14/12/2016 Politics Scotland

Good afternoon and welcome to the programme.

As Scotland's Finance Secretary Derek Mackay gets set

to announce his first budget, we examine what might be in store.

Here at Westminster big issues under discussion: How can social care be

funded and what form will Brexit take?

Finance Secretary Derek Mackay will have unprecedented powers

to play with when he stands up to present the Scottish budget

So what do you need to know ahead of Scotland's budget?

To give his insight lets speak to our political

They have broadcast all of this in advance haven't they? They will not

change the main tax rates at goal with the threshold. We have the

small matter of an election and manifesto. The SNP set out what they

intended to do, leave the rates alone, we will not replicate the

proposals that the Chancellor has in place from 2017, the starting point

for the higher rate, the 40p rate of tax in England and the rest of the

UK are to be 45,000, 50,000 in Scotland. In other words a lower

starting rate, so a higher tax rate for people in Scotland. Just a

higher rate than in England because there will be a cut there. We have

the budget tomorrow as you said, but rather to compel you to do that this

afternoon in the shape of a debate called by the Conservatives on those

very tax plans. They say it is all very well saying the small amount

and bills will stay as they are go down, they say that a tax bill in

Scotland is higher for higher taxpayers than it is enabled, they

say it is unfair. You mention the Tories, for those of us with long

memories in the first period the SNP administration, the Tories always

turn up and voted for the budget having got a deal but given the fast

they are making about this threshold they could not really vote for the

budget could they? Unless it was abolished. I don't think they can,

they are using the debate as a signal, a statement to see if there

were any doubt we will not vote for the SNP budget or even abstain to

allow it to pass. That is all Derek Mackay means, one party to abstain.

The Conservatives are doing that for a range of reasons, one is that they

are in a more oppositional mode giving their status as in opposition

party in Hollywood. They gained status of the lack of standing up

for the union, and appointing themselves to the SNP does not leave

room for them to support the SNP budget. And on tax they believe it

is fundamentally wrong for people in Scotland to pay more tax, whatever

the justification, than people in England. In response to that Derek

Mackay will say that his tax plans are balanced, that they are fair,

that it is reasonable to load slightly more onto those in the

higher earnings brackets and Derek Mackay will also say this is the

Tories showing their true colours, they don't want to devolve powers to

be put into place at all. Weighted get the votes of the abstainers? Is

it the Greens? It could be. I doubt it will be Labour, they are licking

their wounds of the election and I can see them go with the SNP. From

the other side they will argue that there should be an increase in

taxation to protect spending. The Lib Dems and the Greens to be clear

have different policies on tax, different from each other but

different from the Scottish Government. It is more likely that

Derek Mackay will try to pick off one of them, perhaps an offer to the

Lib Dems on mental health, an issue that Willie Rennie has made his own

to some extent, perhaps an offer to the Green party on environmental

improvements to the housing stock, perhaps something along those lines.

These deals, I think a deal will take place but not now. They don't

need to deal now, only strike a bargain in spring when the final

vote is coming close. Thank you. The Brexit Secretary David Davis has

made his first appearance in front of the Committee on Exiting

the European Union. Our Westminster Correspondent David

Porter joins us now. David I am told he has been quite

open in seeing interesting things. The Almighty has it is a busy day on

the Brexit front, at the moment and other day that has been appealing

for the Scottish affairs committee on specifically what Brexit will

mean for Scotland's relationship with the EU and the UK and the rest

of the UK, but David Davis has started giving evidence to the main

Brexit committee, officially known as the select committee on exiting

the European Union. He was asked when the government would put

forward its proposals ahead of triggering article 50, he said they

would do that as soon as possible. It would be next month, it is more

likely to be federally and of course it has to be before the end of

March. -- more likely to be February. He would not be drawn on

the form the proposals would take, a white paper or something more

specific. He was asked about what he thought the timetable would be and

he said he thought it would be achievable within two years like

down in Article 50 in the negotiating period. He was then

asked by the committee chairman Hilary Benn whether he agreed with

the Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond that there may have

to be some kind of transition agreement which goes on after the UK

leaves the European Union but before it finally goes on its way. Last

week the Chancellor said fossil politicians were thinking that we

have to be the case. That meant that the chairman of the committee Hilary

Benn could ask David Davis whether he was a thoughtful politician and

whether he agreed with the Chancellor on the possibility of

this transition period. I hope you can gratify me as a thoughtful

politician in that context, in that context the baby quivered when I

think we are going. Firstly, as the Prime Minister said a number of

times and I said a number of times what we're after is a and orderly

exit, that is the overarching aim and people get frustrated with us

sticking to overarching aims, the point is that is what we are trying

to do, that is the purpose of at least part of the tactics and

strategy of this. Within that box we want to get the maximum market

access for British companies with a minimum of disruption in the legal

do what is necessary to that aim. What all those things cannot be

negotiated within 18 months? He has said 18 months and I think that it

is all negotiable in that time. That is because of this, really. We have

a lot to do and that is one of the reasons, and you may have thought

perhaps my opening article was not that helpful, it is one of the

reasons that we are taking our time to get prepared on all fronts. That

is why our 57 studies, 85% of the economy. Everything except sectors

that are not affected by this trade. We are aiming to get ourselves in

the position where we can negotiate within the article 50 process.

