:00:37. > :00:37.Morning, folks, and welcome to the Sunday Politics.
:00:38. > :00:40.David Cameron says a manifesto shouldn't be a wish list,
:00:41. > :00:52.He says he's been ticking off the commitments his manifesto made
:00:53. > :00:56.Well, today, we launch our own manifesto tracker and we'll be
:00:57. > :00:58.talking to the minister responsible for implementing it.
:00:59. > :01:00.The Government wants to crack down on the gender pay gap.
:01:01. > :01:03.But is it really as bad as everyone seems to make out?
:01:04. > :01:06.We'll be talking to TUC General Secretary Frances O'Grady.
:01:07. > :01:08.And we'll be asking, who's wooing who in the putative
:01:09. > :01:22.Plans for land has a? There certainly are. Not involving you so
:01:23. > :01:23.far. Coming up on Sunday
:01:24. > :01:25.Politics Scotland: What are the outstanding obstacles
:01:26. > :01:27.to an agreement over And with me, as always,
:01:28. > :01:39.a match made in heaven. Nick Watt, Polly Toynbee
:01:40. > :01:41.and Tim Shipman, who'll be tweeting
:01:42. > :01:44.throughout the programme. First, this morning let's turn
:01:45. > :01:51.to the situation in Syria. A nationwide "cessation
:01:52. > :01:55.of hostilities" is due But, despite that agreement,
:01:56. > :01:58.the prospects for peace The truce does not apply
:01:59. > :02:01.to the battle against what Russia calls terrorist targets and means it
:02:02. > :02:04.will continue its heavy bombing Meanwhile, Turkey has shelled
:02:05. > :02:10.Kurdish positions in Northern Syria and the Turkish Foreign Minister has
:02:11. > :02:13.said his country is pondering This morning, the Foreign Secretary
:02:14. > :02:18.said Russia had to begin complying The situation in Aleppo
:02:19. > :02:23.is extremely worrying, the Russians are
:02:24. > :02:25.using carpet-bombing tactics, indiscriminate
:02:26. > :02:28.bombing of civilian areas Yes, we demand that the Russians
:02:29. > :02:35.comply with their obligations under international law and their
:02:36. > :02:38.obligations under the UN Security Council resolutions
:02:39. > :02:53.that they have signed up to. Nick, you get a feeling that given
:02:54. > :02:58.this deal was signed in Munich, it it is living up to deal is signed in
:02:59. > :03:02.Munich reputations. When we hear the Foreign Secretary saying we demand
:03:03. > :03:06.Russian do something when they are creating facts on the ground and we
:03:07. > :03:14.are not, that will have a hollow ring. Russia is now. President's
:03:15. > :03:18.Asad air force. They have ensured that President Assad cannot lose
:03:19. > :03:23.this war but he cannot also win it. They have the air force but no
:03:24. > :03:27.forces on the ground. Now that President Assad cannot lose this war
:03:28. > :03:31.has changed the dynamics. We can whistle in the wind as much as we
:03:32. > :03:38.like but Russia is the reality and power. Sir Roderick Lyne, the former
:03:39. > :03:42.UK ambassador to Moscow was on radio five this morning and he said we
:03:43. > :03:45.should not get too carried away with quite how powerful Russia is, they
:03:46. > :03:49.don't have troops on the ground, they have a faltering economy and
:03:50. > :03:54.they are nervous about going into far because of the disaster of
:03:55. > :04:00.Afghanistan 35 years ago. They do have some troops on the ground, they
:04:01. > :04:04.have proxy forces on the ground from Hezbollah and the uranium National
:04:05. > :04:09.Guard. Although they can't take back the whole of Syria, they will take
:04:10. > :04:14.back enough of it -- Iranians National Guard. Making success in
:04:15. > :04:17.the south, the border with Turkey, controlling the Mediterranean
:04:18. > :04:20.coastline. When they have done that, they might be serious about peace
:04:21. > :04:26.talks. Then they are stuck with it. It is not clear if Vladimir Putin
:04:27. > :04:31.thinks beyond tomorrow. It is not clear what the long-term strategy
:04:32. > :04:35.could do. It could be like the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, an
:04:36. > :04:38.absolute disaster. President Assad is saying that they intend to take
:04:39. > :04:44.over the whole of the country, entirely unrealistic. There will be
:04:45. > :04:47.some sort of partition. What is happening is very frightening in the
:04:48. > :04:54.sense that everybody is fighting a proxy war, the Iranians and Saudis.
:04:55. > :04:59.The one thing that people keep saying is Barack Obama was so weak
:05:00. > :05:04.that it is quite unclear what he could have done. Perhaps he could
:05:05. > :05:08.have given Syria's weapons to the more moderate rebels. Hillary
:05:09. > :05:13.Clinton wanted him to do that in July 2012. She put a plan together
:05:14. > :05:17.along with the general and he turned it down. What would have happened is
:05:18. > :05:20.that they would be shooting down Russian planes with American
:05:21. > :05:25.weapons. Or Russia might not have gone to war. We don't know.
:05:26. > :05:30.Everything has a dynamic to it. This dynamic is leaving the west pretty
:05:31. > :05:34.much as onlookers. It is clear that at least in the short-term, Mr Putin
:05:35. > :05:40.will get back enough ground for Assad to then say we have got rid of
:05:41. > :05:45.a lot of these "Terrorists" because they are not Islamic state. It is
:05:46. > :05:49.now asked versus Islamic State. Exactly, we sound like the mouse
:05:50. > :05:53.that squeaked this morning. I disagree with Polly. One of the
:05:54. > :05:57.great powers in the world has now got very involved in a situation and
:05:58. > :06:03.the other hasn't. President Obama had options. He did not explore them
:06:04. > :06:13.to any sort of extent that it put off the Russians. Britain is left on
:06:14. > :06:16.the sidelines, waiting for a new US president, to get engaged in this
:06:17. > :06:19.issue and do something proactive. What could have been done that would
:06:20. > :06:22.have been any use at all? Either useless or worse than useless, stuck
:06:23. > :06:27.us in there... He did say he had chemical weapons and it was an
:06:28. > :06:31.important red Line. And he let them cross the red line. He totally
:06:32. > :06:35.ignored it. What would you have done that would have been useful? You
:06:36. > :06:39.could have set up a humanitarian safe haven and protected it with
:06:40. > :06:45.force and armed the rebels to deter the Russians and make it a situation
:06:46. > :06:49.where Assad could not continue. We now have a situation where Assad is
:06:50. > :06:53.now a fact of life, he is not going anywhere. There is not much you can
:06:54. > :06:57.do without you were serious involvement. I am glad we touched on
:06:58. > :06:58.Syria, it is an important developing story.
:06:59. > :07:01.Now, what's black and white and not read all over?
:07:02. > :07:06.Even if you did read it, would you be able to remember
:07:07. > :07:08.all the promises and whether the Government had delivered them?
:07:09. > :07:15.which charts the progress of the pledges
:07:16. > :07:24.Sort of like a blue virtual Edstone, or maybe not!
:07:25. > :07:26.Over the next four years, we'll be monitoring the Government's
:07:27. > :07:29.progress on all of the commitments the Conservatives made ahead
:07:30. > :07:33.of the 2015 general election in their manifesto, and a few big
:07:34. > :07:43.promises they made during the campaign.
:07:44. > :07:45.So, we've identified 161 pledges, and loaded them into our Manifesto
:07:46. > :07:51.We've grouped them into categories covering all the major areas
:07:52. > :07:53.of Government policy, from the constitution
:07:54. > :08:00.And we've given each of the promises a colour rating.
:08:01. > :08:06.Red signalling little or no progress so far.
:08:07. > :08:08.Amber when the Government has made some progress.
:08:09. > :08:14.Let's start by looking at the Conservative commitments
:08:15. > :08:24.As you can see they've made at least some progress on all of them.
:08:25. > :08:27.Easily the party's biggest promise here was to hold a referendum
:08:28. > :08:32.on Britain's membership of the EU by December 2017.
:08:33. > :08:34.We've marked that amber, to show that some progress
:08:35. > :08:41.The bill setting the vote has passed through Parliament and it's looking
:08:42. > :08:45.likely the poll will be held this year.
:08:46. > :08:47.The cornerstone of the Conservative election campaign last May was how
:08:48. > :08:53.they would handle the economy, and as you can see, that's
:08:54. > :08:59.where we've found the greatest number of promises.
:09:00. > :09:02.Let's look at one of the policies they identified
:09:03. > :09:06.as part of their plan to eliminate the deficit.
:09:07. > :09:10.That was to reduce the welfare bill by ?12 billion.
:09:11. > :09:13.Again, we've given that an amber rating.
:09:14. > :09:15.The savings were outlined in the Chancellor's Autumn Statement
:09:16. > :09:24.But it's too early to say if they'll all be achieved.
:09:25. > :09:32.When it comes to the constitution, the Government's made some progress
:09:33. > :09:35.But it promised to scrap the Human Rights Act, and replace it
:09:36. > :09:41.That gets a red rating, as although there have been reports
:09:42. > :09:43.something is in the pipeline, as yet there is no sign
:09:44. > :09:50.of the legislation required to introduce it.
:09:51. > :09:54.Some manifesto commitments have already been delivered in full.
