28/10/2015 Politics Scotland

Good afternoon and welcome to Politics Scotland.

At Westminster, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn puts pressure on the Prime

And at Holyrood, MSPs question senior college staff

at the centre of a row over large redundancy pay-offs.

Tax credits dominated Prime Minister's Questions today -

hardly surprising after the House of Lords forced changes

in the Government's plans earlier in the week.

And there was a change of tack from Jeremy Corbyn - a woman called

Karen who'd sent him a question did feature, but only towards the end.

For the most part he kept asking David Cameron whether people

on tax credits would lose money next April.

I'm joined by our Westminster correspondent David Porter.

David, you're looking very dry compared to most most people in

Scotland. Most people seem to think Jeremy Corbyn did better this week?

I think the tactic worked well for him. It was no surprise he was going

to go on the issue of tax credits. It would have been extraordinary if

he didn't. He used all six questions. Essentially it was the

same question repeated six times: Are people going to be worse or

better off next year, depending on what the Government is going to do

on tax credits. David Cameron sidestepped it six times by saying

we'll have to wait until the Autumn Statement, in about a month's time,

when the Chancellor explains what he's going to do. It is fair to say

since Monday night, to put it mildly, the UK Government has been

on the back foot on this issue. And David Cameron like George Osborne

yesterday very much going into a holding pattern, saying we'll have

to wait now until the Autumn Statement before people get an

indication of whether they are going to be better off or worse off.

George Osborne said in principle he wants to go ahead, as he would call

it, with reform to the welfare system. Others would say that's

coded language for cuts to the system. If problem is if he softens

or reduces the impact of those tax credit reductions he has to get the

money from somewhere if he is to go ahead with the deficit reduction

plans. What's happening now is the Treasury are throwing all the

figures up in the air and they will come up with a plan by 25th

November. That's the date of the Autumn Statement. It sounds perhaps

to you and me that's a long time, a month they've got to get this

together, but there are an awful lot of figures they've got to go for and

they'll want to make sure that in Palestinian terms they do not

perhaps fall on the banana skin that they have done with tax credits so

far. From one controversy to another, David. The Prime Minister

is about the shoot off to Iceland, where what's controversial about it

is European leaders are meeting but he's going to make a speech isn't

he, or is expected to make a speech which is firmly pro-European? He

gave us a hint about it at Prime Minister's Question Time. He was

asked about this. He's at a meeting of something called the Northern

Forum, made up of the northern European countries. For the first

time David Cameron is going to get off the fence and get stuck into the

debate. If he is given the opportunity in a friendly question,

let's put it that way, he will be asked what he thinks about the plans

that Britain could be like Norway if it left the European Union and have

the same relationship with the European Union that Norway has.

Interestingly David Cameron will say that's not going to be a land of

milk and honey. Norway, although it is not part of the European Union,

still has to pay money to the European Union and has to abide by

the trade agreements and the freedom movement of people. He will say it

is not a cost-free option. This is the first time he's come out and

said this. It is an indication perhaps in Downing Street that those

who wish to stay within the European Union and those taking part in the

negotiations that David Cameron is about to start in earnest with other

European Union countries are perhaps a little bit worried that they feel

that they are not getting their argument over at the moment. Hence

why he's coming and it will be seen by many as a European friendly

speech. Thank you David. We'll be back with you later.

Now, at Holyrood, the former principal of

Coatbridge College has told MSPs his reputation has been "trashed"

over accusations that he'd fixed an over-generous severance payment.

Let's cross to Holyrood for more on this now with our political

Good afternoon, a big issue here at Holyrood today. MSPs and the public

audit committee are determined to get to the bottom of it. You will

remember in the past few years we've seen mergers of colleges in Scotland

to create supercolleges to save money on staff costs and a whole

different focus on the purpose of colleges. Coatbridge College was one

of those that merged with surrounding countries to create a

new college in Lanarkshire. The departing principal has been accused

of creating overgenerous severance payments. Perhaps thought to be

?304,000 paid out to him. The Auditor General, Caroline Gardener,

said this was the most egregious case she had seen. A member of the

committee accused Mr Doyle of feathering his nest. It was Mr

Doyle's chance to appear before MPs to take on these criticisms and

accusations. This is his reaction to the Auditor General's report. I

think it is incomplete and accurate and vexatious. There was no Col

usual in terms of my voluntary severance. It was based on a scheme

for all colleges in Lanarkshire, so I take exception to the way in which

the Auditor General said herself that limited evidence, our

reputations have been absolutely trashed when we've done nothing

wrong. Strong words there, reputation absolutely trashed. Mr

Doyle denies any wrongdoing, he acted within the appropriate

guidelines. Talking about guidelines, the former chairman of

the board, John Grate appeared before MPs. You withheld and

concealed information from that committee because it was not in the

interests of the severance payment for senior staff, is that correct?

