14/05/2017 Sunday Politics Scotland


Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer with the latest political news, interviews and debate.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 14/05/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



It's Sunday morning and this is the Sunday Politics.


Theresa May unveils plans to build many more affordable homes


in England, but with no price tag, timetable or building targets -


Labour takes aim at the City with what it calls a Robin Hood Tax


to fund public services, but will traders just


Don't look at the polls - Jeremy Corbyn, at least,


insists he can win this election - so which way will


We'll hear from a focus group in Leeds.


And on Sunday Politics Scotland, A good we'll be asking how we can


best protect ourselves from future cyber attacks.


And talking to the Scottish Greens' Patrick Harvie


in the first of our leader interviews.


And with me, our own scientifically selected focus group


of political pundits - they're not so much


undecided as clueless - Tom Newton Dunn, Isabel Oakeshott


They'll be tweeting throughout the programme.


So, we've got two new policies this morning.


Labour say they will introduce a financial transaction tax


if they win the general election and what they're calling


"the biggest crackdown on tax avoidance in the country's history".


The Conservatives say they'll work with local authorities in England


to build council houses with the right to buy.


Theresa May says the policy "will help thousands of people


get on the first rung of the housing ladder".


Steve, what do you make of them? I have been conditioned after doing


tax and spend debates in pre-election periods for many


decades to treat policy is not as literal but as arguments. In other


words if you look back to 2015 the Tory plan to wipe out the deficit


was never going to happen and yet it framed and large event. In that


sense the Robin Hood tax is a sensible move for Labour to make at


this point because it is part of a narrative of reconfiguring taxation


to be fair. Treating it as an argument rather than something that


would happen in day one of Labour government is sensible. In terms of


building houses Theresa May said right from the beginning when she


was in Number Ten that there is a housing deficit in this country


rather than the economic deficit George Osborne was focusing on, and


this is an example of trying to get house-building going. It seems


entirely sensible, not sure how it works with right to buy but again as


framing of a 90 minute it makes sense. I disagree with Steve on one


front which is how sensible Theresa May's policy is on the housing


announcement. I think more broadly these two announcements have


something in common which is that over the next 24 hours both will


probably unravel in different ways. Ye of little faith! The Mayor of


London has already said he doesn't agree with this, and when people see


the actual impact of what looks like a populist tax will very potentially


affect people's pensions, it might become a lot less popular. On the


Tory housing plans, I think it is difficult to imagine how they are


going to implement this huge, what looks like a huge land and property


grab. Through compulsory purchase orders, which are not a simple


instrument. They say they will change the law but really the idea


of paying people below the market value for their assets is not


something I can see sitting easily with Tory backbenchers or the Tories


in the House of Lords. Tom. Both would appear superficially to be


appealing to traditional left and traditional right bases. What is


more Tory than right to buy, then councils sell on these houses, and


Labour slapping a massive tax on the city. The Tories' plan, I would say


look a bit deeper and all of the Tory narrative from the last six


years which hasn't worked well is talking about the private sector


increasing supply in the market. Now Mrs May is talking about the role


for the state after all so this is the shift creeping in. On the Labour


transaction tax, one of the most interesting things I heard in days


was from Paul Mason, former BBC correspondent, now a cog in Easter


extreme. On Newsnight he said don't worry about whether the Labour


manifesto will add up, I'm promising it will, the bigger Tory attack line


should be what on earth will be the macroeconomic effect of taking so


much tax out of the system. Very well, we shall see. At least we have


some policies to talk about. Now, on Tuesday Labour


will launch its manifesto. But we've already got a pretty good


idea of what's in it - that's because most of its contents


were leaked to the media Labour has a variety of spending


pledges including an extra ?6 billion a year for the NHS,


an additional ?8 billion for social care over the lifetime


of the next parliament, as well as a ?250 billion


in infrastructure over The party will support the renewal


of the Trident submarine system, about its use, and the party


will hold a strategic defence and security review immediately


after the election. In terms of immigration,


Labour will seek "reasonable management of migration",


but it will not make "false Elsewhere, university tuition


fees will be abolished, and the public sector pay cap,


which limits pay rises for public sector workers


to 1%, will be scrapped. The party also aims to renationalise


the railways, the Royal Mail and the National Grid,


as well as creating at least one A senior Labour backbencher


described it to the Sunday Politics as a manifesto for a leadership


who don't "give a toss about the wider public",


and several other Labour candidates told us they thought it


had been deliberately leaked by the leadership,


with one suggesting the leak was intended to "bounce


the National Executive" And we're joined now from Salford


by the Shadow Business Secretary, Welcome to the programme. The draft


manifesto proposed to renationalise the number of industry. You will


wait for the franchises to run out rather than buy them out at the


moment so can you confirm the railways will not be wholly


nationalised until 2030, after three Labour governments, and Jeremy


Corbyn will be 80? I'm not going to comment on leaks, you will just have


to be patient and wait to see what is in our manifesto. But you have


already announced you will nationalise the railways, so tell me


about it. We have discussed taking the franchises into public ownership


as they expire, however the detail will be set out in the manifesto so


I'm not prepared to go into detail until that policy is formally laid


out on Tuesday. That doesn't sound very hopeful but let's carry on. You


will also nationalise the National Grid, it has a market capitalisation


of ?40 billion, why do you want to nationalise that? Again, I'm not


going to speculate on leaks, you will just have to be patient. But


you said you will nationalise the National Grid so tell's Y. The leaks


have suggested but you will just have to wait and see what the final


manifesto states on that one. So is it a waste of time me asking you how


you will pay for something that costs 40 billion? Be patient, just


couple of days to go, but what I would say is there is growing


pressure from the public to reform the utilities sector. The


Competition and Markets Authority stated in 2015 that bill payers were


paying over till debt -- ?2 billion in excess of what they should be


paying so there is a clear need for reform. The bills we get are from


the energy companies, you are not going to nationalise them, you are


going to nationalise the distribution company and I wondered


what is the case for nationalising the distribution company? As I said,


our full plans will be set out on Tuesday. In relation to the big six


energy companies, we know in recent years they have been overcharging


customers... There's no point in answering questions I am not asking.


