:00:34. > :00:38.Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. The Chancellor
:00:38. > :00:41.comes clean, sort of. Debt is rising and sorting out the deficit
:00:41. > :00:45.is taking longer than he hoped. What will that mean for tax and
:00:45. > :00:49.spend, especially welfare spend? We'll have the latest and get the
:00:49. > :00:52.Lib Dem view just three days before the Autumn Statement. As the dust
:00:52. > :00:56.settles on the Leveson Report and Ed Miliband repeats his call for
:00:56. > :01:03.press regulation by law, is Labour on the wrong side of the argument?
:01:03. > :01:06.We'll ask Harriet Harman. And he's the tough new Justice Secretary
:01:06. > :01:09.intent on making life hell for the criminal classes. That's the
:01:09. > :01:15.rhetoric. But how tough is Chris Grayling and will it make the
:01:15. > :01:18.streets safer? Coming up later on Sunday Politics Scotland: The First
:01:18. > :01:28.Minister joins us live to explain why he thinks we need a separate
:01:28. > :01:30.
:01:30. > :01:33.cross-party solution to the Leveson With me, as always, is the best and
:01:33. > :01:36.the brightest panel of political tweeters in the business. Isabell
:01:36. > :01:46.Oakeshott, Janan Ganesh and Nick Watt.; I can assure that all tweets
:01:46. > :01:46.
:01:46. > :35:54.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 2048 seconds
:35:54. > :35:58.And my position is different. But it is a matter for Parliament. What
:35:58. > :36:03.you are saying is that you might be asking Parliament to vote for
:36:03. > :36:09.something, no votes for prisoners, which she cannot Vote For Yourself
:36:09. > :36:15.Aug her Cabinet colleagues? Is that true? -- and her Cabinet colleagues.
:36:15. > :36:19.I am on the record. I have legal responsibility, it cannot be the
:36:19. > :36:24.Lord Chancellor and not uphold the law. You can try to change the law.
:36:24. > :36:27.I will take appropriate legal advice about what I can do.
:36:28. > :36:32.Fundamentally, this is a choice for Parliament and I have said, it
:36:33. > :36:37.would be very easy to simply accept the ruling but the legal basis is
:36:37. > :36:42.different, it says, as members of Parliament, you have the right to
:36:42. > :36:46.decide, yes or no. I am offering you the choice. Chris grayling,
:36:46. > :36:56.thank you very much for clarifying that. You are watching The Sunday
:36:56. > :36:57.
:36:57. > :36:59.Politics. Good morning and welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland. Coming
:36:59. > :37:06.up on the programme. Leveson regulation and devolution. Do we
:37:06. > :37:10.really need a separate Scottish solution? The First Minister joins
:37:10. > :37:12.us to explain why he wants a cross- party panel led by another judge to
:37:12. > :37:15.examine how the recommendations into the first judge-led inquiry
:37:15. > :37:19.should be handled. Also, should people be prosecuted if they pay
:37:19. > :37:22.for sex? An MSP and a former escort debate the pros and cons. And is
:37:22. > :37:29.this the last Christmas we'll be able to buy cheap booze? Just when
:37:29. > :37:32.will the minimum pricing law come into force? Scotland could be on
:37:32. > :37:36.the way to introducing different press regulation to the rest of the
:37:36. > :37:39.United Kingdom, if Alex Salmond's preferred system is adopted. The
:37:39. > :37:42.First Minister has invited MSPs to engage in all-party talks to reach
:37:42. > :37:44.consensus on how to keep the Scottish press in check, but the
:37:44. > :37:47.process already appears to be unravelling, with opponents saying
:37:47. > :37:57.they'll only take part if Alex Salmond does not. Christine MacLeod
:37:57. > :38:00.
:38:00. > :38:03.reports. Nine months and 2000 pages later, the long awaited inquiry
:38:03. > :38:07.into press standards by Lord Leveson has been published.
:38:07. > :38:13.Delivering his verdict on the press, he said their behaviour could only
:38:13. > :38:19.be described as a gritters. Or on too many occasions, those
:38:19. > :38:25.responsibilities along with the code of conduct which the press
:38:25. > :38:31.wrote and promoted, they have simply been ignored. This has
:38:31. > :38:36.damaged the public interest. Caused real hardship and, on occasion,
:38:36. > :38:41.wreaked havoc in the lives of innocent people. They away to
:38:41. > :38:46.prevent press harassment of victims in future, he suggested, was for
:38:46. > :38:50.the press to create its own regulator but he wants that backed
:38:50. > :38:56.up by a lot which he says would ensure independence. The body would
:38:56. > :39:00.have the power to require apologies and impose fines up to �1 million
:39:00. > :39:05.but the call has divided the Government. With the Deputy Prime
:39:05. > :39:09.Minister saying the new law is required to give legal teeth but
:39:09. > :39:14.the Prime Minister disagrees. should be wary of any legislation
:39:14. > :39:19.that has the potential to infringe free speech and the free press.
:39:19. > :39:22.is of the border, where Holyrood has responsibility for the press,
:39:22. > :39:27.tensions are also brewing. The First Minister has advocated a
:39:27. > :39:32.press regulator based on the Irish system with complaints ruled upon
:39:32. > :39:36.by an independent ombudsman and, like Leveson, require statute. Alex
:39:37. > :39:41.Salmond has offered cross-party talks but opposition parties are
:39:41. > :39:45.reluctant to take part if the First Minister is involved. They cite the
:39:45. > :39:52.criticisms of his proximity to the Murdoch family and News Corp in the
:39:52. > :39:57.past. He said that the relationship, the murky dealings, between the
:39:57. > :40:01.Murdoch family and Alex Salmond was an appropriate, he was trying to
:40:01. > :40:05.entice I UK minister to act unlawfully. Alexei Mansour es Lord
:40:05. > :40:11.Leveson's report has vindicated him from any wrongdoing over lobbying
:40:11. > :40:16.claims on behalf of News Corp. What now? Can the stand-off over cross-
:40:16. > :40:22.party talks be resolved and could Scotland end up with tougher press
:40:22. > :40:28.regulation than south of the border? Alex Salmond joins me.
:40:28. > :40:31.Thank you for joining us. You have said that the case for the Scot a
:40:31. > :40:41.solution is in our global and if we look at the work in practice, where
:40:41. > :40:45.
:40:45. > :40:48.would the jurisdiction for? -- fall. The case is set out and page 49
:40:48. > :40:54.other Leveson Report. It points out we have a different system of law
:40:54. > :40:57.in Scotland and he didn't have the opportunity to consider fully and
:40:57. > :41:00.he flings down the gauntlet to the appalled administration to consider
:41:00. > :41:05.how this report could be implemented in our administration
:41:05. > :41:08.if there is consensus to go ahead but the central recommendation.