No. That is the conclusion of the Auditor General. That's a serious

point. That that's fine for her to conclude what she likes. I can say

categorically I never withheld anything from any of the committees

I was involved... That'sth that's not what committee members are

saying. Andrew, I believe there's a subplot here, I don't know if it is

an egregious plot. Great word that. It is interesting, Mr Doyle, the

former principal, was hinting that Scottish Government advisers had

told him that he wasn't really welcome in the new college and he

really had to make way. In his meetings with one Scottish adviser

called Roger Mullin. Interestingly Roger Mullin is the SNP's Treasury

spokesman at Westminster. Mary Scanlon also put this point, that Mr

Doyle wasn't wanted in the picture, to the Scottish Funding Council

officials, who also appeared before the MSPs. She accused them of

turning a blind eye to the overgenerous severance payments

because they wanted to smooth the way to ease the transition into the

new college and help Mr Doyle along the way and out of the picture. But

they denied they turned a blind eye. MSPs on the committee say they are

going to take further evidence. We expect the Education Secretary to be

called before them to give evidence at some point in the near future.

Thank you Andrew. My guest for today is

Lindsay McIntosh, Scottish political editor at

The Times. What do you make about this?

Coatbridge college? Yes. The language is fascinating. We don't

get words like egregious and feathering your nest bandied about.

She gave evidence to a previous committee meeting. John Doyle's

response was interesting, accusing the Auditor General of a vexatious

report. The Auditor General I'm sure is many things but I'm not sure

she's got an axe to grind in this. Going on the attack like that

doesn't necessarily help his case with the public. Broader issues to

do with education, particularly student debt. That's right. We saw

some numbers the the papers today which show an increasing reliance on

loans among students as opposed to grants. We know the SNP had stood on

a pledge to dump student debts. That's pipe dream now. Students,

rather than getting help with their living costs that they are not going

to pay bay, they are getting increasingly large loans. The NUS

says they are pleased there is an increase in overall student support

but they are concerned that much of this is from loans, instead of

grants. I know there are arguments about the statistics but

statisticians argue there's a big gap between students from lower

income backgrounds in universities in Scotland compared to England.

And, of course, presumably if that's the case, then the relatively lack

of availability of grants rather than... Would be part of that?

Particularly as the SNP Government made a big case about keeping

tuition fees free as opposed to in England where you have to pay for

tuition. Their argument is it encourages poor children from

worse-off backgrounds to go to university, surely therefore free

living costs would also encourage them to go, but they don't seem to

be taking their argument to that side of the debate. Presumably what

the SNP's opponents are hoping to turn this into is an argument that

like cutting prescription charges, this is actually, the tuition fees

is a subsidy to the middle classes, which harms working class students

rather than what you say, this is that it is the other way round.

Exactly. Everyone wants to close the attainment gap in Scottish

education. Everyone wants to encourage children of all

backgrounds, at whatever stage of life, to go on to university. We

need to close that gap. These figures released today suggest that

there's more work that can be done to do that. We'll talk to you later.

First to the chamber at Holyrood, where Scottish Conservatives have

chosen to debate universities. Their motion expresses concern that the

higher education governance bill could lead to universities being

reclassified as part of the public sector, which would threaten their

independence. Liz Smith is speaking now. Indeed it is abundantly clear

from the evidence sessions both the education and the Finance Committees

of this Parliament that the Scottish Parliament has been unable to

produce the necessary paperwork to defence its cause. Hence the reason

why the assumption remains and it's the reason for this debate this

afternoon. Deputy Presiding Officer, we take the Scottish Government at

its word. The high ear education bill is designed to expand academic

freedom. It would be good to know how you see that taking place. And

to increase the democracy, transparency and accountability

between University governance. The Scottish Government claims the bill

is essential that governors account for money received, and tells us

that the bill is merely building on best practice that is already there.