:09:55. > :09:56.Like the introduction of English votes for English laws to give
:09:57. > :10:05.English MPs a veto over laws that only affect England.
:10:06. > :10:08.Other changes promised in the manifesto are less well known.
:10:09. > :10:10.Like the promise to recover ?500 million from migrants
:10:11. > :10:12.and overseas visitors who use the NHS by the middle
:10:13. > :10:21.We will give that amber, because some new charges have
:10:22. > :10:23.already been introduced, and the Department of Health
:10:24. > :10:30.Let's add on the rest of the promises in each
:10:31. > :10:33.of the policy areas and have a look at how the government
:10:34. > :10:41.Taken together, of the 161 Conservative election commitments,
:10:42. > :10:50.we think ten are red, 111 are amber, and 40 are green.
:10:51. > :10:52.We'll be returning to the manifesto tracker every few months,
:10:53. > :10:56.but in the meantime you can find the full data on the politics
:10:57. > :11:07.And with us now the Cabinet Office Minister and Paymaster General,
:11:08. > :11:09.Matt Hancock, he oversees the implementation
:11:10. > :11:19.Welcome to the programme, do you regard this manifesto as a contract
:11:20. > :11:23.with the British people and do you intend to intimate it all? It is
:11:24. > :11:28.certainly the commitments on which we were elected. We take it
:11:29. > :11:33.incredibly seriously -- goals to implement it. That is the goal. We
:11:34. > :11:38.have got about a quarter delivered, we have had less than a year. In
:11:39. > :11:42.fact, I really welcome this scrutiny and this project you have been on.
:11:43. > :11:48.We will implement and publish our own plans and make sure that each
:11:49. > :11:51.individual manifesto commitment has an individual minister responsible
:11:52. > :11:58.for delivering it. And publish that. We will nationalise you and this
:11:59. > :12:02.process. You will nationalise us? We can't afford you, probably, but we
:12:03. > :12:06.will do this as a government. Let's see if you still want to do that at
:12:07. > :12:09.the end of this interview. Your manifesto promised to scrap Labour's
:12:10. > :12:11.Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights, and
:12:12. > :12:14.Human Rights Act and replace it with abolition Bill would be drafted
:12:15. > :12:20.within the first hundred days after the election. It didn't happen. Why?
:12:21. > :12:25.The work is in progress. Internally, we will publish it. Why have you not
:12:26. > :12:29.kept to the timetable? The timetable of the whole manifesto is to deliver
:12:30. > :12:33.within the parliament. You said this would be done, the draft bill within
:12:34. > :12:39.the first 100 days. Clearly, we will deliver against the commitment. I
:12:40. > :12:45.thought it was a bit harsh to call that read, I would call that Amber.
:12:46. > :12:49.It is not delivered yet. We called it red because the justice minister,
:12:50. > :12:53.Mr Bove, said the consultation had been delayed yet again. The question
:12:54. > :12:59.is what we deliver over the five-year parliament. -- Mr Gove. We
:13:00. > :13:01.are less than a year in and we have got one quarter delivered and that
:13:02. > :13:04.is one where there is work in progress but we are committed to
:13:05. > :13:11.doing it. The manifesto promised to make the UK's Supreme Court "The
:13:12. > :13:15.ultimate arbiter of human rights in the UK". That will not happen. This
:13:16. > :13:21.is all part of the same package which we have committed to
:13:22. > :13:25.delivering. We are less than a year in and we have a few years to go.
:13:26. > :13:30.Whatever the package, the Supreme Court will not be "The ultimate
:13:31. > :13:35.arbiter" on human rights, will it? That is part of the proposed
:13:36. > :13:40.package, as part of the replacement of the Human Rights Act. We will get
:13:41. > :13:46.to that. There is a bigger picture, which is making sure that we deliver
:13:47. > :13:50.on the overall set of commitments in the manifesto where we are making
:13:51. > :13:53.good progress. But, you can enhance the role of the Cyprian Court on
:13:54. > :13:57.human rights, I understand that. Maybe the British Bill of Rights
:13:58. > :14:01.will do their -- Supreme Court. But at the end of the day, the European
:14:02. > :14:05.Court of Human Rights is the ultimate arbiter. That is the
:14:06. > :14:09.factual legal situation. It all depends on the changes that you
:14:10. > :14:12.make. We will bring forward a package of changes to be able to
:14:13. > :14:18.deliver against these commitments in the Parliament. Mr Gove says we are
:14:19. > :14:21.not planning to derogate from the European Court of Human Rights.
:14:22. > :14:24.Let's see what happens when we published the proposals on this
:14:25. > :14:29.particular package. Immigration, probably your biggest fail, I would
:14:30. > :14:33.suggest. The 2050 manifesto repeated the pledge in the 2010 manifesto to
:14:34. > :14:38.get annual net migration down to tens of thousands -- 2015. After
:14:39. > :14:44.five years, far from getting it down, net migration reached a record
:14:45. > :14:51.336,000 last year, that is a spectacular failure. Clearly, this
:14:52. > :14:55.is a commitment. To get immigration down to tens of thousands, that
:14:56. > :15:02.remains the goal. But we haven't yet reached it. Presumably you did not
:15:03. > :15:06.call that green. No. It is red. That the commitment remains because we
:15:07. > :15:10.think it is reasonable to control immigration in this country, so that
:15:11. > :15:13.while some immigration can be very good for the economy and more
:15:14. > :15:18.broadly, actually it has got to be done at a reasonable level.
:15:19. > :15:23.It's not just that you didn't get it down enough, it's actually risen
:15:24. > :15:27.since you came to power. Why would you promise what you have failed
:15:28. > :15:33.dismally to deliver again? I think it is a reasonable goal. Clearly we
:15:34. > :15:41.put it in the manifesto for a reason, to get immigration down. And
:15:42. > :15:45.we are less than a year into the Parliament and we've got four years
:15:46. > :15:49.to go. Is it a goal or a pledge? Do you pledge to the British people
:15:50. > :15:55.today that net migration will be down to the tens of thousands by
:15:56. > :15:58.2020? Well I pledge to fulfil what was in the manifesto on which I and
:15:59. > :16:04.every other Conservative MPs was elected. Well that pledge was to get
:16:05. > :16:10.it down to the tens of thousands. It was meant to be in the tens of
:16:11. > :16:14.thousands by 2015, it is 346,000, is there a pledge that it will be down
:16:15. > :16:19.to the tens of thousands by 2020? There is a whole series of actions
:16:20. > :16:24.that we are taking, not least the EU renegotiation to try to tackle
:16:25. > :16:28.immigration and make sure that it's brought down to a reasonable level.
:16:29. > :16:33.Again there is a broader point, of the 160 odd commitments that you are
:16:34. > :16:36.measuring, delivering an accord of them, of course some are quicker
:16:37. > :16:40.than others to deliver on, it's fair to say. But the whole point of
:16:41. > :16:45.having the manifesto and tracking it as we are doing is to make sure we
:16:46. > :16:52.know where we are up to. Lets come onto the European negotiations, that
:16:53. > :16:56.was in the manifesto. The manifesto promised several key things in the
:16:57. > :17:02.renegotiation, a four-year ban on EU migrants claiming in work benefits,
:17:03. > :17:06.a new residency requirement for social housing, and no child benefit
:17:07. > :17:12.for EU migrants if their children live abroad. The draft deal contains
:17:13. > :17:18.none of these things. Well, firstly, as you say, the centrepiece of our
:17:19. > :17:22.European policy was to have the referendum, and we will be having
:17:23. > :17:25.the referendum. Although you call that Amber it is certainly going to
:17:26. > :17:28.happen. I understand that but none of the things you said we would get
:17:29. > :17:39.to vote on in this referendum have been delivered. We then sat out --
:17:40. > :17:41.set out what we wanted to negotiate and that negotiation is not
:17:42. > :17:45.complete. We have a lot of work to do this week to get the best
:17:46. > :17:49.possible deal we can. I hope we will have a good deal and be able to vote
:17:50. > :17:55.to stay in a reformed Europe. There is a version of the ban on EU
:17:56. > :18:00.migrants benefits, there is not no child benefits, now there will be 28
:18:01. > :18:04.different child benefits that Britain will pay but there is no
:18:05. > :18:09.mention of residency requirement for social housing, no mention of that
:18:10. > :18:12.in the deal, so that has gone? Look, we don't know the outcome of this
:18:13. > :18:17.negotiation until the end of this week. There is a week of hard work
:18:18. > :18:22.to get the deal. But there is a bigger picture here. Social housing
:18:23. > :18:28.is not on the agenda? Let's see what we get in this deal over the next
:18:29. > :18:33.week. But there's a bigger point here, which is that we said we'd
:18:34. > :18:35.have the renegotiation, lots and lots of people said you are never
:18:36. > :18:41.going to get these things on the table. A question of in work
:18:42. > :18:45.benefits, child benefit, we were told you couldn't even put that on
:18:46. > :18:49.the agenda. The discussion in Europe this week is exactly how far we go
:18:50. > :18:52.on those. People said that we couldn't deliver anything in this
:18:53. > :18:57.space and we've managed to deliver already the draft deal, and we will
:18:58. > :19:00.see where we end up. But not what was in the manifesto. We will see
:19:01. > :19:05.where we end up at the end of this week. We will indeed. Not
:19:06. > :19:08.necessarily next week but in the weeks ahead we will be coming back
:19:09. > :19:12.to go through this. Onto the economy, you put in place a charter
:19:13. > :19:13.for budget responsibility which commits you to running a surplus, a
:19:14. > :19:19.legal obligation as well as a commits you to running a surplus, a
:19:20. > :19:22.policy. The in situ for fiscal studies says that will require tax
:19:23. > :19:27.rises or spending cuts as yet unannounced, do you agree? Not in
:19:28. > :19:30.the latest financial forecast put out by the office for budget
:19:31. > :19:33.responsible to who independently advise on these, and we have a
:19:34. > :19:38.budget in just over a month's time so we will see what the figures say,
:19:39. > :19:45.then. Clearly in the latest forecast from the government, yes, we have
:19:46. > :19:52.that surplus. You have not hit a surplus. We have hit it in the
:19:53. > :19:56.forecast. And they change. They do, as the economy changes. On that
:19:57. > :19:59.economic front there was an awful lot in the manifesto on that, it is
:20:00. > :20:03.all about economic security, generating jobs, in the same way
:20:04. > :20:07.that the national Security ones were all about national security. And
:20:08. > :20:12.those were the two elements at the heart of this manifesto that we were
:20:13. > :20:15.elected on. I would say that we are delivering very strongly on both. In
:20:16. > :20:19.terms of the big picture of what you are getting from the message that we
:20:20. > :20:23.said we were going to deliver. Let me come down to the smaller but
:20:24. > :20:28.still very important picture. You have a legal obligation to reach a
:20:29. > :20:32.surplus by 2020. If, to reach that surplus, you had to raise taxes,
:20:33. > :20:37.would you? Look, much as I'd love to, I'm not going to set out tax
:20:38. > :20:43.policy on Sunday morning. To meet the legal obligation, if it required
:20:44. > :20:47.tax increases, would there be tax increases? We've set out the plans
:20:48. > :20:52.and the plans hit a surplus. We did that in the Autumn Statement in
:20:53. > :20:55.November. Clearly the economy changes all the time,
:20:56. > :21:01.internationally, people have seen falls in the stock market in the
:21:02. > :21:06.last few months. But we will have a budget in more than a month's time.
