:00:02. > :00:12.and the controversy will be continuing about how they should be
:00:12. > :00:18.
:00:18. > :00:21.Good evening. Tonight, when is a second league not a new league? The
:00:21. > :00:24.spill at Gannet Alpha has now become an argument about what words
:00:24. > :00:28.to use to describe it. I will be asking the company why they have
:00:28. > :00:32.not been more open with the public. And I'll be asking the finance
:00:32. > :00:38.secretary whether he has a coherent argument for devolving powers over
:00:38. > :00:41.corporation tax and businesses to Scotland.
:00:41. > :00:45.Shell UK revealed this morning that it's found a second leak from its
:00:45. > :00:49.Gannet alpha platform in the North Sea. The company has told us that
:00:49. > :00:51.its tiny and is releasing around two barrels a day. It may be coming
:00:51. > :00:54.under control but Shell's response to this incident has been heavily
:00:54. > :00:57.criticised. Not least because it spent much of today clarifying
:00:57. > :01:02.whether this second leak is a new leak. I'll be asking Shell what's
:01:02. > :01:07.going on in a moment but first here's Julie Peacock.
:01:07. > :01:13.It took five days for these first pictures to appear. Here, you can
:01:13. > :01:18.see the long thin train of loyal on the surface of the sea. -- trail of
:01:18. > :01:24.oil. We have relied on the Shell UK to give us information about the
:01:24. > :01:28.extent of the spill. That has not given as much to go on. In this
:01:28. > :01:32.case, we seem the story come out in bits and pieces and I think that is
:01:32. > :01:35.unsatisfactory. I don't think it is very clever. They think they will
:01:35. > :01:38.know from their inexperience and the experience of other companies
:01:38. > :01:44.in the oil industry that it is important to have public confidence
:01:44. > :01:46.in what you are doing. It was Wednesday when the shell UK first
:01:47. > :01:51.reported the leak to the UK government but it was not until
:01:51. > :01:56.Friday that the news was made public. On Saturday, there was no
:01:56. > :02:04.further comment from the company until 4pm but its statement said
:02:04. > :02:05.the oil covered an area of around 31, says. But it gave no indication
:02:05. > :02:10.of how much oil had escaped. That was left to the First Minister, who
:02:10. > :02:14.estimated around 100 tonnes had been leaked. The next day,
:02:14. > :02:21.conservationists called for greater transparency from Shell but still
:02:21. > :02:26.no interview. It was only yesterday, at around 4pm, that they estimated
:02:26. > :02:31.the two hundred and sixteen tons. It took us until Friday to gain
:02:31. > :02:37.access to where the leak is occurring. We d pressurised that
:02:37. > :02:44.line which caused substantial reduction in this bill. And now we
:02:44. > :02:50.have a very minor for relatively minor leak. This footage, filmed on
:02:50. > :02:55.Sunday, shows exactly how my mother Leakeys but cannot the same be says
:02:55. > :03:01.for the damage done to Shell's reputation. It is amazing to me, as
:03:01. > :03:05.a journalist, that companies don't seem to learn the basic rule of
:03:05. > :03:08.public relations, which is if something is going wrong, be the
:03:08. > :03:15.first to tell everybody about it and tell people about it as soon as
:03:15. > :03:19.you can. It took two days before they confirmed an incident had
:03:19. > :03:26.taken place and five or six days before we got there first -- full
:03:26. > :03:34.details, if indeed we have the full details now. For charities like the
:03:34. > :03:37.RSPB, the lack of information has been frustrating and unhelpful.
:03:37. > :03:41.vacuum in the news doesn't help anybody. We needed to know the type
:03:41. > :03:46.of oil, the wind conditions out there, the amount of oil, because
:03:46. > :03:52.the response that is required does depend very much on these factors.