So why then has there been such wide ranging and fierce criticism not

just within the sector but amongst business and civic Scotland. The

names which my colleague Annabel Goldie listed here before the

recess, are significant in their number and opposition. Partly it is

because they are unpersuaded there's a fundamental failure in the system

of university governance which is acting to the detriment of higher

education. Why, they ask, when there are so many serious issues, such as

closing the attainment gap, increasing numeracy and literacy,

why are they so focused on a problem for which there appears to be so

evidence? The greatest anger is two key aspects of the bill, sections 8,

13 and 30, which would change the nature of our higher education

institutions. Specifically by increasing ministerial powers and

making universities into public sector bodies. Through the recent

exchanges at the finance and Education Committees which chamber

knows that University Scotland has substantive reasons for being

concerned about the prospect of the Office for National Statistics

reclassification of universities. These concerns come about after

their careful consideration of the relevance guidance on

reclassification issued by ONS, the consideration of a bill alongside

existing controls on universities, and consideration of Treasury

guidance about the application of the European system of accounts

2010. That might sound technical, but it matters. It matters a lot.

Because University Scotland make the point that Government powers over an

institution's constitution are seen within the European system of

accounts as the important indicator of whether an institution should be

classified as being within the public sector. And however much the

Scottish Government protests, this bill as it stands just now expressly

gives Ministers the power to amend University's constitutions by

altering the constitution of their governing bodies. A point confirmed

by Government officials on 6th October. It changes University'

constitutions by giving Ministers the powers to determine the

selection method and term of office of the chair and governing body. It

expressly gives Ministers the power to change constitutions by changing

the membership of their internal academic regulatory body. And

Treasury guidance an sector classification makes it clear that

there's a risk even if Ministers do not themselves appoint the members

of governing body. The Scottish Government tells us repeatedly that

this is not its intention. It has no Government tells us repeatedly that

key issues of this bill and the ones I have referred to in the evidence

are very clear that the Scottish government's reasons for doing

there is a theoretical risk of what Alex Johnson has described is

happening, why are the MSP is pushing on with this, it is hard to

see what is the benefit of this? We are opening up universities,

bringing transparency to the presence of governance and quite

frankly bringing them into the 21st century. There is an awful lot of

scaremongering here about this. There is frankly no risk to the

charitable status of universities. That has been made very clear. That

has been made clear by Oscar. Who is Oscar? The office of the Scottish

charities regulator. There is no risk here in terms of charitable

status. ONS go about their business independently but there is no

intention as the government has said of allowing this to happen, there

are keeping a close eye on it and there is evidence to the committee

saying the risk to this is extremely low.

Richard Simpson, there is a broader issue about universities today,

these statistics showing that students from less well-off

backgrounds are taking on loans of almost ?6,000 a year. Is this not

just to be expected? No, not really. The maintenance grants from the

Scottish government have been reduced and the OECD report two

years ago indicated that Scotland has the lowest maintenance grant of

any OECD country apart from Iceland so that is a problem. The other

thing the government have to answer on the Bill issue is can they

absolutely guarantee, it is not a question of being low risk, there

must be no risk of the ONS reclassifying because the results of

that will be disastrous. We need to have a response from the ONS to the

bill and without that there are really quite serious questions here.

Stewart Maxwell, have you asked the ONS for a response to the bill or

have you taken legal advice to back up what you have just told us which

you said a moment ago, it simply wasn't an issue? What doesn't happen

is the ONS does not say what will happen in the future, they wait for

the outcome and then they take a decision. Have you taken legal

advice? No, we have not. The government have legal advice into

enemy. They have Loyalist to look at every piece of legislation that is

drafted. The ONS is independent and takes a decision at the end of the

process. The fact is, this is scaremongering. I really don't think

this is the issue we should be talking about. What we should be

talking about is bringing real modern governance to our university

sector. I think it is only fair that there is proper justification for

that money, there is proper governance over the process that

happen at university and that is what this bill is about. Can I just

say that many people in the sector, the colleges union, NUS and many

others and academics have contacted me saying they very much support the

bill and it is very much time that this happened.

Alex Johnstone, you are backward looking scaremonger? I am afraid I

am just cautious in this regard. Experience indicates the right way

for the government to proceed is to eliminate the risk of classification

or reclassification taking place. I want to bring up a broader issue

about students being from not very well-off backgrounds becoming

increasingly reliant on debt. Is that something the Conservatives

take up? There is argument over whether these statistics really do

show that students from poorer backgrounds in England have now got

a better chance of getting to university than students in

Scotland? I would take the view that the statistics show this is the case

and what is happening in Scotland, it has been a policy pursued in a

different way for a number of years now. It is opposed to benefit

students and the evidence suggest it simply is not. Is it your contention

that not having tuition fees, there is a lot of arguments that these

universal benefits like abolishing prescriptions benefits the middle

classes more than the poor, is it your belief that not having tuition

fees would be the same as that? It is my belief that not having tuition

fees in Scotland has meant spending is at the level it needs to be and

the result of that which is manifest clearly in this legislation is that

they're in dependence is being eroded. Stewart Maxwell, on this

point about the amount of debt students are taking out, this is

presumably the opposite of the outcome you have wanted. The

allegation is that you are making it more difficult and the statistics

show you are making it more difficult for students from lower

income backgrounds in Scotland to get to university than in England?

