02/12/2012 Sunday Politics Scotland

Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. The Chancellor

comes clean, sort of. Debt is rising and sorting out the deficit

is taking longer than he hoped. What will that mean for tax and

spend, especially welfare spend? We'll have the latest and get the

Lib Dem view just three days before the Autumn Statement. As the dust

settles on the Leveson Report and Ed Miliband repeats his call for

press regulation by law, is Labour on the wrong side of the argument?

We'll ask Harriet Harman. And he's the tough new Justice Secretary

intent on making life hell for the criminal classes. That's the

rhetoric. But how tough is Chris Grayling and will it make the

streets safer? Coming up later on Sunday Politics Scotland: The First

Minister joins us live to explain why he thinks we need a separate

cross-party solution to the Leveson With me, as always, is the best and

the brightest panel of political tweeters in the business. Isabell

Oakeshott, Janan Ganesh and Nick Watt.; I can assure that all tweets

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 2048 seconds

And my position is different. But it is a matter for Parliament. What

you are saying is that you might be asking Parliament to vote for

something, no votes for prisoners, which she cannot Vote For Yourself

Aug her Cabinet colleagues? Is that true? -- and her Cabinet colleagues.

I am on the record. I have legal responsibility, it cannot be the

Lord Chancellor and not uphold the law. You can try to change the law.

I will take appropriate legal advice about what I can do.

Fundamentally, this is a choice for Parliament and I have said, it

would be very easy to simply accept the ruling but the legal basis is

different, it says, as members of Parliament, you have the right to

decide, yes or no. I am offering you the choice. Chris grayling,

thank you very much for clarifying that. You are watching The Sunday

Politics. Good morning and welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland. Coming

up on the programme. Leveson regulation and devolution. Do we

really need a separate Scottish solution? The First Minister joins

us to explain why he wants a cross- party panel led by another judge to

examine how the recommendations into the first judge-led inquiry

should be handled. Also, should people be prosecuted if they pay

for sex? An MSP and a former escort debate the pros and cons. And is

this the last Christmas we'll be able to buy cheap booze? Just when

will the minimum pricing law come into force? Scotland could be on

the way to introducing different press regulation to the rest of the

United Kingdom, if Alex Salmond's preferred system is adopted. The

First Minister has invited MSPs to engage in all-party talks to reach

consensus on how to keep the Scottish press in check, but the

process already appears to be unravelling, with opponents saying

they'll only take part if Alex Salmond does not. Christine MacLeod

reports. Nine months and 2000 pages later, the long awaited inquiry

into press standards by Lord Leveson has been published.

Delivering his verdict on the press, he said their behaviour could only

be described as a gritters. Or on too many occasions, those

responsibilities along with the code of conduct which the press

wrote and promoted, they have simply been ignored. This has

damaged the public interest. Caused real hardship and, on occasion,

wreaked havoc in the lives of innocent people. They away to

prevent press harassment of victims in future, he suggested, was for

the press to create its own regulator but he wants that backed

up by a lot which he says would ensure independence. The body would

have the power to require apologies and impose fines up to �1 million

but the call has divided the Government. With the Deputy Prime

Minister saying the new law is required to give legal teeth but

the Prime Minister disagrees. should be wary of any legislation

that has the potential to infringe free speech and the free press.

is of the border, where Holyrood has responsibility for the press,

tensions are also brewing. The First Minister has advocated a

press regulator based on the Irish system with complaints ruled upon

by an independent ombudsman and, like Leveson, require statute. Alex

Salmond has offered cross-party talks but opposition parties are

reluctant to take part if the First Minister is involved. They cite the

criticisms of his proximity to the Murdoch family and News Corp in the

past. He said that the relationship, the murky dealings, between the

Murdoch family and Alex Salmond was an appropriate, he was trying to

entice I UK minister to act unlawfully. Alexei Mansour es Lord

Leveson's report has vindicated him from any wrongdoing over lobbying

claims on behalf of News Corp. What now? Can the stand-off over cross-

party talks be resolved and could Scotland end up with tougher press

regulation than south of the border? Alex Salmond joins me.

Thank you for joining us. You have said that the case for the Scot a

solution is in our global and if we look at the work in practice, where

would the jurisdiction for? -- fall. The case is set out and page 49

other Leveson Report. It points out we have a different system of law

in Scotland and he didn't have the opportunity to consider fully and

he flings down the gauntlet to the appalled administration to consider

how this report could be implemented in our administration

if there is consensus to go ahead but the central recommendation.

