22/02/2017 Politics Scotland

Hello, and welcome to Politics Scotland,

Is David Mundell stringing Scotland along over Brexit,

he's told MSPs he's not and a UK wide deal to leave the EU is the way

And no Scottish Six, but the BBC announces a new TV

channel for Scotland with news at the heart of its schedule.

And here at Westminster, as the budget draws ever closer,

will the Chancellor be able to loosen the purse strings to help

relieve the pressure on health and social care?

First this afternoon, the Scottish Secretary has denied

that he's "stringing the Scottish Government along"

over their proposals to keep Scotland in the single market.

David Mundell was appearing before Holyrood's Europe committee.

With more on that let's cross to our political

correspondent Andrew Kerr, who's at Holyrood.

Good afternoon. Mr Mandel was appearing before Holyrood's European

committee. MSP is where they're making their voices heard, saying

that this Parliament voted against the triggering of Article 50, an

anti-Brexit Parliament as it were. The committee convener said to Mr

Mundell that he was the UK Government's man in Scotland. Mr

Mundell strongly denied that, of course, and said that wasn't an

appropriate remark from a committee convener. Another MSP, the SNP's

Richard Lochhead said to Mr Mundell, the accusation you were mentioning,

the UK Government were stringing Scotland along when it came to

Scotland's place in Europe document. A document which attempts to chart a

course with Scotland's staying in the single market. Mr Mundell said

that certainly wasn't the case, it very strong denial. He said he was

yet to be convinced by the arguments in the document, and I think he

believes a pan UK solution is the best one. Let's listen to what he

said to be MSPs. I haven't seen evidence myself that demonstrate

Scotland would benefit from a differential arrangement. I'm still

open-minded on that regard. These two big issues in relation to

migration and access to single market, I think the resolution we

get across the UK is the one that would be best in Scotland. A really

interesting point but Mr Mundell also made, was I think the Scottish

Government bought the triggering of Article 50 in a few weeks' time in

the middle of March, that would be a red line, the guillotine point when

the UK Government would no longer respond to the Scottish Government's

attempts to keep Scotland's place in the single market. Mr Mundell said

that wasn't a red line at all, and the UK Government would respond when

it was practical to do so. In the previous clip you heard Mr Mundell

mention immigration as well, the Scottish Government is looking for

the devolution of immigration powers. Mr Mundell said that wasn't

going to happen but he set out some of his thinking on that topic. There

will be an immigration Bill, which will essentially parallel or be

dovetailed with the Great Repeal Bill. That will be an opportunity

for debate and discussion around the issue of immigration. I'm not minded

to a view that immigration should be devolved. So, debate and discussion

about immigration. Mr Mundell was saying, there are other ways of

looking at this, other ways of working with the Scottish

Government. In particular, looking at central considerations, perhaps

seasonal fruit pickers coming from the rest of the European Union to

Scotland. Just another interesting point as well, Mr Mundell made it

clear that when the UK leads the European Union, Scotland of course

leads the European Union as well. Perhaps indicating about Scotland's

future place in the EU, if there was to be an independent Scotland. And

in a briefing to journalists after his committee appearance, he made it

clear, he said to the SNP that he wants the SNP to take the idea of a

second independence referendum completely off the table. I'm sure

they'll do that with no problem at all!

Let's cross to the Chamber at Holyrood now, where

the Scottish Government is responding to the consultation

on Social Security, Jeane Freeman is on her feet.