Identix at that. If you look at the levels of debt... Sorry, you don't

accept the statistics which show that to be the case? I don't accept

we are making it more difficult for students to go to university. If you

look at the average level of debt students take on in Scotland versus

the average level of debt English students take on, there is no

comparison. Students in England take on many times the level of debt

students in Scotland are taking on. The idea somehow that levels of debt

in Scotland are causing the problem here is not true, because the levels

of debt in England are much, much, much higher because of the tuition

fees regime which frankly is failing in England. Elsewhere in Europe,

they are moving back towards a system of free tuition in their

universities sector as well. I noticed the audience slipway you'd

nearly said the problem rather than our problem, -- the Freudian slip,

due accept that nowadays the lower income youngster has a better chance

of getting to university in England rather than Scotland's? No, I don't.

If you have a situation of tuition fees, it is not about those at the

very bottom, but many, many working families, ordinary people, a bus

strive and a nurse whose children want to go to university, they are

caught up in that tuition fees trap and that is a real problem for a

whole swathe of society. Many struggling people are trapped and

caught by that particular problem. We don't want to see that and I

think it is the right policy to make sure children in Scotland grow up

and have the chance to go to university. Richard Simpson, do you

agree that the statistics now seem to show that children or youngsters

in Scotland from poor backgrounds have less of a chance of getting to

university than in England? I don't think it is less of a chance. The

fact is, statistics show that fewer people from deprived or poor

backgrounds are going to universities in Scotland and that is

something the government will have to address. I think the tuition fee

argument is a diversion from this. It is a question of making sure

there is adequate support in place for those who are seeking to go to

university. Programmes like Reach which encourage children to schools,

to give them the support in schools that is necessary, that is what is

vital. The real problem here is under the Scottish government, under

the SNP government, the educational attainment gap has become much

greater and that is the fundamental problem. That is not true. We will

have to leave it. Can this be a yes or a no, what is Labour's position

on tuition fees in Scotland? We are not in favour of tuition fees. Thank

you. Back to the chamber now,

where MSPs are debating a Conservative motion which

expresses concern about changes The 2014 research excellence

framework exercise. Residing officer, turning now to the higher

education governance Bill, essentially, it aims to strengthen

governance in our institutions, making them more modern, transparent

and inclusive. The bill's content has been informed by the evidence

gathered and recommendations set out in the review of the higher

education governance published in 2012. Presiding Officer, this

government has listened carefully to the views expressed by all

stakeholders and partners on the provisions in the bill and is

familiar with them and respectful of the arguments advanced. I will give

way briefly to Mr Brown. I'm grateful. Can she confirmed that the

clauses which cause the most concern were not part of that review and

were not part of the government consultation on the bill? I'm

certainly aware that there are four clauses in the bill that some

stakeholders have genuinely held beliefs about. Section one, section

one, I will get your answer if you deem me the courtesy of listening,

section one is purely creating a space to allow for that further

dialogue and to create an opportunity for co-design across the

sector about the process of how chairs can be nominated and elected.

It is the government's intention that by stage two, there will be

staged to amendments to replace section one. With regard to sections

eight, 13 and 20, those are quite simply about future proofing a

bill, a bill which has very discreet purposes, but where I can give an

assurance to Mr Brown, because we view all commentators as critical

threats. Where there is scope to alleviate concerns, concerns I don't

accept, but nonetheless, where there is scope to refine and improve

draughtsman and alleviate concerns and make improvements, we will

indeed take the opportunity to improve those aspects of the Bill.

Let me make some progress and I may come back to Miss Smith. Residing

officer, I want to make four very clear statements aimed at addressing

the points made by some stakeholders and of course by the Conservatives

in their opening address. Firstly, the Scottish government does not

seek to advance ministerial control of the higher it jubilation

institutions, either by this government or any future government

-- higher education institutions. Scottish universities are autonomous

bodies and will remain slow and we are crystal clear on that point.