David, what is emerging here? Is it a sort of David Davis Philip Hammond

moderate except front as opposed to hard Brexit or is it something

different? You are quite right, there are tensions, let's put it

that way, the top of the UK Government as to how they want to do

this process, there are some who are very keen on Brexit and think it

ought to just be done after two years Anderson as it is done we

believe, the other to say for very good reasons, like the finance

industry, there may need to be a transitionary agreement before we

finally get to Brexit. Very slowly and very very slowly, we are getting

more information from the UK Government but I think we will find

this afternoon not nearly enough information for the MPs who are

questioning David Davis. We will be back later.

Well, to discuss the day's stories I'm joined by Andy Maciver -

Director of the PR agency Message Matters, and former

Head of Communications for the Scottish Conservatives.

What do you make of what is emerging from the government on Brexit? Is

there a split? Are we seeing a Hammond did this front? There is

definitely a split that there was was going to be a split, because I

don't see how you can have a reconcile the views of someone can

and who wants to stay as much in the single market as he can with the

views of someone like Liam Fox who is not interested in that it has

made it quite clear that the single market access is not worth the price

to pay at that price is some form of movement and immigration so there

was always going to be a spike and I think there will be a Cabinet split

at some point, it is difficult to avoid that unless somebody

completely backs down. David Davis position is... What you mean a

Cabinet split? In open rebellion? I think people will at some point

during the course of article 50 be leaving the Cabinet. I do not see

how if they stick to the principles and stick to the statements they

have made before, at least one or two of them will be upset with the

result will have to go. You are thinking of the likes of Liam Fox?

You can imagine him going along with being in a customs union. Exactly.

We Fox is the perfect example on that side of the debate, if it goes

the way it is starting to look like it is going because David Davis is

definitely made a move you and him and Hammond appear to have formed

some kind of access around the middle sensible neither hard and

soft type of Brexit. I think someone like Liam Fox is in a difficult

position and I'm not sure how he can then hold on in that circumstance.

Davis is ambiguous, if we believe that lead to the Financial Times

other day he was telling the Corporation of London that he did

not really care about a transitional arrangement for financial services,

the so-called passport in a regiment and he would only have it if the

Europeans wanted it, as if we were doing them a favour. This is when it

becomes difficult because nobody knows and nobody in the government

really knows what is going to happen. Negotiation can start until

article 50 is triggered the Nvidia position sometimes because they're

being asked specific questions and a simple account of the answers. Davis

has come close to giving some indications as to the direction of

travel is not being specific on it because the county but he's

definitely indicating the direction of travel which is a bit softer than

people thought it was going to be. Don't go away, we will come back to

you. Companies forced to pay

higher wages could be pushed out of Scotland,

the Scottish Conservatives The Tories are leading the debate

on tax, and are unhappy with SNP plans not to implement a UK

government tax cut for high earners. The Conservative Murdo Fraser

is on his feet now. Tax tended to the personal allowance

threshold which will make every higher rate taxpayer about ?15 a

month better. Does Michael Frazier really need an extra ?15 a month in

his pocket when other people are to coin a phrase just about managing?

Mr Harvey is being ungenerous. Evil will of the measures taken by the UK

Government to more than double the threshold for income tax, lifting

millions of families from the lowest paid in Britain out of tax. Our

record on that is unsurpassed. Presiding officer, looking ahead to

the Scottish Government budget, one half of the total funds, I will give

religion, one half of the total funds available to the finance

secretary will come from taxes derived in Scotland. The advocates

living, income tax, national income. If the economy doesn't roll in the

tax revenue doesn't grow either. The other 50% comes in the form of a

block grant from Westminster now determined by the fiscal framework

negotiated between the UK and Scottish governments. In terms of

that framework it is the relative performance of the Scottish economy

compared to the UK as a whole that calculates that saw the Scottish

economy continues to underperform we in Scotland face a 11-way. We are

raising less taxes from even Scotland and the fiscal framework

means that the block grant will reduce the amount of money coming

from Westminster. The consequence of economic underperformance is like

sparks revenue to fund our vital services. I will take Mr Rennie. He

seems to have ignored the real benefit of trying to boost the

skills in Scottish society to push the economy, he only seems to think

that tax is the answer for posting that. Does he not recognise the

other side of the equation? I am so disappointed with the Willie Rennie

's approach to this. I remember the days when average Scot led the

Liberal Democrats and Michael Russell went into the budget

negotiations with John Swinney cutting paper demanding a 2% cut in

income tax, he cut income tax, what a shame that under Willie Rennie the

Liberal Democrats have lunch to the left and are demanding an increase

in tax instead of a cut. So what's the SNP seem to have in the plan is

to hit Scotland with a ?1 billion surcharge on families and businesses

that make Scotland a most highly taxed part of the UK over the next

four years. Next year alone the National decisions will happen if

the 212 million on to the country's tax burden, a figure that will

increase every year until 2020. The UK Government is already on track to

double the personal allowance for income tax lifting millions out of

paying income tax altogether at helping the lowest paid. But SNP

want to see taxpayers in Scotland hit with higher charges than the

rest of the UK. Because of the interaction with national insurance

this means that the marginal rate of Scottish workers earning just above

the high rate threshold will become 52% of their income. Treating a

clear tax differential with the rest of the UK. The SNP approach may be

understandable if this change to personal taxation was going to raise

hundreds of millions of pounds. But in the first year of operation the

maximum sum likely to be raised is just ?130 million. Is it really

worked for that sum of money sending out a message that Scotland is an

expensive place to live and work and the business?