This is inescapable, it is the Scottish parliament's

responsibility to consider this and see if we can come to some sort of

consensus which does not same to be around in Westminster. A are you

saying that this is a system which would take account of the specifics

of Scottish lock in areas like defamation and cost? But it would

be essentially the same as south of the border in terms of required

obligations and punishment? have made the point yourself, our

system is then a private law, defamation is different here

because we have a different legal system. The Leveson underpinning is

central to this concept of defamation, effectively given as

self-regulated press certain privileges if the abide by that

self-regulation. Since our system in Scotland is different, we have

to consider how that central recommendation could be implemented

in Scotland if we choose to go down that route and on I would said to

the people questioning this is, there does seem to be two things

and one of them is that Leveson has made the case that you can avoid

having state regulation of the press, which I do not support, and

I never will support, but you could have as statutory underpinning of

self-regulation and still have a vigorous, free press. If you

believe he has made that case by consensus, we have to work out how

that could be applied in Scotland. How see? -- has he? I think he has.

And when you look at the National examples, in the first example he

chose to look at, it was the Irish model, the Irish opposition.

Emerson has made that central argument but he has not carried the

bulk of the press. -- Leveson. As we talk through these things, we

can come to a better solution and a lot of people want to see a

solution. Perhaps as we did it and discuss these things, we can get to

that consensus. -- de be it. What if there is no legal underpinning?

-- debate. The legal underpinning is very attractive because it has

nothing to do with state regulation of the press and it gives a self-

regulated system certain privileges under the lough. If it is abided by.

There is a lot of attractions for the press with that and those in

the press who instinctively have reacted against this have really

got to answer the question of how the opera that system in Ireland,

every single one of the Fleet Street titles, some of those who

have objected to any system like that here, they actually operate in

Ireland and I have not seen anybody suggest that the Fleet Street

titles in Ireland or the Irish press has been under constraints

over these last five years. That is the central difficulty for those

who reacted against this. There are parts of the Leveson

recommendations which I personally do not think are appropriate. His

suggestion of OFCOM as the recognising body, that was bound to

raise hackles because by definition, that is a creature of the state.

That isn't the essence of the Leveson recommendation, the essence

of the recommendation because it is a way to under 10 in lock as self-

regulated body and therefore, free press. Would papers based in

Scotland and papers selling in Scotland have to pay for that?

the system will have to be paid for and it is self-regulating and it

has to be paid for by the press, and the volume of work will be

exactly the same. I fail to see how the system is going to be more

expensive if it is operated on a Scottish basis. But they will pay

twice? For Westminster and Scotland? Perhaps I can help. There

isn't actually any difference, huge difference, in the nature of the

type of regulation required. The central principles, even of the PCC,

are totally admirable and the difference is whether that system

should be enforced by some sort of statutory underpinning and there is

no suggestion from anyone that the system of factual reporting of the

availability of correction and access to a correction from people

with no resources, which is fundamental, that isn't what is the

issue, everybody agrees on that. The disagreement lies in how that

could be underpinned or not. And if it is to be legally underpinned, it

is inescapable, given it is our responsibility, it would have to be

underpinned on a Scottish bases. But if you set up two different

systems, the papers are paying twice? I don't want to go into this

in great detail. Is that the proposition? Can I just... No, it's

not. The proposition is the same system of regulation that the

statutory underpinning has in the Scots Parliament. And I have not

seen anybody substantially disagreeing on the nature of the

regulation should be put forward. The principles are the same, the

disagreement lies on where they should be some sort of statutory

underpinning. The big question is the internet, whatever you do with

the press, the internet remains a very big problem? It is a huge

problem for everyone and Leveson has actually comparatively little

to say about the internet. The question of regulation of the World

Wide Web, that is impossible to regulate and those states to

regulate that have serious questions to answer. The question

over whether people are entitled to break the law on the internet is

one already answered in Scotland in terms of the offensive behaviour

Bill, you're not allowed to incite hatred or conduct threatening

behaviour over the internet, there is no absolution from the law

because you do something anonymously at 2 am. We have

established that. The wider question of regulation, whether

desirable for the World Wide Web, is a question which certainly has

not been seriously addressed by Lord Leveson and it cannot be

addressed in a free, democratic society. Now that you have had a

chance to reflect on the comments by Lord Leveson, who do you accept

that you are wrong to offer to lobby on News Corporation's behalf

on the BSkyB bid takeover? A a I'm very content with the conclusions.

Which say I cannot be criticised for what I did. He did not put any

paragraph talking about the BBC, I am also satisfied that he accepts

about question that my motivation was for Scottish jobs and

investment and caused that incredibly pottable. I'm very happy

with the conclusions. -- Wow double. For it by Mr... -- First Minister.