Further, we are not of the view that the content of this bill adds to any

risk of reclassification of Scottish higher education institutions as

public sector bodies by the Office for National Statistics. I have

written to the Finance committee to that effect and note that the

recommendation that all analysis be shared prior to the stage one debate

to be held early in 2016. And next, reclassification, and I have to

stress this, presiding officer, reclassification is an outcome that

the Scottish government would never want to realise. Finally, I welcome

the comments of the finance committee on its recent report on

the finance memorandum to the bill, that the written evidence admitted

to the committee by the Scottish Charity regulator addresses

satisfactorily the points made by some stakeholders that the bill's

position might jeopardise the charitable status of our higher

educational institutions. ,000 for what you just said, but I'm

afraid I don't accept that there's any clarity there whatsoever. On the

6th October, one of your Scottish Government officials was asked by

myself if there would be any alteration to constitutions of

universities. After a long wrangle it transpired that actually yes

there would be some changes to that. And that by definition, Cabinet

Secretariers means the Government is taking some ministerial control. And

the follow-on from that is that that has an implication for the

reclassification. That's the concern. Concern. Your officials are

not in tune with what you're saying. The bottom line, Ms Smith, is that

this bill does not give me any more powers as a Minister. And if we need

to refine aspects of the bill to clarify that, we will indeed. We

haven't even reached, well, we've not reached stage 2 yet, a very

important part of the parliamentary process. We gave a commitment to

serious discussion with our stake holders. Regarding the specific

point about altering constitutions of high er education institutions

and the point she makes about ONS. In evidence to the committee, Oscar

examined in detail whether or not the bill's impact on the

constitutions of the ancients would revisit in the charitable status,

result in charitable status being jeopardised and they concluded that

that is not the case. Prior to recess Ruth Davidson said the bill

could jeopardise charitable status. I would hope the chamber and indeed

Conservatives would accept that that's not the case. I need to make

some progress, Presiding Officer. I want to focus on the overarching aim

of this bill. This Government is committed to creating a fairer, more

inclusive Scotland, one which better reflects our nation's diversity and

which everyone gets to have their say. And by enabling a more

transparent and open governance in our universities we can ensure that

every rose in the campus community is heard and involved in taking

decisions. That was the Education Secretary, Angela Constance.

The Business Secretary, Sajid Javid, is in Brussels today to hold talks

with his European counterparts to discuss the recent wave of job cuts

in the steel industry - among them are 270 jobs at Tata Steel's

Dalzell steel processing plant in Motherwell,

and the Clydebridge works in Cambuslang.

Unfortunately, it was "not possible to accommodate

the request" from Scottish Government to be represented

at the talks this afternoon in Brussels.

But the Business Minister, Fergus Ewing told MSPs yesterday

that an international prospectus is being prepared to try to find

an alternative buyer for the two sites in Scotland.

Mr Ewing said the taskforce set up to help save the jobs would meet

Our top priority is to secure and alternative operator to continue

with commercial production. We are aware that this task is not an easy

one, and that there are significant challenges facing the continued

production of steel in Scotland. But we are, as a Government, determined

to use all our resources, devote all our individual time and attention as

Ministers as required, and do absolutely everything that we can to

prevent the loss of steel making in Scotland. The price of steel has

fallen significantly as worldwide production has almost doubled since

2000. Cheap subsidised steel is widely available on western markets.

High energy costs, particularly affecting energy intensive

industries and a strong pound has hit export opportunities. Tata's

operations in Scotland and the rest of the UK have suffered greatly

against this background, as have other stem cell companies in the UK.

Last week administrators were appointed to parts of another steel

plant. Last month at Redcar, the Westminster Government called for a

UK steel summit. The Scottish Government was represented at the UK

summit and yesterday in discussions with Anna Soubry, the Minister for

small business, industry and enterprise, we confirmed that we

will co-operate with the UK Government and contribute fully to

this work. I wrote to Anna Soubry on 20th October and asked that the

Prime Minister continued to urge the Chinese premier to take voluntary

action to reduce capacity in the Chinese steel actor and reduce the

volume of exports. I urged the Government the help with energy

costs for the steel sector by bringing forward the implementation

of all the provisions of the energy intensive industries compensation

package, from April 2016 to October 2015. I also asked for the UK

Government to put as much pressure as possible on the EU to complete as

quickly as possible an investigation into Chinese steel imports into

Europe and whether it constitutes illegal dumping. When I spoke to

Anna Soubry I assured her we shall contribute fully to negotiations.

