07/12/2016 Politics Scotland

Good afternoon and welcome to the programme.

The Scottish Government's top law officer is to argue that Holyrood

needs to be consulted before the UK can begin the formal

And as standards of reading and science in Scottish

schools are declining, at least relatively, is Curriculum

And here at Westminster, MPs have begun debating the UK

Government's timetable for leaving the European Union.

It's day three of the four-day hearing at the Supreme Court

as lawyers make the case as to why parliament and not government has

the authority to trigger Article 50 to leave the European Union.

The Lord Advocate, James Wolffe, is expected to make

the Scottish Government's case later today.

Our political correspondent Nick Eardley is outside

What is the Lord advocate going to say? Well, Gordon, his argument is

based on two things. Firstly, that it is Parliament, not government,

under Scots law, which can change legislation. He will build on that

and say that it would affect devolved areas, and for this reason,

Holyrood would also have to give its consent. He says in particular that

leaving the EU would change the competence of the Scottish

Government and the Scottish Parliament, and also that laws

passed by Holyrood which were aimed at Scotland but which were designed

around EU law come which had been required as a result of our EU

membership, that they will also change when the UK leaves the EU. In

summary, he says that means that under the load legislative consent

process, Holyrood must have its say, too. I take it that is someone

having some kind of protest in the background, not selling sports

socks? There are a number of interested parties in this process,

Gordon. This man seems to be talking about something which is not quite

to do with the case! What has happened earlier today? So far,

we've had the UK Government making its case that the royal prerogative,

executive powers, are enough to start the Brexit process, triggering

Article 50. That's based on their belief that the referendum

transferred the decision to the people, and they told the government

to act on their will, which was to get us out of the European Union.

They argue that when Parliament agreed to hold the referendum, that

gave the consent to the UK Government to go ahead and trigger

article 50. This morning we have heard a summary of the ordinance

against, the argument which was successful at the High Court before,

which was that essentially, Parliament still needs to have its

say, because it is sovereign. Well, over at Parliament

it's a rather busy day. Let's speak to our Westminster

correspondent David Porter. You do not seem to have so many

people shouting at you as make had? Not yes,, anyway trick there is an

awful lot going on here in the Houses of Parliament. We have had

the Scottish minister in charge of Brexit appearing before MPs today.