What he said in those instances, what was said by Lord Leveson was,

judged by what he did as opposed to what he said he was prepared to do,

therefore he cannot be criticised. That is far more no-one's than full

vindication. -- nuanced. You are motivated by a desire to help

Scottish employment but how far is another matter, he lobbied on this

and had the Culture Secretary acted upon this, it would have been the

government decision unlawful. Yet again, that is far more new ones

than complete vindication? -- nuanced. The he did not exempt the

BBC from that criticism. It is right to have the First Minister

looking at jobs and investment as a top priority and he did not

question my motivation. Can I just point out that Lord Leveson makes a

sweeping attack on the conduct of Conservative and Labour politicians

over the last generation in operating against the public

interest. Specifically, he exempts the government of devolved

administration from a charge and he also partially exempts the Lib-Dems.

If he were to take what Lord Leveson has said, every substantial

government in opposition at Westminster, by the charge is

accused by Lord Leveson of acting against the public interest over

the last generation. I think we should note that he took the

trouble and time and he knew what he was doing in exempting the

governments of the devolved administration from that. But to be

clear run this point, that he said he accepted what you're doing was

appropriate, because you are lobbying for a Scottish jobs, what

he said was that Mr Salmond's duty to promote the economy and Scottish

jobs cannot sensibly be understood as requiring a relevant submissions

to be made to acquire side judicial decision maker. The Culture

Secretary was not entitled to consider considerations of jobs and

the only test was plurality of media ownership. With that

suggestion, you were either unwilling or unable to see some

Well, this is a question about the Scottish Ministry. -- in a Scottish

ministerial code. This was to support jobs and investment. Lord

Leveson describes it as Leveson -- as laudable. He concluded that they

cannot be criticised. We can argue about what the Scottish ministerial

code does but that overarching commitment is there. Leveson says

he doesn't judge on ministerial codes, precisely to defend Scottish

jobs and investment. If you think that... The Scottish Ministerial

Code was not relevant in this regard. What I am suggesting to

you... This suggests... We have got a two second delay. I am sorry, it

is not satisfactory. What I am suggesting is that it demonstrates

flawed judgment, in both offering to lobby and also in entertaining

personally entertaining Rupert Murdoch in Bute House after the

Milly Dowler hacking had been established. I am suggesting to you

this demonstrates a fraud error of judgment which also allows your

opponents to speak to your motives. What I am asking you is if your

interest is in public confidence in the system, should you not

Stepaside now and let Nicola Sturgeon lead? In order to shore up

public confidence? Let's be clear. You are not citing something that

is said by Lord Leveson but by my political opponents. And if it was

up to them, I would not be First Minister but thankfully that is up

to the people. One of the reasons they elected me is they know that I

will stand up for Scottish jobs, investment. Something that Lord

Leveson totally accepted. That was my aim and intent in the actions I

took. Lord Leveson also says just for the avoidance of any doubt

whatsoever that my actions could not be criticised. No doubt, my

political opponents would like to fight the election again and not

lose it, but all political parties looking at the public interest rate

now, they are rising to Leveson's challenge and see if we wish to see

some form of statutory underpinning of self regulation of a free press,

how we can rise to that challenge on a Scottish bases and find a

solution, not least of which for the element of Scottish victims, of

people who feel they have been badly treated by the press. And I

think the general willingness of press and public to find a better

solution. So, why don't we rise to that challenge laid down by Lord

Leveson and see-through can make progress in interest of the people

of Scotland. Just before we leave it, what I would suggest you and

what has come through in the report is that it wasn't about what you

did but what you were prepared to do. People can read what Lord

Leveson has said in detail. Do you want to maintain this position that

you have been totally vindicated? Except Lord Leveson's conclusion

that I cannot be criticised. -- I accept. I draw to your attention so

stricter that buoy Leveson gave across government and opposition

parties for the last generation for which he examines the Scottish

administration of not operating in the public's interest, so we should

operate in the public interest and try to find a sensible way forward

which protects a vigorous, self regulated press, and the interest

of our people. Let's address our minds in a positive way to do this.

Thank you very much indeed. Joining me now is the leader of the

Scottish Tories and the leader of Scottish Labour. Will you take part

in these talks? We agreed that once we have read this, we will talk

about the regulations. Resentful because of what we're doing is

about the interest of those victims, those people who feel the press has

been allowed to behave in a way that has caused them pain and

suffering. One thing we should remember is that Lord Leveson had

no particular interest. His voice is an independent voice. It is

speaking out for the victims so we will take part in all-party talks.