:21:07. > :21:10.But I voted to have that surplus and that is clearly what we will set out
:21:11. > :21:16.to do. You promised a lower tax society. Yes. Yet on the forecast,
:21:17. > :21:22.the overall tax burden is rising as a percentage of GDP and on the
:21:23. > :21:26.forecast, not the buoyancy but extra tax that you have introduced will be
:21:27. > :21:28.?50 billion higher. So you have previous on this, you could raise
:21:29. > :21:32.taxes again because you already have? Clearly there are some areas
:21:33. > :21:37.where we have tightened things up, especially on tax avoidance. We took
:21:38. > :21:45.an extra ?5 billion from tax avoidance measures. And what about
:21:46. > :21:49.the billions in addition to that? We have reduced the tax burden
:21:50. > :21:52.especially on people in lower wage jobs, they are going to get the
:21:53. > :21:55.national minimum wage but we are well on the way to the manifesto
:21:56. > :22:01.commitment of making sure you don't have to pay any income taxed until
:22:02. > :22:06.you make ?12,500. We have made progress but there is more to do.
:22:07. > :22:08.The manifesto talks about reducing the tax relief on pension
:22:09. > :22:17.contributions for people earning more than ?150,000, people on 45%,
:22:18. > :22:21.the highest income tax band, you are going to cut tax relief on their
:22:22. > :22:26.pension contributions. If you were to also cut the tax relief of those
:22:27. > :22:33.on the 40% rate, that would be breaching the manifesto? There we've
:22:34. > :22:37.done what we said we would do in the manifesto. We've followed the
:22:38. > :22:41.manifesto clearly in terms of the commitment that it made. Outside the
:22:42. > :22:46.manifesto there's always going to be other things that you do. On pension
:22:47. > :22:51.tax review were explicit that it would be those in the 45% wouldn't
:22:52. > :22:55.get it, you didn't mention any other bracket, the imprecation is that
:22:56. > :23:00.it's only the 45%. If you took away tax relief from the 40% taxpayers
:23:01. > :23:04.that would be broken manifesto commitment? That's not how I see it,
:23:05. > :23:09.you can add things to the manifesto. Look at the whole reform programme a
:23:10. > :23:13.massive reform programme which was not in our manifesto because we've
:23:14. > :23:16.built it up as a proposal since then. Likewise the Prime
:23:17. > :23:23.Ministerspeech on social mobility and an tackling an just inequalities
:23:24. > :23:30.-- an just inequalities. We've done a huge amount of that on the autumn.
:23:31. > :23:36.Delivering on the manifesto commitments is absolutely essential.
:23:37. > :23:40.But it is not the only thing you do in government because you respond to
:23:41. > :23:43.events. But the purpose of this interview is to hold your manifesto
:23:44. > :23:48.to account. Hunting, when will you give Parliament the chance to repeal
:23:49. > :23:53.the hunting act. We are committed to doing that. When? In this
:23:54. > :23:57.Parliament. We looked at doing it early on. You dropped that. We
:23:58. > :24:03.decided not to do it then, but we are committed to its. You set a
:24:04. > :24:09.target of ?1 trillion of exports by 2020, most forecasters including
:24:10. > :24:13.your own oh BR say you will be at least ?350 billion short. Can we
:24:14. > :24:18.agree that you will not hit that target? It's fair to say that it is
:24:19. > :24:23.stretching target, but it remains our target, our aspiration. But you
:24:24. > :24:31.will miss it. There is an awful lot of work going into achieving it.
:24:32. > :24:32.Thank you for that, come back and we will see the progress in the months
:24:33. > :24:34.ahead. Look forward to it. And remember if you want to see how
:24:35. > :24:37.the government is doing in detail our manifesto tracker
:24:38. > :24:39.is available for you to peruse On Friday, new measures to tackle
:24:40. > :24:47.the pay gap between genders From 2018, companies with more
:24:48. > :24:57.than 250 employees will have to publish the differences in salary
:24:58. > :24:59.between men and women. Businesses failing to address
:25:00. > :25:01.the problem will be named Here's what Women and Equalities
:25:02. > :25:06.Minister Nicky Morgan had to say. Transparency about the gender pay
:25:07. > :25:09.gap in companies and public sector organisations is going to be very
:25:10. > :25:15.important in driving behaviour. So we are going to require
:25:16. > :25:18.companies, under the regulations, companies of over 250 employees,
:25:19. > :25:21.to publish their gender pay gap We, as a government, will then
:25:22. > :25:30.compile those league tables. It will be two fold, one,
:25:31. > :25:32.companies will hopefully, and we expect from
:25:33. > :25:36.the response we have, to think a lot harder about where
:25:37. > :25:39.women are in their workforce. How they are distributed,
:25:40. > :25:41.what they are being paid. But it will also drive
:25:42. > :25:43.applications to work in certain organisations because I think women
:25:44. > :25:47.will look and see what is the gender pay gap in this organisation
:25:48. > :25:49.and is this somewhere And with us now, General Secretary
:25:50. > :25:59.of the TUC, Frances O'Grady. Welcome back. We know there is a
:26:00. > :26:03.gender pay gap. In some age groups, not all, but still in some age
:26:04. > :26:08.groups. Where is the evidence that it is a result of dissemination, of
:26:09. > :26:14.employers not paying properly, as opposed to lifestyle and choices? We
:26:15. > :26:22.still do have this pretty crazy situation where women have Giroud
:26:23. > :26:26.and 80p for everyone pound that men do across the economy. -- where
:26:27. > :26:30.women earn 80p for every pound that men do. This is a welcome step, this
:26:31. > :26:35.initiative, but it is a very small step. It is about reporting, not
:26:36. > :26:39.about telling us why this is going on, not coming up with actions to
:26:40. > :26:43.deal with it. When you dig down from the headline figure, and you have
:26:44. > :26:47.just used one, you begin to see some quite deep-seated cultural issues,
:26:48. > :26:51.not just a matter of economics. The labour market study shows that men
:26:52. > :26:56.tend to work in occupations that pay more, that's been a historic thing.