He has been appearing before the Scottish Affairs Committee, looking

at Scotland's relationship with Europe. He, Mike Russell, is now

about to go into a meeting with UK ministers and ministers from the

devolved nations, a Brexit committee where they are discussing the nuts

and bolts of how Brexit will happen. And as we speak in the House of

Commons behind me, MPs are discussing the timetable which has

been put forward by the UK Government for leaving the European

Union. On each of these specific meetings, very interesting

information coming out. It shows in spades I think how one issue,

Brexit, is dominating This Place behind me, and of course, as we have

been hearing from nick, a few hundred yards up the road come of

the legal and political processes, focused on one issue at the moment,

and that is Brexit. You say there is some interesting information coming

out, but are we getting anywhere, are we getting any clearer on any of

this? We are inching forward to. It is true to say that we are not

perhaps getting the road map that we would all like, but we are inching

forward with information. Let's take the Scottish Affairs Committee,

where Mike Russell was giving information, and we are getting a

feeling of how those negotiations are going between the UK Government

and the devolved administrations. He admitted that he was frustrated by

the pace of negotiations. He said it was not really discussions at the

moment -- it was not really negotiations at the moment, it was

just discussions. He also said that it was self-evident that if the UK

left the European Union, they would no longer be members of the single

market. That is a lot different, to access to the single market. This

afternoon we will be getting towards discussing article 50. And talking

about the government showing us a plan about its approach to article

50. But that could mean lots of different things to different

people, that plan. Crucially, adding that article 50 must be triggered by

the end of March next year. Don't go away, we will be back with you later

on. Now, the Scottish Labour leader,

Kezia Dugdale, is calling for a new Act of Union to transform

the constitutional Our political editor,

Brian Taylor, can tell us more. This is Labour, 2.0, is it? I think

success of Scottish Labour leaders here at Holyrood have really

struggled to find a convincing, coherent narrative to deal with the

constitution, to a large extent because they did not want to be

going down that road. They wanted to be talking about socialism and

poverty and issues which are traditionally associated with the

Labour Party. It remains the fault line in Scotland, pushed up the

rankings again by Brexit, that constitutional question. On the one

hand Labour could not match the SNP for, if you like, standing up for

Scotland, as the SNP would say. On the other hand Labour found

themselves increasingly unable to match the Conservative Party with

its resurgent unionist offering. And the Labour Party were slightly

nervous about the word unionist, with connotations from Northern

Ireland which sometimes wash over to Scotland. They are now seeking a way

through, an answer to that conundrum. And Kezia Dugdale says

this lies potentially in English regionalism, added to the nations,

it lies in added powers for Holyrood, including over employment

issues. She believes that this gives Labour a narrative, a narrative to

offer to compete with the Conservative Sandi SNP. The Scottish

Labour Party is our giving a federal solution for the whole of the United

Kingdom, where we can devolve more powers to Scotland to reflect our

own circumstances. We are very firmly saying that we want to remain

part of the United Kingdom, because it's the best possible way to

redistribute wealth across our islands. That is what people voted

for in 2014. This might be very fine, but I wonder about the timing

of it. There is lots of focus at the moment on the perceived failings of

the Scottish Government on things like health and education. Everybody

is talking about Brexit, and Labour go, hey, there is a zebra, and talk

about something completed different, I wonder whether anyone is paying

any attention! The rivals at Holyrood are saying this is

desperation by Labour. They are also talking about Jeremy Corbyn and the

idea of a constitutional convention - is that part of Labour Party

policy to go down the road of regionalism? But Kezia Dugdale

putting this forward is frankly strategic as well as policy. She is

not going to give up the challenge over health and education. And some

in the Labour ranks leave she was effective when she was saying to

Nicola Sturgeon, stick to the day job. But perhaps reluctantly they

have come to the conclusion that they need a story on the table with

regard to the constitutional question. And they believe that this

story on the table about the Scottish situation and the UK

situation, and the need to maintain that, they believe it gives them a

narrative to begin discussions about Brexit, about the UK's place in

relation to European nations and Scotland's place as well.

Well, to discuss the day's stories, I'm joined by the Daily

Record's Political Editor, David Clegg.

What do you make of this Labour thing? I think it speaks to the

uncertainty that exit has brought about and what Labour and especially

Scottish Labour's response to it should be. There was a bit of a

controversy when Kezia Dugdale was quoted in an interview saying that

it was not inconceivable that she could support Scottish independence

if there was a vote to leave the European Union. That subsequently

happened and what the Scottish Labour response to it is going to be

in response to the constitution has been one of the questions which

Kezia Dugdale and the people around her have struggled with. This today

is about Brexit as much as it is about Labour's response to the

Scottish question. They think there is an opportunity with Brexit

problems, and all the upheaval, to maybe look again at how we can

resolve the desire for independence amongst such a strong minority in

Scotland and what Labour's response to that is. But I do agree on one

issue, that it has been felt in the last few weeks, I feel, at the

Scottish Parliament, that Labour in opposition are beginning to make

some headway as regards chipping away at the SNP's previously

impervious reputation for efficiency in government. We've seen health

stats, education stats, problems with the trains. So the fact that

they're once again having to switch attention to the Costa Jewish and I

think will be a for them. They pick a quiet period and then say, we're

going to relaunch the Scottish Labour Party, here's how we're going

to do it. Pick a quiet period perhaps, but there's not been many

quiet periods in Scottish politics! What is your take on the court case

in London? I think the Scottish element is actually the most

important. I was interviewing Sir Keir Starmer yesterday and he was

very clear that the Labour Party will not frustrate Article 54 so, I

don't think Theresa May has a lot to worry about from the Westminster

Parliament in regards to that. If there is a finding that not only

does Westminster have to have a say, but the Scottish Parliament should

also get to express its view on that, then that is a major, major

headache for the UK Government, because it's inconceivable I think

that the Scottish Parliament would vote to trigger Article 50 and that

could lead to a constitutional crisis. Alex Salmond was saying that

it might lead to a constitutional crisis, others say it is neither

here nor there. What is your view on that? I think if there was a ruling

from this court case that the Scottish Parliament should have its

say, it gives Nicola Sturgeon a lot more leverage in regards to trying

to push the UK Government into a type of Brexit which would be more

palatable to her rent to the SNP. And if that doesn't happen, I think

it is almost impossible to see how we do not end up in a situation

where the Scottish Government is calling for a second independence

referendum, if the UK Government says, you are not having a motion.

That would cause major, major difficulties, I think. But they

could allow one and then say, we hear what you are saying, but that

cannot override the referendum vote? You wonder what the point of it is,

then. Let us reflect on that and come back to you about this later

on. Let's cross to the chamber now

where the annual debate on sea fisheries and the end of year

negotiations is taking place. As usual there are other stocks

where the advice has been different. In the North Sea there are cuts

advised for haddock, herring, cod and waiting. For the latter two, the

cuts are particularly challenging, given that they are being phased

into the landing obligation for 2017, when reductions in quota will

increase the risk of choking the mixed fishery. I should underline,

the Scottish Government remains committed to the ambition of

elimination of discounts, but in implementing the discard ban, we

must also tackle the challenge of choked species. We must protect the

livelihoods of our fishermen and we must prevent a situation where

athlete is unnecessarily tied to the quayside, where there is still quota

available to fish. We are playing an active role in the

regional groups in which we have an interest to drive forward policy

solutions to choke risks. We should not be afraid to be radical where

the situation calls for it. I raised this issue with other Fisheries

Ministers at the November council in Brussels. Following the effective

end of the cod recovery plan and an end to which I shed no tears, I

welcome the cod days at sea will be a thing of the past. This should

help the fleet adapt to the landing obligation by providing the scope to

move to different grounds to control catches of certain stocks.