But you have been critical of Alex Salmond leading them. It is

astonishing, watching that. He should reflect on what Lord Leveson

said because Lord Leveson has criticised him more than any

politician in his report. I am happy to say that all political

parties became afraid of the owners and editors and tried to manage

that prices but the fact of the matter is that Alex Salmond, the

only reason he didn't act was because the bid was withdrawn so

although he cannot be criticised for what he did, we do know that in

terms of what to Rupert Murdoch's people said, he stood ready to act

on behalf of Rupert Murdoch. He should be honest about his flawed

judgment. There were two things. He says he won an election and he

cannot be criticised. And he can't be criticised because the burglar

alarm went off, he didn't break through the door. You can criticise

somebody for their intent. He made it clear he was intending to ask UK

government ministers to act in an unlawful manner. There was severe

criticism put on record by Lord Justice Leveson of the conduct of

our First Minister and he has to accept that. Words like striking,

Lord Leveson's words, it was real criticism. It is astonishing he has

not reflected on that and realise he has to step back from these

talks allow somebody not tainted by that criticism to lead. And if he

does not? I am happy to work with all the parties. We have to find a

workable solution. But I will use the talks on Thursday to ask Alex

Salmond to reflect on his behaviour. He has been in Scottish politics

for an awfully long time and even he must look at himself and think,

"Really? And My the best person to speak on behalf of the Scottish

Government?" at he has been severely criticised, he is not the

right person to lead. Briefly, your problem is that if we are going to

down people by association with Rupert Murdoch, your parties have

both been damaged. Is it party point-scoring? I think that

everybody has to reflect on their relationship with the press. I can

explain to you that after being traduced in 1992 by one particular

newspaper, our party became too cautious in the wake they dealt

with the press. I recognise that. I think that has been a wake-up call

for everybody. No one could have heard the story about Milly

Dowler's family, thinking there was some chance she was alive without

their stomach turning. What I am saying is this is an opportunity

through all party talks to do what we can to make sure the press has

freedom to operate but also that victims of the press should have

recourse. Should there be statutory underpinning? I do not believe

there should. I think if we see or we should be cautious about having

that. We haven't had any form of law written which underwrites the

process of holding the press to account. I think that we need a

free press, not just in Scotland but across the UK. It is important

we have that. I think Lord Leveson's key recommendations about

the conduct of the press can be taken forward without that

statutory element. We are almost out of time. Statutory underpinning

or not? It as an opportunity for the press to solve regulate but

with an underpinning which allows people we dress at times they feel

they have been badly treated. We cannot have the current position

where the press could behave as they chose and those who felt

victims had nowhere to go. We need to move forward on that basis.

without the statutory underpinning, you cannot enforce anyone turning

up. That is why I said I recognise that what Lord Leveson suggests is

a good way forward. There is a lot of sabre-rattling about what that

might mean. It is actually an opportunity for the press to be

able to do the job they want to do and have the confidence of the

people to do it. Thank you both. The Chancellor George Osborne has

said the rich will have to pay their fair share to help reduce the

deficit. Speaking ahead of his Autumn Statement this week, he

admitted that efforts to reduce the deficit and return the economy to

growth are taking longer than anyone would have hoped. Our

correspondent reports. The economic road ahead is likely

to be more bumpy than the Chancellor has previously suggested

despite his smiles today. He has acknowledged he is set to miss one

of his main targets - to reduce debt as a share of national income

by the next election. We have got to deal with the deficit which will

take longer, which means more difficult decisions. It has got to

be done fairly. So the richest have to bear their fair share and they

will. We will also tackle welfare bills, and that is the conservative

approach. Make the rich pay but make sure you're tackling welfare,

which is deeply unfair. Labour has once again accused the Chancellor

of being reckless by failing to change course, given the lack of

economic growth. I think the idea you will be freezing unemployment

benefits and -- cutting tax credits or giving tax cuts for millionaires

is a question of trousers and priorities. The Chancellor says

Labour's plans to spend more would undermine the credibility of

Britain's deficit reduction plan, something he argues would be

catastrophic. Instead, the speculation which must Osborne

wouldn't confirm today that he could put tax relief on pensions

and free some benefits. Tadman suicide bombers have attacked the

US air base in eastern Afghanistan this morning. They struck at the

airfield in Jalalabad driving two car bombs at the entrance and

sparking a two hour gun battle with the UN forces. What more can you

tell us? This was a complex, co- ordinated attack involving up to

nine a suicide bombers. They came with vehicles laden with explosives

and also on food. They tried to storm the perimeter of the base.