:03:52. > :03:56.This is a light crude. If it had been a heavy crude, it would have
:03:56. > :04:01.taken longer to break up. These facts were not available at the
:04:01. > :04:05.time and I think they could have been a lot more clear, quickened
:04:05. > :04:09.concise in dealing with bodies like our own, because we have a lot of
:04:09. > :04:14.data which can help them make the right decisions. On Saturday
:04:14. > :04:16.morning, I spoke to the health and so fitted executive and to the
:04:16. > :04:20.Department for energy and climate change. They asked them
:04:20. > :04:24.specifically how much oil had been spilled. But they told me that if I
:04:24. > :04:30.needed to know those figures, I would need to speak to shelf.
:04:30. > :04:38.of the issues raised by this spill and the way it has been handled is
:04:38. > :04:41.the issue of how effective the Independent government inspection
:04:41. > :04:47.of the oil industry is. There is a body of critics which suggests that
:04:47. > :04:52.the industry is to responsible for regulating itself and that
:04:52. > :05:00.government should be more proactive and there should be more resources
:05:00. > :05:04.in independent regulation. By after days of criticism from the press
:05:04. > :05:08.and from charities, he would think Shell would have got the point. But
:05:08. > :05:12.today the company devoted much of its press updated to clarify and
:05:12. > :05:16.that this secondary league is not a new league but is in fact a second
:05:16. > :05:20.leak from the same source. What difference that makes is unclear
:05:20. > :05:27.but needless to say, the pipe is still leaking.
:05:27. > :05:33.I'm joined by Steve Harris from Aberdeen, the head of external
:05:33. > :05:39.affairs for Shell in Scotland. What is the latest? 216 tons, something
:05:39. > :05:43.like that? Yes, that is a fair assessment. Good evening. Can I say
:05:43. > :05:47.before going into any Woody's about that but obviously we deeply regret
:05:47. > :05:50.that this has happened. We spend an awful lot of time, an awful lot of
:05:50. > :05:55.energy, an awful lot of Investment making sure these things don't
:05:55. > :05:58.happen and so when they do, it cuts as to the quick. We have to pull
:05:58. > :06:03.ourselves up short and we are doing everything we can to put it right
:06:03. > :06:08.as good as you can. But in the meantime, we have to say we are
:06:08. > :06:15.deeply regretful. What happens next? This sleek, whether it is one
:06:15. > :06:19.or two leaks, it is the same line... He said something in your released
:06:19. > :06:28.today about taking litigating action. Explain what you are going
:06:28. > :06:32.to do to stop this leaking any more. The what we have now established is
:06:32. > :06:39.that we now think it is less than one barrel a day leaking from what
:06:39. > :06:42.is called her release valve that is attached to these pieces of kit. We
:06:42. > :06:47.need to be able to go there, be able to turn it off effectively. It
:06:47. > :06:53.is in a very difficult place to access. We need to be up to do it
:06:53. > :06:56.safely. It is going to require a diver going down there to do it. It
:06:56. > :07:00.takes time. We need to make sure we do it safely and not put anybody at
:07:00. > :07:03.risk in doing so. Once we are able to do that, we will carry out that
:07:03. > :07:08.work and hopefully we will be able to stop a small leak that still
:07:08. > :07:12.continues. But you don't know yet when you will deal to do that. I
:07:12. > :07:17.very much hope it will be days rather than weeks. But it is
:07:17. > :07:20.important we conduct this works safely and we will not carry the
:07:20. > :07:25.workout until we are sure that we have a very good chance of success
:07:25. > :07:29.and that we can do it safely. about... Coming back to your first
:07:29. > :07:36.point, there has been criticism of your company. You heard for the
:07:36. > :07:39.RSPB. Their concern wasn't just to save the bird -- birds. They have
:07:39. > :07:42.databases of information which can have to deal with this. Given what
:07:42. > :07:46.happened in the Gulf of Mexico last year, he seemed to be reticent.