I thank the Cabinet secretary for taking an intervention. One of the

ways of catching for the market and catching in terms of the quota

that's there and that's unused would be a collaborative approach between

our fishermen working in real-time in terms of the data that they have

available to them and the quotas that are available and that might be

something worth pursuing in terms of reducing discard as well. Well, yes,

I do agree with Mr Scott that there are a great many measures in which

the choke problem can be ameliorated. Obviously, quota swaps

are one method of doing that. Interarea swaps are another method

of doing that. Flexibility and measures of flexibility are an

additional way of doing that. Measures which control effort or

design to limit effort and measures which enable smaller fish to escape,

these are all kind of a combination of measures which are required but

I'm pleased the member raised it because it has given me the

opportunity to agree with Mr Scott and others who raise this as

possibly the most serious issue that faces the industry at the moment in

relation to the Common Fisheries Policy. So I'm grateful to Mr Scott

for doing that and if I can find my place I will revert this point to

the script. Yes, so returning to the autumn negotiations, they will have

a critical role to play by making available in 2017 additional quota

top-ups to cover catches of fish that were previously discarded, but

will now have to be landed. Of course, what stands between the

scientific advice and the final quota for next year are the

negotiations themselves where balances and compromises sometimes

need to be found. This year's talks are now well underway and have

already delivered some strong results. The coastal State talks for

mackerel took place in October and delivered a 14% increase for 2017.

At current prices this equates to a value of around ?218 million for

Scotland. An increase of ?28 million on 2016.

That was the Secretary for Rural Economy, Fergus Ewing,

leading the debate on sea fishing quotas.

Now, the Education Secretary has told MSPs the latest international

rankings of Scotland's schools "do not make comfortable reading",

but says his government is carrying out a raft of reforms.

In a statement to Holyrood yesterday, Mr Swinney said

the latest data reinforced the case for the "radical change"

the Scottish Government was now pursuing.

The programme for international student assessment run by the OECD

every three years assz the skills of 15-year-old in 72 countries in

reading, maths and science. The results for the most recent

assessments under taken two years ago in March 2015 were published

this morning. The figures for Scotland do not make comfortable

reading, but they do reinforce the need for the reforms to our school

system that now underway. While they show that Scotland's scores are

similar to the average in all three areas tested, they also show that

compared to 2012, our performance in science and reading has fallen. In

science and maths, we are now below the levels at which we performed in

2006, and more countries have outperformed Scotland in all three

areas than at any time since PISA began. Closing the poverty

attainment gap is a complex challenge which is not unique to

Scotland. However, there is still a gap between pupils from the least

and the most disadvantaged backgrounds around three years worth

of schooling according to the OECD. In its review report published this

time last year, the OECD said that curriculum for excellence was an

important reform that was the right approach for Scotland. The OECD said

we'd got the design right, but we needed to take further steps to

secure the benefits of that new approach in all parts of the

country. The Government's plan for reform were set out in the delivery

plan which was published in June following the national education

summit. This programme is bold ambitious and in parts

controversial. But we now must be clear, reform is required. This data

reinforces the case for radical change that the Government is

determined to pursue. Not only are we below the OECD average, but the

most recent trends since the last set of PISA results in 2012 tell us

that Scotland is actually heading backwards in two measurements. Would

the Cabinet secretary accept that the statistics published today are a

damning indictment of the SNP's education policies in our schools

and would he accept they call into question the effective delivery of

the curriculum for excellence? And would he tell us why when the

promotion of stem subjects is supposed to be a top priority for

the SNP, there are weaknesses in Scotland in science in comparison

with competitor nations. When we asked the OECD to consider the

approach to the implementation of CFE and the condition of Scottish

education I put on record the OECD's view and their view was the

curriculum for excellence was the correct reform to be under taken.