They didn't manage to get through although they attacked

simultaneously from several directions. They were fought off by

security forces at the entrance. The Taliban came with heavy weapons

including rocket-propelled grenades. Major fought back with helicopters.

Local police tell us to civilians were killed, four members of Afghan

special forces. And Afghan officials are investigating if any

of those people could have been victims of so-called friendly fire.

May to say they are co-operating in that investigation. Further proof

the Taliban retained the ability to strike hard in spite of repeated

claims from later and Afghan officials that they have been

weakened. -- claims from NATO. David Beckham has signed off his

days by helping his team win the Championship in America. You didn't

get on the scoresheet but said he had enjoyed his six years in the

States. He is now looking for another club to finish his career

with. That is all the news for now. There is more at 5:50pm.

Good afternoon. The First Minister has invited

opposition party leaders to meet with him next Thursday to discuss

how the Leveson report into press standards could be implemented in

Scotland. The Scottish Conservatives and Scottish Labour

leaders say it is time. Alex Salmond told a Scottish regulation

was needed because of different legal systems and saddled Leveson

had highlighted the do something that should be considered. We need

to consider how his report can be implemented in our administration

if there is a consensus to go ahead with the central recommendation

that this is inescapable. It is these Kurdish Parliament's

responsibility to consider it and to see if we can come to some sort

of consensus. The Ministry of Defence says it will not comment on

reports that plans to build an army garrison in the outskirts of

Edinburgh are being scrapped. A review of army bases is underway

and an announcement's due soon. The Sunday Times' claim that a new

garrison at Kirknewton won't be built has been dismissed as

speculation. The MoD say they expect to see a major army presence

at Leuchars and Kinloss and more naval personnel at Faslane.

The Yes Scotland campaign say they plan to recruit a teenager to sit

on their advisory board ahead of the independence referendum. The

group is advertising on its website urging teens to apply. They say

someone from that age group will help to shape their approach

towards the referendum as 16 and 17 year olds will be voting for the

first time. And now time for the forecast with

It was another cold and frosty morning but this afternoon they

should be a good amount of sunshine around. The cloud works in from

viewers turning the sunshine hazy. Temperatures for many, two or 3.

Later tonight, we have snow in the forecast and the Met Office warning

is in force. The rain works its way in, turning to snow. It could be on

the lower levels, too. We should see some in Glasgow. The snow

likely to last through Stirling and Perth Show through tomorrow morning.

That's it for the moment, I'll now Should people who pay for sex be

prosecuted? At the moment, while there are a number of offences

linked to prostitution, it is technically legal to buy sex. But a

consultation is underway on plans to change this. It comes amid a

debate over how the new single police force will cope with the

different approaches to the sex industry in Scotland's cities. BBC

Scotland's investigation team have been taking a look at the issue.

Here's Fiona Walker. In Edinburgh they have son us, it what is

described as pragmatic. Then Glasgow it is zero tolerance and an

Aberdeen, the middle way but police trying other options before arrest.

The a 40s in each city believe their way is the right one. But

soon, Scotland's eight police forces will become one. How will it

change the way the police in this area is approach prostitution?

you move towards the national fours, we would be looking to develop a

strategy which will address prostitution across Scotland. It

will not be easy. It will be a challenge but with the support of

all other forces and with other organisations, who work with

victims, and two are engaged with victims and other groups who are

involved in prostitution, hopefully we can go to tackling the demand.

it is evident from a quick look online that there is sex for sale

everywhere. It's not always obvious what is legal. Here is what the law

says - paying for sex between two consenting adults is legal. As long

as you're not working on the street or in a brothel. And five years ago,

kerb-crawling became illegal, so clients of street prostitutes also

faced criminal charges. Until now, the prostitutes have been

criminalised more than clients and the number of women convicted last

year under prostitution offences was 117. 83 men were convicted,

either for soliciting, kerb- crawling or other related offences.

That can be about to change. provide companionship and sometimes

sexual services for gentlemen. Laura is a prostitute who works

legally as an escort. But proposals for consultation at the moment in

the person paying for sex could be the one committing crime. In is

going to criminalise consenting adults indulging in paid sex.