:26:57. > :27:00.And women in jobs that pay less. For example men in construction, women
:27:01. > :27:03.in retail. Men in computer programming, women in nursing. That
:27:04. > :27:10.is one of the explanations for the page gap. There is certainly still
:27:11. > :27:14.big job separation, but one of the questions we must ask is, is it case
:27:15. > :27:22.of equal values? People paying for the work of equal value. It is
:27:23. > :27:29.illegal to pay anybody less than a man is getting or vice versa, equal
:27:30. > :27:34.pay for equal jobs. For example, why is looking after children considered
:27:35. > :27:37.to be less valuable than mending a car? The problem is, in order for
:27:38. > :27:40.women to prove it, they've got to be able to take employment tribunal
:27:41. > :27:44.claims, and of course we've seen this government introduce very
:27:45. > :27:50.significant fees that have massively reduced the number of women being
:27:51. > :27:54.able to take pay and six dissemination claims. Is on the
:27:55. > :27:58.gender pay gap really a generational matter, and it might be resolving
:27:59. > :28:02.itself? I'd like to show you this chart, here, which looks at
:28:03. > :28:07.different age groups. For women aged 40 to 49, there is a gap, it's
:28:08. > :28:12.coming down but there is still a substantial gap. For younger women
:28:13. > :28:16.in the 22 to 29, there is no pay gap, indeed there is some evidence
:28:17. > :28:23.now that the gender pay gap is the other way among younger people than
:28:24. > :28:27.it is amongst men. What I think it shows you is that the real problem
:28:28. > :28:32.kicks in when women have babies. Yes. That's when women are much more
:28:33. > :28:36.likely to work part-time, much more likely to need nurseries, and as we
:28:37. > :28:42.get older and we are looking after elderly parents, too. Elder care as
:28:43. > :28:45.well. Some of those public service cuts are hitting our sure start
:28:46. > :28:49.centres and care for the elderly. I think you hit on something, there.
:28:50. > :28:55.You can begin to see the return of the gender pay gap as women hit
:28:56. > :29:01.their late 20s or early 30s, because the average age that women have
:29:02. > :29:04.their first child is 28 and a half. So that suggests that the policy
:29:05. > :29:07.response will have to be quite sophisticated to get rid of a later
:29:08. > :29:13.developing pay gap. Stopping cuts on this is would help but also helping
:29:14. > :29:16.dads as well. A lot of men nowadays want to be more involved with their
:29:17. > :29:22.children but they need more paid paternity to be able to do that. I
:29:23. > :29:27.want to show you another chart that suggests there are developers. This
:29:28. > :29:33.shows you a figure that is not widely known, there are now every
:29:34. > :29:40.year 100,000 more women applying for university than men. 100,000 more.
:29:41. > :29:43.Women from poor backgrounds are 50% more likely to go to university than
:29:44. > :29:47.men. Women now take most of the first in medicine and law, two
:29:48. > :29:54.professions that are pretty well paid. Again, isn't this sense that,
:29:55. > :29:56.even in the later years, now, the gender pay gap could begin to
:29:57. > :30:04.resolve itself? I really hope so the TUC analysis
:30:05. > :30:11.shows that at this rate of change it would take another 45 years. No, I
:30:12. > :30:15.looked at these figures. Frances O'Grady, you took one year of the
:30:16. > :30:23.pay gap, which strode it came down by 0.2%. Dodt which showed. If you
:30:24. > :30:27.had taken the last ten years it still takes too long but it is not
:30:28. > :30:32.47 years, that was a propaganda figure. You can't do a trend on one
:30:33. > :30:37.year. Most people agree we need bold action to change it. Given we have
:30:38. > :30:40.agreed that it is a complicated picture and now becomes an issue
:30:41. > :30:45.primarily for women who have taken time off and then go back into the
:30:46. > :30:50.workforce again, get me one thing that the government could do that
:30:51. > :30:55.would stop this gender pay gap re-emerging in their 30s and 40s?
:30:56. > :31:00.Stop cuts to nurseries. Provide a proper system of care for old
:31:01. > :31:02.people, that allows women and men to combine those caring
:31:03. > :31:08.responsibilities with a responsible job. That is what would really
:31:09. > :31:12.make... I can see how it would help. It is about progression and people
:31:13. > :31:12.feeling they can go for that promotion or training course that
:31:13. > :32:39.would get them a better job. It is a lot better than the
:32:40. > :32:48.boardroom and a lot better than many sat around the Cabinet table. Take
:32:49. > :32:56.the NASUWT, 74% female membership, only 30% women of full-time
:32:57. > :33:02.officers, only 35 are on the TUC delegation, only 20 are on the NEC.
:33:03. > :33:09.Led by Ormond general secretary. For the first time in history, it is
:33:10. > :33:18.50/50 -- a woman general secretary. And the TUC has its first. I'm
:33:19. > :33:23.delighted to say. She loves unions. It has just won 11:30am. You are
:33:24. > :33:26.watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland, who
:33:27. > :33:30.Good morning and welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland.
:33:31. > :33:34.Another week, another round of fiscal framework talks.
:33:35. > :33:37.Are the Treasury and the Scottish Government inching their way
:33:38. > :33:42.towards agreement or is there an insurmountable gulf?
:33:43. > :33:45.All parties agreed that an independent body should produce
:33:46. > :33:48.the official economic forecasts for the Scottish Government.
:33:49. > :33:54.So why did Holyrood's Finance Committee vote against it this week?
:33:55. > :33:57.The Tories are campaigning to be the second-largest party at Holyrood
:33:58. > :34:01.after the elections, but how important is the Ruth Davidson brand
:34:02. > :34:10.The next round of talks on the fiscal framework begins
:34:11. > :34:14.Despite neither of the principal players being willing to talk
:34:15. > :34:16.about it, there's been no shortage of official letters released
:34:17. > :34:20.But have they shed any light on the issues at stake
:34:21. > :34:27.I'm joined from London by David Phillips, who's a senior
:34:28. > :34:35.research economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
:34:36. > :34:39.He wrote a paper with David Bell, the Scottish economist, going
:34:40. > :34:46.through some of the details with this. Having looked at the paper,
:34:47. > :34:49.and it's shrunk from the various tables and equations, the first
:34:50. > :34:53.thing that struck me about it is, actually, when you look at how any
:34:54. > :34:57.system could work, it is much more complicated than the politicians are
:34:58. > :35:03.letting on. I think you're right there. It's a very complicated
:35:04. > :35:06.picture and that's because of the no debt principles and the taxpayer
:35:07. > :35:10.principles in the Smith commission's report. So the issue at stake is
:35:11. > :35:16.that there are these two principles that the agreement has to try to
:35:17. > :35:18.satisfy. The first is the principle which says that Scotland should
:35:19. > :35:22.neither gain nor lose from the decision to devolve the tax would
:35:23. > :35:28.evolve the spending power. That's the first principle. And there's
:35:29. > :35:29.another no detriment principle, called the taxpayer fairness
:35:30. > :35:33.principle, which says that Scotland should neither win or lose when tax
:35:34. > :35:37.rates are changed in the rest of the UK. You might think those are both
:35:38. > :35:41.very sensible principles and I agree, they sound like the building
:35:42. > :35:46.blocks of a fair system, but it turns out that with the Barnett
:35:47. > :35:48.formula in place, you can't design a system which simultaneously
:35:49. > :35:53.satisfies both those principles and is simple and transparent. Let's
:35:54. > :35:58.just take one of the political issues. Obviously from the British
:35:59. > :36:04.government's point of view, they don't want a situation where, should
:36:05. > :36:11.they raise income tax, for example, to pay for schools and hospitals in
:36:12. > :36:16.England, and there's no rise in income tax in Scotland, that somehow
:36:17. > :36:19.the money raised would leap into Scotland's public spending. MPs
:36:20. > :36:23.would stand up and say it was completely ridiculous and unfair.
:36:24. > :36:26.The so-called levels deduction principle, which you discussed in
:36:27. > :36:30.your paper and which Greg Hands, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury,
:36:31. > :36:35.seems to be promoting, appears to be the only way of avoiding that
:36:36. > :36:39.happening. Yes, so what this levels deduction method does... It says
:36:40. > :36:45.that when tax rates change in England, you increase the block
:36:46. > :36:51.grant adjustment and take off the block grant by the equivalent to
:36:52. > :36:55.Scotland's population share of that. So if it was 10 billion in England,
:36:56. > :37:00.the Scottish population is 10% so you take 1 billion more off the
:37:01. > :37:02.block grant. The reason that satisfies the taxpayer fairness
:37:03. > :37:05.principle you mentioned is that that is exactly symmetric with the way
:37:06. > :37:11.the Barnett formula works on the spending side. The Scottish
:37:12. > :37:13.Government's position is that that is a detriment to Scotland because
:37:14. > :37:17.that would require Scottish levels to go up more quickly in percentage
:37:18. > :37:20.terms, because they start lower, to keep up with that form of
:37:21. > :37:25.adjustment. So it's really about balancing these two principles. Just
:37:26. > :37:30.to give an illustration of the problems here, the levels deduction
:37:31. > :37:35.method politically gets you off that problem, that people say, look, this
:37:36. > :37:39.is ridiculous that taxes go up in England to pay for Scottish spending
:37:40. > :37:43.but taxes don't go up in Scotland but the downside, according to your
:37:44. > :37:47.paper, is that should Scotland's population not grow as fast as
:37:48. > :37:52.England's, Scotland's budget appears to be clobbered in the medium-term.
:37:53. > :37:57.There are two issues. Scotland is it by two factors under this method.