:41:08. > :41:13.This is inescapable, it is the Scottish parliament's
:41:13. > :41:17.responsibility to consider this and see if we can come to some sort of
:41:18. > :41:21.consensus which does not same to be around in Westminster. A are you
:41:21. > :41:27.saying that this is a system which would take account of the specifics
:41:27. > :41:31.of Scottish lock in areas like defamation and cost? But it would
:41:31. > :41:37.be essentially the same as south of the border in terms of required
:41:37. > :41:40.obligations and punishment? have made the point yourself, our
:41:40. > :41:45.system is then a private law, defamation is different here
:41:45. > :41:49.because we have a different legal system. The Leveson underpinning is
:41:49. > :41:52.central to this concept of defamation, effectively given as
:41:53. > :41:57.self-regulated press certain privileges if the abide by that
:41:57. > :42:00.self-regulation. Since our system in Scotland is different, we have
:42:00. > :42:05.to consider how that central recommendation could be implemented
:42:05. > :42:09.in Scotland if we choose to go down that route and on I would said to
:42:09. > :42:13.the people questioning this is, there does seem to be two things
:42:13. > :42:17.and one of them is that Leveson has made the case that you can avoid
:42:17. > :42:22.having state regulation of the press, which I do not support, and
:42:22. > :42:25.I never will support, but you could have as statutory underpinning of
:42:25. > :42:29.self-regulation and still have a vigorous, free press. If you
:42:29. > :42:37.believe he has made that case by consensus, we have to work out how
:42:37. > :42:41.that could be applied in Scotland. How see? -- has he? I think he has.
:42:41. > :42:47.And when you look at the National examples, in the first example he
:42:47. > :42:51.chose to look at, it was the Irish model, the Irish opposition.
:42:51. > :42:56.Emerson has made that central argument but he has not carried the
:42:56. > :42:59.bulk of the press. -- Leveson. As we talk through these things, we
:42:59. > :43:05.can come to a better solution and a lot of people want to see a
:43:05. > :43:13.solution. Perhaps as we did it and discuss these things, we can get to
:43:13. > :43:21.that consensus. -- de be it. What if there is no legal underpinning?
:43:21. > :43:25.-- debate. The legal underpinning is very attractive because it has
:43:25. > :43:29.nothing to do with state regulation of the press and it gives a self-
:43:29. > :43:33.regulated system certain privileges under the lough. If it is abided by.
:43:33. > :43:35.There is a lot of attractions for the press with that and those in
:43:35. > :43:39.the press who instinctively have reacted against this have really
:43:39. > :43:44.got to answer the question of how the opera that system in Ireland,
:43:44. > :43:48.every single one of the Fleet Street titles, some of those who
:43:48. > :43:52.have objected to any system like that here, they actually operate in
:43:52. > :43:55.Ireland and I have not seen anybody suggest that the Fleet Street
:43:55. > :44:01.titles in Ireland or the Irish press has been under constraints
:44:01. > :44:04.over these last five years. That is the central difficulty for those
:44:04. > :44:10.who reacted against this. There are parts of the Leveson
:44:10. > :44:13.recommendations which I personally do not think are appropriate. His
:44:13. > :44:18.suggestion of OFCOM as the recognising body, that was bound to
:44:18. > :44:22.raise hackles because by definition, that is a creature of the state.
:44:22. > :44:28.That isn't the essence of the Leveson recommendation, the essence
:44:29. > :44:34.of the recommendation because it is a way to under 10 in lock as self-
:44:34. > :44:40.regulated body and therefore, free press. Would papers based in
:44:41. > :44:44.Scotland and papers selling in Scotland have to pay for that?
:44:45. > :44:48.the system will have to be paid for and it is self-regulating and it
:44:48. > :44:52.has to be paid for by the press, and the volume of work will be
:44:52. > :44:58.exactly the same. I fail to see how the system is going to be more
:44:58. > :45:06.expensive if it is operated on a Scottish basis. But they will pay
:45:06. > :45:12.twice? For Westminster and Scotland? Perhaps I can help. There
:45:12. > :45:18.isn't actually any difference, huge difference, in the nature of the
:45:18. > :45:20.type of regulation required. The central principles, even of the PCC,
:45:20. > :45:24.are totally admirable and the difference is whether that system
:45:24. > :45:30.should be enforced by some sort of statutory underpinning and there is
:45:30. > :45:32.no suggestion from anyone that the system of factual reporting of the
:45:32. > :45:36.availability of correction and access to a correction from people
:45:36. > :45:41.with no resources, which is fundamental, that isn't what is the
:45:41. > :45:46.issue, everybody agrees on that. The disagreement lies in how that
:45:46. > :45:52.could be underpinned or not. And if it is to be legally underpinned, it
:45:52. > :45:55.is inescapable, given it is our responsibility, it would have to be
:45:55. > :45:59.underpinned on a Scottish bases. But if you set up two different
:45:59. > :46:05.systems, the papers are paying twice? I don't want to go into this
:46:05. > :46:10.in great detail. Is that the proposition? Can I just... No, it's
:46:10. > :46:14.not. The proposition is the same system of regulation that the
:46:14. > :46:18.statutory underpinning has in the Scots Parliament. And I have not
:46:18. > :46:22.seen anybody substantially disagreeing on the nature of the
:46:22. > :46:25.regulation should be put forward. The principles are the same, the
:46:26. > :46:31.disagreement lies on where they should be some sort of statutory
:46:31. > :46:38.underpinning. The big question is the internet, whatever you do with
:46:38. > :46:41.the press, the internet remains a very big problem? It is a huge
:46:41. > :46:47.problem for everyone and Leveson has actually comparatively little
:46:47. > :46:52.to say about the internet. The question of regulation of the World
:46:52. > :46:56.Wide Web, that is impossible to regulate and those states to
:46:56. > :46:59.regulate that have serious questions to answer. The question
:46:59. > :47:03.over whether people are entitled to break the law on the internet is
:47:03. > :47:07.one already answered in Scotland in terms of the offensive behaviour
:47:07. > :47:10.Bill, you're not allowed to incite hatred or conduct threatening
:47:10. > :47:14.behaviour over the internet, there is no absolution from the law
:47:14. > :47:18.because you do something anonymously at 2 am. We have
:47:18. > :47:22.established that. The wider question of regulation, whether
:47:22. > :47:26.desirable for the World Wide Web, is a question which certainly has
:47:27. > :47:30.not been seriously addressed by Lord Leveson and it cannot be
:47:30. > :47:36.addressed in a free, democratic society. Now that you have had a
:47:36. > :47:40.chance to reflect on the comments by Lord Leveson, who do you accept
:47:40. > :47:47.that you are wrong to offer to lobby on News Corporation's behalf
:47:47. > :47:53.on the BSkyB bid takeover? A a I'm very content with the conclusions.
:47:53. > :47:59.Which say I cannot be criticised for what I did. He did not put any
:47:59. > :48:03.paragraph talking about the BBC, I am also satisfied that he accepts
:48:03. > :48:06.about question that my motivation was for Scottish jobs and
:48:06. > :48:16.investment and caused that incredibly pottable. I'm very happy
:48:16. > :48:18.