The recent consultation on Social Security in Scotland, together with

an initial response from the Scottish Government. I want to put

on record my thanks to all of the people and organisations who have

contributed directly to the consultation, and to be many more

who participated in engagement events across Scotland. Throughout

the consultation and since, I have listened to those with direct

personal experience of the current benefits system, I've heard their

experiences of the impact it's had on them and their families, and I've

learned a great deal. So let me assure this Parliament, I will

continue to listen and to learn from those currently using the benefit

system, and those working with them, who provide such vital support and

help. What has emerged is a rich seam of evidence, a solid foundation

on which we can continue to build as we take each step of this new public

service for our country. What is also clear is the widespread support

for our intention to build a fairer and more dignified Social Security

system. One based on the understanding that Social Security

is an investment we make in ourselves and in each other. From

the outset, we said that we will build our Social Security system in

partnership with the people of Scotland in a fairer and more

inclusive way. Today, I will set out the specific ways through which we

will achieve that. Presiding Officer, the right to Social

Security is established in article nine of the UN International

covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. That is our

starting point. Social Security is a human rights. The consultation

responses back to our commitment to a rights -based approach, a

cornerstone of our vision for the new system, and one on which our

core principles of fairness, dignity and respect will be grounded. I'm

pleased to announce that the forthcoming Social Security Bill

will honour this great Scottish tradition, by inch rhyming these

core principles in the new system is bounding legislative framework. --

enshrining these core principles. Putting this on the face of the Bill

will also provide a legislative mechanism for the people who

interact with the new service, to know exactly what they should

expect, from application, to advise, two assessments, to any necessary

appeals. Presiding Officer, we are committed to ensuring that this

government and all future governments are held to account to

deliver for the people of Scotland. We will introduce the Bill to

Parliament before the end of June, starting the process of

parliamentary scrutiny that will support us to shape, improve and

pass the legislation we need to set up our new Social Security system.

That legislative framework, paid the Bill and the secondary legislation

that will flow from it, the necessary foundations underpinning

our new system -- both the Bill and the secondary legislation. I'm sure

this Parliament will want to ensure we get it right and will take the

time it feels is necessary for scrutiny, evidence taking and

reporting. With me in the studio this week

is the former Labour MP and Shadow Brexit, David Mundell saying he

hopes the Scottish Government doesn't just give up on a second

referendum. I'm interested in your take on how the British government

is handling this, it's arguably very cack-handed. It's not very

impressive. It's not unreasonable for the Scottish Government to say

Scotland has an interest in this. I did think it looks as if the UK

Government is properly engaged in that. I would be very critical of

their handling of this and other factors around it. We've gone for

such a hard edged Brexit, they've done it at such a pace, the

implications of it aren't clear. Even if you accept the premise we

are leaving, how we leave is of such import, I think there should have

been much greater negotiations across the nations and maybe regions

of the UK. If you look at implications for immigration. But

also the whole economic impact. I think Theresa May could have used

that as an opportunity to have engaged more comprehensively, and

not just been quite so hard-line... They are giving the impression that

every time the Scottish Government turns up, they say we are having

that, go away. They could be ministers up here meeting farmers

and fishermen, saying we know you didn't vote for this, some of you.

David Davis could be up here, there's been none of that. They

could have been a lot more of that and more across all of the parties,

actually. You still get the sense I think Theresa May is more governed

by the politics of the Conservative Party rather than the interests of

the country. I do think, I think all parties because I think the Scottish

Government playing politics with it a bit too, I think we need a more

measured conversation about what the impact on the various communities of

Scotland and the UK, what strategies we can use to deploy this. Let's see

if we can negotiate a much more effective deal out of this. It seems

as if there is nobody giving up properly enough. We'll talk to you

again later. The BBC has announced plans

to launch a new dedicated TV ?30 million a year will be invested

in the project which will include an integrated news hour

at nine o'clock. It follows a decision not to proceed

with a so-called "Scottish Six". So here's what we're doing. We're

committing to the biggest investment we've made in Scotland for over 20

years. First, we'll invest ?19 million in a new, dedicated

television channel for Scotland. BBC Scotland. At its core will be an

hour-long news programme, made in Scotland, drawing on all the

resources of the BBC here, in London and globally. We are also putting

another ?1.2 million into BBC Alba, which takes the total new commitment

to services for Scotland, in Scotland, to ?20 million a year.

Second, we are also increasing the amount of network television

production from Scotland. What this means is that for the next three

years, we'll exceed our targets, spending ?20 million extra a year,

compared to where we were in 2015. Joining me now is former

head of news and current affairs at BBC Scotland,

and former chief executive of the Yes Scotland campaign

in 2014, Blair Jenkins. This is pretty much what you've been

arguing for, isn't it? I've been arguing for a Scottish channel for

many years, you're right. Alex Salmond asked you to do a report...

We did an independent Scottish broadcasting commission and our

recommendation was the need for a dedicated Scottish channel, just to

give that breadth and depth of programming that you can't just do

with programme opt outs. With some reservations, I think today is a

very good, positive step that should be welcomed. What other

reservations? It's a modest unchallenging budget for the

channel, for a channel that will be under a high degree of scrutiny.