:07:46. > :07:49.You're sitting here now but it is a week since this happened. Why
:07:49. > :07:52.didn't you do what was suggested there and come out straight away
:07:52. > :07:56.and say this has happened, we are sorry, here is exactly what we know
:07:56. > :08:00.and what we are planning to do? we had come out straight away on
:08:00. > :08:07.Wednesday, we obviously had for agencies that we were required to
:08:07. > :08:11.inform and we did that. Them... They're working with us to try to
:08:11. > :08:18.find solutions to the challenges we face. If we had told you what we
:08:18. > :08:22.knew on Wednesday, we would have been dull because it takes time.
:08:22. > :08:25.This is happening 300 ft below the surface of the city, not on your
:08:26. > :08:29.high street. We have to establish what happened. We wanted to make
:08:29. > :08:34.sure we had accurate data. If Tory from your point of view, it would
:08:34. > :08:39.be much better if you had boss people Lassen, that company is
:08:39. > :08:43.extremely dull, rather than saying that company is like BP in the Gulf
:08:43. > :08:47.of Mexico. We have tried to bring forward as much data as we can when
:08:47. > :08:49.we are confident of it and that we can stand in front of people like
:08:49. > :08:55.yourself and be confident that the a telling you what we honestly
:08:55. > :08:58.believe to be accurate. If we had come out on the Wednesday and had
:08:58. > :09:02.to change our figures dramatically on Thursday and on Friday, you
:09:02. > :09:06.would rightly have criticised us for doing that. One can only
:09:06. > :09:10.proceed at the pace that the information becomes available. Her
:09:10. > :09:13.specific regard to RSPB, there are things we can learn and I think we
:09:13. > :09:18.know that we would really have liked to have contacted the RSPB
:09:18. > :09:26.earlier. We have been in good contact with them ever since.
:09:26. > :09:28.you very much indeed. Envious glances aplenty across the
:09:28. > :09:33.Irish Sea as the Scottish Government today made the case for
:09:33. > :09:35.devolving corporation tax to Holyrood. Indeed their paper made
:09:35. > :09:38.specific reference to ongoing negotiations between Stormont and
:09:38. > :09:41.the Treasury, adding that it is now essential that Scotland is granted
:09:41. > :09:44.similar powers. But what exactly is the economic case for doing so
:09:44. > :09:47.here? I'll be speaking to the Finance Secretary in a moment but
:09:47. > :09:51.first here's our Business and Economy Editor Douglas Fraser.
:09:51. > :09:55.Corporation tax, the bit of a larger companies' profits that
:09:55. > :10:02.Customs wishes to share with the rest of us. It raises about �1 in
:10:02. > :10:07.every �16 of the revenue take in Britain. They deduct 26 %, to �0.6
:10:07. > :10:10.billion of business activity in Scotland was sent south to the
:10:10. > :10:14.Treasury the year before last. What if Scotland got the powers to
:10:14. > :10:19.target tax cuts to help some businesses invest? Perhaps more
:10:19. > :10:22.growth, more jobs, more tax revenue. That is what the SNP government
:10:22. > :10:25.argues. But the Westminster government has a warning. The
:10:25. > :10:30.Treasury recently estimated that cutting corporation tax to the same
:10:30. > :10:34.level as Ireland would mean a drop in Scottish tax revenue of up to
:10:34. > :10:38.�2.6 billion a year. Today's discussion paper is sometimes very
:10:38. > :10:42.cautious in its language. Experience has shown, it says, that
:10:42. > :10:45.particularly over the medium to long term, a more competitive
:10:45. > :10:52.corporation tax strategy may not necessarily imply lower revenues.