:48:18. > :48:23.with the conclusions. -- Wow double. For it by Mr... -- First Minister.
:48:23. > :48:29.What he said in those instances, what was said by Lord Leveson was,
:48:29. > :48:34.judged by what he did as opposed to what he said he was prepared to do,
:48:34. > :48:44.therefore he cannot be criticised. That is far more no-one's than full
:48:44. > :48:44.
:48:44. > :48:49.vindication. -- nuanced. You are motivated by a desire to help
:48:49. > :48:51.Scottish employment but how far is another matter, he lobbied on this
:48:51. > :48:57.and had the Culture Secretary acted upon this, it would have been the
:48:57. > :49:07.government decision unlawful. Yet again, that is far more new ones
:49:07. > :49:07.
:49:07. > :49:13.than complete vindication? -- nuanced. The he did not exempt the
:49:14. > :49:16.BBC from that criticism. It is right to have the First Minister
:49:16. > :49:22.looking at jobs and investment as a top priority and he did not
:49:22. > :49:26.question my motivation. Can I just point out that Lord Leveson makes a
:49:26. > :49:30.sweeping attack on the conduct of Conservative and Labour politicians
:49:30. > :49:35.over the last generation in operating against the public
:49:35. > :49:39.interest. Specifically, he exempts the government of devolved
:49:39. > :49:45.administration from a charge and he also partially exempts the Lib-Dems.
:49:45. > :49:48.If he were to take what Lord Leveson has said, every substantial
:49:48. > :49:52.government in opposition at Westminster, by the charge is
:49:52. > :49:56.accused by Lord Leveson of acting against the public interest over
:49:56. > :50:01.the last generation. I think we should note that he took the
:50:01. > :50:06.trouble and time and he knew what he was doing in exempting the
:50:06. > :50:09.governments of the devolved administration from that. But to be
:50:09. > :50:13.clear run this point, that he said he accepted what you're doing was
:50:13. > :50:17.appropriate, because you are lobbying for a Scottish jobs, what
:50:18. > :50:22.he said was that Mr Salmond's duty to promote the economy and Scottish
:50:22. > :50:27.jobs cannot sensibly be understood as requiring a relevant submissions
:50:27. > :50:31.to be made to acquire side judicial decision maker. The Culture
:50:31. > :50:36.Secretary was not entitled to consider considerations of jobs and
:50:36. > :50:39.the only test was plurality of media ownership. With that
:50:40. > :50:49.suggestion, you were either unwilling or unable to see some
:50:50. > :50:52.
:50:52. > :50:58.Well, this is a question about the Scottish Ministry. -- in a Scottish
:50:59. > :51:04.ministerial code. This was to support jobs and investment. Lord
:51:04. > :51:08.Leveson describes it as Leveson -- as laudable. He concluded that they
:51:08. > :51:13.cannot be criticised. We can argue about what the Scottish ministerial
:51:13. > :51:18.code does but that overarching commitment is there. Leveson says
:51:18. > :51:25.he doesn't judge on ministerial codes, precisely to defend Scottish
:51:25. > :51:29.jobs and investment. If you think that... The Scottish Ministerial
:51:29. > :51:38.Code was not relevant in this regard. What I am suggesting to
:51:38. > :51:43.you... This suggests... We have got a two second delay. I am sorry, it
:51:43. > :51:49.is not satisfactory. What I am suggesting is that it demonstrates
:51:49. > :51:53.flawed judgment, in both offering to lobby and also in entertaining
:51:53. > :51:57.personally entertaining Rupert Murdoch in Bute House after the
:51:57. > :52:01.Milly Dowler hacking had been established. I am suggesting to you
:52:01. > :52:05.this demonstrates a fraud error of judgment which also allows your
:52:05. > :52:11.opponents to speak to your motives. What I am asking you is if your
:52:11. > :52:15.interest is in public confidence in the system, should you not
:52:15. > :52:22.Stepaside now and let Nicola Sturgeon lead? In order to shore up
:52:23. > :52:27.public confidence? Let's be clear. You are not citing something that
:52:27. > :52:31.is said by Lord Leveson but by my political opponents. And if it was
:52:31. > :52:36.up to them, I would not be First Minister but thankfully that is up
:52:36. > :52:41.to the people. One of the reasons they elected me is they know that I
:52:41. > :52:46.will stand up for Scottish jobs, investment. Something that Lord
:52:46. > :52:50.Leveson totally accepted. That was my aim and intent in the actions I
:52:50. > :52:54.took. Lord Leveson also says just for the avoidance of any doubt
:52:54. > :52:58.whatsoever that my actions could not be criticised. No doubt, my
:52:58. > :53:02.political opponents would like to fight the election again and not
:53:02. > :53:07.lose it, but all political parties looking at the public interest rate
:53:07. > :53:12.now, they are rising to Leveson's challenge and see if we wish to see
:53:12. > :53:15.some form of statutory underpinning of self regulation of a free press,
:53:15. > :53:20.how we can rise to that challenge on a Scottish bases and find a
:53:20. > :53:24.solution, not least of which for the element of Scottish victims, of
:53:24. > :53:28.people who feel they have been badly treated by the press. And I
:53:28. > :53:34.think the general willingness of press and public to find a better
:53:34. > :53:36.solution. So, why don't we rise to that challenge laid down by Lord
:53:36. > :53:42.Leveson and see-through can make progress in interest of the people
:53:42. > :53:45.of Scotland. Just before we leave it, what I would suggest you and
:53:45. > :53:50.what has come through in the report is that it wasn't about what you
:53:50. > :53:56.did but what you were prepared to do. People can read what Lord
:53:56. > :54:03.Leveson has said in detail. Do you want to maintain this position that
:54:03. > :54:11.you have been totally vindicated? Except Lord Leveson's conclusion
:54:11. > :54:16.that I cannot be criticised. -- I accept. I draw to your attention so
:54:16. > :54:23.stricter that buoy Leveson gave across government and opposition
:54:23. > :54:27.parties for the last generation for which he examines the Scottish
:54:27. > :54:31.administration of not operating in the public's interest, so we should
:54:31. > :54:37.operate in the public interest and try to find a sensible way forward
:54:37. > :54:42.which protects a vigorous, self regulated press, and the interest
:54:42. > :54:49.of our people. Let's address our minds in a positive way to do this.
:54:49. > :54:52.Thank you very much indeed. Joining me now is the leader of the
:54:53. > :55:01.Scottish Tories and the leader of Scottish Labour. Will you take part
:55:01. > :55:05.in these talks? We agreed that once we have read this, we will talk
:55:05. > :55:08.about the regulations. Resentful because of what we're doing is
:55:08. > :55:12.about the interest of those victims, those people who feel the press has
:55:12. > :55:16.been allowed to behave in a way that has caused them pain and
:55:16. > :55:23.suffering. One thing we should remember is that Lord Leveson had
:55:23. > :55:26.no particular interest. His voice is an independent voice. It is
:55:26. > :55:31.speaking out for the victims so we will take part in all-party talks.