It's the same as with BBC for although... That's a pretty niche

channel, it's not trying to appeal to a mass audience. You can look at

the numbers in different ways. Let's not be too negative. It's important

to get facts on the ground. If we establish a dedicated channel will

build from that. Although the initial budget looks like a modest

budget, I think it's a very important moment, if we are going to

get a dedicated Scottish channel. What you recommended wouldn't

necessarily have been the BBC to do this. At the time, I thought it was

very important there was public service broadcasting competition to

the BBC. We suggested the channel should be funded out of the license

three. I think way things have shaped up with public service and

commercial broadcasting, it now looks like the best fit to have the

BBC doing it. There will be a high degree of expectation about the new

channel and a high degree of scrutiny. STV are doing something

similar. We'll have this twice over, we'll have two times Blair Jenkins

channels. They have first mover advantage. It is to be welcomed. One

of the good things about STV is they are a commercial broadcaster, they

don't need to do this and they choose to do it. But the BBC is a

public service broadcaster that we all pay for, therefore I think it's

right and proper that the BBC should make this kind of initiative for

Scottish audiences. The BBC does many things well but it

does not do Scotland well and Juliet never has. If this is a sign of BBC

going forward, and they are going to do rather better than Scotland, on a

glass half-full bases, let's welcome it. And do you think that this is

better than the Scottish six thing which has been spoken about four

years? The Scottish six was always a good idea and should have been done

20 years ago when the idea was first discussed, and had white, commanding

support across political parties in Scotland. Most of the press was

behind the idea. But now the concept has become such a controversial one

that it divides public opinion. Editorially... Has become politics

with a small P now? Arguably, it has. Editorially, you should us do

the thing you think is the right thing to do but the BBC organisation

likes to please everybody, and was no way of introducing a Scottish six

without dividing the audience. I looked at that tenure to go and we

had a majority in favour of a Scottish six but you are always

going to have a sizeable part of the audience unhappy with everything he

did. I can see why the decision has been made to go with a second

channel instead. Where I think BBC journalism should benefit is with

the funding going into this new channel, helping not just the

programmes on the channel but also Radio Scotland and programmes like

you run, Reporting Scotland. More journalism on BBC Scotland, I think

that is good for audiences. The criticism, or one of the worries

will be that you put on a new channel, and it will be a minority

channel at least at first unless it is very successful. Not very many

people will watch it and the BBC will be able to say, aha, we are

doing all the things he demanded of when you asked for a Scottish six

but it will be for a minority. Like every new channel, they are judged

not at how many people are watching it at a specific time but the reach

of the channel, what percentage of watching in any given week. That is

an important measurement. The other measurement will be impact. The

programmes will have to be discussed and will have to reverberate. There

are a lot of different ways to be judged. The idea of having a news

programme on 9pm, that is a tough slot. I am sure it was not picked

randomly. Tough, why? You are up against expensive drama on BBC One,

and ITV. But you are on an 7:00pm. None of this is easy. There is no

easy slot. I am sure there is some thought that has gone into nine

o'clock. If you were coming in as the new programmer, you might want

to look at the arguments in favour of that slot and be sure you are

putting it in the right place. There is not much time shifted viewing of

news programmes. You either get people when you go near you do not.

It is a tough slot. We are meant to take that last answer as a job

application? I will not be applying. I will cheer it on but I will not be

applying. Thank you very much. The Finance Secretary has capped

business rate increases for the hotels and restaurants

in response to widespread concern about the impact

of a controversial revaluation. The 12.5% cap on any rise will also

apply to more than one thousand offices in Aberdeen

and Aberdeenshire, to recognise Mr Mackay also announced a package

of relief for renewables yesterday. The main opposition parties said

they welcomed the U-turn, The minister laid out his changes

to MSPs at Holyrood. This is the first revaluation since

2010. It takes account of the changes in property values during

the economic recovery and confirms plans to reduce the poundage, the

rate at which the taxes paid by 3.7%. To help small businesses, we

are sending a bonus scheme to provide 100% rates relief to

business premises with values of up to ?50,000 and from April the 1st, a

further 20,000 business premises will benefit, bringing the total

number of premises who pay nothing at all to 100,000. I have listened

and decided that we will act nationally to tackle the impact as

follows. I can confirm to the chamber that we will now offer a new

national relief that caps increases for hotels at 12.5%. And because we

recognise that we must maintain fairness between hotels, pubs, cafes

and restaurants, this will apply across those businesses, too. That

will benefit around a thousand 500 premises and provide proportionally

more support to the sector in Scotland than is available in the

rest of the UK. And for the renewables sector, we will offer a

package of reliefs including rolling for current rates relief of up to

100% for qualifying community renewables probe jacks and new-build

schemes. We will lower the eligibility to 0.5 megawatts. --

renewable projects. With concern to renewables in the north-east, we

welcome what is proposed but it is too typical of the actions of a

government that time and again falls asleep at the wheel and only wakes

up when it crashes the car into the wall. Three weeks ago, the finance

secretary found ?185 million, ?60 million of which came from the

business rates pool, to buy off the Green Party to support his budget.