:10:52. > :10:55.But also the Scot and Secretary's warning that �2.6 billion gap,
:10:55. > :10:59.seems to suggest that Scotland would receive nothing from
:10:59. > :11:04.corporation tax at all. How could that be? It implies that the price
:11:04. > :11:07.Hollywood would pay would be all the revenue lost to the Treasury
:11:07. > :11:11.has company's shift operations to the lower tax regime or pretend
:11:11. > :11:16.they're doing so. Effectively including a �1 billion penalty
:11:16. > :11:20.clause. All of this assumes that tax cuts lead to tax revenue
:11:20. > :11:24.increases. They can, but will they always, particularly if other parts
:11:24. > :11:31.of the UK compete to undercut the Scottish tax rate? What could it
:11:31. > :11:34.cost business... Even if the current Scottish government says it
:11:34. > :11:40.wants to cut tax on business, isn't this the same government that
:11:40. > :11:45.wanted to tax supermarkets more last winter? What of future
:11:45. > :11:49.governments? They could prioritise public services. Today's is a
:11:49. > :11:51.discussion paper about the economy. It is highly political, preparing
:11:51. > :11:55.the ground for the referendum on independence and raising rather
:11:55. > :11:59.more questions than it answers. Earlier we spoke to the Finance
:12:00. > :12:04.Minister John Swinney. I began by pointing out that this afternoon,
:12:04. > :12:07.Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, and French President
:12:07. > :12:11.Nicolas Sarkozy called for harmonising business tax across the
:12:11. > :12:16.eurozone and suggested he was going in the opposite direction. A There
:12:16. > :12:20.are different corporation tax and business tax arrangements that
:12:20. > :12:25.exist within different jurisdictions. -- clearly, thereof.
:12:25. > :12:28.Countries are well accustomed to dealing with the fact that whilst
:12:28. > :12:32.they operate in International Cup - - markets, they paid different tax
:12:32. > :12:40.in different parts of the world. The fact we have an aspiration to
:12:40. > :12:50.put Scotland at a competitive advantage is our approach and our
:12:50. > :12:53.If you ever get your independent Scotland which would like to join
:12:54. > :12:58.the euro-zone, it is inconceivable that the other countries in the
:12:58. > :13:02.European Union would allow Scotland, which would hardly be a struggling
:13:02. > :13:07.former member of the Soviet bloc, the idea that it would lead
:13:07. > :13:12.Scotland joined the European Union with Irish style corporation tax is
:13:12. > :13:17.increasingly inconceivable. I don't accept that analysis. Across Europe
:13:17. > :13:21.you will have a multiplicity of different corporation tax rates,
:13:21. > :13:25.and that is just within the euro- zone, across the wider
:13:25. > :13:31.international community. So you think that Angela Merkel and
:13:31. > :13:35.Nicholas Sarkozy - that was just hot air? It is not the view that we
:13:36. > :13:40.take. It is not the view that countless other countries take of
:13:40. > :13:43.the aspiration to use a sensible approach to competition around
:13:43. > :13:48.business taxation to increase their competitive prospects. Therefore,
:13:48. > :13:50.their ability to create new employment in their economies and
:13:50. > :13:53.deliver economic growth. At the heart of what the Scottish
:13:53. > :13:56.government has been trying to do over last four years, and which
:13:56. > :14:02.would be at the heart of our administration for years to come,
:14:02. > :14:06.is to make the Scottish economy as successful and dynamic as possible.