I'm chairing a Scottish steel task force, which has representatives of

Lanarkshire council, trade unions, and members of this chamber and the

Westminster Government and will co-ordinate the development of a

joint multi-agency economic recovery plan to mitigate the economic

impacts of the area resulting from Tata Steel's announcement. The task

force will first meet on Thursday this week and already have Tata

Steel's commitment to playing a full part in the task force process and

to working closely with us throughout the consultation period.

We are very grateful for that co-operation. The Scottish

Government, Scottish enterprise, with support from Tata, are

developing an information prospectus which will allow international

offices worldwide to generate interest in the opportunity

presented by this situation in Scotland. Scotland. Scotland. I

believe can be a viable future for the steel industry this Scotland.

Presiding Officer, this Government will do everything in its power to

seek a secure and sustainable future for the Tata sites in Scotland. That

was the Business Minister Fergus Ewing speaking to MSPs yesterday.

Can you see this coming to anything either in England or up here? I

think the hard economic facts that were outlined by Fergusuing in that

piece suggests that perhaps not, despite all the work that's being

done. We are talking about the impact that the strength of the

pound has on exports and the dumping of cheap Chinese steel in the UK.

Those are from what I can see the reasons that Tata is pulling out of

Scotland, with the loss of all these jobs. So with the best will in the

world it is difficult to see, not impossible, what the UK and

Government Governments can there. What was interesting is how

collegiate the working seems to be with the UK Government. They are

complaining about not being able to go to the European summit. But

yesterday the language was good from fer us the. We have so much

criticism of the Scottish Government when it seeks to pick a fight with

Westminster on various issues, but Fergus is keen to work with them and

to get the best outcome. Fergus Ewing says there's a case for them

being represented in this European summit, apparently the British

Government says you can't do that and we'll represent the whole of the

UK. It is an issue that comes up with European talks, with the likes

of fishing and so on. They have a case to make they should be there,

given the impact north of the border, but given we did vote to

stay in the union, maybe this is one for the UK to fight on behalf of the

whole of the UK. I was finding difficulty in following the exact

details of the debate, but talking about constitution of the kin

constituents, that was in a seminar about ancient Greece. Am I right in

thinking that Angela Constance seemed to be saying on this question

of whether or not university could lose their charitien, state us that

she was open to redrafting the legislation if people came up with

proposals? I think she said that. She certainly said she was

listening. I think there's a charitable status issue, the Oscar

issue we were hearing about earlier, and the public body

reclassification, which would be ONS. The very fact that even Stuart

Maxwell is saying there's a risk this could happen, albeit a low one,

surely if we are hearing that we should be stepping back and thinking

there's a need perhaps for redrafting, as Angela Constance

seemed to be saying. And now to

Prime Minister's Questions. David Cameron has refused to spell

out how the Government will change its plans on tax credits,

following the defeat of the measures The Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn,

repeatedly asked Mr Cameron if he could guarantee that

low-income households wouldn't be worse off when the changes came

into force next April. worse off when the changes came

to the House and to the wider country that nobody will be worse

off next year as a result of cuts to working tax credits? What I can

guarantee is that we remain committed to the vision of a

high-pay, low-tax, lower welfare economy. And we believe the way to

make sure that everyone is better off is keep growing our economy,

keep inflation low, keep cutting people's taxes and introduce the

national Living Wage. people's taxes and introduce the

could give the answer people's taxes and introduce the

he talks about, because it has personal and medical data in it

which would not be appropriate for publication. If I've got that

wrongly write to him, but that's my clear memory of looking into his

question after last week. Tim Salter from Stourbridge in the West

Midlands was 53 when he took his life. The coroner ruled that a

mainly factor in his death was that state benefits had been, I quote,

greatly reduced, ly reduced, leaving him almost -- destitute. His sister

says the DWP needs to publish these reviews. The Prime Minister says he

is concerned about the views of the families involved. The families say

the findings should be published. Will he publish the findings? 3

million families are going to get their child tax credits cancelled.

We need answers. Let me correct him on his last point. Under the

proposals we put forward, those people on the lowest level of pay

were protected because of the National Living Wage and those

people on the lowest income tax were protected because we are protecting

the basic award of the basic Child Tax Credit of ?2,780. I'll send him

a alert if I've got hit wrong, there were too many personal and medical

details for it to be published. That's an important consideration in

deciding whether to publish something.

Our Westminster correspondent David Porter was watching,

he's outside Parliament with a group of MPs.