:55:31. > :55:35.But you have been critical of Alex Salmond leading them. It is
:55:35. > :55:39.astonishing, watching that. He should reflect on what Lord Leveson
:55:39. > :55:43.said because Lord Leveson has criticised him more than any
:55:43. > :55:49.politician in his report. I am happy to say that all political
:55:49. > :55:54.parties became afraid of the owners and editors and tried to manage
:55:54. > :56:01.that prices but the fact of the matter is that Alex Salmond, the
:56:01. > :56:04.only reason he didn't act was because the bid was withdrawn so
:56:04. > :56:09.although he cannot be criticised for what he did, we do know that in
:56:09. > :56:14.terms of what to Rupert Murdoch's people said, he stood ready to act
:56:14. > :56:22.on behalf of Rupert Murdoch. He should be honest about his flawed
:56:23. > :56:30.judgment. There were two things. He says he won an election and he
:56:30. > :56:35.cannot be criticised. And he can't be criticised because the burglar
:56:35. > :56:39.alarm went off, he didn't break through the door. You can criticise
:56:40. > :56:44.somebody for their intent. He made it clear he was intending to ask UK
:56:44. > :56:48.government ministers to act in an unlawful manner. There was severe
:56:48. > :56:53.criticism put on record by Lord Justice Leveson of the conduct of
:56:53. > :57:00.our First Minister and he has to accept that. Words like striking,
:57:00. > :57:04.Lord Leveson's words, it was real criticism. It is astonishing he has
:57:04. > :57:08.not reflected on that and realise he has to step back from these
:57:08. > :57:13.talks allow somebody not tainted by that criticism to lead. And if he
:57:13. > :57:18.does not? I am happy to work with all the parties. We have to find a
:57:18. > :57:23.workable solution. But I will use the talks on Thursday to ask Alex
:57:23. > :57:28.Salmond to reflect on his behaviour. He has been in Scottish politics
:57:28. > :57:32.for an awfully long time and even he must look at himself and think,
:57:32. > :57:37."Really? And My the best person to speak on behalf of the Scottish
:57:37. > :57:44.Government?" at he has been severely criticised, he is not the
:57:44. > :57:48.right person to lead. Briefly, your problem is that if we are going to
:57:48. > :57:58.down people by association with Rupert Murdoch, your parties have
:57:58. > :57:59.
:57:59. > :58:02.both been damaged. Is it party point-scoring? I think that
:58:02. > :58:07.everybody has to reflect on their relationship with the press. I can
:58:07. > :58:12.explain to you that after being traduced in 1992 by one particular
:58:12. > :58:17.newspaper, our party became too cautious in the wake they dealt
:58:17. > :58:25.with the press. I recognise that. I think that has been a wake-up call
:58:25. > :58:29.for everybody. No one could have heard the story about Milly
:58:29. > :58:34.Dowler's family, thinking there was some chance she was alive without
:58:34. > :58:39.their stomach turning. What I am saying is this is an opportunity
:58:39. > :58:43.through all party talks to do what we can to make sure the press has
:58:43. > :58:48.freedom to operate but also that victims of the press should have
:58:48. > :58:54.recourse. Should there be statutory underpinning? I do not believe
:58:54. > :59:00.there should. I think if we see or we should be cautious about having
:59:00. > :59:03.that. We haven't had any form of law written which underwrites the
:59:04. > :59:07.process of holding the press to account. I think that we need a
:59:07. > :59:11.free press, not just in Scotland but across the UK. It is important
:59:11. > :59:15.we have that. I think Lord Leveson's key recommendations about
:59:15. > :59:18.the conduct of the press can be taken forward without that
:59:18. > :59:23.statutory element. We are almost out of time. Statutory underpinning
:59:23. > :59:28.or not? It as an opportunity for the press to solve regulate but
:59:28. > :59:32.with an underpinning which allows people we dress at times they feel
:59:32. > :59:35.they have been badly treated. We cannot have the current position
:59:35. > :59:41.where the press could behave as they chose and those who felt
:59:41. > :59:44.victims had nowhere to go. We need to move forward on that basis.
:59:44. > :59:50.without the statutory underpinning, you cannot enforce anyone turning
:59:50. > :59:55.up. That is why I said I recognise that what Lord Leveson suggests is
:59:55. > :59:59.a good way forward. There is a lot of sabre-rattling about what that
:59:59. > :00:02.might mean. It is actually an opportunity for the press to be
:00:02. > :00:12.able to do the job they want to do and have the confidence of the
:00:12. > :00:17.
:00:17. > :00:20.people to do it. Thank you both. The Chancellor George Osborne has
:00:20. > :00:25.said the rich will have to pay their fair share to help reduce the
:00:25. > :00:28.deficit. Speaking ahead of his Autumn Statement this week, he
:00:28. > :00:32.admitted that efforts to reduce the deficit and return the economy to
:00:32. > :00:37.growth are taking longer than anyone would have hoped. Our
:00:37. > :00:42.correspondent reports. The economic road ahead is likely
:00:42. > :00:46.to be more bumpy than the Chancellor has previously suggested
:00:46. > :00:50.despite his smiles today. He has acknowledged he is set to miss one
:00:50. > :00:53.of his main targets - to reduce debt as a share of national income
:00:53. > :00:57.by the next election. We have got to deal with the deficit which will
:00:57. > :01:01.take longer, which means more difficult decisions. It has got to
:01:01. > :01:06.be done fairly. So the richest have to bear their fair share and they
:01:06. > :01:11.will. We will also tackle welfare bills, and that is the conservative
:01:11. > :01:15.approach. Make the rich pay but make sure you're tackling welfare,
:01:15. > :01:19.which is deeply unfair. Labour has once again accused the Chancellor
:01:19. > :01:25.of being reckless by failing to change course, given the lack of
:01:25. > :01:29.economic growth. I think the idea you will be freezing unemployment
:01:29. > :01:34.benefits and -- cutting tax credits or giving tax cuts for millionaires
:01:34. > :01:38.is a question of trousers and priorities. The Chancellor says
:01:38. > :01:41.Labour's plans to spend more would undermine the credibility of
:01:41. > :01:45.Britain's deficit reduction plan, something he argues would be
:01:45. > :01:50.catastrophic. Instead, the speculation which must Osborne
:01:50. > :01:57.wouldn't confirm today that he could put tax relief on pensions
:01:57. > :02:00.and free some benefits. Tadman suicide bombers have attacked the
:02:00. > :02:05.US air base in eastern Afghanistan this morning. They struck at the
:02:05. > :02:10.airfield in Jalalabad driving two car bombs at the entrance and
:02:10. > :02:18.sparking a two hour gun battle with the UN forces. What more can you
:02:18. > :02:22.tell us? This was a complex, co- ordinated attack involving up to
:02:23. > :02:27.nine a suicide bombers. They came with vehicles laden with explosives
:02:27. > :02:30.and also on food. They tried to storm the perimeter of the base.