Unemployment has increased in Scotland - while it fell

Official figures show the number of people out of work in Scotland

between August and October rose by 14,000.

But with more temporary jobs out there in the run-up to Christmas,

our Business Correspondent David Henderson has more.

The rate is now higher than the UK rate. Scotland used to be lower, now

we have a higher unemployment rate, 5.3% compared to 4.8% for the UK as

a whole. It is off the back of this rise in unemployment and falling

employment. Unemployment up 14,000 by August and October, and it fell

across the UK as a whole and the other unwelcome news, employment,

the number of people working in the economy, down by 40,000. That is the

third fall for employment in three months in a row, so not great news

and of course it comes on the back of disappointing projections about

whether Scottish economy is going to be next year,... Running at one

third of the level of the UK. A lower rate indeed so concerned that

we are already seeing... There is a elephant in the room which is what

happened to the island gas industry and it is not that surprising in

Scotland that we are doing relatively less well than the UK

average. Yes if you look at the two men this loss of jobs that we have

seen of the course of the oil price fell it is easy to understand why

Scotland is in the situation, we are far more reliant on the oil sector

jobs than the UK as a whole. That provided tremendous track and jobs

are still being lost at a read of knots. In the north-east

particularly, thousands of jobs lost every month with no real sign that

that is going to change any time soon and as long as that is the case

it is going to be this tremendous, tremendous like, to murder Spool on

the Scottish economy it will dampen growth and dampened operation as

well. What is new is that what you are telling us about is directly

related to what we have been talking about empowerment, because it now

matters how many people are in the labour force, how many unemployed

because suddenly will not suddenly but much more people than before,

the tax take in Scotland matters. You're right, it is worth

remembering where we are and why it is so important for the Scottish

budget tomorrow, the backdrop is that the way our public services

here in Scotland are being funded is changing. The fiscal powers of the

Scottish parliament are changing. We're going to have upwards of 40%

of devolved spending funded by tax revenue collected in Scotland. Once

the VAT revenue is assigned to holiday the figure will be owned 50%

so as we look to the future the Scottish Government budget is not

going to be reliant on the block grant, that great White of cash were

just had heard from the Treasury and spent in Scotland, instead we are in

a position where the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government

are having to make much tougher decisions on how they raise revenue

because that tax, there will be a direct relationship between the

Scottish parliament... There is a fudge on that for five years but

spell out what this means, in the long-term, if the economy takes a

nosedive in Scotland but not elsewhere in the UK and the tax take

from income tax falls that this becomes less money for the Scottish

Government to spend and eventually it will not simply be made up by

more money coming in from London. Young sum that up. The more revenue

raised in Scotland means the more complex the debate takes place. Off

the back of that. Because if you have a situation where problems in

public services are simply solved by asking Westminster for more money

that does not change the debate here at all, what is happening here

instead is we will have an increasingly focused debate on how

tax revenue is raised, how money is spent on public services in giving

us the best value for money, discussions about as we heard the

about income tax, discussions about the balance between where income

tax... If the economy does better than the rest of the UK entrance

road. That is right in that the issues around generating growth in

the Scottish economy become really important because if growth lags

behind the UK as a whole there is a downside for Scotland, and the

Scottish Government will now have to look at every one of its taxation

and spending decisions through that prison, they will ask what impact

will this have on Scottish growth not just now but in years to come.

Thank you. The Scottish Government will meet

Amazon bosses in the next week, as MSPs raised concerns

about working conditions at The site attracted attention last

week, as people were camping in freezing conditions

so they could be near to their work. The company has received Scottish

Government grants in the past. The Economy Secretary Keith Brown

said he was concerned about the reports and would meet

the company in the next week. It is important that all employees

in all workplaces are treated fairly and the Scottish Government is doing

everything it can within its powers to drive up employment standards and

from what good working practices with the powers available to us.

Report about camping outside the centre, an undercover reporter have

lifted the lid on Amazon. In one case the company penalised a worker

for being in hospital with a kidney infection. The Scottish Government

paid almost ?1 million to Amazon last year, even though it did not

pay all of its workers the real living wage. Can the Minister ruled

out paying, is an any more grants in future? The grants which previously

awarded to Amazon have been paid on the conditions attached to them been

fulfilled, it is also true to say that of course those grounds go back

many years to 2005. I would also say that I am concerned about the

reports over the weekend, my office has been in touch with Amazon and

we're working on establishing a meeting to take place within the

next seven days so these issues can be raised. These matters of concern

to the Scottish Government and are indeed a concern to anyone. It is

important we do what we can. We do not have the powers in terms of

either the living wage or in terms of other employment laws which allow

us to take the action we would like to take, we would like to legislate

for a living wage and have said that on many occasions. In the absence of

that we can make representations and is on it clear how we find these

practices are unacceptable and that is what will happen over the course

of the next few days. I'm afraid the Minister has ducked my question.