I am asking what is the case for nationalising the National Grid?


There is a case for reforming the energy sector as a whole and that


looks at the activities of the big six companies and it will look at


other aspects too. You will have to be patient and wait until Tuesday.


other aspects too. You will have to What about the Royal Mail? Again,


you will have to wait until Tuesday. Why can't you just be honest with


the British voter? We know you are going to do this and you have a duty


to explain. I'm not even arguing whether it is right or wrong. The


Royal Mail was sold off and we know it was sold under value and British


taxpayers have a reason to feel aggrieved about that. There is a


long-term strategy that would ensure the Royal Mail was classified as a


key piece of infrastructure but the details of that will be set out in


our manifesto because we want to ensure businesses and households


ensure the best quality of service when it comes to their postal


providers. You plan to borrow an extra 25 billion per year, John


McDonnell has already announced this, on public investment, on top


of the around 50 billion already being planned for investment. You


will borrow it all so that means, if you can confirm, that many years


after the crash by 2021, Labour government would still be borrowing


75 billion a year. Is that correct? We have set out ?250 billion of


capital investment, and ?250 billion for a national investment bank. Our


financial and fiscal rules dictate we will leave the Government in a


state of less debt than we found it at the start of the parliament so we


won't increase the national debt at the end of our Parliamentary term.


How can you do that if by 2021 you will still be borrowing around 75


billion a year, which is more than we borrow at the moment? The 500


billion figure is set out over a period of ten years, it's a figure


that has been suggested by Peter Helm from Oxford University as a


figure that is necessary to bring us in line with other industrial


competitors. Similar figures have been suggested by groups such as the


CBI. By the way I have not included all 500 billion, just the 250


billion on public spending, not the extra money. You talk about the


fiscal rules. The draft manifesto said you will leave debt as a


proportion of trend GDP law at the end of each parliament, you have


just said a version of that. What is trend GDP? In clear terms we will


ensure the debt we acquire will be reduced by the end of the


parliament. We won't leave the Government finances in a worse state


than we found them. OK, but what is trend GDP? Our rule is we will


ensure public sector net debt is less than we found it when we came


to power in Government on June the 8th. But that is not what your draft


manifesto says. I'm not going to comment on leaks, you are just going


to have to wait until Tuesday to look at the fine detail and perhaps


we will have another chat then. You have published your plans for


corporation tax and you will increase it by a third and your


predictions assumed that will get an extra 20 billion a year by the end


of the parliament. But that assumes the companies don't change their


behaviour, that they move money around, they leave the country or


they generate smaller profits. Is that realistic? You are right to


make that point and you will see when we set out our policies and


costings in the manifesto that we haven't spent all of the tax take.


We have allowed for different differentials and potential changes


in market activity because that would be approved and direction to


take. But corporation tax is allowed to be cut in France and the United


States, it's only 12.5% in Dublin. Many companies based in Britain are


already wondering whether they should relocate because of Brexit,


if you increase this tax by a third couldn't that clinch it for a number


of them? No, we will still be one of the lowest corporation tax rate in


the G7. Let's look at what's important for business. Cutting


corporation tax in itself doesn't improve productivity, or business


investment and there's no suggestion cutting corporation tax in recent


years has achieved that. Businesses need an investment in tools in


things they need to thrive and prosper, they also need to reduce


the burden at the lower end of the tax scale, before we get to the


Prophet stage. One key example is business rates. We have made the


proposal to government to in -- exclude machinery so businesses can


invest and grow operations in the future but the Government refused.


Corporation tax has been cut since 2010. When it was 28% it brought in


?43 billion a year. Now it is down to 20%, it brought in ?55 billion a


year. By cutting it in the last year, it brought in 21% more, so


what is the problem? It might have brought in more money, but has it


increased business investment in the long term. It is not just about


cutting corporation tax, but it is on the ability of businesses to


thrive and prosper. Business investment in the UK is below are


industrial competitors. Wages are stagnating which doesn't indicate


businesses are not doing well. Let me get it right, you are arguing if


we increase business tax by a third, that will increase investment? I am


not saying that. You just did. Know I didn't, I said reducing business


tax isn't enough, you have to invest in the things businesses need to


thrive and prosper. You have also got to lessen the burden on


business. You have announced a financial transaction tax. Your own


labour Mayor of London said he has vowed to fight it. He said I do not


want a unilateral tax on business in our city, so why are you proceeding


with it? This isn't a new initiative, there is a growing


global pressure to make sure we have fairness in the financial sector.


Ordinary British people are paying for our banking crisis they didn't


cause. Another important point, stamp duty reserve tax was brought


in in the 1600 and there have been little reforms. The sector has


changed and we have do provide changes to the system for that


change. High-frequency trading where we have a state of affairs where a


lot of shares are traded on computers within milliseconds. We


need a tax system that keeps up with that. What happens if they move the


computers to another country? Emily Thornaby said this morning, other


countries had already introduced a financial transaction tax, what


other countries have done that? There are ten countries looking at


introducing a transaction tax. Which ones have done it so far? They will


be later announcing a final package, going through the finer detail at


the moment. But the European Commission tried to get this done in


2011 and it still hasn't happened in any of these countries. But you are


going to go ahead unilaterally and risk these businesses, which


generate a lot of money, moving to other jurisdictions. There is not a


significant risk of that happening. The stamp duty reserve tax is levied


at either where the person or company is domiciled or where the


instrument is issued rather than worth the transaction takes place.