These results are the legacy of ten years of SNP Government. Ten years

of cuts to education budgets, cuts to council funding and cuts to

teacher numbers. When the budget comes forward next week, it must

protect education spending and begin to reinstate the cuts of the past

decade. Will the Cabinet secretary promise that reform? My long serving

experience as the Finance Minister in this Parliament enables me to

know and to understand that when the Labour Party come along here,

complaining about a lack of money for particular areas of policy,

they're not very good and they weren't very good over the long

period in time in which I was the Finance Minister of telling us where

the money would come to make good any of the issues raised in the

statement today. That was John Swinney responding

to Ian Gray and Liz Smith who criticised the Government

for the Curriculum for Well, just to remind you,

those PISA figures compare education standards here

with 70 other countries. Yesterday the survey

showed our worst ever performance with standards slipping

in science and reading. Let's speak to Keir Bloomer

who helped design Scotland's These verbal contortions to try to

say that relative decline in standards has got nothing whatsoever

to do with curriculum for excellence don't seem convincing, do they? I

thinker unconvincing. It is the right reform to be pursuing, but we

have been pursuing it ineffectively. Right, but hang on, when you say it

is the right reform. The OECD document that John Swinney was

quoting from there, accepts that there is no hard evidence that

curriculum for excellence has had any beneficial effect? There is no

hard evidence one way or the other. This is one of the serious problems

that no proper evaluation was set-up at the outset. There are no baseline

figures available. So there is no basis upon which comparisons can be

made. It is a singular failure. Sorry to interrupt you. This is a

persistent problem, this is not just the SNP, but the previous Lib-Lab

Government as well. There is a consistency in policy where they

trumpet new policies and don't put in any mechanism to judge whether it

is a success or failurement there was no mechanisms to evaluate

whether the integration of health and social services were working, we

have nothing in place to establish if the curriculum for excellence is

working or not, is there? Absolutely. I agree with you.

Governments of all complexions have done this. And over the ensuing

years there have been many reports from the Government itself, from

education Scotland and the inspectorate, which have proclaimed

the successes of curriculum for excellence and the evidence for that

simply is not there. But why is it in Scotland, in England they don't

do this. They map out targets and they make public declarations on

whether they have met the targets or not. Why are we reluctant to do that

in Scotland? I'm not the person to ask. You might have asked the

Cabinet secretary to do that. PISA is the most important international

survey, but it is not the only one. We used to belong to two others and

the current Government withdrew us from them so we have less evidence

than we had before. That's a step they should reverse by the way. The

national testing regime, which is going to be implemented, it doesn't

seem to fit very easy with curriculum for excellence, but at

least it should give us some measurable result? It should. There

is something important to be said. Apart from our decline in PISA which

you are focussing this programme on, we have declined in read lation to

the Government's own survey of literacy and numeracy which is

conducted each year, alternate years literacy and numeracy. That shows a

decline, in PISA we are declining to other countries, what you're

mentioning is evidence of an actual decline? Absoluteliment one of the

things that worries me about the new regime of national testing is that

the survey of literacy and numeracy will be stopped and I think given

the situation that we're now in, we urgently need to have a continuous

timeline of comparable results so while I'm not opposed to the

introduction of the new standardised tests, I think we have to also to

retain SSLN for the time being. But would you accept with this new

national testing regime, one thing that's important, is that the raw

data on these things need to be examined? There has been all sorts

of talks that the tests would be supplemented with teacher

assessment. If we are going to get to a situation where we have raw

data, where we can actually compare different schools and different

pupils within schools, we need hard data, not teacher assessments? I'm

less interested in comparing schools with other schools. I think that a

relatively short standardised assessment under taken infrequently

and in relation to small areas of the curriculum, albeit very

important ones, will not give us data that is useful at the level of

the individual pupil or the individual school. What it will

however allow us to do is to monitor the performance of the system as a

whole and that is worthwhile. You also want some mechanism, don't you?

Not to do down schools, but so there can be a mechanism for spreading

best practise? That's got little to do with making the comparison that

is you're talking about. We have so far been really rather ineffective

at spreading best practise. What is of concern in all that's happened

recently in relation to curriculum for excellence has been the

ineffectiveness of the guidance provided to schools. It has been

burdon Somme, but it has not been successful in terms of spreading

good practise. Thank you for joining us this

afternoon. Now let's speak to some

MSPs at Holyrood. I'm joined by Gillian

Martin for the SNP, I'm joined by Gillian Martin

for the SNP, the Conservatives' Dean Lochart, Neil Bibby

from Labour, and Liam McArthur It does seem extraordinary leaving

to one side whether this is the fault of curriculum for excellence,

the fact there is, according to Keir Bloomer there is no system in place

to test whether it is having any effect, good or bad or not seems

extraordinary? Well, the thing is you can't one thing and then the

other. If you introduce testing, that's introducing workload. We're

trying to leave teachers free to teach. When you add lower layer of

testing just to satisfy some report that is get traipsed out in the

media, what that does to teachers on the ground is give them more admin

to do and less time to focus on teaching and learning. There is some

misunderstanding here. It is the SNP Government that introduces a new

level of testing. You're saying something it is to do with the

media, it is your own party? You're requesting that we have more data in

order to write the reports. We are engaging with schools and education

authorities across Scotland to find out what's happening on the ground,

to find out what parents want and what pupils want and what teachers

want most importantly and they all say to us that they want more time

to teach and spend less time on bureaucracy. I'm sure they do. Are

you saying it is not important to have anything in place so you can

test whether curriculum for excellence is important or not? We

have lots of indicators as to whether curriculum for excellence is

working. We were told there is none. There is increased levels of pupils

going to university, increased levels of people going to college,

better higher results than we have seen in the last few years and good

results in maths fours and maths fives. Surely that's an indication

of whether our schools are working. Teachers want less bur October crass

crisis and more time to focus on the day job of teaching and learning. If

you look at the OECD results and that's about the teacher pupil

relationships in Scotland. They are better than a lot of places across

the world. For me as a parent and the wife of a teacher, it is more

important than collecting a whole lot of data.