When I raised this with the First Minister before on numerous

occasions she previously sent someone to the is an plant. What

happened? Did she tell them they would receive more grants and if not

why not? It is about time the government gives some clarity on

whether it will give Amazon grants in future. And just said to Willie

Rennie we have no outstanding grant proposals for further grounds for

Amazon, we have no intention of providing further grounds not least

in the absence of any application. The applications which are made in

the conditions attached to them have been fulfilled. The grants are paid

as were the grants paid by the previous administration under the

Liberal Democrats and Labour Party, the same conditions I would imagine

in that time as well. It is very important that we do what they can

to bring jobs to Scotland which is the purpose of these grants and it

is very potent that we promote the work and practices and that will be

the focus of the meeting I have Amazon in the coming days. The

Cabinet Secretary will be aware that the Mac have a value of 280 billion.

Yet they pay very little tax. They get employees to opt out of the

working Time directive to get the job and as we or they heard the

threatened workers with the sack if they are off sick. They pay so

little that staff are camping to avoid travel costs. I understand

what the Cabinet Secretary is saying about grants being given to hammers

on past, but can I ask him, Treaty review conditions that apply to any

regional select -- selective assistance or other grants given by

the guy in to future companies, not just Amazon, but indeed all of them

to reflect the working practices. , but I would say is that it would be

the case that we would want to continue to look at each application

made on its merits and the reason I say that is because Jackie Baillie

will now finally our foundation go about work they will often work with

companies that don't pay a living wage and the idea, the belief and

hope that they can encourage P 11 which... What steps is the Cabinet

Secretary taking to ensure that Amazon is in compliance with

existing employment laws of leaders have the power to create new ones,

what steps are you taking to ensure they are in compliance?

I did not mention and listen to Jackie Baillie spike, we have no

powers in relation to tax-raising on these companies. The a mystery as I

mentioned already in terms applying the law, I have mentioned this to

Amazon and of course the practices are things were looking up at which

we'll review, not only in relation to the pressure we have had over the

course of the weekend. Now let's speak to some

MSPs at Holyrood. I'm joined by Gillian Martin

for the SNP, the Conservatives' Alexander Burnett, Daniel Johnson

from Labour, and Mark Alexander, you're having a debate on

tax and how dreadful it is to have different thresholds for the 40p

rate in Scotland than in England. Did you win? I think so. People in

Scotland understand that while we are hoping that by killing people at

the bottom of the tax rate across the UK, the people that are being

punished and have someone is -- in Scotland is ending the same as

someone in England but paying hundreds of pounds more taxes will

act as a disincentive to people staying in Scotland. We need every

taxpayer we can get to deliver the services we want. But you would

accept the differences so slight that it is unlikely to send droves

of better off people in Scotland south of the border. That is

debatable. Companies like Johnson and Carmichael who very much have

the finger to the polls on such matter advise differently. If we

have a Scottish supplement charge is what they're calling it, then will

suddenly take that into account. We need to make sure people want to

come and work in Scotland and if there is any disincentive however

small that is going to create friction in the market. Gillian, the

argument against what you're doing an thresholds is even if we accept

that it is unlikely to drive many people south of the border it is the

symbolism of it. The fact that the Scottish Government get these new

powers and the first thing it does is make better people in Scotland

were soft and they will be in England. I don't think you can run a

government on symbolism and just because you have powers doesn't mean

to say that you should be using them to actually penalised the low and

middle income earners, which make up the bulk of the population in

Scotland. As you rightly say, the difference it would make in raising

tax for the higher earner people would actually be minimal so we have

actually put on measures to make sure the majority of people in

Scotland are not paying more tax, maintain percent. The bulk of people

here. I don't think that people do leave a country to go to another one

because of a little bit of extra income tax. But the revenues from

this are very minimal. Given that he had just told us that there is no

point in running a government on symbolism, given that the revenues

are so minimal, aren't due in fact entirely running of policy on

symbolism? It is not raising revenue at all. We're putting... How much is

a raise? We're putting this money into infrastructure spend. How much.

I don't have the figures to hand, I am standing in the lobby without any

notes. It does not raise any extra money. In your earlier point in

talking about how people are, the government, it is a bad win for

Scotland is less money is raised but actually what we have to look at is

what we're doing in terms of to make Scotland a more viable as an

economy. You are not doing anything in terms of yes we are. By not

attending the tax threshold does not raise any extra money, it means that

you don't have to find the money to pay for it in the way they have two

in England. It is not as simple as that. It is. We have government

spend on infrastructure and the small business bonus is a more

effective way of getting people to keep one of their earnings and

encourage investment in Scotland and small businesses in Scotland and the

majority of businesses in Scotland are small to medium enterprises.

That money into that kind of scheme is a wiser thing to do economically.