Can he tell us today how much the total package of measures announced

will cost, and is that figure higher or lower than the ?60 million he had

lying in the business rates pool? Secondly, given that he is always

telling us that there is no spare cash in this budget, we have these

additional sums come from? Thirdly, is the cap on increases for one year

only or is it for the next five years? And lastly, is he open to

providing additional help to other sectors beyond hospitality and

renewable energy and out with the north-east if they can demonstrate

the hardship that this revaluation is causing them? The estimated

package should be around 30- ?40 million. I have to say, I am dizzy

with the speed of the U-turn but I welcome it nonetheless. At a time of

increasing economic turmoil, businesses in my constituency and

across Scotland's tell us that the rates rises would have led to job

losses and that is not something that any of us want to see. The

proposals to cap at 12.5% will be welcome relief to the many

businesses affected by forgoing revenue, which according to Spice is

60 million and not the 30-40,000,000 that was outlined, will fall into

another part of the budget. Can the Cabinet Secretary tell me what he

did not answer fully to Murdo Fraser. Is this package is ugly for

one year and we face the cliff edge next year? If it is not new money

which the Cabinet Secretary said it wasn't, this is clearly underspend.

Is he expecting more or is this money simply from the back of his so

far? The cap of 12.5% that I referred to is certainly for this

financial year and we will consider any further issues around

methodology, revaluation and other matters when we receive the review.

I think it is right to do that so that we are better informed with the

actual evidence to determine the right way forward for the next and

future financial years. Mariessa Devlin is the managing

director of the Enchanted Forest Nursery, which operates five

nurseries in the west of Scotland. Her company had been

facing a ?56,000 increase When you say ?56,000, what is your

bill? How much of an increase? The increases ?56,000 across five

nurseries. The most concerning increase is in our Thornliebank

Nursery in Renfrewshire where we are facing an increase of ?3000 on top

of what we already pay. How much do you already pay? Just over ?2000, so

we will be paying ?5,000 a month in rates. Presumably the problem you

have is that you do not count as one of the places given relief. We were

avidly watching yesterday and we were disappointed with the

information that the early years sectors will not be affected by

yesterday's announcement. Say that again, you have one nursery where

the bill would go up to ?5,000? Absolutely. Our rateable value on

that nursery has gone up by 155%. So the monthly costs to the business

alone, our annual costs are ?56,000 across five nurseries. In real

terms, if we look at Thornliebank as the model, we would be paying an

additional ?30,000 per annum. Effectively, that is to members of

staff. We're not in a position, because of our regulators, where we

could make anyone redundant and nor would we want to because we are

about delivering quality early years education. But the real terms are

that we need to look at efficiencies now to be able to make a

sustainable. Can you do that? If you do not get the relief and you have

to pay the money, what happens? We have to find efficiencies because

apart from anything else we have a moral duty to these families, over

600 families who come to our nurseries every day. That is the

first point in the second point is many people will say that you can

back charge that two parents but there is a clear saturation point

with childcare fees. We have a national agenda in Scotland and we

are looking to get people back into work. We want to get Scotland to be

the best place to bring up children, so to charge those significant

rental rates increases it towards the impossible. When you say back

charge, what do you mean, sticking fees to the parents? Yes. And that

is not a viable option. But presumably the reply would be that

if you spread the fees over 600 families, then if you spread that

amount of money and he would not have to increase the fees much at

all? We do not have 600 families in Thornliebank. We have 600 families

across five nurseries. But even so, they would argue. We are not just

facing rates increases. We have things like the national minimum

wage, and things that independent small businesses never faced in the

past. How do you operate? Do you operate as a private company that

makes profits? We are a private company and we also operate in

partnership with local authorities to deliver the early learning and

childcare entitlement for the Scottish Government. So all the work

you do is through the local authority? Not all the work. We have

under threes in our services, and all of the parents who come to us

pay for private fees. When the children turned three, we deliver

the early learning and childcare entitlement as well. How would you

reply to some people watching this you might say, OK, this doesn't

sound very good but you cannot have businesses, you cannot not have

rates revaluation. The problem with residential property in this country

is that politicians are feart to change things. It is not

unreasonable to periodically change the rates. What needs to happen is

we need to have a transparent approach to the revaluation. If we

look at four of our nurseries within Renfrewshire boards, one sits within

the local City Council and their approach is different. We have one

nursery with a smaller square footage that will be paying more

rates than a bursary with larger square footage. Which is cheaper,

Glasgow or Renfrew? Glasgow is coming out cheaper. I think we have

to look at how we make sure that there is a cohesive approach to

business reassessment, but also I am really focused on the early years

here, so we have a huge national agenda and I feel that many

departments are not talking to each other. So you think that they need

to close the attainment gap as a priority, and raising the rates is

in addition with that? I think there are a few aspects in conflict. We

need that result. Thank you very much for joining us.