Would you accept that point, that in fact there is a battery of measures

in place by which we can measure this? No, I don't think that's

right. I think people have lost confidence in the exams. These

reports show that in the last decade, Scotland's education system

has slipped quite badly in many areas compared with other areas in

the UK and in Europe. I would agree that less bureaucracy has to be

imposed on teachers, but that is the case of the government streamlining

guidance and giving more support to teachers and about devolving powers

to headteachers sober that they can make the right decisions for their

schools. If that's being done, those results are not coming through. You

are hardly innocent in this, you, because Curriculum for Excellence

was your idea in the first place? I think these results are very

concerning. But key concern at the moment is that we've got 4000 fewer

teachers in our schools since the SNP came to power in 2007. The

problem is, teachers are having to do ever more work, because cash and

fewer of them in the classrooms. The key question for next week will be,

what will they do with the education budget going forward? You take no

responsibility for this, even though Curriculum for Excellence was a

Labour project? I think those concerns about the mentation of

Curriculum for Excellence, I still think Curriculum for Excellence

itself is a good idea. But we have 4000 fewer teachers. So that

explains everything, all right. This is your fault as well, you will also

involved in implementing Curriculum for Excellence. And I come back to

the point, we had this report about the Health Service, saying there was

no mechanism in place to judge whether these new policies were

working or not. With the benefit of hindsight, do you accept that when

Curriculum for Excellence was started, there should have been more

measures put in place so that the public could know whether it was

working? I would echo the comments made by Neil around supporting

Curriculum for Excellence. I still believe it is the right approach.

And I think what the education committee heard during the course of

the last session... You keep saying... There is nothing... You

don't want to have any basis on which you can make that statement?

If you would let me finish, I was going to say that the evidence heard

by the education committee when the Scottish Government was rolling out

its plans for national standardised testing, which will add to the Brio

Chrissy for teachers, the evidence we heard was, there is no lack of

data out there. Standardised testing is taking place across the piece.

It's the lack of a sensible use of the data which exists which has led

us to this position. So that we have national standardised testing rolled

out, with 23,000 pages of guidance from ministers to teachers. But it

does not seem to be making any difference in terms of them being

able to deliver the Curriculum for Excellence as it was envisaged.

You're not in favour of any additional measures, so we know

whether Curriculum for Excellence is working as I say, the education

committee in its evidence heard that there is ample data already. I think

Fife Council was one of those who suggested to the committee that they

have the data on how any pupil within their area is performing at

any point in time. It's the way in which that data is used which I

think is the problem. Their rather than a series of new tests, why not

use the data that we have more effectively to drive up standards?

What is your reply to that - the argument is that there is plenty of

data, there's need for these new tests, they're just setting up

school league tables have I think they are treating assessment as

being just league tables, and that's not the case. Liam McArthur is wrong

because it is not going to lead to league tables, it is going to allow

teachers to make judgments on the attainment of pupils in their class

in a way which they know best. Effectively, we are looking at the

data which came from the OECD and putting in measures to make sure

that we take up the recommendations of what this data actually showed us

in 2015. Can I come on to a point about the amount of material - the

material which the education committee was very critical of was

actually coming from education Scotland, and they're taking on

board that they were issuing far too much guidance. That is not coming

from ministers, it is coming from Education Scotland, and they have

made a commitment to address that. Labour is in favour of these new

national tests, isn't it? We do not want to see a return to league

tables or teaching to the test. But is there -- if there is a case for

gathering more data, we will look at that sorry, is that a yes, Ore no?

It is about providing schools with the resources. We have seen a cut in

4000 teachers over the past ten years. The key thing about driving

attainment is actually putting the resources into schools, which have

been cut back over the past ten years. That will be a key test for

the SNP government budget next week. One of the conclusions of the report

this year was that in advanced countries, flinging more money at

schools does not make the slightest bit of difference, yet you're

obviously intending to fling more money at it? Well, the last Labour

government made a significant investment in schools in Scotland.

The point I made was that the OECD concludes that in advanced

countries, flinging more money at schools is not the important thing

you need to do? When I'm speaking to teachers, teachers are concerned

about the amount of resources. I'm sure teachers was like more money.