I'd Mac David Johnson, users want to put everyone's taxes up. We have

just had the temerity of SNP on tax, this is a party that campaigned long

against Tory austerity and whether given the opportunity to do

something about it, don't. It is very disappointing to hear these

things coming from SNP. Surely as the Labour Party, with the point I

made to Julie, no sooner has the Scottish Parliament received new

powers than it lacks taxes are on the better off. It is the symbolism

of that four people perhaps looking to set up businesses in Scotland who

could equally set up in the north of inland. The reality of the situation

is this, because of the cuts we have seen tens of thousands of workers

taken away from the front line services, we have seen 4000 less

teachers in schools, less care workers, that is the reality of what

happens when you pass down Tory cuts like we're getting from the Scottish

Government. Labour say we value the public service is, use the powers we

have to protect those jobs and protect the vital services which

ultimately are vital for the future of our economy.

You presumably agree with the SNP on the threshold for the 40p rate,

right is growing absolutely absolutely. This will have no effect

whatsoever on people thinking of setting up businesses in Scotland?

There have been lots of studies on what deferential income tax-free

stew or do not do. They are established in places like the

States, people live where they want to live where they have good public

services. That is what we will do with our tax proposals. Martin

Roscoe, can you outbid Labour and putting up our taxes? I hope the

Greens will have a policy that is smarter. We wanted to reduce tax

whilst increasing it progressively for those on the highest wages. You

know, we've got these new powers in the Scottish Parliament, it's time

we started to use them. The Tories voted for these powers as well, now

they are saying we shouldn't use them. I'm not worried about

tokenism, I'm worried about the cuts we are seeing now in public

services, particularly in councils. Remind us what you want to do? What

we'd like to see is a much higher top rate of tax. 50p? 43% kicking in

at ?43,000. Our tax proposals mean anybody earning less than ?26,000

per year would pay less. That is a smarter approach than Labour. We

have huge disparities in wealth in our society. It will only get bigger

because of the kind of austerity-lite cuts to welfare

benefits that the Tories are putting throughout Westminster, we need the

-- the need to be bold. We can raise money to invest in the

infrastructure that Gillian and all of us want, but we can also invest

in our public services that protect the bug report and provide

additional support for young people in our schools, -- protect the

vulnerable. We have seen massive amounts of cuts in recent years in

this area. Some cuts have been efficiency savings, but now the

public is starting to realise that the cuts to front line services are

going to damage everybody in society, particularly the is run. By

Alexander Burnett, they all disagree with you. They all wrong, and only

you write? There is no surprise, and the irony of Gillian denying the

symbolism will not have been lost on those voting to stay in the UK. The

point is... Hang on, you are playing with symbolism as well, Alexander

Burnett, you do know it makes very little difference in practical terms

so you are just making gay symbolic stance by saying, oh, no, we can't

have any tax increases for the a rough -- making a symbolic stance. I

don't think it is embolic. A lot of companies like mine in the

north-east, companies like BP and oil sector companies who employ

people north and south of the border, are going to have different

payroll and tax regimes. Are you saying the Tories or against ever

varying tax between North and south of the border? Because I thought

official Scottish Conservative policy was to say that we might call

for lower income tax rates in England in the future, as and when

we can afford it, or did I misunderstand what Ruth Davidson and

others have been saying? No,. At all, we will certainly consider that

in the future. You have just said you don't want any differential

rates between Scotland and England. We are talking about the budget

tomorrow. You are saying it will be a bad idea, you can't say it will be

a bad idea to have differential rate and back differential rates

tomorrow, but not in a few months' time when we are cutting income tax

in Scotland. My view is that the rates should be the same. Oh, how

interesting. My personal view is that the rates should be the same. I

know that is what the party is considering putting forward

tomorrow. In the future we will look to review that. I would be happy

with that, too. Gillian Martin, did you give us a reasonable explanation

of why public spending in Scotland is about 15% per capita higher than

the UK average, given that we already spend 15% more for every

person in Scotland in public services, why do our taxes, or the

taxes is in some people in Scotland, have to go up so that we can spend

even more than that? As you pointed out, 99% of people in Scotland are

not going to be paying any extra income tax. Yet as you rightly say,

we have more spend per head on public services. People are talking

about the cuts. Shouldn't the SNP government that so might be

thinking, hang on, why is spending so way over the top? You think it is

way over the top? A few people spending beside me save it should be

more and we should be protecting our public services and I agree with

them. We have invested heavily in our public services and we have to

work with the budget we have been given. There has been a real terms

cut to the Scottish budget from the UK Government, that is going to have

to be reflected in what we spend. David Johnson, is that Labour's view

as well, 15% more per per capita public spending in Scotland is fine.

You lesson from that is that we should spend even more than the rest

of the UK, doesn't it occur to anybody to say, perhaps we can

improve efficiency in public spending in Scotland and make it the

same as the rest of the UK and cut everybody's taxes? If you want to

make the argument that we should be cutting money to schools, I'll let

you do that. But I think we should be protecting that money. With

respect to Gillian, if this is what we see when we have the SNP

investing in public services... I'm not suggesting... Are you saying

that it doesn't matter what the differential is in per capita spend?