:14:06. > :14:09.What is striking about your paper is that you don't produce any
:14:10. > :14:15.evidence for the assertions you make. Take the controversial idea
:14:15. > :14:18.that somehow or other lowering tax rates generates additional tax
:14:18. > :14:24.revenue. There is no evidence in your paper for that assertion
:14:24. > :14:29.whatsoever. The there is a number of studies that we site, studies
:14:29. > :14:36.that have emerged from analysis of economic policy by economists in
:14:36. > :14:41.the United States. Week site OECD analysis... Hang on, the whole
:14:41. > :14:47.point about this idea is that it depends on what the taxation rate
:14:47. > :14:51.is. There is a point at which the economy - macro economists who
:14:51. > :14:56.believe in this sort of stuff argue that lowering tax can generate more
:14:56. > :15:00.revenues, but you have to know what that point is, and you make no
:15:00. > :15:06.attempt to analyse, either in the context of the UK or in the context
:15:06. > :15:10.of Scotland. For example, there are some studies which have been done
:15:10. > :15:15.which say that the UK corporation tax now, never mind when George
:15:15. > :15:20.Osborne has finished producing them, are already way below the level at
:15:20. > :15:24.which your argument could have any effect. You said a moment ago that
:15:24. > :15:29.there was no evidence in the paper that lowering corporation tax can
:15:29. > :15:33.actually result in higher economic growth, and I have said that there
:15:33. > :15:37.is plenty of evidence in the studies that we have quoted. If you
:15:38. > :15:41.look at the analysis that has been worked on recently with the
:15:41. > :15:46.Northern Ireland Executive, which has looked at the fact that if
:15:46. > :15:50.Northern Ireland was to reduce its corporation tax it would lead to an
:15:50. > :15:57.increase of about 50,000 jobs in the north of Ireland, and would
:15:57. > :16:03.increase GDP by a 1%. These are substantial economic impacts. I
:16:03. > :16:06.think the analysis Marshalls that point very strongly, and makes it
:16:06. > :16:12.clear that there is a clear path that can be taken to improve
:16:12. > :16:16.competitiveness. But if the argument is that lowering taxes
:16:16. > :16:20.will generate more economic activity, and therefore reduce tax
:16:20. > :16:26.revenues, that is one thing. And stressing you don't have evidence
:16:26. > :16:31.for that. But if you are saying that lowering tax raised in one pot
:16:31. > :16:35.of the UK will increase GDP in that part of the UK basically by
:16:35. > :16:41.shifting economic activity around from Air -- from one area of the UK
:16:41. > :16:46.to another, is that really what you are saying? You want to get jobs
:16:46. > :16:52.into Scotland that would otherwise have been in England? No, a further
:16:52. > :16:57.piece of evidence, in addition to the OECD analysis, which reinforces
:16:57. > :17:01.the point that I am making about the economic impact of reducing
:17:01. > :17:04.corporation tax, but there are other aspirations about economic
:17:04. > :17:08.growth in Scotland and they are not fuelled by just what economic
:17:08. > :17:13.activity we would want to displace in other parts of the UK. It is
:17:13. > :17:16.about giving Scotland, in addition to the strength that we have, in
:17:16. > :17:20.relation to infrastructure and skills and people development
:17:20. > :17:23.within our country, that we can obtain competitive advantage
:17:23. > :17:28.through taxation in a global economy and try to attract the type
:17:28. > :17:32.of business that would ensure that Scotland is an attractive location
:17:32. > :17:35.to grow businesses. But you argue that if Northern Ireland get this
:17:36. > :17:40.power over corporation tax, then it is a matter of principle that
:17:40. > :17:43.Scotland should have this. Then you would presumably agree that as a
:17:44. > :17:48.matter of principle Wales and regions of England should have this.
:17:48. > :17:51.Your argument is that it is not fair that a business in Stornoway
:17:51. > :17:56.is disadvantaged by paying the same corporation tax as a business in
:17:56. > :18:02.London, but that applies equally to a business in Devon or Cornwall or
:18:02. > :18:05.rural areas of Northumbria. Presumably you would argue that
:18:05. > :18:09.English regions and Wales and Northern Ireland and Scotland
:18:09. > :18:15.should all have this? proposition I am advancing is on
:18:15. > :18:20.behalf of the Scottish government. I simply cite the evidence that has
:18:20. > :18:23.been discussed and used Northern Ireland as an example. The Scotland
:18:23. > :18:28.Bill Committee in the last Scottish parliament took the view that if
:18:28. > :18:32.this power was deployed to Northern Ireland, devolved in Northern
:18:32. > :18:37.Ireland, then it should also be devolved to Scotland into the
:18:37. > :18:42.bargain. I think Scotland would be in a stronger position if we had a
:18:42. > :18:46.wider range of fiscal levers at their disposal. But the point is,
:18:46. > :18:51.if regions of England and Wales and Northern Ireland and Scotland all
:18:51. > :18:55.did this, it is just self-defeating. The anything that would happen is
:18:55. > :19:01.there would be no more economic activity, but much less corporation
:19:01. > :19:06.tax revenue. I think that ignores the fact that Scotland is a
:19:06. > :19:10.jurisdiction in his own right. We have a certain range of tax powers
:19:10. > :19:14.at pressure -- present, and we will have more in the years to come. It
:19:14. > :19:21.also ignores the fact that there are competitive incentives and
:19:21. > :19:24.differences across different parts of the UK already. In 2007, as part
:19:24. > :19:28.of the SNP government, we introduced the most combative
:19:28. > :19:35.approach on small business rates, for example. I understand that, but
:19:35. > :19:40.your proposal only works if you and Northern Ireland get this. You seem
:19:40. > :19:43.to be accepting that people in the North of England would of course be
:19:43. > :19:47.saying there would like this, so you are saying this is self-
:19:47. > :19:52.defeating? The example of the north-east of England. I would not
:19:52. > :19:56.be surprised if the United Kingdom government, for example, decides to
:19:56. > :19:59.determine the north-east of England as Enterprise Zones as part of what
:19:59. > :20:05.they are taking forward, and that will more than likely give a
:20:05. > :20:09.preferential approach on business rates. But not on corporation tax.