:02:30. > :02:35.They didn't manage to get through although they attacked
:02:35. > :02:38.simultaneously from several directions. They were fought off by
:02:38. > :02:44.security forces at the entrance. The Taliban came with heavy weapons
:02:44. > :02:48.including rocket-propelled grenades. Major fought back with helicopters.
:02:48. > :02:52.Local police tell us to civilians were killed, four members of Afghan
:02:52. > :02:57.special forces. And Afghan officials are investigating if any
:02:57. > :03:01.of those people could have been victims of so-called friendly fire.
:03:01. > :03:05.May to say they are co-operating in that investigation. Further proof
:03:05. > :03:09.the Taliban retained the ability to strike hard in spite of repeated
:03:09. > :03:17.claims from later and Afghan officials that they have been
:03:17. > :03:23.weakened. -- claims from NATO. David Beckham has signed off his
:03:23. > :03:27.days by helping his team win the Championship in America. You didn't
:03:27. > :03:30.get on the scoresheet but said he had enjoyed his six years in the
:03:30. > :03:40.States. He is now looking for another club to finish his career
:03:40. > :03:41.
:03:41. > :03:45.with. That is all the news for now. There is more at 5:50pm.
:03:46. > :03:48.Good afternoon. The First Minister has invited
:03:48. > :03:51.opposition party leaders to meet with him next Thursday to discuss
:03:51. > :03:52.how the Leveson report into press standards could be implemented in
:03:52. > :03:58.Scotland. The Scottish Conservatives and Scottish Labour
:03:58. > :04:00.leaders say it is time. Alex Salmond told a Scottish regulation
:04:00. > :04:09.was needed because of different legal systems and saddled Leveson
:04:09. > :04:13.had highlighted the do something that should be considered. We need
:04:13. > :04:17.to consider how his report can be implemented in our administration
:04:17. > :04:21.if there is a consensus to go ahead with the central recommendation
:04:22. > :04:25.that this is inescapable. It is these Kurdish Parliament's
:04:25. > :04:29.responsibility to consider it and to see if we can come to some sort
:04:29. > :04:33.of consensus. The Ministry of Defence says it will not comment on
:04:33. > :04:37.reports that plans to build an army garrison in the outskirts of
:04:37. > :04:40.Edinburgh are being scrapped. A review of army bases is underway
:04:40. > :04:43.and an announcement's due soon. The Sunday Times' claim that a new
:04:43. > :04:46.garrison at Kirknewton won't be built has been dismissed as
:04:46. > :04:50.speculation. The MoD say they expect to see a major army presence
:04:50. > :04:53.at Leuchars and Kinloss and more naval personnel at Faslane.
:04:53. > :04:58.The Yes Scotland campaign say they plan to recruit a teenager to sit
:04:58. > :05:01.on their advisory board ahead of the independence referendum. The
:05:01. > :05:04.group is advertising on its website urging teens to apply. They say
:05:04. > :05:08.someone from that age group will help to shape their approach
:05:08. > :05:12.towards the referendum as 16 and 17 year olds will be voting for the
:05:12. > :05:21.first time. And now time for the forecast with
:05:21. > :05:26.It was another cold and frosty morning but this afternoon they
:05:26. > :05:32.should be a good amount of sunshine around. The cloud works in from
:05:32. > :05:36.viewers turning the sunshine hazy. Temperatures for many, two or 3.
:05:36. > :05:44.Later tonight, we have snow in the forecast and the Met Office warning
:05:44. > :05:49.is in force. The rain works its way in, turning to snow. It could be on
:05:49. > :05:52.the lower levels, too. We should see some in Glasgow. The snow
:05:52. > :06:02.likely to last through Stirling and Perth Show through tomorrow morning.
:06:02. > :06:04.
:06:04. > :06:06.That's it for the moment, I'll now Should people who pay for sex be
:06:06. > :06:09.prosecuted? At the moment, while there are a number of offences
:06:09. > :06:17.linked to prostitution, it is technically legal to buy sex. But a
:06:17. > :06:20.consultation is underway on plans to change this. It comes amid a
:06:20. > :06:22.debate over how the new single police force will cope with the
:06:22. > :06:25.different approaches to the sex industry in Scotland's cities. BBC
:06:25. > :06:28.Scotland's investigation team have been taking a look at the issue.
:06:28. > :06:32.Here's Fiona Walker. In Edinburgh they have son us, it what is
:06:32. > :06:37.described as pragmatic. Then Glasgow it is zero tolerance and an
:06:37. > :06:41.Aberdeen, the middle way but police trying other options before arrest.
:06:41. > :06:45.The a 40s in each city believe their way is the right one. But
:06:45. > :06:50.soon, Scotland's eight police forces will become one. How will it
:06:50. > :06:54.change the way the police in this area is approach prostitution?
:06:54. > :06:58.you move towards the national fours, we would be looking to develop a
:06:58. > :07:05.strategy which will address prostitution across Scotland. It
:07:05. > :07:10.will not be easy. It will be a challenge but with the support of
:07:10. > :07:15.all other forces and with other organisations, who work with
:07:15. > :07:22.victims, and two are engaged with victims and other groups who are
:07:22. > :07:26.involved in prostitution, hopefully we can go to tackling the demand.
:07:26. > :07:34.it is evident from a quick look online that there is sex for sale
:07:34. > :07:40.everywhere. It's not always obvious what is legal. Here is what the law
:07:40. > :07:44.says - paying for sex between two consenting adults is legal. As long
:07:44. > :07:49.as you're not working on the street or in a brothel. And five years ago,
:07:49. > :07:54.kerb-crawling became illegal, so clients of street prostitutes also
:07:54. > :07:57.faced criminal charges. Until now, the prostitutes have been
:07:57. > :08:04.criminalised more than clients and the number of women convicted last
:08:04. > :08:09.year under prostitution offences was 117. 83 men were convicted,
:08:09. > :08:15.either for soliciting, kerb- crawling or other related offences.
:08:15. > :08:19.That can be about to change. provide companionship and sometimes
:08:19. > :08:23.sexual services for gentlemen. Laura is a prostitute who works
:08:23. > :08:29.legally as an escort. But proposals for consultation at the moment in
:08:29. > :08:34.the person paying for sex could be the one committing crime. In is
:08:34. > :08:39.going to criminalise consenting adults indulging in paid sex.