Let me finish the question, between Scotland and the rest of the UK, and

in no circumstances would Labour ever say, hang on a minute, maybe we

should think about more efficiency and getting our per capita spending

on public services down? Forgive me, Gordon, but this is what devolution

is all about. It is well established that we have a separate government

and supper Parliament because we want to make different decisions for

our public services. And that in turn means thinking about

different levels of tax. We spend more per person on our schools. I

think that's the right thing to do and we should be protecting it. That

is why we should use the tax power. Even though England is now doing

better than the Scottish education system? You want to spend more money

even though they spend less and are doing better? When you look at the

reality of wide our schools, we have had too many changes with the

curriculum and qualifications. Last won the Mark Ruskell. You can see

why, a lot of people watching this will think, these Scottish

politicians, they debate in Lala land. A lot of people watching this

will recognise the cuts that are coming through in the Rome local

authorities. You raise an important point about public spending, we need

to get the most out of the pound, that is why investment preventative

spend, particularly in the health service, is the right way to go. By

doing that in the long term we actually save public expenditure and

of course we can then reinvest that in the areas where we really do need

to reinvest. Thank you all very much indeed. I think we have invented a

new Scottish Conservative policy impacts, haven't we? It was very

revealing an interesting by all of them. That plays to a degree into

the hands of the SNP. One of the SNP's wind against the Scottish

Conservatives is, you don't want more devolved powers because you

want everything the same as in England. I thought it was Tory Party

policy that they would leave tax cuts open in the future. I'm pretty

sure Ruth Davidson sat exactly where you are sitting and said, this is

not the right time to do it. They have just decided on a new air

passenger duty policy which is different from the policy in

England, not income tax but still doing something with the tax powers.

I'm not sure what will happen. An interesting conversation. I think

so. Actually Mark Ruskell was the only person there who really was

taking on board this thing about efficiency, wasn't he? There was a

degree of consistency with the Green Party policy. Labour policy at the

moment, I understand what Daniel Johnson is saying because that is

the party policy, basically throw money at the problem. I can

understand politically why that is the policy. It may not be the best

time to do that, because as we have seen, Scottish school results in

particular are pretty woeful and it doesn't depend on how much money

goes into the system, it appears to be other drivers that are making it

poor. That is certainly consistent with the Labour line. He is

delivering what Labour are saying. You were suggesting the green policy

was a bit wasn't as the gated? I think it's consistent. Perhaps it is

easier to be consistent when you have a smaller number of MSPs. The

green policy has been consistent at a very, very high level of tax for

quite some time. I didn't see too much changing that. What we maybe

didn't get into the with Barton has goal was just what level of tax were

at because it is very substantially more than any of the other party's

tax. Now to the last Prime Minister's

Questions of the year, where the Labour leader,

Jeremy Corbyn, pressed Theresa May He said an Age UK report suggested

over a million elderly people were being short-changed of the care

they needed, and asked Mrs May if she accepted there was now

a social care crisis. Mr Speaker, social care is crucial.

It provides support for people to live with dignity. Yet Age UK we

searchers found that 1.2 million older people are currently not

receiving the care that they need -- researchers. Will the Prime Minister

accept that there is a crisis in social care? We recognise those

pressures. That is why the Government is putting more money

into social care through the Better Care Fund, by the end of this

Parliament that will be billions of pounds extra. That is why we have

enabled local authorities. We recognise there are immediate

pressures on social care. That is why this will be addressed by my

right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Communities

and Local Government in the local government finance settlement

tomorrow. We also recognise this is not just about money. It is about

delivery. There is a difference in delivery across the country. We need

to make sure that reform is taking place so that we see Best practice

in terms of integration of health and social care across the country.

But we also need to ensure that we have a longer term solution to give

people the reassurance for the future that there is a sustainable

system, that will ensure that they are receiving the social care that

they need an old age. That is what the Government is working on. The US

Government has just said, and I quote, systematic, in the Mick

problem is in Saudi Arabia's targeting drove the US decision to

halt a future weapons sale involving precision guided munitions. The

Saudis have UK supplied precision guided pave way for missiles. They

made in Scotland. The UK has licensed ?3.3 billion worth of arms

to Saudi Arabia since the beginning of the bombing campaigns. What will

it take for the UK to adopt an ethical foreign policy when it comes

to Yemen? Well, as the right honourable gentleman is, the

intervention in the UN, in Yemen, is a UN backed intervention. As I've

said previously, where there are allegations of breaches of

international humanitarian law then we require those to be properly

investigated. We do have a relationship with Saudi Arabia. The

security of the golf is important to us, and I would remind the right

honourable gentleman that actually Saudi intelligence and

counterterrorism links we have with Saudi Arabia, the intelligence we

get is from Saudi Arabia as saved potentially hundreds of lives here

in the UK. Can I tell the Prime Minister that a cross-party

delegation led by the right honourable member the colon Valley

will meet the Russian ambassador tomorrow. Morning on an elaborate.