wrong. And it is Miss guiding and has been ill-informed. It will

drive a further wedge between us and the police because as things

stand at the moment, we have an excellent working relationship with

police. So on in Holyrood said the proposals would just not work. --

some in Hollywood. I would hate to go into that in a court from to try

to decide what constitutes payment and what does not. And the great

thing in this is to get a conviction against a man, because

it's about criminalising the male partner, the female partner would

have to give evidence and she will not. By pure they believe it could

cut demand in the sex trade. Were any to remember that research shows

that most men don't buy sex. So the men in Scotland who are choosing to

buy sex, they are part of a criminal chain, if you like. A what

this debate shows is that with some people taking a moral stance, bands

of -- and Others one of tolerance, the so-called oldest profession is

still can finding another old profession. Politics. --

confounding. And you can listen to Fiona's radio documentary on the

iPlayer, that's The Investigation: Sex for Sale. I'm joined now by

Rhoda Grant, the Scottish Labour MSP who is proposing a change in

the law, and the former escort Brooke Magnanti, also known as

Belle de Jour, whose blog on her experiences as an escort caused a

media stir. She's also patron of Scot Pep, a charity which supports

sex workers. Rhoda Grant, how do you respond to the observation that

this cannot stack up in court because he could not prove it?

think you can prove it and that will be one of the challenges of

drawing up the bill. And one of the outcomes of the consultation

process, because obviously am asking people how they think the

reports would be created and what definitions would be required. I

think of it was Ann Nicholl, of course it could stack up in court.

As you said earlier, there are convictions already. So this would

be no different. What about the argument that the effect would be

to endanger some women working on the street because of a drive it

underground? It was not drive it underground because it would have

to remain visible to people who purchase. Women involved in

prostitution at the moment are in danger, their life expectancy is

lower than women from other walks of life and they face abuse,

assault, rape on a daily basis. To say they're not being abused at the

moment and somehow criminalising the purchase of sex would mean they

would be abused, that does not make any sense whatsoever. Brooke, it is

a matter of fact that women working as prostitutes are abused daily and

it is a very dangerous business? There a abuses in every industry

and in that case, the sex industry is no different from food services,

agriculture, there are cases of exploitation in literally every

industry. Are there than that prostitutes are regularly beaten

and raped, their mental health is compromised... Define right

Committee. If you are talking about the small but Ted -- percentage

coursed into working as sex workers, that is the case, but the vast

majority choose to do so. As long as we have good relationships and

feel if we are in an abusive relationship, we can go to the

police, as was said, we need to preserve that link and that is

something that if we were looking at a police force across Scotland,

we would want to look carefully at what has worked in the Aberdeen

area rather than Glasgow with zero Paul Ince -- 0 Torrens. This law

has existed for several years in Scotland and we have seen how they

have proceeded with evidence gathering, submitting women to

unwanted genital cheques to collect evidence for the cases they bring

against men. That his state sanctioned sexual assault and it

should not happen here, we should not put the safety and well-being

of these women behind some in the logical argument. -- idiom logical.

Do you accept that the majority of women working as prostitutes are

doing so of their own volition? No, of most of the women are doing it

because they are coursed, I want them... I want them -- it is

because of their own poverty and a lot of the one that I speak to feel

there is no option open to them and some people have even said that it

should be acceptable for poor women to be prostitutes because that

keeps them off the dole queue. I don't find that acceptable. What

about them and making this choice, consciously and from their own

volition? I have some difficulty with making a difference between

them because what they say is, by making this decision consciously,

of my own volition, and I really don't care about the mass -- the

vast majority of women working as prostitutes who don't have that

free will. They seem to ignore the needs of those people. The solution

is to try to establish as many banks as possible with healthcare

and services for people that want them and with police, so that women

working in prostitution can continue to count on the support of

the police. There is nothing in this Bill which changes the

circumstances by which women enter sex work. We really want to be

looking at women entering this because they have a financial need

or because they have a drug addiction, what are the basic

causes because people are being coerced, address at first, and laid

the sex trade open for people like me, who freely chose that. Leading

people into the sex trade, because there are purchasers, and that

becomes a very obvious solution to a very difficult problem, if there

was no purchaser, if they were criminalised, there would be no

demand and therefore people would not be led into this and I find it

very difficult to understand why somebody, knowing the damage can do,

cancer, I need my freedom of choice. The end to man it has not worked in

Sweden, the UN said last month that Sweden is putting sex workers in

danger and they are sitting on a timebomb of he Chidi. On the day

after World Aids Day, this is something we have to keep in mind.