:37:58. > :38:00.First of all the population difference. Scottish populations
:38:01. > :38:06.tend to go up less quickly than in the UK and this method doesn't take
:38:07. > :38:09.that into account. Also, the method doesn't take into account the fact
:38:10. > :38:15.that Scottish revenues start of less per capita. Income tax revenues in
:38:16. > :38:19.Scotland are about 89% of the same amount per person of the rest of the
:38:20. > :38:24.UK. That's some thing the Scottish Government need to say, this is not
:38:25. > :38:27.consistent with the idea of no detriment. We see new proposals from
:38:28. > :38:30.the Scottish Government and the UK government in the last week that try
:38:31. > :38:34.to inch towards an agreement and compromise on some of these
:38:35. > :38:37.principles. The point is, to some extent there is a clash of right
:38:38. > :38:40.against right. It is personally reasonable for the British
:38:41. > :38:43.government to say, we can't ever situation where taxes go up in
:38:44. > :38:48.England and end up paying for things in Scotland but are not paying for
:38:49. > :38:52.their but the Scottish Government is quite reasonable to say, we can't
:38:53. > :38:55.take full responsibility if Scotland's population doesn't grow
:38:56. > :38:59.as fast in England because we don't have any control over immigration
:39:00. > :39:04.policy. I think you are right. There are two principles which are both
:39:05. > :39:09.reasonable and the situation now is that they are trying to come to an
:39:10. > :39:14.agreement which tries to compromise on certain elements. The Scottish
:39:15. > :39:21.Government has said, we will use our method for the day to day increases
:39:22. > :39:24.in revenues. That satisfies the no detriment principle. That means that
:39:25. > :39:29.Scotland would lose out from population growth and from starting
:39:30. > :39:33.off with lower revenues. But we will use the level method for the tax
:39:34. > :39:36.rate changes. The difficulty there is, there are two methods working at
:39:37. > :39:40.the same time so it could be quite complicated. How do you know what
:39:41. > :39:44.part of the change in revenues is to do with the rate changes and what
:39:45. > :39:47.part is to do with economic growth, especially when there can be
:39:48. > :39:54.affected of tax policy changes on behaviour and growth? But is that
:39:55. > :40:00.fudge which you've just described... Is it at least a workable forge? It
:40:01. > :40:06.depends on to what extent they'd want to make it as accurate a fudge
:40:07. > :40:10.as possible. You could do it with a good approximation if you took been
:40:11. > :40:14.no behavioural response estimates of policy change but those can be very
:40:15. > :40:18.different to the real effects. So on the 50p tax rate, that would raise
:40:19. > :40:23.lots of money if there was no behavioural response but the
:40:24. > :40:26.difference is very little once people respond. So you need to have
:40:27. > :40:31.some really big assumptions or leave a lot of effects out. I think that
:40:32. > :40:34.could potentially work if there is goodwill on both sides but if there
:40:35. > :40:38.is an goodwill, it could lead to scope for argument and slow
:40:39. > :40:41.unravelling of the system as it becomes unworkable because of trying
:40:42. > :40:46.to debate and argue about each of tax policy changes. Something that
:40:47. > :40:50.hasn't been talked about very much is that presumably there would have
:40:51. > :40:53.to be provision for some special transfers under certain conditions.
:40:54. > :40:59.Let me give you an example. I've tried to make this as controversial
:41:00. > :41:02.as possible. Let's say the British government says, we want to pay for
:41:03. > :41:08.Trident and are going to put income tax up by 1p, but a a bit Scotland.
:41:09. > :41:10.They will say, Scotland gets the benefit of Trident as much as much
:41:11. > :41:13.as England does so the Scottish Government will have to make some
:41:14. > :41:17.sort of sub mention of money to make up for the fact that taxes have not
:41:18. > :41:21.gone up in Scotland to pay for that. There would have to be a provision
:41:22. > :41:27.for that and if you want an explosive one, there you have it.
:41:28. > :41:30.Indeed. Actually, both the methods chosen by the Scottish Government,
:41:31. > :41:35.the per capita indexation method and the levels deduction method proposed
:41:36. > :41:40.by the UK government, would both deliver that kind of transfer
:41:41. > :41:43.automatically. What would happen is tax revenues would go up in the rest
:41:44. > :41:48.of the UK, there for the block grant adjustment would go up, and both
:41:49. > :41:50.methods, although by somewhat different amounts, and that would be
:41:51. > :41:56.Scotland's contribution to paying for things UK wide. It could be
:41:57. > :42:02.Trident or it could be increases in the state pension, which go to both
:42:03. > :42:06.Scotland and the rest of the UK. Just briefly, because we will have
:42:07. > :42:10.to leave this, under the method... We talked about the levels
:42:11. > :42:15.distribution which Greg Hands is now arguing for but as I understand it,
:42:16. > :42:18.under the method, the per capita method, that the Scottish Government
:42:19. > :42:22.is arguing for, you would have a risk that taxes raised in England
:42:23. > :42:26.would have a over spending in Scotland without any concomitant
:42:27. > :42:30.rises in Scotland. You would have that risk indeed. You have that risk
:42:31. > :42:35.both from tax increases in the rest of the UK, when they put up the tax
:42:36. > :42:40.rate, but also, over time, as tax revenues go up. Greg Hands has said
:42:41. > :42:42.a proportion of those extra tax revenues in England and Wales would
:42:43. > :42:48.be transferred to Scotland. That's true but that goes on at the moment
:42:49. > :42:50.under the Barnett formula and without taxes devolved and the
:42:51. > :42:54.Scottish Government has been saying that it thinks that should continue
:42:55. > :42:58.and the no detriment principles are satisfied. Greg Hands has come back
:42:59. > :43:04.with a modified version of the levels deduction method, which moves
:43:05. > :43:08.a long way in that direction. The method he proposes is to adjust the
:43:09. > :43:11.level deduction method two, in effect, continue to give these
:43:12. > :43:15.additional transfers in income tax to Scotland. The key issue they're
:43:16. > :43:19.now debating about, it seems, is what happens to population growth
:43:20. > :43:23.and what happens to taxes other than income tax, like stamp duty.
:43:24. > :43:26.Potentially, they solve the issues on income tax and then move on to
:43:27. > :43:30.population growth and what happens to stamp duty, landfill tax, air
:43:31. > :43:32.passenger duty and taxes like that. We have to leave it there. Thank you
:43:33. > :43:35.very much. Listening to that in Aberdeen
:43:36. > :43:38.is the SNP MP Kirsty Blackman, who sits on the Scottish
:43:39. > :43:45.Affairs Select Committee. If Greg Hands's proposal is amended
:43:46. > :43:49.in the way that David Phillips has just suggested he has amended it,
:43:50. > :43:56.that sounds fairly reasonable, doesn't it? Not exactly. What the UK
:43:57. > :44:00.government are now suggesting is doing a method of Dutch and that
:44:01. > :44:05.involves taking ?7 billion away from Scotland and the May going to give
:44:06. > :44:09.us 4.5 billion back over ten years. But we have still got a funding
:44:10. > :44:13.formula that is unfair to Scotland and doesn't fulfil the Smith
:44:14. > :44:16.commission. The point is, you would presumably accent it would be an
:44:17. > :44:22.should taxes raised in England somehow leak income tax into
:44:23. > :44:25.spending in Scotland and that seems to be the problem with what the
:44:26. > :44:30.Scottish Government was suggesting originally. I think the key argument
:44:31. > :44:35.here is talking about what we've got a mandate for. So what is the UK
:44:36. > :44:38.government have a mandate for here? The UK government has a mandate to
:44:39. > :44:44.preserve Barnett because that's what it said in its manifesto. My point
:44:45. > :44:46.about leaking taxes... Surely just because you are a Scottish
:44:47. > :44:50.nationalist doesn't mean you have to abandon a British sense of fair
:44:51. > :44:54.play. It just wouldn't be fair play if taxes went up in England than
:44:55. > :44:56.some of that spending ended up being spent in Scotland, even though taxes
:44:57. > :45:02.haven't gone up in Scotland. That's just not fair. But what nobody has
:45:03. > :45:05.here is a mandate to overrule the Barnett formula so what we are
:45:06. > :45:08.trying to do is the Scottish Government are putting forward the
:45:09. > :45:12.per capita deduction system, which is the closest method to Barnett. It
:45:13. > :45:17.manages to integrate Scotland from the fact that we got lower
:45:18. > :45:19.population growth. Nobody is talking about overruling Barnett. We're
:45:20. > :45:22.talking about what should be deducted from the money that comes
:45:23. > :45:28.to Scotland under the Barnett formula in order to compensate...