We will reflect an amplified precisely the sort of terms that she

and the Foreign Secretary have used about Russia, the Assad regime, and

Iran. Not least because we want to protect those who have heroically

struggled to save lives in that city, who are now going to be at

particular risk because of the witness they can give. But does she

accept that many of us believe that those sort of messages are more

cogent when we are equally unequivocal about the primacy of

human rights and international humanitarian law when we meet the

Gulf states? We do raise the issues of human rights when we meet the

Gulf states. But he's absolutely right in relation to the role that

Russia is playing in Syria. And there's a very simple message to

President Putin, he has it within his own hands to be able to actually

say to the Assad regime, that enough is enough in Aleppo, we need to

ensure that humanitarian aid is there for people and the people who

have, as the honourable gentleman said, been heroically saving the

lives of others ensure that they have the security ensured. I'm sure

that the message that he and others will be giving to the Russian

ambassador. It is in the hands of President Putin. He can do it, why

doesn't he? The Prime Minister knows that I and colleagues from all

parties or is this House are keen to guarantee the rights of some 3

million EU citizens in this country. This will be the largest

administrative task that the Home Office has ever undertaken. The

dying courage had to look at the report reduced by British futures,

-- could dying courage to. It produced very practical suggestions.

Well, I say to the honourable lady, I'm keen to ensure that we can

protect the rights of EU citizens living here, but I'm also keen that

UK citizens' writes for those who are living in the EU protected as

well. The Home Secretary is aware of the proposals that have been put

forward and are looking at them carefully. David Porter is back at

Westminster. He is not in blazing sunshine, but he does have quite

MPs. Busy day at Westminster. Without further ado, let me

introduce you to our panel. Ian Black for the SNP, Lord Michael

Bruce for the Liberal Democrats and Ian Murray from Labour. Mark Harper,

let's pick up an issue that was raised in Prime Minister's

Questions. It is devolved in Scotland but affects the UK as a

whole. How is the UK Government and Scottish Government going to address

the issue of getting decent social care for people, whether they be in

Liverpool all the things that? I think obviously the announcement,

the Prime Minister said the announcement will be made either

Communities Secretary to about addressing some of the short-term

funding pressures. She also suggested he would be setting out

some plans for future reform. And the wombats been rumoured clearly is

allowing local authorities to raise more money through the social care

precepts. This is something we introduced by councils in England in

enabling them to raise more money. We also have the Better Care Fund,

encouraging the NHS and local government to raise more money

together so that we get joined up care between the health and social

care systems. Which I think is the long-term solution, getting those

two systems to work seamlessly together. You mentioned a long-term

solution whether you be in Eastbourne or Edinburgh. If you can

have a long-term solution, you probably need more money and a

political consensus. There seems to be precious little of either at the

moment. The money issue, it is clearly the case for both the NHS

and care system. People are living longer, there long-term pressures.

And I think that's clear, and that I think we'll continue to be the case.

We need a solution that continues to put more funding in, we will

increase social care spending through this Parliament in real

terms. Your point about making long-term changes, I'm not sure that

you can get to a position where everybody agrees with each other.

These are difficult questions. An attempt to try and get an all-party

consensus has been made before and it didn't get if. We need to grapple

with these issues and put in place a solution that will work in the long

term and be sustainable. Your government is responsible for

ensuring that social care works with the local authorities in Scotland.

Are you convinced that the system is, to use that famous phrase we all

use now in politics, little purpose in Scotland? Absolutely, I think we

are a long way down the road of integration between health and

social care in Scotland. The allocation of ?250 million

additionally is going into social care. It is essential that we have

health and social care working together. There is more work to be

done to make sure that it is fit for purpose, that we can deal with the

issue of this charge from patients from hospitals back into the

community, even if that step up, step down, uses the powers of the

NHS. We recognise the dog that is in front of us and getting this right.

The investment has gone in, -- the job in front of us. We need to make

sure that the workers are properly we sourced and paid, which is why we

have the commitment for the National Living Wage, the real National

Living Wage, not one but the Tories are trumpeting in England. We

recognise the responsibilities that we have. We're in the process of

making sure that we can get to a situation that the public will have

faith and confidence in health and social care delivered in Scotland.

Mentioned integration there. If you get integration, you start

transferring funds from the health service to local councils. That's

not actually putting in a huge amount of extra money, it is

shifting the budgets, isn't it? We haven't put into extra money over

all, we will continue to do that over the Parliament. Our budgets are

constrained because it was the idiot Westminster. We recognise in real

terms we have to put additional investment in the health of us --

because of austerity at Westminster. Our waiting times have improved, but

we recognise more has to be done. Malcolm Bruce, even though it is up

to the Scottish Government and local authorities to administer social

care, Ian Blackford is saying it is that place behind us which isn't

giving enough money to? That is a standard SNP plea. This government

has failed every indicator you can think of right across the board. A

dysfunctional, incompetent government. This process of sharing

it, the local councils are being squeezed. My own local council,

which has an SNP led administration, is slashing support right across the

board. They haven't got enough money and they are not able to do deliver.

The money going away from health service, preventing people from

getting into was Buttle, is not additional money it is moving the

money from one but it to the other. The truth is, we do need a

recognition that everybody needs to get together. It is a problem that

isn't easy to solve and we shouldn't be complacent, but to pretend that

the situation in Scotland is under better control than the south of the

border is not true. And to say it has nothing to do with the Scottish

Government is beyond belief. If you through more money at it, you could

solve the problem? I do think it is just about money. It's about how you

manage the funds and who takes the priority decisions. You get people

who say, you are ready to be discharged from hospital, there

isn't actually the partnership that provides the support. It's all very

well to say that we want everybody to be paid better, which is true,

which is why a lot of the providers are pulling out. But if that's the

case, that is even more money to top up the wages weather is not enough

even at the existing level at the moment. By the way, we have 33,000

EU citizens in the care sector insult Scotland whose future or

uncertain. Your party was in power for 30 years. You did reports on

social care, but we still seem to be in the same position. Nobody is

cracking get? It's incredibly difficult. Integration is the key.