This tax in itself is not enough to make people leave this country in


terms of financial services because there is more to keep these


businesses here in terms of the investment we are making, the


economy that Labour will build, in terms of productivity improvement we


will see. Thank you very much, Rebecca Long-Bailey.


And listening to that was the Home Office Minister, Brandon Lewis.


Over the years, you have got corporation tax by 20%, it is lower


than international standards, so why are so many global companies who


make money out of Great Britain, still not paying 20%? It is one of


the problems with the point Labour were making and Rebecca could not


answer, these companies can move around the world. One of the


important things is having a low tax economy but these businesses, it


encourages them to come at a rate they are prepared to pay. People may


say they are right, if they were paying 19, 20% incorporation tax.


But they are not. Google runs a multi-million pound corporation and


did not pay anywhere near 20%. There are companies that are trading


internationally and that is why we have to get this work done with our


partners around the world. Has there been an improvement? It is more than


they were paying before. Whether it is Google or any other company,


alongside them being here, apart from the tax they pay, it is the


people they employ. The deal was, if you cut the business tax, the


corporation tax on profits, we would get more companies coming here and


more companies paying their tax. It seems it doesn't matter how low, a


number of companies just pay a derisory amount and you haven't been


able to change that. As you outlined, the income taken from the


changing corporation tax has gone up. That is from established British


companies, not from these international companies. It is


because more companies are coming here and paying tax. That is a good


thing. There is always more to do and that is why we want to crack


down. In the last few weeks in the Finnish Parliament, Labour refused


to put to another ?8.7 billion of tax take we could have got by


cracking down further. You claim to have made great progress on cracking


down on people and companies to pay the tax they should. But the tax gap


is the difference between what HMRC takes in and what it should take in.


It has barely moved in five years, so where is the progress? He have


brought in 150 billion more where we have cracked down on those tax


schemes. The gap is still the same as it was five years ago. It's gone


from 6.8, 26.5. It has gone down. The Prime Minister and the


Chancellor said they want to continue work on to get more money


on these companies while still having a competitive rate to


encourage these companies. While big business and the wealthy continue to


prosper, the Office for Budget Responsibility tell us those on


average earnings in this country will be earning less in real terms


by 2021 than they did in 2008. How can that be fair? I don't see it


that way. I haven't seen the figures you have got. What I can say to you,


Andrew, we have made sure the minimum wage has gone up, the actual


income tax people pay has gone down. So in their pocket, real terms,


people have more money. You are the self-styled party of work. We keep


emphasising work. Under your government you can work for 13 years


and still not earn any more at the end of it, and you did at the start.


Where is the reward for effort in that? I have not seen those figures.


There are 2.8 million more people, more jobs in economy than there was.


1000 jobs every day and people are working and developing through their


careers. This is what I thought was odd in what Rebecca was saying,


investing in people is what the apprenticeship levy is about,


companies are investing their works force to take more opportunities


that there. We are talking about fairness, politicians talk about


hard-working people and we know the average earnings are no higher than


they were in 2008. We know the pay and bonuses of senior executives


have continued to grow and the Institute for Fiscal Studies has


shown 3 million of the poorest households will lose an average of


?2500 a year in the next Parliament, benefits frozen, further sanctions


kick in. 3 million of the poorest losing 2500. Under the Tories, one


law for the rich and another for the poor. It is quite wrong. First of


all, we have got to be fair to the taxpayer who is funding the welfare


and benefit system. Which is why the welfare was right. Get more people


in work and then it is important to get more people upscaling. As that


allowance rises, people have more of the money they earn in their pocket


to be able to use in the economy. People will be worse off. 2500,


among the poorest already. They will have more money in their pocket as


we increase the allowance before people pay tax. We have seen


millions of people coming out of tax altogether. The reason I ask these


questions, you and the Prime Minister go on and on about the just


about managing classes. I am talking about the just about managing and


below that. It is all talk, you haven't done anything for them. We


have made sure they have an increasing minimum wage, it has gone


up more under us than any other previous government. Their wages


will be still lower in real terms. Let me come on to this plan for


housing. We have announced a new plan to increase affordable housing,


social housing, some council housing and social housing built by the


associations. How much money is behind this? It is part of the 1.4


billion announced in the Autumn Statement. How many homes will you


get for 1.4 billion? That depends on the negotiations with local


authorities. It is local authorities, who know the area best.


I will not put a number on that. 1.4 billion, if you price the house at


100,000, which is very low, particularly for the South, back at


you 14,000 new homes. That is it. What we have seen before, how the


local government can leveraged to build thousands more homes. That is


what we want to see across the country. It is not just about the


money, for a lot of local authorities it is about the


expertise and knowledge on how to do this. That is why support from the


housing communities minister will help. What is the timescale, how


many more affordable homes will be built? I will not put a number on


it. You announced it today, so you cannot tell me how many more or what


the target is? It is a matter of working with the local authorities


who know what their local needs are, what land they have got available.


What we saw through the local elections with the Metro mayors,


they want to deliver in their areas, whether it is the West of England,


the north-east, Liverpool, Manchester and we want to work with


them. You have said variations of this for the past seven years and I


want some credibility. When you cannot tell us how much money, what


the target and timescale is, and this government, under which


affordable house building has fallen to a 24 year low. 1.2 million


families are on waiting lists for social housing to rent. That is your


record. Why should we believe a word you say? This is different to what


we have been doing over the last two years. We want to develop and have a


strong and stable economy that can sustain that 1.4 billion homes. This


is important. In 2010, we inherited the lowest level of house building,


75,000 new homes. That is about 189,000 over the last four years.