Let's talk to our panel of MSPs now, from the SNP we have Gillian Mardon.

Jackson Carlaw is from the Scottish Conservatives,

for Scottish Labour we have Claudia Beamish and Ross Greer

Jackson Carlaw, you're probably delighted by the change in the

rates? We have just heard with someone from my constituency. We

heard from the Minister that there was no locus to intervene and

suddenly an intervention that helps certain sectors. It helps the

hospitality sector and it helps businesses in Aberdeen where the SNP

have lots of MPs. We need to see an agreement from the Scottish

Government with all this extra cash that they seem to be able to find so

readily, that they are able to assist other sectors to make a case

like the one you have heard. What would you say to Marissa that we

have just been talking to. She says that she is prepared to pay her way

but when you have a bill going up to ?5,000 a year from ?2000 a year in

one hit, that does not sound reasonable. I have been listening to

what she has been saying and I would say to her to get in touch with the

local council. If I can direct you to what Aberdeenshire Council has

done as a result of the extra money it has been given, Aberdeenshire

Council were very quick off the mark and they actually announced that

they were going to have a business rates relief scheme which they will

roll-out. They will roll it out before the 9th of March. The council

seem to be slow in following the lead of Aberdeenshire Council. This

was before the announcement yesterday. We are providing relief

to hotels and the leisure centre sector. We have a welcome capping on

the rates bill for the north-east. Office space, which lots of people

have been lobbying me for, and I have been strongly looking for a

presentation on, I would say that it is now over to the councils to

deliver in terms of a relief scheme for businesses like Marissa's, who

are facing financial difficulties and feel that the rates bills are

too high. Actually, they need to approach the council and ask them,

what would you do to help businesses like mine? Even before that point, I

would contact the assessor and have a dialogue with the assessor to find

out why the bill is so high. And maybe there is some mitigation that

can be done at that level. Labour wanted to the top income tax

so you are presumably delighted taxes on businesses are going up? It

is certainly welcome that they have climbed down at the last minute on

the rates relief. This does only affect certain sectors. Although it

helps some businesses in Aberdeen, which is welcome, I understand that

out of the 10,000 businesses that have received rates relief in the

beleaguered north-east at moment, that there are still 8000 businesses

that won't get something. In spite of what Gillian Martin is saying,

this is a Scottish Government decision and it's a pity there

wasn't more done to affect that. I also have a real concern about

public services, I understand ?30 million could still be additional

money that the NHS is going to have to pay. I don't know what the

position of the Greens is but if we want public services, you've got to

pay for them. Any time any tax on anything goes up, everyone says it's

a terrible thing. That's not true, the Greens were proposing a more

progressive income taxes and council tax. The issue with business rates

if there is an absolute lack scrutiny. The green MSP had to

launch a motion to bring down the whole thing, just to get a committee

debate on this. It's been ten years since a committee of this Parliament

had a debate on the poundage rate set for these rates. Why did it take

a green MSP putting in a motion that would have brought it all down,

which he obviously withdrew, just to get the government agreed that we

should have more Parliamentary scrutiny of this? It shouldn't be up

to councils to simply mitigate for decisions made elsewhere. The

Council should be able to set 50% of that rate. This is their income,

they should have a say on what the best rates for their area actually

our. I'm curious, Gillian Martin, Scottish Six, new TV channel, what

do you make of that? People may know I used to teach television

production at college before I became an MSP. When I heard the news

we were going to have a Scottish channel, although I understand it's

only for the evening, I was delighted. That means more jobs for

the types of people I used to train. Anything that sustains the creative

industries in Scotland absolutely gets a thumbs up from me. I'm very

pleased. I was hoping it would have a bit more money behind it. ?30

million. When we had discussions before there was a figure of ?75

million mooted as being what would be the amount of money that could

actually sustaining channel. I'm really hoping that maybe we could

have a dialogue as we go forward about maybe getting a bit more money

to it. But anything that brings more production to Scotland is a winner

in my book. Trebles all round? I think it's a bold and imaginative

response from the BBC. It will create more jobs, it means those

people who are happy with the current arrangements with the

National bulletin at 6pm will see that protected. We'll also see a

one-hour Britain where the failing domestic record of the Scottish

Government can be properly scrutinised. It is a budget

equivalent to BBC Four. I think there's an opportunity for