Thank you. We have been very diplomatic and democratic about

this. We have Lord George house the Labour, Lord Purvis for the Liberal

Democrats, Owen Thompson for the SNP and a new guest Alberto Costa for

the Conservatives. Thank you for joining us. Lord Fultz, -- folks, is

it true that an unelected body can overturn the will of an elected

body? We said this was not a finance bill, it was not included in the

Tory manifesto, indeed, the Prime Minister said he would not introduce

such a cut on tax credits, and so we had every right to say to the

elected house, Inc again about that. That is all we asked them to do.

When I saw multimillionaires like Heseltine and Andrew Lloyd Webber

walking through the lobby to cut the tax credits for the poorest I knew

we had done the right thing. Jeremy Purvis, you end your party have

wanted a reform of the House of Lords for some time, it served your

purpose quite well this week? We operate under the system we have. If

the Conservative government want to perpetuate the system, we will make

sure our voice and our votes count and they did on Monday. It was

actually our motion and I would have loved it if George had voted for

it, but our motion killed the amendments. I can give this

guarantee, as long as the House of Lords carries on its current

position, there will be liberal voices in it and we will make sure

our votes count for the poorest in this country and we will reverse any

opportunity to penalised the hard-working and lowest paid people

in the UK. It is almost a similar question, you don't believe in the

House of Lords, you don't have any representatives visited House of

Lords but it has served your purpose quite well well with this unelected

body? I think it is unfortunate we have got this situation where was

the unelected house who have come to the rescue, if you like, for those

who will be hit hardest. It is deeply disappointing that a number

of people did not kill this dead but it is a situation we have to listen

to and move forward. A commitment was made during the campaign not to

cut tax credits and now we see the government putting through a rash

measure. If they really wanted to do this they would have put it through

a finance bill which would not have led to the situation we have got

now. Is it the case that perhaps your party, your Chancellor was

trying to be a bit too clever by doing it through the way he did

rather than putting it through a finance bill? The Chancellor was in

listening mode before Wednesday's vote and I agree with George that

the House of Lords is a revising chamber but sadly George and Jeremy

and their colleagues acted as an opposition chamber, an unelected

opposition chamber on Monday, and frankly, that is a breach of the

British constitution. I think it is right that the Prime Minister and

the Chancellor announced a review to look again at how we want an

unelected chamber to act in the British constitution. That leads us

very neatly onto what should Lord Strathclyde do? Alberto first and

then I will get everyone else's views. Lord Strathclyde is a former

Leader of the House of Lords. He is a very experienced politician. I

read confident as a Conservative peer, he and his panel of experts

will produce a report which will be laid before Parliament with

proposals to reform the House of Lords in such a way that ensures we

don't have this offensive breach of British constitutional values. Let's

be very clear. It is the House of Commons, added his Owen and I as an

active members of the House of Commons that have the say on

financial matters. It is quite disgraceful that a 100-year-old

convention was so flagrantly breached on Monday by the elected

peers. Owen Thompson, you are relatively new to the House of

Commons but presumably as an elected parliamentarian you feel you have to

have primacy over the House of Lords so you welcome what the government

is doing? Make no bones that I think the ultimate ambition should be that

we see an abolition of the House of Lords and an elected second chamber

would be a far better option. You only need to look at a panel here

today. Iron the only panel who was elected in the general election of

Scotland. You can see the attack which is being made members of the

UK Parliament to happen to come and represent the Scottish

constituencies to see the approach of this Scottish government. I am

looking at the review with a bit of a pinch of salt because I'm not

convinced there will be any way of the governor securing the decisions

they want. What I find offensive is for the Conservative leader in

Scotland who somehow welcomed the vote on Monday as some form of cover

for sending her MSP colleague, who is the former leader of Scotland, to

vote to support the tax cuts. What is offensive... An elected peers...

Ruth Davidson appeared to think that was OK. People in Scotland voted to

stay in Britain. One at a time. You can't say it is an abuse of the

constitution of your own party in Scotland is saying it is acceptable.

The Strathclyde report cannot be an ad hoc sticking plaster on an

issue. There needs to be a wider view and a constitutional convention

is needed. Lord Foulkes is there a danger the House of Lords may have

spoken, the elected government of the day doesn't like it and actually

they come down on you like a tonne of bricks? Can I say to Alberto if

we had voted for the Liberal motion it might have been a constitutional

crisis, but all we ask you to do is think again and the government are

doing that so we have succeeded. As far as reform of the Lords is

concerned, isn't it outrageous that the Prime Minister has asked a

hereditary peer to carry us suggestions for reform. He has

already suggested for reform, the Labour group have put them forward.