:08:39. > :08:44.wrong. And it is Miss guiding and has been ill-informed. It will
:08:44. > :08:48.drive a further wedge between us and the police because as things
:08:48. > :08:53.stand at the moment, we have an excellent working relationship with
:08:53. > :08:58.police. So on in Holyrood said the proposals would just not work. --
:08:58. > :09:02.some in Hollywood. I would hate to go into that in a court from to try
:09:02. > :09:06.to decide what constitutes payment and what does not. And the great
:09:06. > :09:11.thing in this is to get a conviction against a man, because
:09:11. > :09:16.it's about criminalising the male partner, the female partner would
:09:16. > :09:21.have to give evidence and she will not. By pure they believe it could
:09:21. > :09:27.cut demand in the sex trade. Were any to remember that research shows
:09:27. > :09:33.that most men don't buy sex. So the men in Scotland who are choosing to
:09:33. > :09:39.buy sex, they are part of a criminal chain, if you like. A what
:09:39. > :09:44.this debate shows is that with some people taking a moral stance, bands
:09:44. > :09:48.of -- and Others one of tolerance, the so-called oldest profession is
:09:48. > :09:53.still can finding another old profession. Politics. --
:09:53. > :09:56.confounding. And you can listen to Fiona's radio documentary on the
:09:56. > :09:59.iPlayer, that's The Investigation: Sex for Sale. I'm joined now by
:09:59. > :10:01.Rhoda Grant, the Scottish Labour MSP who is proposing a change in
:10:01. > :10:05.the law, and the former escort Brooke Magnanti, also known as
:10:05. > :10:08.Belle de Jour, whose blog on her experiences as an escort caused a
:10:08. > :10:17.media stir. She's also patron of Scot Pep, a charity which supports
:10:17. > :10:21.sex workers. Rhoda Grant, how do you respond to the observation that
:10:21. > :10:24.this cannot stack up in court because he could not prove it?
:10:24. > :10:30.think you can prove it and that will be one of the challenges of
:10:30. > :10:34.drawing up the bill. And one of the outcomes of the consultation
:10:34. > :10:38.process, because obviously am asking people how they think the
:10:38. > :10:45.reports would be created and what definitions would be required. I
:10:45. > :10:50.think of it was Ann Nicholl, of course it could stack up in court.
:10:50. > :10:55.As you said earlier, there are convictions already. So this would
:10:55. > :10:59.be no different. What about the argument that the effect would be
:10:59. > :11:02.to endanger some women working on the street because of a drive it
:11:02. > :11:07.underground? It was not drive it underground because it would have
:11:07. > :11:12.to remain visible to people who purchase. Women involved in
:11:13. > :11:17.prostitution at the moment are in danger, their life expectancy is
:11:18. > :11:23.lower than women from other walks of life and they face abuse,
:11:23. > :11:27.assault, rape on a daily basis. To say they're not being abused at the
:11:27. > :11:32.moment and somehow criminalising the purchase of sex would mean they
:11:32. > :11:36.would be abused, that does not make any sense whatsoever. Brooke, it is
:11:36. > :11:40.a matter of fact that women working as prostitutes are abused daily and
:11:40. > :11:47.it is a very dangerous business? There a abuses in every industry
:11:47. > :11:50.and in that case, the sex industry is no different from food services,
:11:50. > :11:54.agriculture, there are cases of exploitation in literally every
:11:54. > :12:00.industry. Are there than that prostitutes are regularly beaten
:12:00. > :12:05.and raped, their mental health is compromised... Define right
:12:05. > :12:08.Committee. If you are talking about the small but Ted -- percentage
:12:08. > :12:12.coursed into working as sex workers, that is the case, but the vast
:12:12. > :12:16.majority choose to do so. As long as we have good relationships and
:12:16. > :12:20.feel if we are in an abusive relationship, we can go to the
:12:20. > :12:25.police, as was said, we need to preserve that link and that is
:12:25. > :12:28.something that if we were looking at a police force across Scotland,
:12:28. > :12:35.we would want to look carefully at what has worked in the Aberdeen
:12:35. > :12:38.area rather than Glasgow with zero Paul Ince -- 0 Torrens. This law
:12:38. > :12:42.has existed for several years in Scotland and we have seen how they
:12:42. > :12:45.have proceeded with evidence gathering, submitting women to
:12:45. > :12:49.unwanted genital cheques to collect evidence for the cases they bring
:12:49. > :12:54.against men. That his state sanctioned sexual assault and it
:12:54. > :13:02.should not happen here, we should not put the safety and well-being
:13:02. > :13:05.of these women behind some in the logical argument. -- idiom logical.
:13:05. > :13:10.Do you accept that the majority of women working as prostitutes are
:13:10. > :13:17.doing so of their own volition? No, of most of the women are doing it
:13:17. > :13:21.because they are coursed, I want them... I want them -- it is
:13:21. > :13:25.because of their own poverty and a lot of the one that I speak to feel
:13:25. > :13:28.there is no option open to them and some people have even said that it
:13:28. > :13:32.should be acceptable for poor women to be prostitutes because that
:13:32. > :13:37.keeps them off the dole queue. I don't find that acceptable. What
:13:37. > :13:44.about them and making this choice, consciously and from their own
:13:44. > :13:48.volition? I have some difficulty with making a difference between
:13:48. > :13:52.them because what they say is, by making this decision consciously,
:13:52. > :13:56.of my own volition, and I really don't care about the mass -- the
:13:56. > :14:04.vast majority of women working as prostitutes who don't have that
:14:04. > :14:08.free will. They seem to ignore the needs of those people. The solution
:14:08. > :14:12.is to try to establish as many banks as possible with healthcare
:14:12. > :14:15.and services for people that want them and with police, so that women
:14:15. > :14:19.working in prostitution can continue to count on the support of
:14:19. > :14:23.the police. There is nothing in this Bill which changes the
:14:23. > :14:27.circumstances by which women enter sex work. We really want to be
:14:27. > :14:30.looking at women entering this because they have a financial need
:14:30. > :14:35.or because they have a drug addiction, what are the basic
:14:35. > :14:41.causes because people are being coerced, address at first, and laid
:14:41. > :14:46.the sex trade open for people like me, who freely chose that. Leading
:14:46. > :14:49.people into the sex trade, because there are purchasers, and that
:14:49. > :14:53.becomes a very obvious solution to a very difficult problem, if there
:14:53. > :14:57.was no purchaser, if they were criminalised, there would be no
:14:57. > :15:02.demand and therefore people would not be led into this and I find it
:15:02. > :15:09.very difficult to understand why somebody, knowing the damage can do,
:15:09. > :15:13.cancer, I need my freedom of choice. The end to man it has not worked in
:15:13. > :15:18.Sweden, the UN said last month that Sweden is putting sex workers in
:15:18. > :15:23.danger and they are sitting on a timebomb of he Chidi. On the day
:15:23. > :15:31.after World Aids Day, this is something we have to keep in mind.