additional programming in Scotland and the creative industries. I think

that brings into relief the fact governments in Northern Ireland and

Wales and their development agencies are putting much more effort into

the creation of studio space to support new programmes. In Scotland

we are falling way behind. There are independents who could be fulfilling

these opportunities, we need to see more action from the Scottish

Government to create studio capacity in Scotland and take advantage of

that. You got about five party political jibes into just saying

this is good news. It is good news. We went against, in principle, the

idea of a Scottish Six. Our problem was we had memories of the effort

the BBC made a generation ago which turned out to be a complete disaster

and affected the BBC's reputation. We've also conscious of the public

didn't want the change. At the same time we recognised that devolved

administrations require more scrutiny. I think what the BBC have

done is an imaginative response. It is a real boost potentially to the

creative arts in Scotland. We've got to create that opportunity in terms

of studio space for independent companies to take advantage of it.

What do you do make of it? It's exciting, it's a long time in the

making. The way the BBC has dealt with it is very positive. The fact

there are going to be 80 new jobs to start with, and even though it will

only be evenings to begin with, I think the fact the nine o'clock

Scottish focused news will be international news as well, which is

very important. And I think the fact that the BBC have made it quite

clear that it is about the portrait of Scotland that's really important,

and the opportunities for young people coming through as

journalists, but also as other aspects of film, is really, really

great. And the creative industries will be able to flourish more here

because of it. I welcome it and I like to see it expanded, I'd also

like to see an absolute commitment by the BBC that not only is it

coming to Scotland as a new channel, but that there will be a lots of

regionalisation. Not only in South Scotland but across Scotland. Can we

have some criticism? I suppose the criticism of this proposal from the

BBC is people will say, they are going to set up a minority channel,

dump the Scottish bits onto that claim they are doing their public

sector duty. I think there's something in that. I will stop by

welcoming the fact this will create 80 new journalist jobs. There's

something right in what you've just said. I have concerns about creating

a new channel. If you forgive me for talking about STV your competitor

and the regional STV stations, they don't remotely the STB's primary

channel. The risk is this isn't a significant new investment to make a

Scottish news programme that works. I'm not particularly cynical, it is

a risk. The fact this opportunity is now there is really welcome. We just

need to make sure it works. This shouldn't be seen as a minor

distraction, it shouldn't even be seen as extra investment. A lot of

this money is making up for money that has gone out BBC Scotland in

recent years. This is reversing a lot of cuts to jobs. A glorious full

shot of all of you standing there. How absolutely lovely!

What do you make of this? I think it's really interesting, it's a

really clever move. The big news is the BBC managed to keep it a secret.

First time that everything! Arrow I think we were all locked in the

Scottish Six debate and I think it's exciting to see that. I know you'll

push me to make some criticism. Make one. What we need to watch is,

because I think a strength of the BBC was that it was integrated, at

its best it does integrated news and drama very well. But I just think

there was obviously an agenda about the need to develop Scots

broadcasting and develop Scottish news is much more, and do more in

depth of an approach. This looks as if it's got the absolute potential

to do that. A lot will depend on what happens now. BBC Scotland is

very strong, I think, and it will grow now. And actually meet the new

demands. And we'll get a proper focus on news in Scotland, I think.

Without throwing out the baby with the bath water. So you're not having

to make a terrible choice, do I want to watch UK news Scottish news.

You'll be able to do both. I know some people aren't comfortable with

that but I think that's probably what Scottish people want.

There was a sense, was there not, that Scottish Six wasn't being

talked about in pubs and living rooms across Scotland, it was

politicians. Yes. I think people want good quality news and good

quality news about Scotland. And all the ramifications of that, drama and

the creative industries impact, I think people do respect that. But I

don't think they like the idle or choice sometimes presented to them.

I hope Scots still have an influence at a UK level. I think they've done

a good and clever job today. Don't go away, will speak to you later.

Now to this week's Prime Minister's Questions,

where the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, again,

He questioned why there were was a lack of hospital beds,

a lack of doctors and a lack of nurses in England and accused

the UK Government of putting the health service and social care

The Prime Minister, Theresa May, was armed with her own statistics

which she used to defend her government's record.