From speaking to teachers, they've got less time to spend with

individual pupils, class sizes are bigger, and that is affecting their

ability to give children the best possible education. We are running

out of time. I presume you are going to give Gillian her unequivocal

support for these new national tests? I think it is about making

the that that set the tests more accountable to parents and to

teachers. We have seen recently questions about it not being fit for

purpose cleaner so more work needs to be done not just around the

number of teachers and around guidance for the national

curriculum, but it's about setting that tests for children to act as a

benchmark. I think we will leave it but Archie thank you all very much

indeed. David, sorry to come this, but in health as well as in

education, almost everything in Scotland - everyone talks about an

evidence -based policy, but they never put anything in place so that

we can ever know whether it has worked or not? I think the point

they made about the international testing regimes which the Scottish

Government pulled out of gives the game away. They didn't like the

results so they do not play the game and more. That gives them a big

problem. I am not sure where to start with some of that conversation

there. This report is absolutely scandalous, a terrible set of

results. We are looking at a generation of children who will be

able to read and write in a way which is not as good as their

parents. Standards are declining. I'm not sure it is quite as new a

thing as... Even back in the 1990s, when you could argue there was a

tremendous complacency amongst the establishment of here, when they

used to say Scotland have the best education system in the world. It

just is not true any more. Even within the UK, it looks like

England, from a very low base, has caught up and overtaken? I heard one

of the education bosses in England was blaming Scotland for bringing

the UK average down in this table! But I think part of the problem is

that this has been going on for a long time. It's not just the current

SNP administration. Obviously, they have to take the lion's share of

responsibilities. But the Liberal Democrats also, it was going down

during their time in office as well. Not quite so dramatically. Not quite

so dramatically, but... I do think that resources are important here.

The number of teachers has gone down, as they were pointing out, but

it is also classroom assistants, all the other supporters well. The

argument that more enterprising and innovative ways of dealing with a

lack of teachers could be used, doing some of the things which have

been done in England... Certainly there has not been an adequate

policy response. The basic problem seems to be that less teachers will

lead to problems in the education system unless you take radical

action, which they have not done. The problem now is that this is

tried in an oil tanker, isn't it? So even if John Swinney's policies are

all wonderful, it could be well into the next decade before we see much

of a result? I think there is an argument to be made that it is ten

years at the minimum before you start to yield results for changes

you put in place. It has to be from the beginning of a child's school

career. And then it progresses through the whole school system. I'm

sure you will tell me I'm whistling in the wind, but isn't this

precisely the sort of issue where the Scottish Parliament was supposed

to be different? To the parties were supposed to get together and say,

this is not a big ideological divide? They could all sit down and

have a big commission and come up with a cross Parliament Street

consensus? It might not work, but at least it had been done? Of the

exchange from Hollywood there is anything to go by, it doesn't look

like that is going to happen. I have to say, one thing this report has is

a damning indictment, because since the creation of the Scottish

Parliament, since education was devolved, things have got worse year

on year. On that cheerful thought, we can go back to London.

It is not me you should be concentrating on, it is the Labour

Scottish leader Kezia Dugdale, who has been down in London today

putting forward the idea of a new act of union - why do we need a new

act of union? We need an act of union to save the union. When I look

at the state of politics across the UK today, I see a country divided

between Tory nationalism and SNP nationalism. I want to do what I

think many people want to see, which is to bring those divides together.

People in Scotland who voted both yes, and know and say, we can have a

new phase of devolution which brings more powers to the Scottish

Parliament, so, a can make decisions to determine local circumstances,

but keep that safety net of the United Kingdom, which I was so proud

to fight for. Brexit forces us to be honest, and I think there is an

opportunity there which we must rasp. Does that mean that any new

act union would presage a federal United Kingdom? I want to see a

federal solution for the whole of the United Kingdom. That is why I

want to see a people's Constitutional convention to bring

together for an aspects of Scottish and UK civic life, to talk about

where power should best sit. It is not just talking about parliaments,

power from the palace behind me and Hollywood, it is about communities,

it is about electoral reform, abolition of the House of Lords, a

lot of these issues are long overdue. It is absolutely essential

in my view, about part of that process of healing the divides in

our country and bringing the country back together. Only the Labour Party

can do that. Is the danger that if you have a UK-wide Constitutional

Convention, it will become a UK-wide talking shop, with a very little

action? What I have said is that it should not just consider these

issues, it should actually produce the act of union which I am calling

for, so that we would have an end product which is a result of this

wide consultation. All of the reasons people have lost faith in

politics, what makes it unique is, it is about healing the divisions in

our country. This is not a healthy way to do our politics. We are

forced into corners of black and white, when so much of what we need

to do is in that grey area of consensus and compromise. I am

putting forward a positive, exciting proposal which I think can heal our

country and and plead pleased to see the reception it is getting today.

Would it to some extent be devo max, not just for Scotland but for the

whole of the United Kingdom, with a town the size of Manchester, for

instance, having the same powers as a city the size of Glasgow, at the

great cities of the United Kingdom had more power and could actually

take decisions involving health, education, at a citywide level?

Raez It is not good for me to dictate toning gland. I think there

is a conversation to be had across England about where power best sits.

It could be a number of things, Assemblies, parliaments, more

mayors, more regional solutions to these problems, but that's a

conversation for England to have and that's why a UK-wide federal

solution is so important. One question, you're down here today

while MPs are discussing the timetable for Brexit. How important

is it that the UK Government comes up with a detailed plan and

secondly, that your party, the Labour Party, agrees that Article 50

should be triggered by the end of March next year? Well, we wouldn't

behaving the debate in the House of Commons if it wasn't for the work of

Keir Starmer who forced the Tory Government to put some sort of plan

about what breaks the really means ahead of Article 50 being triggered.