-- HIV. I want to pick up on one element, human trafficking. If this

Bill goes through, it will have a very specific potential outcome in

terms of stopping human trafficking. Influencing human trafficking and

monitoring that? What ING sex workers and clients are the best

source police have for information about trafficking. They provide

tip-offs. With pentameter, the police have not been able to find

these masses of sex traffic workers that people claim and we need to

keep those lines of communication open, not by criminalising the

industry. We are out of town, I'm very sorry. Thank you both very

much indeed. It's meant to save lives and cut the harm caused by

alcohol. The Scottish Government's flagship bill to introduce a

minimum unit price was hailed by campaigners and it looks like

Westminster could now follow suit. But long-running concerns that the

policy is unlawful are now being given a full airing. Ministers'

lawyers are facing twin legal challenges. Andrew Kerr reports on

a policy that passed the democratic hurdles but could still be felled

by legal argument. It could be the last Christmas for no price alcohol

if the minimum price legislation survives. The first legal challenge

is in Brussels, where the European Commission issued a critical

opinion, and that Scottish Government has to respond by the

end of the month. The minimum unit pricing is a disproportionate

response to the health problem and that it breaches EU laws on free

trade... The Commission is concern to because of the effect that it

might have on imports into Scotland of alcoholic products and that is

why we have seen a number of wine producers from a number of

countries, including Italy and France, have actually added their

complaint to that already voiced by the Scottish Whisky Association and

others. As they stayed there do in Brussels, the Scotch Whisky

Association pursues a second legal challenge in Scotland and a

judicial review will be head at the go -- held at the Court of Session.

The association believes the policy goes beyond Holyrood and will never

see the light of day. They will not introduce minimum pricing until all

the legal processes are finished so even if the Court of Session rules

next year, the chances are that this will go on to other courts, in

the UK or in Brussels, and until that is finished, there will be no

minimum price in Scotland. The charity alcohol focus submitted

evidence to the court to back up the government view and they also

are prepared for a long fight. case could go to the Supreme Court.

In the UK. It could also go to the European Court of Justice. The

alcohol industry is falling -- following in the footsteps of

tobacco by seeking to delay factor legislation by that beano will save

lives in Scotland. Campaigners like alcohol focus have welcomed a

second ally, the UK Government is consulting on a minimum price for

England and Wales. It is now possible that political

considerations could override legal concerns, at least in Brussels.

We're try to reach compromises across partners and of the UK games

and this, they might be expected to give something away that they would

otherwise prefer not to. In the European context, politics can play

a big part but as for Edinburgh, politician will have to sit on the

sidelines and watch lawyers debating the lough at Holyrood

which it has already passed. Joining me from our Edinburgh

studio is the SNP's MSP Christine Grahame, who is also a lawyer and

convener of the Justice Committee. Thank you very much for talking to

us today. There is an interesting interpretation that this might

become more about politics than the law but you are hoping for some

definitively the judgment? I don't thing there is a problem with

having his legal challenges. I sat as chair of the health committee

when we dealt with the earlier legislation which was opposed by

the Unionist parties and the anticipated these challenges. But

remember, the Scottish actor has the certificate of competence from

the presiding officer which says it is... It will be challenged but we

have always anticipated the European Commission, which said it

was against competitiveness. European legislation isn't fixed

and that by, there are delegations, if you can establish that there are

health and social benefits, from introducing this legislation and

there are huge health benefits to the Scottish public by introducing

minimum unit pricing, huge financial benefits, not least that

it costs us all about �900 each year for each person for all the

So, meaning within the powers of the Scottish government? Yes.

Talking about the health benefits, you have to show you would not be

able to achieve these health benefits by any other means and

that this is proportionate, and are you confident you can show there's

nothing else you could have done which would introduce the same

health benefits? It is part of the package. It is not a silver bullet.

Minimum unit pricing will attack very low cost, cheap got rotting

alcohol, such as the own-brand -- own brand gin and vodka, which are

so bad, in terms of beer and so, can be cheaper than water. Probably

the wine producers of France are concerned, but it isn't the wine

producers of France that alcohol will be the cause, but it is the

cheap brand alcohols which leads to abusive drinking. We have looked at

all the measures and I am pleased to see the UK is following

Scotland's suit because remember that the Conservatives and the Lib

Dems were opposed to it and now they have turned around to agree to

it. Of course, that makes it that much easier. All Labour abstained

on this particular legislation, which is a mystery to me, but we

now have the bulk of the political parties behind us across the UK.

Scotland led the way. And we will ultimately be successful in any

European challenge. If you don't mind, it looks like Westminster

might go on public order, so is the public health argument more

persuasive? I think public health is more persuasive because of

Scotland's very abysmal record on liver disease and so on, much

higher than anywhere else in the world, and one person in three, as

I understand, there is a huge death rate in Scotland from alcohol abuse.

What we are looking at is a substantial, long-running problem.

In terms of criminal justice, there are huge issues about domestic

abuse, violence on the streets, aggression, all fuelled by alcohol.

All of this together are very important. When might this actually

kick in? How long is a piece of string? We know when things go to

Europe, it is not on the fastest -- fast track, but a marker has been

made on this issue. The UK Government is following suit, which

is very interesting. And, with that, we may now have more political

class ought. Potentially years, do you think? I suspect it may be a

year or two. Yes. Thank you very much indeed.