:15:31. > :15:36.-- HIV. I want to pick up on one element, human trafficking. If this
:15:36. > :15:40.Bill goes through, it will have a very specific potential outcome in
:15:40. > :15:45.terms of stopping human trafficking. Influencing human trafficking and
:15:45. > :15:49.monitoring that? What ING sex workers and clients are the best
:15:49. > :15:57.source police have for information about trafficking. They provide
:15:57. > :16:01.tip-offs. With pentameter, the police have not been able to find
:16:01. > :16:04.these masses of sex traffic workers that people claim and we need to
:16:04. > :16:09.keep those lines of communication open, not by criminalising the
:16:09. > :16:15.industry. We are out of town, I'm very sorry. Thank you both very
:16:15. > :16:19.much indeed. It's meant to save lives and cut the harm caused by
:16:19. > :16:22.alcohol. The Scottish Government's flagship bill to introduce a
:16:22. > :16:24.minimum unit price was hailed by campaigners and it looks like
:16:24. > :16:27.Westminster could now follow suit. But long-running concerns that the
:16:27. > :16:29.policy is unlawful are now being given a full airing. Ministers'
:16:29. > :16:32.lawyers are facing twin legal challenges. Andrew Kerr reports on
:16:32. > :16:41.a policy that passed the democratic hurdles but could still be felled
:16:41. > :16:45.by legal argument. It could be the last Christmas for no price alcohol
:16:45. > :16:50.if the minimum price legislation survives. The first legal challenge
:16:50. > :16:53.is in Brussels, where the European Commission issued a critical
:16:53. > :16:57.opinion, and that Scottish Government has to respond by the
:16:57. > :17:02.end of the month. The minimum unit pricing is a disproportionate
:17:02. > :17:07.response to the health problem and that it breaches EU laws on free
:17:07. > :17:13.trade... The Commission is concern to because of the effect that it
:17:13. > :17:16.might have on imports into Scotland of alcoholic products and that is
:17:16. > :17:21.why we have seen a number of wine producers from a number of
:17:21. > :17:25.countries, including Italy and France, have actually added their
:17:25. > :17:30.complaint to that already voiced by the Scottish Whisky Association and
:17:31. > :17:34.others. As they stayed there do in Brussels, the Scotch Whisky
:17:34. > :17:39.Association pursues a second legal challenge in Scotland and a
:17:39. > :17:43.judicial review will be head at the go -- held at the Court of Session.
:17:43. > :17:49.The association believes the policy goes beyond Holyrood and will never
:17:49. > :17:53.see the light of day. They will not introduce minimum pricing until all
:17:53. > :17:58.the legal processes are finished so even if the Court of Session rules
:17:58. > :18:02.next year, the chances are that this will go on to other courts, in
:18:02. > :18:06.the UK or in Brussels, and until that is finished, there will be no
:18:06. > :18:09.minimum price in Scotland. The charity alcohol focus submitted
:18:10. > :18:15.evidence to the court to back up the government view and they also
:18:15. > :18:21.are prepared for a long fight. case could go to the Supreme Court.
:18:21. > :18:25.In the UK. It could also go to the European Court of Justice. The
:18:25. > :18:30.alcohol industry is falling -- following in the footsteps of
:18:30. > :18:35.tobacco by seeking to delay factor legislation by that beano will save
:18:35. > :18:40.lives in Scotland. Campaigners like alcohol focus have welcomed a
:18:40. > :18:44.second ally, the UK Government is consulting on a minimum price for
:18:44. > :18:53.England and Wales. It is now possible that political
:18:53. > :18:56.considerations could override legal concerns, at least in Brussels.
:18:56. > :19:00.We're try to reach compromises across partners and of the UK games
:19:00. > :19:04.and this, they might be expected to give something away that they would
:19:04. > :19:09.otherwise prefer not to. In the European context, politics can play
:19:09. > :19:11.a big part but as for Edinburgh, politician will have to sit on the
:19:11. > :19:15.sidelines and watch lawyers debating the lough at Holyrood
:19:15. > :19:18.which it has already passed. Joining me from our Edinburgh
:19:19. > :19:23.studio is the SNP's MSP Christine Grahame, who is also a lawyer and
:19:23. > :19:27.convener of the Justice Committee. Thank you very much for talking to
:19:27. > :19:32.us today. There is an interesting interpretation that this might
:19:32. > :19:35.become more about politics than the law but you are hoping for some
:19:35. > :19:39.definitively the judgment? I don't thing there is a problem with
:19:39. > :19:42.having his legal challenges. I sat as chair of the health committee
:19:42. > :19:47.when we dealt with the earlier legislation which was opposed by
:19:47. > :19:51.the Unionist parties and the anticipated these challenges. But
:19:51. > :19:58.remember, the Scottish actor has the certificate of competence from
:19:58. > :20:01.the presiding officer which says it is... It will be challenged but we
:20:01. > :20:05.have always anticipated the European Commission, which said it
:20:05. > :20:10.was against competitiveness. European legislation isn't fixed
:20:10. > :20:14.and that by, there are delegations, if you can establish that there are
:20:14. > :20:17.health and social benefits, from introducing this legislation and
:20:17. > :20:22.there are huge health benefits to the Scottish public by introducing
:20:22. > :20:27.minimum unit pricing, huge financial benefits, not least that
:20:27. > :20:37.it costs us all about �900 each year for each person for all the
:20:37. > :20:41.
:20:41. > :20:45.So, meaning within the powers of the Scottish government? Yes.
:20:45. > :20:48.Talking about the health benefits, you have to show you would not be
:20:48. > :20:51.able to achieve these health benefits by any other means and
:20:51. > :20:54.that this is proportionate, and are you confident you can show there's
:20:54. > :21:02.nothing else you could have done which would introduce the same
:21:02. > :21:06.health benefits? It is part of the package. It is not a silver bullet.
:21:06. > :21:13.Minimum unit pricing will attack very low cost, cheap got rotting
:21:13. > :21:20.alcohol, such as the own-brand -- own brand gin and vodka, which are
:21:20. > :21:24.so bad, in terms of beer and so, can be cheaper than water. Probably
:21:24. > :21:32.the wine producers of France are concerned, but it isn't the wine
:21:32. > :21:36.producers of France that alcohol will be the cause, but it is the
:21:36. > :21:40.cheap brand alcohols which leads to abusive drinking. We have looked at
:21:40. > :21:44.all the measures and I am pleased to see the UK is following
:21:44. > :21:48.Scotland's suit because remember that the Conservatives and the Lib
:21:48. > :21:53.Dems were opposed to it and now they have turned around to agree to
:21:53. > :21:58.it. Of course, that makes it that much easier. All Labour abstained
:21:58. > :22:02.on this particular legislation, which is a mystery to me, but we
:22:02. > :22:07.now have the bulk of the political parties behind us across the UK.
:22:07. > :22:13.Scotland led the way. And we will ultimately be successful in any
:22:13. > :22:16.European challenge. If you don't mind, it looks like Westminster
:22:16. > :22:22.might go on public order, so is the public health argument more
:22:22. > :22:25.persuasive? I think public health is more persuasive because of
:22:25. > :22:29.Scotland's very abysmal record on liver disease and so on, much
:22:29. > :22:36.higher than anywhere else in the world, and one person in three, as
:22:36. > :22:42.I understand, there is a huge death rate in Scotland from alcohol abuse.
:22:42. > :22:46.What we are looking at is a substantial, long-running problem.
:22:47. > :22:52.In terms of criminal justice, there are huge issues about domestic
:22:52. > :22:57.abuse, violence on the streets, aggression, all fuelled by alcohol.