That is a big step forward after the crash, getting people back into the


industry. More first-time buyers onto the market. Final question, in


2010, 2011, your first year in government, there were 60,000


affordable homes built. May not be enough, but last day it was 30 2000.


So why should we trust anything you say about this? On housing, we have


delivered. We have delivered more social housing. Double what Labour


did in 13 years, in just five years. This is what this policy is about,


working with local authorities to deliver more homes to people in


their local areas. Thank you. Now, they have a deficit


of between 15 and 20% in the polls, but Jeremy Corbyn and those


around him insist Labour can win. If the polls are right they've got


three and half weeks to change voters' minds and persuade those


fabled undecided voters We enlisted the polling organisation


YouGov to help us find out how the performance of party leaders


will affect behaviour Leeds, a city of three quarters


of a million people, eight Parliamentary seats and home


to our very own focus group. Our panel was recruited


from a variety of backgrounds and the majority say they haven't


decided who to vote for yet. Watching behind the glass,


two experts on different sides Giles Cunningham, who headed up


political press at Downing Street under David Cameron


and Aaron Bastani, Corbin supporter, under David Cameron


and Aaron Bastani, Corbyn supporter, I think Theresa May sees herself


as a pound shop Thatcher. Milliband's policies but when it


came about who you want,


if you wake up on maybe a 2015, We found in a couple of focus


groups, people saying we'd be quite relieved,


even though some of those same people have been saying we quite


like the Labour policies. I think the fact that Corbyn's


going so hard on his values, this is a really progressive


manifesto, they live But I think that's a new challenge,


that wasn't there in 2015. Is there anyone here that


you don't recognise? After a little warm up,


the first exercise, recognising I think it's nice to have a strong


woman in politics, I do. But I've got to say,


when she comes on the news, I kind of do think,


here we go again. Tell me about Tim Farron, what


are your impressions of Tim Farron? It isn't going to do anything,


it isn't going to change anything. You'll be surprised to hear it's


actually the Greens. Strong and stable leadership


in the national interest. Yes, Team May, it's


the British equivalent of make What do we think about this one


for the many and not the few? It's not quite as bad


as strong and stable, but it will probably get


on our nerves after a while. We must seize that chance today


and every day until June the 8th. But that's not quite my


question, my question is, if you are Prime Minister,


we will leave, come hell or high water, whatever is on the table


at the end of the negotiations? If we win the election,


we'll get a good deal with Europe. Assertive and in control


and he felt comfortable But the second one, I thought


he was very hesitant. I thought he was kind of,


hovering around, skirting around and that's the second


time I've seen a similar interview with the question


being asked regarding Brexit. I don't think I'd have


any confidence with him You think you are going up


against some quite strong people, how are you going to stand


up for us? When you are in negotiations,


you need to be tough. And actually is right


to be tough sometimes, particularly when you are doing


something for the country. There's a reason for talking


about strong and stable leadership. It's about the future


of the country, it's It's just that people kind of listen


to that kind of thing and think Both on The One Show


and in the news. She attracts the public better


than what Corbyn does. She didn't answer the question


in a more articular way than Corbyn Imagine that Theresa


May is an animal. So, in your minds,


what animal is coming to mind I've done a Pekinese because I think


she's all bark and no bite. Alpaca because she's


superior looking and woolly I don't think his policies


are for the modern, real world. A mouse because they are weak


and they can be easily bullied, but also they can catch


you by surprise if you're What do you take away


from what you saw then, and what message would you send back


to the Tories now? I think what came over is people see


Theresa May as a strong politician, not everyone likes her,


but you don't need to be liked to be elected,


because ultimately it's about who do you trust with your future


and your security. I think what I also take out


of that focus group, was it was a group of floating


voters, there was no huge appetite for the Lib Dems and there was no


huge appetite for Ukip. So my messaged back to CCHQ


would be stick to the plan. I thought the response


to the manifesto was excellent. It's clear that people aren't


particularly keen on Theresa May, There are some associations with her


about strength and stability, which is exactly what the Tory party


want of course, but they are not positive and nobody thinks


that she has a vision So, what I'd say the Jeremy Corbyn,


what I'd say to the Labour Party is, they need to really emphasise


the manifesto in Jeremy Corbyn himself has to perform


out of his skin and I think he has to reemphasise those


characteristics which may be have come to the fore may be


over the last 12 months, resilience, strength and the fact


that he's come this far, why not take that final step and go


into ten Downing Street? We're joined now by the American


political consultant For the sake of this discussion,


assume the polls at the moment are broadly right, is there any hope for


Mr Corbyn in the undecided voters? Know, and this is a very serious


collection with serious consequences to who wins. Nobody cares whether


you can draw and what animal they represent, they want to know where


they stand, and I felt that was frivolous. I come to Britain to


watch elections because I learned from here. Your elections are more


substantial, more serious, more policy and less about personality


and that peace was only about personality. That's partly because


Mrs May has decided to make this a presidential election. You can see


on the posters it is all Team May. I agree with that, and in her language


she says not everyone benefits from a Conservative government, I don't


see how using anything Republicans a Conservative government, I don't


have used in the past. In fact her campaign is more of a centrist


Democrats but it is a smart strategy because it pushes Corbyn further to


Democrats but it is a smart strategy the left. Of course you said Hillary


Clinton have won. On election night the polling was so bad in America,


the exit polls that were done, the BBC told America she had won. No, I


was anchoring the programme that night, I ignored your tweet. The BBC


was anchoring the programme that had the same numbers. Yes, but we


did not say she had won, I can assure you of that. Because of


people like you we thought she had but we didn't broadcast it. That was


a smart approach. My point is other than teasing you, maybe there is


hope for Jeremy Corbyn. I think you will have one of the lowest turnout


in modern history and I think Labour will fall to one of the lowest


percentages, not percentage of number of seats they have had, and


this will be a matter of soul-searching for both political


parties. What you do with a sizeable majority, and she has a


parties. What you do with a sizeable responsibility to tell the British


people exactly what happens as she moves forward. He and Labour will


have to take a look at whether they still represent a significant slice


of the British population. Do you see a realignment in British


politics taking place? I see a crumbling of the left and yet there


is still a significant percentage of the British population that once


someone who is centre-left. And they like a lot of Mr Corbyn's policies.