When you look at what has happened in terms of investment in the NHS

and local authorities, by a local authority in Edinburgh completely

removed that locking for a number of years. We heard from the Scottish

Government -- ad blocking. The Scottish Government said that they

would remove bed blocking but it has gone up. There is now 12% more

elderly people with no care package whatsoever. That is your mothers and

fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers, who are watching this

programme. To merely shift the blame to somewhere else is a dereliction

of duty. Because the SNP government in Scotland took the cuts from the

Conservative government down here, double bump and pass them on the

local authorities. Local authority budgets are decimated. We're going

to see further decimation in the Scottish budget tomorrow. You can't

run a health and social care system with no resource in, that is the key

issue in Scotland. Quick final question to each of you. Mark

Karpeles first. Do we need a Royal commission on social care that takes

in the view is not just of Westminster that the devolved

administrations as well as fellow I certainly think Westminster

listening to the devolved administration it is a way of

getting other people to deal with these questions. We need to continue

integrating health and social care, which we are doing in both England,

Wales and Scotland. We need to keep finding more money. We will increase

the funding across this Parliament and obviously the relevant portions

of that will obviously float of the Scottish Government. Do we need

Westminster and the devolved administrations to take the politics

out of this and talk about what people need rather than the politics

of the decisions? I think that is what we have been doing. We have a

first-class relationship with health professionals. We don't have the

troubles we have seen in England with the junior doctors and so on.

When you see that the SNP has been elected, it has the faith and trust

of the Scottish people, but the Liberals and Labour Party want to

have a go at us and delivery, will recognise improvements are to be

made, but there have been improvements made in this lifetime

of this government and will continue to do so. Do we need to try and take

this out of politics to sort this problem once and for all? There are

issues in the whole of the whole service which could be better looked

at objectively, but we haven't got time to wait four years for another

commission to report. We did have a commission on this particular issue

which had some sensible recommendations which haven't been

implemented. My worry is that it would slow down the need to take

action, which is becoming critically urgent. We do need to take the

politics out of some of these big issues because there are big

decisions to be made. But what we can't have is a government which at

the gates was months ability for education, health and social care.

They say, people elected us and that's your lot. That's simply not

good enough. We are making the case for more investment so we can get

investment in social care. We have not got older people stuck in

hospital with no care package. Thank you very much for joining us this

afternoon. Gordon, that was our final discussion because that was

the final prime ministers Question Time of the year. We'll let this

will go away now and we will be back next week.

Let's get some final thoughts from Andy.

Social care is the big one. We heard about politicians putting taxes up.

If you want to sort this one out, right across the UK, money is going

to have to be found from somewhere? I think people accept privately, it

is different publicly in politics, but privately people accept that the

NHS is in serious trouble. Really the only way to do something about

the money side or to do something about for the NHS does. Either the

NHS has to start doing last, -- less or it has defined more money. It is

likely to be through some form of copayment system. People are going

to have to accept the fact that the fundamentals of the NHS will have to

change because demographic is just mean there is no other option. It is

just impossible to accept that in 50 years' time it will look like it

does, it just can't. What do you mean, if people are ill, the NHS

will still take care of them. What about people you are elderly, who

could be released from hospital, who are being blocked in beds because

there is no care package for them. That care package would have to be

financed how? Well, I think it is all part of the same problem. That's

what a lot of internal discussions are at the moment, within the

medical community to a degree but also within politics, how you

actually manage a system from cradle to grave to make sure that

everything can be right for a long time. The demographic problem is a

difficult one to get away from without having some very frank

conversations. The notion of taking this out of politics is a very good

one, but politicians don't going to have to solve the problem at the end

of the day. It is very difficult to see a situation with demographics as

we are, we can go one in the way that we fund it. I don't think that

substantially higher taxes will be palatable for the electorate. And

this is in addition to the pension issues. To some extent, you can

solve the pension issue just by raising the retirement age. That

saves huge amounts. But this care issue is something that is going to

become an increasing problem as we all get older and live longer. It

will. You have highlighted the other issue, the unspoken issue really is

pensions. The whole make-up of pensions will have the substantially

change as well because it is also the other thing, I think privately

people accept it is pretty unsustainable. But it is slightly

easier to solve with retirement age, raising. This one is much more

difficult, and much more emotive as well. It's not easy to three way out

of that. You say there would have to be some sort of insurance scheme,

except it would be old age insurance, as it were. We have the

look about our borders. We are very poor at looking at what other

countries do and accepting that sometimes they might other do things

differently. Join us for First Minister's

Questions tomorrow, and the Scottish Draft Budget

announcement on BBC2 The challenges and pressures

facing local councils I want to be the one that helps

and supports people See life in Fife, under Scotland's

third-largest local authority. I'm in a rut,

I can't get forward at all.