We have a Prime Minister in this country with thousands of civil

servants at her disposal and she can't tell us whether she is

advocating hard Brexit or right-wing Brexit or if there is a softer

version which is the Labour Party would like to see, which is single

market, tariff-free access. I want what most Scottish people want, to

remain part of the United Kingdom and as close a relationship with

Europe as possible. Kezia Dugdale, thank you very much. Thank you for

taking the time to join us this afternoon. Gordon, for the time

being, back to you. Now to this week's Prime

Ministers Questions, which was without the Prime Minister

and the Leader of the Opposition, Instead, the Leader of the House

of Commons, David Lidington, stood in for Mrs May,

while the Shadow Foreign Secretary, Emily Thornberry,

replaced Jeremy Corbyn. Ms Thornberry chose to press

the Government on whether it wanted to remain in the Customs Union

after leaving the EU. We welcome the Government's decision

to accept our motion today that they will show Parliament their plan for

Brexit before Article 50 is triggered. So can I ask the Leader

of the House one central question about this plan? Does the Government

want the UK to remain part of the customs union? The Government has

always made it clear that we would seek to give initial clarity about

our position at the earliest opportunity, but it has been the

case as my Right Honourable friend the Prime Minister has said many

times that one of our core objectives is going to be to secure

the maximum freedom for British companies both to have access to and

operate within the single European market. Some of the most deprived

communities in the country are in Glasgow and today we learn

apparently that the Government plans to close Jobcentres in those very

communities. In Parkhead, in Easter House, and Castle Milk and Anna's

Land and Merry Hill. Is it true the Government is planning to close

these important offices and add misery to the tens of thousands of

people in Glasgow who currently use these centres? Well, clearly, the

Department for Work and Pensions like every Government department

does look from time to time at its estates, at the number of offices

that it has, but the Right Honourable gentleman makes a

reasonable point on behalf of people in Glasgow. I will ask my Right

Honourable friend the Work and Pensions Secretary to contact him

with the details that he's seeking. I'm sorry Mr Speaker, that's not

good enough. The department... I'm being heckled. Being heckled when

dealing with communities that are still deprived does not behold Tory

members well in Scotland. The Leader of the House is correct to say, the

Leader of the House is correct to say that the Department of Work and

Pensions has plans to cut the estate by 20%. What the DWP is planning to

do to Glasgow is to cut it by 50%. Why is this Government planning to

disproportionately cut vital Jobcentres in some of the most

deprived communities in our country? Why?

The key element in any such decision that a Government department has to

make is not the raw number of offices that there should be, but

about how accessible the offices and the services which they provide

continue to be to the people who need to use them and I am confident

that it is that criteria that is at the heart of my Right Honourable

friend's thinking in planning for the future of offices in Scotland

and everywhere else in the United Kingdom. Does the Leader of the

House agree that tonight's vote on the Prime Minister's amendment,

which we fully support, is a vote of the highest significance and great

importance because for the first time honourable and Right Honourable

members of this House will have the opportunity to vote on whether they

respect the will of the people of the United Kingdom and whether they

will get on and implementing it, but people will be able to read in

Hansard tomorrow who stands by respecting the will of the people of

the United Kingdom and would he also agree that the more... I'm sure that

he will, the more red, white and blue he makes it the better for us

on the Unionist benches. The Right Honourable gentleman, as

so often, makes a very powerful and important point. The vote tonight

will be the first opportunity for members of this House to decide

whether or not they support the Government's timetable of triggering

Arle 50 by the end of March 2017. And any Right Honourable member who

votes against that motion will in my view be seeking to thwart the

outcome of the referendum in the most profoundly undemocratic

fashion. Let's go back to David Porter. This

time he has a bunch of MPs, haven't you, David? Yes, I have. A busy day

at Westminster. So let's get straight to it. Joining me is

Stephen getens and Alberta Costa and Alistair Carmichael. The debate is

going on, gentlemen thank you very much for coming out and joining me.