I'm listening to Michael foot. I went to school here in the 1980s and


I feel like I'm watching the Labour Party of 35 years ago, in a


population that wants to focus on the future, not the past. Thank you.


It's just gone 11.35, you're watching the Sunday Politics.


We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland, who leave us now


Good morning and welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland.


Should the NHS have done more to protect itself


and how safe are our other institutions?


The Scottish Greens drastically reduce the number of seats


I'll be asking their co-convenor why.


But will we ever get close again to being amongst


It came out of the blue and has caused major disruption for the NHS


which is continuing to deal with the fall out


11 of Scotland's 14 health boards were affected


although some are hoping to be back to


near normal working by tomorrow.


Well, joining me from Edinburgh to discuss the latest


on those attacks is Professor Bill Buchanan


who leads the Cyber Academy at Edinburgh Napier University.


First, Bill there are some reports seemingly based on the chap who by


accident stopped the spread of this. seemingly based on the chap who by


That it could all happen again tomorrow. Do you take that


seriously? It could happen tomorrow. It is quite likely, it could have


been much more severe, and we could have had a large-scale outbreak in


the public sector systems in the UK. It has been well known that this


vulnerability has been around for at least a month and it was given


administrators working in time to be able to patch their systems,


otherwise this would not have happened. Along with this we see


that there are many windows XP system still in the NHS and as long


as there is one of those computers in there that is a way for malware


to get in. That is an interesting point. Just explain to people is XP


and a old operating system? Several generations. Even if one double


system is in a hospital network network with other Windows systems,


even if they are Windows ten, they are that one to be updated by Mike


assessed -- Microsoft, that can infect the whole lot. Everyone knows


that Windows stopped updating their older systems. It is taken a long


time to migrate away and it is a difficult challenge within the NHS


because you are busy have business work which involves connection to GP


practices which might not have the most up-to-date software. Just to be


clear on the point I was making, are you saying that even one computer


clear on the point I was making, are and XP system could infect an entire


NHS system even if the rest of the and XP system could infect an entire


NHS was up-to-date? It really depends how the network is made up


but this is a worm and what a worm does is affect a leader in a network


and naturally spread so all you need is one touch pointed to the old


network, and it could also be someone clicking from a link from


e-mail, dropping malware onto the computer, or a USB stick into the


network which then infects the entire network so once it is in, it


can then propagate across the whole network. Do you think the main


problem is that as you have mentioned some of these systems are


on the old XP abridging system or is the problem that most of them are on


later versions of Windows, and they for some reason have not updated


with all the security patches that they should have updated with? As


you said, Microsoft had put out a patch for the some time ago. I think


we need to look beyond the short fix beyond operating systems and


computers, I think there needs to be a radical change of the hole in


visage of health care, and move away from short-term fixes such as


patches. The architecture we have for health care really needs to move


into the modern era of cloud -based systems, having integrated policy,


integrating things much more, and certainly to put the citizen at the


core focus of health care systems. Again, just explain that because a


lot of people would be terribly familiar with that. Cloud -based


systems, this is where poor example patient data rather than being held


on local servers, would be held effectively on the Internet in the


way that a lot of information is these days, and is that more secure?


Yellow macro no, it's not stored on the Internet, it is stored within a


private clouds so that is within the NHS infrastructure, or held locally


within a practice, so that is where the confusion comes in, as opposed


to a public cloud which is busy addressable by anybody in the world


but is also private clouds, many organisations such as in the finance


industry are now going towards private cloud infrastructures, where


they centralise the security policy of all infrastructure, into


centralised places, and then the data storage is also backed up


locally, and then in another remote location. They are hopeful I think


of getting the systems that have been affected in the NHS in


Scotland, we should be clear it is not all over Scotland, the real


problem seems to have been particularly in Lanarkshire. How do


they do that? As I understand that the only way to get rid of this is


to effectively what the operating system on a computer and reinstall


it. Increasingly computers don't store the information locally and I


would expect the NHS will be storing all the data on a centralised data


infrastructure so we typically just use the computer to login and get


access to services, connect to the web and so on, so in most cases what


will happen is it will be a really of the computers. -- reimaging. Can


we be sure that individual computers are not affected? Yellow macro I


don't think they can say that at all. That depends on the individual


practices, local computers, and what is actively stored on these.