:45:29. > :45:31.But that's what the method does. What the levels deduction method
:45:32. > :45:35.does is it systematically reduces the block grant that is provided to
:45:36. > :45:41.Scotland, so what it is doing is overruling Barnett by the back door,
:45:42. > :45:45.if you like. Do explain. What do you mean, exactly? The levels deduction
:45:46. > :45:50.method means that Scotland has to grow its population faster in
:45:51. > :45:56.proportional terms than the rest of the UK population. As you just heard
:45:57. > :45:59.David Phillips explaining, the advantage of that is that should
:46:00. > :46:02.income tax go up in England but not in Scotland, the advantage of the
:46:03. > :46:08.levels deduction method is it simply puts the Barnett formula up and
:46:09. > :46:11.Scotland gets extra money because of the tax increases in England, and
:46:12. > :46:14.takes it back again through the deduction, so there for their is no
:46:15. > :46:18.unfair increase in Scottish spending. That's the point. But what
:46:19. > :46:25.the levels deduction method does is it produces in Scotland's budget
:46:26. > :46:26.without Scotland having to make any detrimental decisions without the
:46:27. > :46:33.Scottish Government having to make any bad decisions. It looks like you
:46:34. > :46:37.don't want to take any... I can understand the argument that
:46:38. > :46:39.Scotland has no control over immigration and there for if the
:46:40. > :46:45.population grows here at a lesser rate than in England, all the
:46:46. > :46:49.responsibility for that should not fall on the Scottish budget. But
:46:50. > :46:52.surely at least some of it should. The whole point about more
:46:53. > :46:55.devolution of powers is that Scotland does take responsibility
:46:56. > :47:00.for things that can attract people to come and live here. The Scottish
:47:01. > :47:01.Government at the Scottish Parliament should have
:47:02. > :47:05.responsibility for all of those areas with which they have the
:47:06. > :47:08.powers to deal with. So they should take the risks and they should take
:47:09. > :47:13.the benefits of policy decisions that they make on things that are
:47:14. > :47:17.devolved. On things that are reserved, the policy is not a policy
:47:18. > :47:24.we would have chosen, there for the UK government has to bear the risks
:47:25. > :47:28.of that. Are you saying that nothing the Scottish Government can do with
:47:29. > :47:33.all these extra powers it has will have any influence on the Scottish
:47:34. > :47:38.population at all? I'm saying that there are things that we can do and
:47:39. > :47:41.things that we can currently do that will work to increase the Scottish
:47:42. > :47:44.population but in terms of the Scottish population in comparison to
:47:45. > :47:51.the population of the rest of the UK, it is very difficult and a
:47:52. > :47:53.professor and David Bell who work before the Scottish affairs
:47:54. > :47:55.committee, they both said Scotland doesn't have the leverage to grow
:47:56. > :48:01.its population. The professor pointed out that Scotland's
:48:02. > :48:04.population in terms of the rest of the UK population, which is what we
:48:05. > :48:08.are talking about, Scotland's population has not grown at a faster
:48:09. > :48:13.rate than the rest of the UK since the act of union. If the SNP walks
:48:14. > :48:18.away from this, as it has threatened to do, would you be comfortable
:48:19. > :48:21.facing your electorate and saying, look, we were offered control over
:48:22. > :48:29.half Scotland's budget and we said no? I don't think the new devolution
:48:30. > :48:33.can come at any cost. I don't think that the Scottish Parliament should
:48:34. > :48:35.sign up to a deal that is going to systematically reduce the block
:48:36. > :48:39.grant for Scotland and systematically reduced the amount of
:48:40. > :48:45.money. ?3.5 billion over ten years is not pennies. It is quite a lot of
:48:46. > :48:49.money. One of the things we've committed to doing is we are going
:48:50. > :48:53.to publish a manifesto commitment on what we would do with these devolved
:48:54. > :48:56.powers. It is not in anyway about hiding. We are going to be upfront
:48:57. > :49:00.and honest about what we would do if these powers were devolved. But you
:49:01. > :49:05.would be happy to walk away from it, is that what you are saying? We
:49:06. > :49:11.wouldn't be happy. We should point out that your estimates of what
:49:12. > :49:17.would be gained or lost under various systems over ten years are
:49:18. > :49:21.simply estimates, so you'd be saying, we've done estimates on what
:49:22. > :49:24.will happen in 10-years' time and because we don't like what would
:49:25. > :49:26.happen in 10-years' time, we refused to take more powers to the Scottish
:49:27. > :49:36.Parliament now. Open the course of ten years, not in
:49:37. > :49:41.ten years' time will stop it could be less, it could be more. I think
:49:42. > :49:45.the electorate understand that. People are saying, yes,
:49:46. > :49:52.absolutely... Are they? Your political opponents are murmuring
:49:53. > :49:57.that actually, you want to delay this because you don't want to have
:49:58. > :50:03.the next election fall on your record of running Scotland. You'd
:50:04. > :50:08.rather turn it into a constitutional Barney so you can say you are hard
:50:09. > :50:15.done by by London. All this is quite intentional on the part of the SNP.
:50:16. > :50:22.It is absolutely not intentional. It does not advantage the SNP in any
:50:23. > :50:29.way. We will still publish policies so people can argue about whether or
:50:30. > :50:32.not they think that our policies, and the Scottish Government has an
:50:33. > :50:36.excellent record and we will fight this election on it. Thank you very
:50:37. > :50:40.Well, one thing all sides do agree on is the need to strengthen
:50:41. > :50:44.Or at least they did agree on it until this week,
:50:45. > :50:46.when the Finance Secretary was accused of killing off proposals
:50:47. > :50:48.to give an independent body greater powers to scrutinise
:50:49. > :50:54.that the fiscal commission should produce official economic forecasts,
:50:55. > :50:57.But this week SNP MSPs overturned their previous stance
:50:58. > :51:02.Well, we did ask for a member of the Finance Committee to come on,
:51:03. > :51:07.So joining me now is the MSP James Dornan and Labour MSP
:51:08. > :51:21.Can you explain to us why an idea that the SNP is thought was
:51:22. > :51:26.brilliant in a few months ago is no rubbish? I think you are
:51:27. > :51:30.exaggerating both sides of it. At stage one we suggested these moves
:51:31. > :51:33.but then when the Cabinet Secretary and explain the complexities and
:51:34. > :51:37.what the outcomes would be if we went along with those, they agreed
:51:38. > :51:43.on the Scottish Government position. This is a case of when the evidence
:51:44. > :51:48.changes, so does my view. Let me read you what Kenny Gibson, the
:51:49. > :51:55.finance Chase said. We are calling for the build to be changed to give
:51:56. > :52:00.it responsibility for producing the official forecast. Will the new
:52:01. > :52:06.commission have that responsibility? It doesn't look like it. 120 out of
:52:07. > :52:13.23 countries that have a similar system, only three of them have
:52:14. > :52:15.these powers. What we are saying is the Scottish Government position
:52:16. > :52:25.will be in keeping with the international one. The old BR is one
:52:26. > :52:30.of my Reagan policies. Hang on. Let me just get this very precise point.
:52:31. > :52:38.In the UK Parliament, a motion is put forward to say that George
:52:39. > :52:43.Osborne should set the economic forecasts and not OBR. The
:52:44. > :52:49.Westminster government has nothing to do with me. I thought you were
:52:50. > :52:52.the main opposition party. I am in the Scottish Government will stop I
:52:53. > :52:57.am here to talk about the Scottish Government position on this. We
:52:58. > :53:01.should not be using OBR is the perfect example. We have had
:53:02. > :53:05.previous politicians saying that the OBR was just another part of the
:53:06. > :53:11.Conservative government. So you are against the OBR? They collect
:53:12. > :53:15.information from government officials, so you could quite
:53:16. > :53:19.drizzly, the HRC said what happened was there was no change, it used to
:53:20. > :53:23.be that officials collected it and gave it to the government and now
:53:24. > :53:31.they give it to be BR. It's the exact same information. Can you
:53:32. > :53:34.explain to us why it is a bad idea for a commission which is
:53:35. > :53:40.independent of the government to set the official forecast? It should be
:53:41. > :53:43.the government's responsibility. If you have the Scottish risk of
:53:44. > :53:47.commission doing that, who are they going to be held responsible by? It
:53:48. > :53:52.should surely be the government of the day. So the British government
:53:53. > :53:59.cannot hold George Osborne responsible for his own budget? Its
:54:00. > :54:03.OBR. What happens is they put forward a forecast, but the Scottish
:54:04. > :54:12.Government would be in keeping with the rest of Europe, and the rest of
:54:13. > :54:17.the countries. So what about that. I'm afraid the Scottish Government
:54:18. > :54:20.have got it badly wrong. Two years ago, I think, they produced a report
:54:21. > :54:25.on the back of an enquiry saying they wanted a strong fiscal
:54:26. > :54:28.commission. The stage one report was literally a couple of weeks ago, and
:54:29. > :54:34.in that time they've changed their mind. The only conclusion people can
:54:35. > :54:38.draw is that they've been got at. We need, because we've got power was
:54:39. > :54:42.coming to us, we have new powers now and have more coming in the future,
:54:43. > :54:48.a substantial power over taxation and welfare. We need a robust fiscal
:54:49. > :54:52.commission to scrutinise our public finances. Actually, we're asking it
:54:53. > :54:56.to do more than that. It's not just forecasting. What the SNP voted down
:54:57. > :54:59.last week was looking at the long-term sustainability of public
:55:00. > :55:08.finances and the Scottish Government... But he says its OBR
:55:09. > :55:12.who are the operation? It's not. Other countries have bodies that do
:55:13. > :55:17.this job, who looked at the finances. In Scotland we don't have
:55:18. > :55:20.that capacity. It is critical that any fiscal commission is not just
:55:21. > :55:25.independent but seem to be independent. At the moment, that's
:55:26. > :55:30.not the case. We had an opportunity, not just to scrutinise government
:55:31. > :55:35.finances, but finances for the future. The SNP denied it. You
:55:36. > :55:39.accept that the SNP members were arguing for the opposite position to
:55:40. > :55:44.you you said they were technical reasons they changed their mind.