Mr Speaker, I asked the Prime Minister why one in six A units

are currently set for closure or downgrading, she didn't answer. One

of the problems, and she knows this, is that ?4.6 billion cut to social

care, which has a knock-on effect. Her friend the Tory chair of the

Local Government Association Lord Porter has said, and I quote, extra

council tax income will not bring in anywhere near enough money to

alleviate the growing pressure on social care. Two weeks ago we found

out about the sweetheart deal with Tory Surrey. When will the other 151

social services departments in England get the same as the Surrey

deal? The right honourable gentleman refers to the questions he asked me

about Surrey County Council two weeks ago. Those claims were utterly

destroyed the same afternoon. So rather than asking the same

question, he should stand up and apologise. In recent days the Prime

Minister has said it is a key personal commitment to transform the

way that domestic violence is tackled. And it's hugely welcome

that she's called for ideas about how the treatment of victims can be

improved, and more convictions secured against abusers. Combating

violence against women and preventing domestic violence is the

aim of the Istanbul convention, which the UK has yet to ratify. Does

the Prime Minister agree with members right across this House that

the convention should be ratified as a priority? The right honourable

gentleman has raised a particularly important subject. As he says, it's

one that I'd take particularly seriously. There was still an

estimated 1.3 million female victims of domestic abuse in the last year

and over 400,000 victims of sexual violence. We signed up to the

Istanbul convention, we are fully committed to ratifying it, that is

why we supported the private members Bill in principle at second reading

and Committee Stage. The measures we have in place in many ways actually

go further than the convention, but I'm very clear that we need to

maintain this momentum. That's why I'm setting up a ministerial working

group to look at the legislation, to look at how we can provide support

to victims and the possibility of a domestic violence act in future. The

green investment bank is currently being sold and some recent newspaper

reports suggest the contract could soon be concluded. This, despite the

UK's stated focus on research and development, and the fact no

realistic guarantees have yet been given as to the continuation of a

proper headquarters based in Edinburgh. Will the Prime Minister

commit to looking again at why a sale at this time is not in the best

interest of Edinburgh, not in the best interest of the green agenda,

and not in the best interest of the UK taxpayers? Can I say to the

honourable lady, she raises an issue in relation to the green investment

bank, I will write to her with a response to the question she has

raised. Well let's cross to Westminster now,

where our Westminster correspondent He has got some art behind him this

week! I've got some MPs and a lord as well. Plenty of issues for Prime

Minister's Questions. Without further ado let me introduce my

panel. Lord Wallace from the Democrats, Ian Murray from Scottish

Labour, the SNP and Iain Stewart from the Conservatives. PMQ 's today

dominated by health and social care. We know it is devolved in Scotland

but the arguments for Scotland are probably the arguments in the whole

of the UK. There is a feeling amongst many people, whatever

governments in Edinburgh and London say, the health system and social

care system both need more money. Well, demand for health care and

social care is constantly rising. It has been for decades and will

continue to rise, as medical treatments improve, as the

population gets older. That's an inevitability. What we need to do is

have a grown-up discussion about how we can make the health service as

efficient as possible. Join it up properly with social care. There are

issues in Scotland and England. In England we are putting in more

money. That won't be the whole story. I think we need to have a

proper look at how we have a holistic approach to looking at

health and social care. But in simple terms, there are too

many people going through the hospital doors and not enough coming

out the other end. One of the problems is looking at people who do

go to hospital for treatment, particularly in A, who do not

actually need to go. That is why in England there is a different

situation than Scotland. We have these transformation plans to look

at expanding the range of treatments available at GP surgeries. So that

people can be treated in their community, closer to home without

having to go to hospital, creating more capacity in the hospitals. Is

it the case that in Scotland, it is basically the same type of pressures

that we have in England, and that we are used to seeing, that simply,

with an ageing population, you have to change the way you do health

care? That is a challenge for all governments, with the NHS, and it is

a challenge for the Scottish Government as much as it is down

here. But demographics are important. One of the things that

Jeremy Corbyn could have landed a bigger blow on today was the nursing

bursaries. We give nursing bursaries in Scotland and they have stopped it

in England. As a result we have a 5% increase in the numbers of student

increases. Most of my family are nurses and there is no way in the

world that if they had been asked to take out a loan, they would have

gone into nursing and that would have been a huge loss to the NHS. In

fairness to Jeremy Corbyn, he raised that, but you are saying he did not

kick hard enough? I think he also could have raised Jeremy Hunt's

visit to the US, looking at bringing in private money to the NHS. That

will signal the start of the end of the NHS in England and it will never

happen in Scotland, whoever is in charge. Iain Murray, we know there

are pressures on the system in Scotland. Things are slightly

different, but the core demographics of the same. We have an ageing

population, often with multifaceted problems, who are more expensive to

take care of, and are living longer. That is the big challenge. The

problem in Scotland is the throughput that you talked about

earlier. More people are going to hospitals because there is a GP

crisis in Scotland. There are fewer GPs, the surgeries are in special

measures, people are closing their lists. If you cannot get a GP

appointment, you go to A People worry about loved ones and that is

what happens. Older people spend more time in hospital because we

cannot get them out of the back door. The reason we cannot is

because the social care system is run by local authorities and is

under severe strain. There are tens of millions of pounds of cuts in the

budget. The Scottish Government tomorrow is passing a budget

transferring another ?170 million of cuts put through by the Greens to

our local services, meaning that we will not be able to give older

people the social care packages they deserve. These are the key issues.