Increasingly we needs to be storing in a centralised data


Increasingly we needs to be storing infrastructure. Briefly, the other


possible he is that out of sheer malice and frustration those who did


this good trigger the deletion of encrypted information, and if that


information has been encrypted back-up computers, there could still


be some data loss on this, couldn't they? It looks like this is not the


most sophisticated malware, but not being able to get access to the


encryption key is the same as deleting the data, you can't get the


data back unless you have the unique encryption key which has encrypted


the data so although the files are still there, there is no way to


access them unless you can actually find that encryption key. Some


malware allows the files to be taken off the machine, allowing for more


access of the computer so for example the camera and to be able to


take files off but in this case it isn't as sophisticated will stop


what is more important is the way that this spread was through a


system called as M B which Microsoft announced over a month ago, which


should have been blocked by the main firewall. -- the system was called


SMB. The Scottish Greens will fight only


three seats in the general election with co-convenor Patrick Harvie


standing in one of them. Add that to the announcement


this week that it won't be endorsing any other party in the 56 seats


it's not contesting, and you're pretty much up to speed


with the Greens' strategy, one which has inevitably left


them open to the claim, in some quarters, that this


is all about propping-up the SNP. In the first of our series


of interviews with the party leaders, I'm joined


now by Patrick Harvie. Patrick Harvie laughed when he was


going to be on this. A wry smile. You are proud of this situation, but


where you are not standing, you decided not to the candidate? All


the branches made their decisions in their own way and stop some health


meeting some will decide online. Or the 56 decided no, we don't want to


stand. Rather than we don't want to stand, all of them voted that the


resources they had left, after the seven national votes including the


Holyrood and local elections that we put a huge amount of resource and


energy into, they recognise that this wasn't something we were able


to do. Bust than two years ago in the 2015 election we stayed in about


half the seats in Scotland. I regret honestly that we are not in a


position to do that again this time round. Or even to get close to this.


What we do have to do is focus our resources where it will really make


a difference because I believe it is critical at the particular time we


are in at the moment that Scotland has a green voice at Westminster, I


think we can achieve that but only if we focus. This has nothing to do


with helping other parties? No, the branches in some parts of the


country will no doubt, as the Green party in England and Wales have done


as well, contemplate -- contemplate how to stop the Tories. If there is


the Tory held seat that is one of the fact is that people will have in


mind. Anybody on the progressive side of politics needs to be trying


to prevent the kind of Tory takeover of Westminster that Theresa May is


running for. This is an opportunity is -- opportunistic election, and


she wouldn't be calling it if there were not a weak Labour Party. The


two answers you have given seem to contradict each other. One minute


you say this is entirely about resources, and your branches are all


deciding not to stand, and now you are saying you are not standing


because he wants to help beat the Tories. It is overwhelmingly about


resources. Obviously one of the fact is that they branch which is


covering a Tory held or Tory marginal seat, one of the factors is


how best to prevent that very damaging outcome, the bigger Tory


majority at Westminster but look, the plc is that there are going to


be hugely important social and environmental powers moved from


Europe to Westminster in the next session of part of -- Parliament.


That will put lives on the line and a green voice at Westerners is a


great priority. Maggie Chapman permit your co-convener said a few


weeks ago that you would consider as you suggested your strategy offered


to keep the Tories out that not standing in areas where you thought


that would help people fighting Tories. She also said an approach


would be made to the Scottish National Party, about a Progressive


Alliance in what she said as the next couple of days. That was able


the 18th. Was such an approach ever made? No. Why not? It wasn't a


discussion that took place. It wasn't something be partly as a


robotic decided to do and she was exposing her provisional view in an


interview. The VLC is that the party makes decisions as local as


possible. That is the way that we have always operated. Your


co-convener said there would be an approach in the next couple of days,


there wasn't an approach, why not? She said she was addressing a


personal view. The party had not decided to do that. The national


council never considered the option of doing that. Actually, after the


2014 election and in the run up to 2015, the party's national council


agreed that there should be some level of discussion with the SNP


about whether there should be a different approach to the 2015


election. They weren't interested and I frankly didn't think that they


would be, so they clearly had the resources to fight everything and


why would they change that strategy? I didn't expect anything different


this time so I'm not sure why would explore that.


People who would like to vote Green in the 56 seats where you are not


standing, who should they vote for? It depends on what issues are


important to them. If opposing Trident renewal is important to


them, they may find SNP candidates or Labour candidates who agree with


them. If the most important issue is ending subsidies to fossil fuels,


they are unlikely to find many SNP candidates who support them. If the


most important thing is sustainable transport, why would we send MPs


from is Scottish constituencies to argue for an extra runway at


Heathrow when our transport is unreliable and underfunded? What if


they think the Tories have the best offer? If people want an ever


meaner, harsher Social Security system that forces more people into


poverty, they need to check their values. There must be many people


whose priority is the environment who feel that Tories are sticking up


for that. They would give the go-ahead to fracking, subsidising


nuclear power while removing support from the renewable energy industry.


Anybody who supports a sustainable future for the UK will look at the


Tories and think they are not where it's at. Would you produce a


manifesto for this? Think of the paper you would be using. We will


produce a manifesto, the majority of it online, but we have a chance of


getting are strong Green MP at Westminster because we are focusing


our resources because we are not knocking on the doors of to fund the


campaign but are knocking on the doors of constituencies where we are


investing and talking about investment in the future, not fossil


fuel addicted economy but one that will create jobs for the future, a


Social Security system worthy of the name that allows people to choose a


balance in their own life between learning, working and the other


things that matter. But unlike the SNP, you are a parent UK movement.


We are a global movement. You save on your website you want to make a


real impact, joining forces with Caroline Lucas but that is not


really what you want to do. You want to split up the UK so you cannot


even be in the same parliament as Caroline Lucas. If Scotland has a


chance to ask itself again the question of independence and resolve


this conflict between 55% no vote in 2014 and 62% remain vote in 2016, I


will stand with them. I'm sure many people in Scotland care about


environmental issues and are opposed to independence to Scotland, but why


do you have such a bee in your bonnet about it? I know there are


such people and there are such people in the Scottish Green Party.