Now it's that time of the day where we take a look at the week ahead.

In our other Edinburgh studio, we have the political commentator and

newspaper columnist, Iain Macwhirter. And here with me, the

Spectator journalist and blogger, Alex Massie.

Thank you both indeed for coming in. If we look at what could be

happening in terms of press regulation post Leveson, could be a

different system North and South of the border work? We are in a

bizarre situation where it looks like Leveson is perhaps more likely

to be introduced North of the border themselves of the border

because David Cameron's been clear he is not going to introduce press

regulation or statutory underpinning, whereas Alex Salmond

says he will. Alex Salmond has a majority in the Scottish Parliament.

This would be a very odd situation. I am not sure that is conceivable

and this might be the other males in the Leveson Coughlan, along with

other things, like the internet, and other issues. The problem is

that you are not going to have a regime that is going across the

whole country and there will have to be separate legislation in

Scotland it statutory underpinning is introduced because Scotland has

a separate legal system and because Scotland's had a different system

of press regulation. We have a different way of approaching it.

This is an interesting situation. But is it... Can you finesse it in

the way, you structure something that takes account of defamation,

cost, the Scottish legal system, but actually, in terms of what it

can look at and the punishments it can mete out, it will be the selves

North and South. Is that the way to do it? -- it will be the same.

could. If you have statutory underpinning, if you have press law,

it will have to be passed by the Scottish Parliament because control

of the press is not reserved to Westminster. Also, you have a

separate legal system North of the border, therefore it would have to

be passed into law in Scotland and the bizarre situation is that as

things stand, it is more likely you will have that North of the border

than South. Alex, is this tenable? Yes and no. In terms of the

practical aspects, it is clear there are difficulties for editors,

proprietors and, indeed, for core of it is doing the regulation. In

terms of the politics of it, in one respect, what we have been saying

about Scots Law and that requiring a bill to be introduced into

Holyrood is correct, but in terms to the general elements of this,

there is really no particular need for separate systems, North and

South. The SNP's call to have a separate system is, essentially,

boil down to wanting Scottish exception and has some for the

purpose of Scottish exceptional as some rather than any greater need

or use. Do you accept what Lord Leveson says he says it is not a

state regulation of the press but a legal underpinning? Do you accept

that distinction? I would not accept that. His legal underpinning

is that if you do not go along with this, Ofcom will get involved and

since Ofcom is appointed by the government, that is de facto state

regulation. Even if it is not implicitly so. What if editors go -

- what it editors refused to go along with it? What is its value

unless you can enforce it? The way to get editors to go along with it

is if you like an old-fashioned type thing of public shame. If you

-- if editors are involved, the public shaming is key. Are you in

favour of statutory underpinning? No, I am not. It is a dangerous

step that would be taken. It is interesting that Labour is

supporting press regulation. What they don't like is having press

regulation in Scotland overseen by Alex Salmond. Perhaps they should

be asking themselves in that case why they are so enthusiastic about

press regulation at all. I want to that of the point about what

Leveson proposes, the carrots and sticks. He says that if you don't

sign up to the commission, publications will lose certain

defences that they have currently. If you are charged with defamation,

but you can establish that what you have said about the defender -- the

individual is true, then that is it, the paper wins but under his scheme,

they would not win and they would have to pay the costs of the

litigation, so it could be a very serious problem because the costs

of these actions can rise to hundreds of thousands of pounds,

and that would mean that those outside the Leveson camp, if you

like, the unlicensed press, would be exposed to financial risk.

talking about harm to individuals and the press is one thing, but

when you look at potential harm us, the internet is a huge issue. It

seems like it cannot be regulated. Leveson has produced 2000 pages of

reports that is already up to date. In it, he devotes precisely one

page, just one page out of 2000, to the internet and online journalism.

The great migration, unavoidable, from printed press to the online

press, the impossibility of Trent have a regulatory framework that

licenses print publications but doesn't even look at the internet

will become starker. Do you think this is undermined because of the

internet argument, or are the important principles at play?

impossible to distinguish in law, really, between the internet and

other media publication. They are both in the public domain, they

disseminate views and information. That is what happens when a paper

is on line or in print. You cannot make the distinction between the

two. This will be brought out this week by this draft Bill, which

David Cameron has promised. Some of these anomalies emerge. People will

have to think twice because I don't see how you can have regulation on

paper press, it would have to cover both sides. Also because of this

issue of how you implement, how you set up a statutory underpinning,