Alistair Carmichael will the Liberal Democrats be supporting the Labour

Party and the Conservatives in this? No, we will not. It seems to me that

the Labour Party think that it is the obof the official to give a get

out of jail card to Theresa May yet again. We will only support the

motion if it allowed a referendum on the deal when we know what that deal

is going to be. Without that, there is no way we're supporting it. It is

your argument, we have a plan, but we don't have any details? That's

the other main objection to this. It is not just that there is a lack of

clarity about the end point for the process, it is the fact that we have

not been told what the plan is. We're not being told what the

Government will achieve. It is fair enough to say they don't want to

give a running commentary, but I think Parliament really deserves to

be told where it is the Government wants to take us. That's a good

point, isn't it? You are elected representatives, we know there is

going to be Brexit. Why can the UK Government not come forward and give

as many details as possible about what is going on? Well, I think the

Government has said it is going to the outer plan prior to engaging

Article 50, that's what the amendment is about and I'm

supporting the Government's amendment on this. We cannot have a

running commentary on the specifics of the negotiation, but I agree with

the colleagues in the House of Commons across the parties that we

need to have a plan and that's what the Government is agreeing to do

today with the amendment. OK. So we get a plan, but if we get very few

details on that plan, it's a cunning plan that we don't know what it is

going to be? Well, let's just see what the details are David and maybe

we can discuss it once we get the plan, but I'm certainly voting for

Government amendment which is to have a plan, prior to engaging

Article 50. I think that's the right and sensible, there is a helicopter

buzzing ahead, but that's the right and mindful. Anyone would think it

is the Government whips, but I trust that's not the case. Stephen, you

will be voting against it as well. Is it because you say it doesn't go

anywhere near far enough? Alistair made a good point, Labour are

letting the Government off the hook and Alberto made our point for us,

we don't have any details. We're almost six months on from the

referendum, it is pretty irresponsible not to give us any

details with the single market, EU nationals, all the certainty that

businesses need and that others need when you have this momentous

decision. Furthermore, it doesn't say anything about the role of the

devolved administrations and there should be a role because this will

have an impact on their responsibilities. You can understand

the argument well, if we go into negotiation we're not going to tell

those we're negotiating with what our bottom lines are? Well, they're

not telling anybody anything, I'm not sure how you can have a

negotiation when you don't have a negotiating position. They've told

us nothing and at this point I would have thought a bit of Parliamentary

scrutiny might be helpful because it might tease out some of the really

important points, but let's remember have an impact on every single one

of us. The Supreme Court meeting just a few hundred yards away from

us may say that it is Parliament that has to take the decision, not

the Government, so the judges may do what you want the Government to do?

Having read the judgement at the High Court, it was a well argued

case and I would hope that it would be sustained by the Supreme Court

because I think for the Government to try and rule a decree at a time

like this, it is frankly outrageous. Alberto's point about a plan is an

interesting one. If we were standing here on 25th June saying we want a

plan. Yes, it would to the be reasonable two days after the

referendum to be demanding a plan, but we're not two days after the

referendum, it is five months, it will be six months plus before we

see an outline of a plan. I think we're entitled to something. Would

it not be sensible for the UK Government to say whatever happens

at the Supreme Court, we will have legislation, Parliament can decide,

and then we can get on with Article 50? I don't disagree with much of

what Alistair said. Look, we were both on the same side of the EU

referendum. The Government has made an amendment tonight, it will

produce a plan. Let's wait and see what the plan says and we can chat

again, David, but I'm supporting the Government's amendment that it will

bring forth a plan, prior to engaging Article 50. Stephen, a

final word, how important is it when the plan comes forward that

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are fully encompassed in that? This

has an important impact on areas of responsibility of the Scottish

Parliament, food and drink sector, energy, climate change, it is

important they must have a say. This is a big, big decision. They have to

have their say. Thank you very much. Gordon, Alberto said he thinks we

might be discussing that again. That's the one prediction that I

think all of us can agree with. We will be discussing this at great

length! The Liberal Democrats look very

chipper again. The Richmond by-election put wind in their sails

and it looks like they could get a bounce in England.

Let's say you took half of the 48, and said they want another

referendum, that gives you 24% which for Liberal Democrats means you've

died and gone to heaven, but if you're Labour or the Conservatives

remainers, actually, you've got to worry about the people who voted no

and not alienate them by appearing to ignore the result that the

referendum? You're defending seats that had both majorities for both

sides. So I think, the Lib Dems could benefit. There is a Scottish

dimension to that as well. There is a million people who voted leave in

Scotland. I'm not sure what political party in Scotland is

talking to them at the minute. Ukip isn't really doing it up here, is

it? No. Obviously, I think, Ukip and David Coburn their Scottish leader

who is an MEP is not a particularly impressive politician to put it

diplomatically. I think if they had someone with a bit more talent

leading them in Scotland, you could see Ukip making strides at the

moment. Or perhaps the Conservatives. It is a difficult

one. Everybody knows Ruth Davidson was in favour of the European Union,

but maybe she could try and position the Conservatives, would that work?

The SNP are trying to put her there as it is. So it may, I wonder if

some people who voted leave, but had voted Tory in the past could be

leaning towards the Conservatives now. It is a possibility. Labour

don't seem to be going there, do they? Certainly not. Kezia Dugdale

has been so clear about remain and they are taking a distinct remain

position than the UK Labour leadership. David, thank you very

much. Join us for First Minister's

Questions tomorrow on BBC Does it hurt you to touch

the control? Yeah. To be able to sign my name

would be an incredible thing. Graham needs a better way

to communicate. What if the best brains in Britain

could help to fix your life? You know you're doing it

for the right reasons, Gah! Did it just work?

It's life-changing.