When you have a debate about funding them, and not having any more of

these cuts, if more people are going in the front door and they cannot

get out the back door for social care, you have a crisis on your

hands. The Scottish demographics are much older then England and Wales

and that is a time bomb that will only explode soon. We need more

investment and not another series of budget cuts. You have been in

government, you have sat in those chairs and you have had people

saying about you need more money for various things. Is it the truth that

unless we are willing to pay more money in taxes, we will not get the

Rolls-Royce health service that we might like? There is an issue and we

have centred on the past -- we have said it in the past on education,

that an extra penny on tax could be diverted to the health service. But

we all have to accept that as long as we try to make party points about

this, we will not get to grips with that. We're people in hospital beds,

elderly people in hospital beds. There is no medical reason why they

need to be there but the provision is not there with social care to let

them get out of hospital and back into their community. It is not just

money. We need better structural integration and social services. We

were talking about that in the Scottish Parliament. We need to get

some progress on that. The other big issue on health, which we have got

to address, is mental health. We identified children with mental

health problems, waiting a year for treatment. That is just not

acceptable. I think, along with the other issues, mental health is

something we need to get a grip of. Is it perhaps time that cross-party

we do something that does not happen normally. You, the politicians, say

let's try to take it out of the political firing line. Let's have a

discussion on social care where we can make some sensible decisions and

come up with something radical and not be shot down by our political

opponents. Personally, I would be in favour of that. Whatever reforms we

need to make going forward cannot just last a lifetime. They have to

be far reaching. They need to last for a generation. Personally, I am

not the Health Secretary and I am afraid that if it was down to me,

that is what I would look at. None of us will say that we should not be

talking to each other. Take it out of the political arena. As long as

what is on the table is not privatising the health service, and

I think that is what is on the table, let's look at it. We're

talking about structural changes. You have something like 500 new

community nurses being trained so that we can stop people having to go

into hospital in the first place, so that they can be treated in the

community. Anybody that comes forward with a good idea, of course

we should be listening. We cannot just stick to party political

messages. Is it now time to say, OK, let's take this out of front line

politics, argumentative politics, and try to do something new? I think

all four of us would agree that better integration of health and

social has to happen because while we have the silos of the NHS dealing

with acute patients and local authorities dealing with people at,

and people taken out of the system, there is a problem. We have to think

about a cross-party approach. The difficulty is, and I will make a

party political point here, we have tried to do this when Andy Burnham

was Health Secretary down here. There was an agreement in the room,

and by the time that agreement got into being in print, the

Conservatives had produced a billboard calling it a death tax.

There has to be trust on this. The second thing that hasn't happened,

there has to be an agreement of the problems before we see solutions.

Final point for you? We have recommended a Royal commission on

health. My colleague, no Milan, has been trying to bring people together

from the health services, experts and politicians, because I do think

that it is so important to us that we really need a consensus to go

forward. That is the same north and south of the border. There is no

point in one government doing something if an incoming government

undoes it. We need to find a broad measure of support. Thank you all.

We decided to focus on one issue there because it is so important.

They are very disappointed that I did not ask them about Brexit. I

have given them a week off but next week, we will return to Brexit.

Thank heavens for that! Look, all of this talk about

cross-party this, that and the other, in part it sounds naive but

it would be good to see everyone integrated on this. But they could

not even talk about how important it was to take the politics out of this

without scoring party political points. I think there is a place for

it, particularly when you are talking about structural change. But

you cannot get away from a hard politics and that is not just

because politicians are evil people. But it is because there are

substantial points that are contested that need to be discussed.

One of the issues in Scotland is the extent of local authority funding.

We had not properly discussed it and we keep suppressing it. You can

argue about the causes of that. I think there is a real issue about

local authority funding in Scotland. He paid a terrible price. Social

care needs to be properly funded. Local authorities need to be

properly funded and we're not doing that. That is all for this week.

We're back next Wednesday and First Minister's Questions

see how the life of the Scottish child has changed

Children don't get to play outside in the way that they used to.

I can remember being afraid to go to school.

How we were raised shaped not just us but also our nation.

Educating the mass of a population - that is a wonderful ideal.