You know we were the only political party clearly saying we have our


majority of our members campaigning for a Yes vote but we have no


problem with debating that in a spirit of friendly disagreement with


Greens who will vote a different way. You don't want a second


independence referendum, -- referendum, you don't want


independence but you were otherwise paid up in caring for the


environment, then you shouldn't vote Green? The question of a referendum


has already been voted on in Parliament. If the Tories have a


majority at Westminster then there will be a tussle about who has the


bigger mandate, but the critical set of issues will be what to do with


environmental protections, hard won over many years in the EU. Do we


want to hand those over two Tories at Westminster? I think a green


voice for Scotland at Westminster is important. According to


International energy, there was the biggest fall of carbon emissions


last year of anywhere in the world of the United States, where they are


now back to where they work in the 1990s. This is almost entirely


because of fracking and trapped gas replacing coal power stations, yet


you are opposed to fracking on the grounds it is bad for carbon


emissions. It clearly isn't, it is helping reduce carbon emissions not


just in the US but in China. Everyone to reduce carbon


emissions... You're not denying it. We need to look at the global


picture, not just in one country. The biggest economy in the world.


picture, not just in one country. And one of the most polluting,


still. The US shifting to Frank gas does not mean those polluting fuels


are not being used, they are simply shifting elsewhere. Fracking is


opening up a new scene of fossil fuels, a new roll of the dice. It


produces less gas emissions then fuels, a new roll of the dice. It


call stations. Coal is still being used elsewhere in the global


economy. But you are against nuclear, the other extreme form of


pace power. Scotland can achieve nuclear, the other extreme form of


stable energy system without nuclear power. Of the two things which can


reduce carbon emissions, you are against them. Look at what the UK is


doing with nuclear power, and saying it can be done quickly or safely. I


don't think so. The allegation is you are better at being a Scottish


nationalist than I green. I've heard that and other silly accusations


from the Conservative Party. They keep coming up with not very well


done means online. Maybe with an element of truth. The arguments of


the Greens are coming from nowhere else in the Scottish political


landscape. We will keep making that case. Thank you for joining us.


Now, in the week before the general election, BBC Scotland


will be hosting a series of "Ask the Leader" TV debates,


a different leader each night, chaired by Glenn Campbell


If you'd like to take part, then you can apply online


by visiting our BBC News and Reporting Scotland websites.


The state of Scotland's Education system


has been in the news this week - though to be fair, it often is.


showed the literacy skills of some pupils were declining, again.


Then the Education Committee at Holyrood heard


some rather surprising evidence from trainee teachers.


I'm going to say someone's name and you have to listen. Learning the art


of listening at an Edinburgh school this week. These pupils are doing


well but the Scottish Government has been marked down in the latest


survey of older children's S say. Government figures show that in 2012


64% of second-year pupils were doing well or very well in writing. Last


year it was just 49%. Primary school pupils also saw a drop in


performance though reading ability remains broadly the same as 2014,


and last year saw the worst result for Scotland in the programme for


student assessments in maths, reading and science. The government


says the decline is unacceptable. Recruitment needs to be undertaken


to ensure young people and educational are met and the


government is determined to do that but we have to see these figures


within a round of information which points to strength in Scottish


education. What has gone wrong and how can we get back on track? One


expert says it's the curriculum. We have a curriculum in Scotland which


has neglected the basics of literacy and numeracy and later by the


secondary stage, the contact of knowledge that helped to develop


children's literacy further than the basics, so the curriculum is the


major explication. Hollywood's Education Committee heard evidence


this week from trainee teachers. The likes of literacy, there would be a


single week we focus on literacy, that would be the focus. I was told


reading is good for children and makes them creative, which is useful


for first-year but to be reinforced for two years is unnecessary, and


have inexperienced the schemes like big writing ventures, having input


into how the schemes work would have been more valuable. There may also


be a sense that teaching isn't valued properly. I got told, you're


be a sense that teaching isn't too bright to be a teacher, by my


own teachers. The focus might be as too bright to be a teacher, by my


much on teachers as pupils, which is what has happened at the school in


Renfrew truck, where the council have partnered with the University


Renfrew truck, where the council of Strathclyde to provide on-the-job


development to teachers in the field Well, joining me now from Chelmsford


is Professor Sue Hill, an education expert


from the University of Strathclyde who was involved in that


project in Renfrewshire. Can't we try to establish some facts


in this rather heated debate? Let stand back from the politics. First,


this idea that a fifth of students in Scotland are functionally


illiterate? What does that mean? Is it defined in some way? It is, it


means they cannot read a basic newspaper, they find it difficult to


read or follow instructions, so there is quite a precise definition


but since we are talking about facts, it is Renfrewshire, not East


Renfrewshire. I apologise, but that sounds pretty drastic, what you


described. Is this student is leaving secondary school? It is a


measure taken at secondary school level but the issues they relate


further back into primary schools, so the way pupils are taught to read


and write, one thing about the survey is that it highlights the


need for teachers to have a much stronger knowledge-based, not just


about what you teach when you teach reading and writing but also how and


why it is so difficult for some children and how schools can


unintentionally amplify those difficulties. We look at that rather


than at absolute standards because no one the standard isn't helpful if


you don't know how to remove children on, so it is process


knowledge that is required. Nicola Sturgeon has done a couple of


interviews where she read rated that the figure that said more than half


of S2 students couldn't write to the standard expected, she said that is


true but she says what they were being tested on, they were 13 and


14-year-olds being tested on the standard of 15 and 16-year-olds, and


when they become 15 and you test them again, 80% can do it properly.


