on a manifesto pledge to introduce a

minimum income guarantee which was supported by the National Union of

Students. And we are succeeding in getting... We are succeeding in

getting more disadvantaged Scots into higher education, but we have

more work to do. We want to pick up the pace, that is why we have

introduced the access commission. That is why I have introduced

improvements to the current student living costs package. It is why we

are doing radical work in early years, why we are trying to close

the gap in primary school and why we are ensuring more people in

secondary school have more choices and chances. Thank you very much

indeed. It's time to have a look

at what's been happening this week I'm joined from Perth by the former

Labour MSP Pauline McNeill and Neill -- let's talk about the Labour

Party conference, as you are there. You seem quite impressed by Kezia

Dugdale's speech. It was a very good speech. I think it was a far better

speech than anyone had the right to expect. Sometimes, it is more like a

casual Ward -- casualty ward teleconference, giving the enormous

defeat Labour suffered at the general election. She delivered a

speech which had a lot of content in it and clearly located the party to

the left of the SNP. Particularly on this issue of tax credits, saying

they would use their tax raising powers of the Scottish parliament

for the first time since 1999, use the tax-raising powers to reverse

the Tory cuts in tax credits to low-income families. It was very

significant and the Labour Party has turned a corner here in Perth. Just

now, we were listening to an extraordinary debate on Trident,

something we haven't heard at the UK Labour Party, is, because they

bottled it in Brighton last month, and it has been a very good debate.

The old divisions are not causing the kind of problems they may have

had in the 1980s. This is much more intelligent form of debate and

disagreement. Pauline, do you think Kezia Dugdale... You have some

experience, presumably personally, in trying to fight off an SNP who

claimed they are to the left of the Labour Party nowadays. Do you think

Kezia Dugdale has carved out a new niche? I think she has certainly

laid down a challenge for the SNP, because I think she has framed a

debate for the first time that a Labour leader has done in Labour

turns. The first half of her speech was a positive speech, talking about

what she would do. She has also demonstrated on that particular

policy, which is that in power, Labour would restore tax credits,

that they would not reduce air passenger duty to do that. She has

also demonstrated that there are sometimes hard choices that have to

be made and I think that has thrown down a challenge to the SNP, but I

don't think we have responded to that policy yet, to be in

government, if you are going to be progressive, and your policies are

about achieving things for working class children, they are going to be

hard choices to make, there are going to have to be other policies,

a passenger duty. I think what she got in the hall was a great sense of

relief and she got constant applause, which I've never really

seen for many years for a Labour leader, the thing that is a sense of

will that exists in the Labour Party. I think people are realistic,

they know that we have turned a corner here, or it is our last

chance. All very upbeat. After that bit of a boost, what is your general

assessment of the mood of the conference? One obvious criticism of

what Kezia Dugdale said yesterday it was, it is just going to attract a

core vote of what people used to vote Labour, not necessarily a

party, it might be, but not necessarily a policy that will make

the Scottish middle classes very happy. This clearly is the issue,

because she said that if you are going to have left-wing policies,

this was her main criticism of the SNP, if you have left wing policies,

you have to find the means of paying for them and somebody has to pay for

them. That is going to mean people will have to pay more tax in

Scotland. Inevitably, it will be the middle classes or those who believe

themselves to be middle earners who will have to pay rather more in tax.

She is not proposing to actually increase the rates of taxation. What

she is saying is that they will not increase the threshold is -- the

threshold for higher rate tax. The will be a marginal increase in

taxation for people earning between 40 and ?50,000. Whether they notice

is another issue. It may well be that many of these people in

Scotland, who have been voting for left-wing parties like the SNP and

Labour, consistently over the last 50 years, they may be prepared to

accept a modest hit on their earnings and also accept things like

not cutting air passenger duty. If it means you can avoid having these

tax credit cuts hitting very low income families in Scotland. We

don't necessarily know this will be a vote loser. The assumption

generally along the political classes is that any discussion in

changes in tax will inevitably be suicide at the polling booths.

Scotland has a different political culture from south of the border. It

is not as toxic and issue as it is in the south. Pauline, we have just

been hearing about some of the details of theirs and I suppose the

problem for you... You would say you would be delighted if George Osborne

scrapped his plans to cut tax credits, but what Ian was saying is

that if he mitigated, it won't cost us much. In an ideal world, from

your point of view, George Osborne would make sure that the people

don't lose any money from the cuts in tax credits. The trouble for you

is a new flagship policy then evaporates. Well, that remains to be

seen. I think that the policy commitment here, apart from anything

else, Kezia Dugdale had to nail the question which is, what is the

purpose of labour and what does Labour stand for? Right here and

now, where we face the prospect of a reduction of tax credits for working

class families, and let's not forget it was the heart of the UK Labour

government's progress in government. She has to say what she

would be prepared to do. I think that is what most people will take

out of her conference speech. I think the issue is obviously the

test for Scottish Labour and for UK Labour, how they respond to what

ever George Osborne is going to come up with. Labour has to be clear in

Scotland if faced with a reduction for working families of over 300,000

families, who stands to lose out of this, that we have two nail our

colours to the mast and I think that is the tone of it. There are risks

involved, yes, but clearly identifying what Labour stands for

is very crucial at this stage. I am sorry to cut in, we have to leave it

there. We are completely out of time. Sorry about that.

Sunday Politics is back next week at the slightly later time

What the actual... Who do you think you are?!