:20:09. > :20:13.But on capital allowances, which is crucial around business investment.
:20:13. > :20:17.The point I am making to you is that already, within the UK, there
:20:17. > :20:24.are differences in the approach to corporation tax and incentives, so
:20:24. > :20:29.one port of the United Kingdom to the other -- one part. This
:20:29. > :20:33.proposal gives us the opportunity to seek a competitive exam --
:20:33. > :20:39.advantage for Scotland and use that to strengthen economic recovery in
:20:39. > :20:44.our country. Before we finish, a slight change of subject. Is it
:20:44. > :20:50.true this story in one newspaper this morning that you have made
:20:50. > :20:54.almost �60,000 profit from selling a house, on which you claim
:20:54. > :20:57.mortgage interest payments from the Scottish parliament? The Scottish
:20:57. > :21:00.parliament decided to establish a scheme that enables members of
:21:00. > :21:04.parliament to buy properties in Edinburgh and to have those
:21:04. > :21:10.mortgage payments supported by contributions from the Edinburgh
:21:10. > :21:14.allows scheme. Parliament decided to stop that arrangement. It
:21:14. > :21:19.consulted independently to determine what was the basis of
:21:19. > :21:22.winding up that scheme, and in that respect, I followed entirely the
:21:22. > :21:28.approach that was set out in that process. One of the important point
:21:28. > :21:32.of all of this is that any of the proceeds that I made on that sale
:21:32. > :21:39.is a liability for capital gains tax, which are well paid in full.
:21:39. > :21:44.Sure, but this is not just a legal matter. If you have made �60,000
:21:44. > :21:48.profit, which I notice you are not denying, you are the man - you are
:21:48. > :21:56.the man telling public sector workers in Scotland that they have
:21:56. > :21:59.got to have a pay freeze for two years. This chap has claimed all
:21:59. > :22:03.these men -- mortgage payments from the Scottish parliament, it just
:22:03. > :22:09.doesn't seem right in the current atmosphere that the very person
:22:09. > :22:14.asking them to make sacrifices made a profit which -- from something
:22:14. > :22:18.which has been subsidised by the taxpayer. The arrangements are put
:22:18. > :22:22.in place by Parliament in relation to the schemes that are available
:22:22. > :22:26.for members of parliament. We all follow them in good faith, people
:22:26. > :22:30.from all political parties. That is what I have done in good faith. I
:22:30. > :22:33.have followed the arrangements that were put in place to resolve that.
:22:33. > :22:38.I have done that to the letter, and there will be paying a substantial
:22:38. > :22:40.amount of tax in relation to that. These are the roles that were put
:22:40. > :22:45.in place and the arrangements that have to be followed as a
:22:46. > :22:51.consequence of all of that. John Swinney, thank you.
:22:51. > :22:56.A quick look at tomorrow's front pages. The court -- Guardian,