Is that a valid response? I think it is partly valid. One difficulty with


a sample survey like this is it takes very small numbers of children


in each local authority and extrapolates out from that to a


national picture, and the difficulty we have is that the SSN levels don't


exactly match the other levels. There are levels about reading and


writing in secondary schools, when children move into secondary schools


it becomes more complex and if they haven't had a strong grounding in


the intellectual grounds of reading and writing in primary school, they


can founder badly. If you think about child moving through there one


curriculum, they might start and have period one in an English


classroom where they are being asked to read and write and think about


the imagery and attend to the way something has been written, they


then move on to a modern studies something has been written, they


class where they have to think about who wrote it, is it biased, what IS


is happening? Then in chemistry they might get three or four lines of


writing but it's hugely detailed and downs and they have to do a lot of


tight reading, the same with English, they are being asked to


write fluently and use rich language. In geography you have


similar issues and have to pack the knowledge in, so these difficulties


can destabilise children who come to this. You have describe something


can destabilise children who come to that is always the case for children


going to school. Why are these students functionally illiterate in


the way you describe, can't read newspapers or fill in forms that


they might be expected to in the course of their daily lives. People


like that are going to find it difficult in the 21st century to get


gainful employment when leaving school. Why things getting worse? I


gainful employment when leaving think part of the issue has been


interviews with those student teachers has been such a strong


focus on programmes and content and that is what student teachers said


they wanted to learn about more but what we know about teaching content


is that it is not powerful if you do not understand the context. The


social basis of reading and writing, too. One of the things we do know is


that from the international surveys of education levels is that 37% of


reading is associated with social class is it to bluetits to


differences in reading engagement. 70% is associated with gender,


associated with reading engagement. Middle-class kids come to school and


they have a view that reading is about relaxing, about being


enjoyable times... But that doesn't answer why things are getting worse.


enjoyable times... But that doesn't Things are getting worse because


society is changing and education has continued to focus on content


knowledge that is taught, rather than looking at what the actual


social basis... Soap if you have some people coming to school


thinking that reading and writing is actually about work, and it is a


necessary evil, and other people coming to school thinking actually


it is irrelevant because it is irrelevant at home, schools have to


take all of those people and actually turn it around, address the


social attitudes, changing social attitudes making things difficult.


Whether it is people to get driving more safely or... I get the point.


Your Mac rate is a hard thing and the curriculum has not focused on


the enough. Thank you very much. We will return to this will stop I'm


very sure. Now before we look at


the Week Ahead, a quick refresher


of the political Week Just Passed. and political


commentator Paul Gilbride. The Greens, what do you make of them


were hardly standing and candidates. No, but I think it is probably


necessary because it is sensible financially but not sensible


politically but they just don't have the money, they didn't expect the


election, we were told to have a fixed term parliaments of five


years, and we have had in Scotland, we have had six major elections in


the thousand days. As you said, the we have had six major elections in


Green party is not funded by billionaires and millionaires and


they just don't have the resources to do that. But if you want to be


seen to be taken seriously... You've just got to do it. I think we saw


that in the 2015 general election, 32 candidates in as many


constituency. I hate to use this word, it is now polarised politics


in Scotland. With the Greens, they might want to save money, why would


they stand in a seat against might want to save money, why would


independent campaigners? That is the thing. Hang on. Patrick Harvie said


that was not happening. What do you make of it so far, the campaign in


general bastion Mark it's not really started? I felt it had wouldn't


really started until about the middle of Thursday when the Labour


manifesto had been leaked, and it suddenly began to be apparent that


there were quite a lot of things in that manifesto that at least some


people were quite interested in discussing, and it seemed to be a


better reaction to it as opposed to the policies, but fairly


centre-left, left manifesto, a good reaction to the policies from the


public, that they were expecting and at that moment the election came


alive a little bit because it seemed like there might be an election, not


that Jeremy Corbyn could win but one which would actually change the


terms of UK politics. Because of the which would actually change the


content of the labour manifesto, which is reducing ideas into the


British politics Milliyet which haven't been there since the Tony


Blair period. If you are the Tories, do you think they will feel and


Blair period. If you are the Tories, obligation to come out with


interesting policies of their own? Or is it all about Theresa May and


Scotland is all about opposing an independence referendum in, he


strong stable government etc? I think were a strategic point of view


I think absolutely. I agree with what Joyce is saying, the Labour


manifesto leak has introduced the idea of policy into this campaign


and that is interesting. From a Tory strategic point of view absolutely


strong and stable as opposed to, well, weak and chaotic, and let us


find out with the Labour launch manifesto later this week how much


the leak document have actually made it into the final manifesto. There


is a lot of infighting still going on with Labour, and I think the


Tories just need to stand aside, and let Labour carry on as they have


Tories just need to stand aside, and been. Are Labour polls closing the


gap? I cope, the gap is huge but it is still closing. Of course they can


say look, in actual event -- elections, they have done better


than the polls have said. I think they will do better than what was


predicted, I think it would be devastating enough for Jeremy Corbyn


do have to resign if he really doesn't want to, and I think it will


attract that source of quarter to a third of British people who are


still really interested in social justice, and a shift back to the


left, but it won't attract the rest of the people and their from -- from


a burst past the post system I don't see how the Conservatives can't win.


Do you think this is a good opportunity for them? Or is there


not much in them. There is nowhere for the SNP to go after that extra


my performance in 2015, except down. They're going to lose some seat but


probably as not as many of the Tories would like. It seems to me


that the SNP in particular would really rather not to have to sit. Is


there a way they could turn this to their advantage? I'm sure they will,


but I see how they can. If they were going to, I think they would have


done it by now. There is not much glory in this selection for the SNP,


there is going to be basically another referendum, and it is going


to follow those lines. Prounion parties, and independence parties.


We will have to leave that there. That's all from us this week, I will


see you next Sunday. Goodbye.