In the short term and should have retirement age, you must attend you

before can vote so we don't have people flying over from America once

a year to vote against the poor. And in the longer-term, I agree with

Jeremy. We need a constitutional commission to look at ways which we

can replace the House of Lords with something like a Senate of the

nations and regions. If we'd had a Labour government now, we would be

legislating for a Senate of the nations and regions. Because the SNP

is helped the Tories back into power we have got a government. We are

where we are. There will be changes to the cuts to tax credits, what

should a Chancellor who has got to balance the books and get rid of the

deficit do? Patricia Hollis made it clear. There are other ways he could

deal with it. You could stop cutting inheritance tax for the richest, he

could reinstate the 50p tax rate for the richest. There are lots of ways

he could do it. You could ask those who can afford to pay tax to pay the

more and not club but the working poor and it is workers, remember,

who are being clobbered by the tax credit cuts. We had a general

election and the British electorate resoundingly returned a Conservative

government. We want a long-term economic plan which works and that

is exactly what the Chancellor has been delivering. Credit must be

given to the Liberal Democrats on this one as well during their five

years in coalition, but we are completing that plan. That is what

the British electorate have asked and that is what we are going to do.

The Chancellor has said he has got to balance the books, he has to get

rid of the deficit, it is never going to be easy. If he has got to

cut tax credits, what should he cut? The Conservative Party had the worst

election defeat for generations in Scotland. You cannot talk about a

resounding success for the Conservative Party in Scotland where

the people wanted a different agenda. We do need to look at it. We

need to see what we can do. Nicola Sturgeon put forward a platform to

an alternative to the pace of change which would have reduced how fast

the deficit would have been reduced, but also to increase the

spending available. As a first example, there is no need for us to

but this money into Trident and abortion be Lords would save us a

bit as well. The final question to Jeremy Purvis, you must be thankful

at times you are not part of the coalition because you can now vote

the way you wanted, but if the Liberal Democrats had been in

coalition, you may have been speaking to me to sell these

policies. We were in coalition in the last five years and we blocked

this very moved. They should be no surprise that when they were in

coalition with blocked it internally and there's a prize on Monday that

we voted against it. It is the wrong way to balance the books on the back

of the poor. There should be more contributions from those wealthiest

to pay down the deficit. Thank you all very much for a lively

discussion on a topic somehow I think we will hear an awful lot more

about. Gordon, back to you. Thank you, you will have to continue

at the pub. I imagine Lord Foulkes might be able to get you into one

for lords only. You never know! How angry do think George Osborne

and David Cameron really are or will they say to Lord Strathclyde will

you go and look at this for a very, very long time indeed and hopefully

they will have forgotten about it by the time they report? I imagine they

are very angry at the moment. The point that Owen Thompson made was

well made. This was a problematic policy. It was not part of the

Conservative manifesto, regardless of what was being said there, and it

really should have been considered repeatedly before it got to the

stage where now we have this big constitutional question about

whether not what the Lords did was right or not on Monday night. There

is an issue, if you are David Cameron and George Osborne to be

annoyed about, because they could say OK, we didn't have it in our

manifesto, we did say we would cut welfare, but it is one thing to say

we did not do something in our manifesto, but it is another thing

to say because it wasn't in our manifesto, you lot have the right to

use and an elected chamber to overturn something that was

repeatedly passed by the elected chamber. The two things wasn't in

the manifesto and an overriding democratically elected parliament

and not comparator will? What George Osborne did was to use a statutory

instrument to push it through. If he had used a bigger finance bill it

would have been open to much more debate and the Lords would not have

been able to do what they did on Monday night. I think there was some

new friends through the constitution in order to get their own way. This

rapid review which has been announced which we have been talking

about through Lord Strathclyde, this also gives me some concern, given

the changes we have seen to the constitution recently, it seems like

we are approaching this in a very ad hoc way. The British constitution is

already buys and time ad hoc underwritten beast and to try and

think it in this way will presumably invoke the law of unintended

consequences. Hardly any time, just tell us something you are writing

about, it looks like Scotland is not as madly Europhile as we thought? In

2014 survey found Scotland were not as Europhile as England. This does

not mean that because we don't feel as European as our counterparts

north of the border, it does not this is verily mean we are more keen

to leave the EU that they are. If the rest of the UK votes to leave

and we vote to stay in that will mean an independence referendum?

Just because you feel more European it does not mean you feel more EU

and if you feel less European it does not mean you are less likely to

want to leave the EU so it does not mean Nicola Sturgeon's trigger quite

macro but you do not necessarily feel more one-way than the other?

That's all we've got time for this week.

We're back at the same time next week.