:55:45. > :55:46.What I said was that when the Deputy first minute explain the
:55:47. > :55:51.complexities and the possibility that they would be a lack of
:55:52. > :55:57.independence from it if it was... What are these complexities? First
:55:58. > :56:03.of all it would be outside the financial memorandum. If government
:56:04. > :56:07.officials collected information it would be given to the Scottish
:56:08. > :56:11.fiscal commission, exactly the same information the same people would be
:56:12. > :56:16.given to the government just now. Where is the requirement for them to
:56:17. > :56:20.do this? That is nonsense! The fiscal commission would be able to
:56:21. > :56:25.collect information from wherever. They could commission people to do
:56:26. > :56:30.so. They would be nothing there. They can still hold the government
:56:31. > :56:34.to account. Do you know what happens now? What happens now is there is a
:56:35. > :56:37.degree of challenge and scrutiny that has the commission working with
:56:38. > :56:44.the government producing reports that the government sees in advance,
:56:45. > :56:50.having some have described it as cosy conversations. I wouldn't go
:56:51. > :56:54.that far but I do think that lack of independence, that lack of scrutiny,
:56:55. > :56:58.is a problem for us as we proceed. We need something robust. We don't
:56:59. > :57:03.want a laptop which is what the SNP want to give us. We need a
:57:04. > :57:11.commission with teeth. I don't understand why you think OBR is a
:57:12. > :57:15.bad idea. I still don't understand what these complexities are to stop
:57:16. > :57:20.that happening here. Despite the fact that Jackie seems to think that
:57:21. > :57:24.OBR is a good thing, it is only two years ago that Alistair Darling said
:57:25. > :57:28.it was part of the Westminster government. We need a completely
:57:29. > :57:31.independent Scottish fiscal commission that can give an
:57:32. > :57:36.alternative forecast and hold someone to account. What you want,
:57:37. > :57:42.you wanted to be almost like part of the government. It should be... What
:57:43. > :57:48.is it that the SNP didn't understand before that they understand having
:57:49. > :57:52.been enlightened by John Swinney? John Swinney went in front of the
:57:53. > :57:58.committee and explained the possible costs that would be involved in it
:57:59. > :58:03.on the dangers of it as part of that whole system. I was that the finance
:58:04. > :58:11.committee. That is just nonsense! I have to say. Oh dear. We are talking
:58:12. > :58:14.about the future of the nation's finances. This is a new low in SNP
:58:15. > :58:17.politics. I think we have to leave it there.
:58:18. > :58:19.Thank you very much indeed. It's become a truism
:58:20. > :58:20.of this Scottish election that the interesting thing is who's
:58:21. > :58:23.going to come second - The Tory revival, if there is one,
:58:24. > :58:27.is down in part to Labour's difficulties, but is also
:58:28. > :58:29.being credited to the leadership She's young, from a blue collar
:58:30. > :58:33.background, and seems to be helping the party connect with voters
:58:34. > :58:36.who would never have thought That'll be underlined this week
:58:37. > :58:39.as the Conservative leader in Scotland sends out
:58:40. > :58:55.600,000 letters to voters, Preparing to hit the streets in the
:58:56. > :58:59.West end of Glasgow with a Conservative message, which oddly,
:59:00. > :59:03.seems to be about their leader. We were seen to be the party of people
:59:04. > :59:08.with money that came from a certain background. I didn't go to
:59:09. > :59:12.university. I went to college for a couple of years, we need to
:59:13. > :59:17.represent the people of Scotland and under Ruth Davidson that is what we
:59:18. > :59:20.are doing. We bring all sorts of Conservatives into the fold to
:59:21. > :59:25.represent everyone in Scotland. Ruth is leading from the front. You
:59:26. > :59:28.only have to watch chain Holyrood to see that she is the only opposition
:59:29. > :59:35.leader who is holding the SNP to account.
:59:36. > :59:39.So how has Ruth Davidson managed to park her tank on the opposition 's
:59:40. > :59:44.lawn? She is energetic, she does well in
:59:45. > :59:49.debates and high tariff shows like question Time. She is popular and
:59:50. > :59:53.shall do well in this campaign. But there are other factors, one is the
:59:54. > :59:58.Labour Party situation, moderate Labour voters who are still voting
:59:59. > :00:02.Labour, there aren't many of them left, but Jeremy Corbyn will put
:00:03. > :00:08.them off and cows you don't do's tax rises would put them off. It is
:00:09. > :00:14.possible they will go to the Tory party.
:00:15. > :00:17.But haven't the Tories been here before, led by a powerful
:00:18. > :00:24.charismatic woman who somehow seems much more popular than the party
:00:25. > :00:28.itself we had a situation five years ago in terms of individual
:00:29. > :00:34.popularity, but the Tories did not output the Labour Party. We need to
:00:35. > :00:38.be cautious about this, the leader is popular, but the party is not as
:00:39. > :00:43.popular as the leader is. That can play against them. It has done in
:00:44. > :00:47.the past. Some argue that the Conservatives only look good at the
:00:48. > :00:56.moment because labour in Scotland is falling so fast and so far. If that
:00:57. > :01:00.were the case Labour's polling is would-be brewer, but we are seeing
:01:01. > :01:04.not just a building on the support we have always known we had in
:01:05. > :01:08.Scotland, but people responding positively to this combination of
:01:09. > :01:16.vibrant, dynamic leadership from Ruth and a clarity of political and
:01:17. > :01:20.policy position. Voters, if they want anything, it's clarity. If I
:01:21. > :01:26.support these people, what will they do? With the Conservatives that
:01:27. > :01:28.question is answered. Become a's elections watch what a quirk of the
:01:29. > :01:35.system which could benefit the Conservatives. The SNP will win
:01:36. > :01:39.every constituency bar two or three, what that means is the SNP will not
:01:40. > :01:45.win a lot of regional seats. Those seats have got to go to somebody.
:01:46. > :01:49.There are 56 of them up for grabs. The Greens have got a good chance of
:01:50. > :01:53.getting some of them if they can persuade SNP voters to switch to
:01:54. > :01:58.green in the vote, but if they can't the Greens are not likely to do all
:01:59. > :02:02.that well. Votes will stay with the SNP and the main beneficiaries are
:02:03. > :02:08.likely to be the Conservative Party. They are likely to get more seats on
:02:09. > :02:12.the same butcher as they had before. There were other people giving out
:02:13. > :02:15.leaflets in Glasgow, gospel tracts, it's not yet clear if the
:02:16. > :02:17.Conservatives will be relying on divine intervention.
:02:18. > :02:20.Joining me from our Edinburgh studio is the Conservatives' Environment,
:02:21. > :02:21.Fishing and External Affairs Spokesperson Jamie McGrigor,
:02:22. > :02:26.who is standing down at the May election.
:02:27. > :02:35.You're standing down, Jamie, so you can stand back from it a bit, do the
:02:36. > :02:40.Tories have any chance of being the main opposition party? I think they
:02:41. > :02:47.will be. Ruth Davidson has been a breath of fresh air. What has been
:02:48. > :02:55.said about her is very true, showing to people what can be offered, and
:02:56. > :03:00.also, one of the main Unionist parties, and people want a home if
:03:01. > :03:05.they don't want separation. The danger with this is that we are
:03:06. > :03:09.hearing so much now about how Ruth Davidson and her Conservative Party
:03:10. > :03:18.will become the main opposition party in Scotland that if it doesn't
:03:19. > :03:22.happen she could have a problem? We are going to see an improvement in
:03:23. > :03:27.the Conservative vote anyway. I am sure of that. I don't think she will
:03:28. > :03:32.have a problem because she is so dynamic and will go forward. She's
:03:33. > :03:38.going forward all the time. One of our main groups of voters, the most
:03:39. > :03:42.powerful groups of voters are the 18 to 25-year-olds. I think it's all to
:03:43. > :03:47.play for. I look forward to the future for the Conservative Party in
:03:48. > :03:52.Scotland, it's a Scottish party and she's made it a more Scottish party.
:03:53. > :03:58.We are, after all, the only party with a link to the old parliament
:03:59. > :04:03.before the act of union. The only problem with this rosy story is the
:04:04. > :04:07.evidence to back it up. You're sharing the general election went
:04:08. > :04:12.down. In the general election? But recent
:04:13. > :04:18.polls show we are pulling about 20%, I remember when I first got off the
:04:19. > :04:22.boat in Stornoway as a candidate for the Western Isles back in 1997, I
:04:23. > :04:27.said I was a Conservative candidate and someone said URA Rabbani
:04:28. > :04:32.cornflake. I can tell you now, I'd love to go to that same Labour man
:04:33. > :04:43.and tell him that Labour are pulling less than the Conservatives.
:04:44. > :04:48.Give us your view about what the Tories should say about tax. You've
:04:49. > :04:52.had this idea of a middle band, a 30p rate of tax. Do you think that
:04:53. > :04:56.is a good idea? The details of it will have to be worked out but one
:04:57. > :05:01.thing is for sure. We are against tax rises, which is what Labour
:05:02. > :05:05.once, and we would like to see... We would like to have the powers to do
:05:06. > :05:09.things and, if possible, the power to lower tax at some point. Do you
:05:10. > :05:13.think you should go to the election campaign saying, we will put your
:05:14. > :05:17.taxes down, in the same way Labour are going to the campaign saying
:05:18. > :05:21.they will put them up? I think we should go into the campaign saying
:05:22. > :05:25.that when we ever get to power, we will look at the tax situation then
:05:26. > :05:30.but the one thing we do not want is tax rises at this point. That would
:05:31. > :05:34.make people in Scotland worse off than they are in England. I'm sure
:05:35. > :05:38.I'm right in saying that you've been an MP since it was set up. Yes, in
:05:39. > :05:43.the Scottish Parliament, yes, I have. Looking back on it, hasn't
:05:44. > :05:47.lived up all lived down to your expectations? It's been very
:05:48. > :05:56.exciting for me. It's been something I've enjoyed enormously and I've
:05:57. > :05:59.learned a great deal. And I think that it will go forward and it is
:06:00. > :06:04.getting better all the time but what we do need is to get rid of this
:06:05. > :06:08.massive SNP majority which is blocking everything. We will have to
:06:09. > :06:11.leave it there. Thank you very much. Time to review the past week
:06:12. > :06:14.and look ahead to what's coming up I'm joined by the political
:06:15. > :06:22.commentator Hamish Macdonell and by the former SNP special
:06:23. > :06:30.advisor Ewan Crawford. Hamish, you've been furiously
:06:31. > :06:35.scribbling equations as we were talking about the fiscal framework.
:06:36. > :06:40.What do you make of this fairly incompressible talk? I would like to
:06:41. > :06:43.say that I think we are heading towards a deal. That seems to be the
:06:44. > :06:49.impression because the UK government do appear to have changed a bit the
:06:50. > :06:53.way that they have approached the key discussions over the levels for
:06:54. > :06:57.Miller and so on. The Scottish Government appears to be moving a
:06:58. > :07:01.little bit towards them. But we only have ten days to go and we have
:07:02. > :07:07.these discussions... We don't. We've got as long as you want. Do we? I
:07:08. > :07:11.don't think we do because if we do not get a resolution before the 23rd
:07:12. > :07:14.of February, the Scottish Parliament will not have the time to approve it
:07:15. > :07:17.and if it doesn't approve it, there are very, very big question marks
:07:18. > :07:24.over the legitimacy of the Scotland bill in Westminster. What do you
:07:25. > :07:27.think of this? I kind of disagree. I read Greg Hands' article this
:07:28. > :07:33.morning and I was a bit more pessimistic about the deal but
:07:34. > :07:35.clearly there are probably legitimate political interests on
:07:36. > :07:41.both sides, both the Scottish side of the UK side, and there are
:07:42. > :07:44.separate constituencies. He seemed to concede that, that the Scottish
:07:45. > :07:47.Government does have a legitimate interest in saying, it's not fair
:07:48. > :07:52.that you have to take the full effects of population growth but at
:07:53. > :07:55.the same time the British government obviously has to say, you can't have
:07:56. > :07:59.tax increases in England but not in Scotland to spilling over into
:08:00. > :08:02.Scotland. In terms of the technicalities, the IFF doesn't
:08:03. > :08:04.believe you can come up with a method of reducing the block grant
:08:05. > :08:11.that is committed web of consistent with the Smith commission. What I
:08:12. > :08:13.detected from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury's article was almost a
:08:14. > :08:16.rerun of some of the arguments the Conservatives used during the
:08:17. > :08:20.general election, when they appealed to people in England to say, there
:08:21. > :08:25.is this terrible threat from the SNP and they want to take your taxes. I
:08:26. > :08:28.was surprised by just how explicit the Chief Secretary to the Treasury
:08:29. > :08:32.was in that, which is not really, to me, the kind of thing that makes you
:08:33. > :08:38.think they are moving toward the deal. There is a point here. I can
:08:39. > :08:41.ask you to about this because you are not politicians. The politicians
:08:42. > :08:45.all have to keep the Barnett formula because they are committed to it but
:08:46. > :08:48.that's what's causing the problem. If you did something like what the
:08:49. > :08:52.Liberal Democrat peer Jeremy Purvis was suggesting, say there is no
:08:53. > :08:57.rush, have a conference... Much more sensible. There was an imbalance.
:08:58. > :09:00.They're trying to make a compromise while saying at the start that the
:09:01. > :09:04.Barnett formula can't be changed or adjusted. There are many better ways
:09:05. > :09:08.that this could have been approached but we are where we are and the two
:09:09. > :09:13.sides are still far apart. One of the problems is that there seems to
:09:14. > :09:17.be a level of mistrust on both sides, but both sides are now
:09:18. > :09:22.leaking to the press about allsorts of things. These are supposed to be
:09:23. > :09:28.secret talks. You can read each letter in the newspaper. To be fair,
:09:29. > :09:31.for the first couple of months the UK government sat back and didn't
:09:32. > :09:34.look anything but over the last few weeks, they've got quite annoyed by
:09:35. > :09:37.some of the things appearing in the press and have started leaking, too.
:09:38. > :09:42.That generates even further a sense of mistrust which is not going to
:09:43. > :09:47.help with a deal. With your academic hat on, rather than your SNP hat on,
:09:48. > :09:49.it would be sensible if you could have trust between the Scottish
:09:50. > :09:56.Government on the British government, wouldn't it, to have a
:09:57. > :10:00.quasi-federal deal, let's talk about it and not have a timetable. We
:10:01. > :10:06.don't have to sorted out before the elections. Let me take my academic
:10:07. > :10:11.hat off and put my slight SNP hat back on. I'm no longer fully in the
:10:12. > :10:14.SNP but I certainly don't work the Scottish Government. But when I did
:10:15. > :10:17.work of the Scottish Government in the run-up to the referendum, one of
:10:18. > :10:22.the big beers, if something was going to happen after a no vote was
:10:23. > :10:26.a reopening of the Barnett formula. The Conservative Party doesn't like
:10:27. > :10:32.it and perhaps what we are seeing is some attempt to open that up. They
:10:33. > :10:36.wouldn't like that because what they would here is a chorus saying, it
:10:37. > :10:42.needs reassessment and I might disagree with it but there is at
:10:43. > :10:47.least a possibility that it would say public spending in Scotland is
:10:48. > :10:51.about the UK. Maybe it has to be a bit higher but not that much. We've
:10:52. > :10:56.traditionally raised a lot more taxpayer had done the UK as well.
:10:57. > :11:02.And you mention acquires I federal system. The point is, you have so
:11:03. > :11:06.much political economic culture in one part of the UK which inevitably
:11:07. > :11:12.disadvantages the rest of the UK. All right. Tories - could they be
:11:13. > :11:16.heading for a fall? Only heading for a fall if you start from a position
:11:17. > :11:21.of height. They keep saying they are going to be second. I think they
:11:22. > :11:24.have to talk up their chances to an extent because they are almost a
:11:25. > :11:27.level pegging in some of the polls with Labour, there is nothing wrong
:11:28. > :11:31.with talking up their chances, particularly as the Labour vote is
:11:32. > :11:36.to be haemorrhaging. Maybe it will get some of the Tartan Tories back
:11:37. > :11:40.to vote for them. Enough of them. Let's have a drink, shall we? There
:11:41. > :11:46.we are. We can get the tray out without spilling it. Let's sing our
:11:47. > :11:53.sorrows in the beer. This, I should explain to people,... Is this
:11:54. > :11:58.because we've been talking about the risk of framework? This is a beer
:11:59. > :12:05.which is named after the leader of the Scottish Greens. What do you
:12:06. > :12:10.think? I was going to say that if it is a green project, it is probably
:12:11. > :12:17.very expensive and slightly over subsidised, but... I would say it's
:12:18. > :12:23.got taste, it's got flavour. If it lasts beyond election, who knows?
:12:24. > :12:26.I'm no expert on beer. I could degenerate into a political cliche
:12:27. > :12:30.and say the Greens after the Liberal Democrat vote and their four
:12:31. > :12:34.sandals, beer, real ale and all that type of stuff. I suppose Patrick
:12:35. > :12:39.Harvie had a very good referendum. A bit of public that he is not going
:12:40. > :12:42.to do any harm. Has this happened before? I don't remember a beer
:12:43. > :12:47.coming out the was named after a leader of a political party. I
:12:48. > :12:49.certainly... There have been quite a few publicity stunts but they
:12:50. > :12:54.normally don't tend to involve alcohol, that's true. What else
:12:55. > :13:02.could we have? And just tried to think. We could have pot noodles and
:13:03. > :13:05.things like that. I think it is slightly odd, in a situation where
:13:06. > :13:08.everybody is talking about the perils of Scotland's drink culture
:13:09. > :13:11.that you actually have a leader who is prepared to go out there and have
:13:12. > :13:19.a beer named after him. I think it is quite refreshing. What do you
:13:20. > :13:22.reckon? Is it all right? I think it's OK. Perhaps a little in the
:13:23. > :13:27.morning to be taking a huge judgment on a particular BA you have just
:13:28. > :13:30.tested. It's better than I expected. It's a little cloudy so it perhaps
:13:31. > :13:36.lead suspend a little longer in the bottle but it's good. I notice you
:13:37. > :13:42.haven't taken any. I'll have the rest of the bottle later! It is made
:13:43. > :13:46.by a microbrewery in Glasgow, we should point out.
:13:47. > :13:51.That's all we have time for this week. Thanks to our guests today and
:13:52. > :13:56.we will be back next week. Goodbye.