:22:57. > :23:01.All of this together are very important. When might this actually
:23:01. > :23:07.kick in? How long is a piece of string? We know when things go to
:23:07. > :23:12.Europe, it is not on the fastest -- fast track, but a marker has been
:23:12. > :23:15.made on this issue. The UK Government is following suit, which
:23:15. > :23:22.is very interesting. And, with that, we may now have more political
:23:22. > :23:30.class ought. Potentially years, do you think? I suspect it may be a
:23:30. > :23:36.year or two. Yes. Thank you very much indeed.
:23:37. > :23:39.Now it's that time of the day where we take a look at the week ahead.
:23:39. > :23:41.In our other Edinburgh studio, we have the political commentator and
:23:42. > :23:45.newspaper columnist, Iain Macwhirter. And here with me, the
:23:45. > :23:51.Spectator journalist and blogger, Alex Massie.
:23:51. > :23:56.Thank you both indeed for coming in. If we look at what could be
:23:56. > :23:59.happening in terms of press regulation post Leveson, could be a
:23:59. > :24:03.different system North and South of the border work? We are in a
:24:03. > :24:06.bizarre situation where it looks like Leveson is perhaps more likely
:24:06. > :24:10.to be introduced North of the border themselves of the border
:24:10. > :24:13.because David Cameron's been clear he is not going to introduce press
:24:13. > :24:17.regulation or statutory underpinning, whereas Alex Salmond
:24:17. > :24:22.says he will. Alex Salmond has a majority in the Scottish Parliament.
:24:22. > :24:25.This would be a very odd situation. I am not sure that is conceivable
:24:25. > :24:31.and this might be the other males in the Leveson Coughlan, along with
:24:31. > :24:34.other things, like the internet, and other issues. The problem is
:24:34. > :24:37.that you are not going to have a regime that is going across the
:24:37. > :24:41.whole country and there will have to be separate legislation in
:24:41. > :24:46.Scotland it statutory underpinning is introduced because Scotland has
:24:46. > :24:51.a separate legal system and because Scotland's had a different system
:24:51. > :24:57.of press regulation. We have a different way of approaching it.
:24:57. > :25:02.This is an interesting situation. But is it... Can you finesse it in
:25:02. > :25:06.the way, you structure something that takes account of defamation,
:25:06. > :25:10.cost, the Scottish legal system, but actually, in terms of what it
:25:10. > :25:15.can look at and the punishments it can mete out, it will be the selves
:25:15. > :25:19.North and South. Is that the way to do it? -- it will be the same.
:25:19. > :25:24.could. If you have statutory underpinning, if you have press law,
:25:24. > :25:27.it will have to be passed by the Scottish Parliament because control
:25:27. > :25:31.of the press is not reserved to Westminster. Also, you have a
:25:31. > :25:35.separate legal system North of the border, therefore it would have to
:25:35. > :25:39.be passed into law in Scotland and the bizarre situation is that as
:25:39. > :25:48.things stand, it is more likely you will have that North of the border
:25:48. > :25:54.than South. Alex, is this tenable? Yes and no. In terms of the
:25:54. > :25:59.practical aspects, it is clear there are difficulties for editors,
:25:59. > :26:03.proprietors and, indeed, for core of it is doing the regulation. In
:26:03. > :26:09.terms of the politics of it, in one respect, what we have been saying
:26:09. > :26:13.about Scots Law and that requiring a bill to be introduced into
:26:13. > :26:17.Holyrood is correct, but in terms to the general elements of this,
:26:17. > :26:23.there is really no particular need for separate systems, North and
:26:23. > :26:33.South. The SNP's call to have a separate system is, essentially,
:26:33. > :26:34.
:26:34. > :26:40.boil down to wanting Scottish exception and has some for the
:26:40. > :26:46.purpose of Scottish exceptional as some rather than any greater need
:26:46. > :26:49.or use. Do you accept what Lord Leveson says he says it is not a
:26:49. > :26:54.state regulation of the press but a legal underpinning? Do you accept
:26:54. > :27:00.that distinction? I would not accept that. His legal underpinning
:27:00. > :27:05.is that if you do not go along with this, Ofcom will get involved and
:27:05. > :27:13.since Ofcom is appointed by the government, that is de facto state
:27:13. > :27:19.regulation. Even if it is not implicitly so. What if editors go -
:27:19. > :27:23.- what it editors refused to go along with it? What is its value
:27:23. > :27:33.unless you can enforce it? The way to get editors to go along with it
:27:33. > :27:40.
:27:40. > :27:49.is if you like an old-fashioned type thing of public shame. If you
:27:49. > :27:56.-- if editors are involved, the public shaming is key. Are you in
:27:56. > :28:00.favour of statutory underpinning? No, I am not. It is a dangerous
:28:00. > :28:04.step that would be taken. It is interesting that Labour is
:28:04. > :28:08.supporting press regulation. What they don't like is having press
:28:08. > :28:12.regulation in Scotland overseen by Alex Salmond. Perhaps they should
:28:12. > :28:16.be asking themselves in that case why they are so enthusiastic about
:28:16. > :28:19.press regulation at all. I want to that of the point about what
:28:19. > :28:24.Leveson proposes, the carrots and sticks. He says that if you don't
:28:25. > :28:29.sign up to the commission, publications will lose certain
:28:29. > :28:34.defences that they have currently. If you are charged with defamation,
:28:34. > :28:38.but you can establish that what you have said about the defender -- the
:28:38. > :28:41.individual is true, then that is it, the paper wins but under his scheme,
:28:41. > :28:45.they would not win and they would have to pay the costs of the
:28:45. > :28:48.litigation, so it could be a very serious problem because the costs
:28:48. > :28:53.of these actions can rise to hundreds of thousands of pounds,
:28:53. > :28:59.and that would mean that those outside the Leveson camp, if you
:28:59. > :29:03.like, the unlicensed press, would be exposed to financial risk.
:29:03. > :29:07.talking about harm to individuals and the press is one thing, but
:29:07. > :29:12.when you look at potential harm us, the internet is a huge issue. It
:29:12. > :29:17.seems like it cannot be regulated. Leveson has produced 2000 pages of
:29:17. > :29:26.reports that is already up to date. In it, he devotes precisely one
:29:26. > :29:32.page, just one page out of 2000, to the internet and online journalism.
:29:32. > :29:38.The great migration, unavoidable, from printed press to the online
:29:38. > :29:41.press, the impossibility of Trent have a regulatory framework that
:29:41. > :29:47.licenses print publications but doesn't even look at the internet
:29:47. > :29:51.will become starker. Do you think this is undermined because of the
:29:51. > :29:56.internet argument, or are the important principles at play?
:29:56. > :30:02.impossible to distinguish in law, really, between the internet and
:30:02. > :30:06.other media publication. They are both in the public domain, they
:30:06. > :30:09.disseminate views and information. That is what happens when a paper
:30:09. > :30:18.is on line or in print. You cannot make the distinction between the
:30:18. > :30:22.two. This will be brought out this week by this draft Bill, which
:30:22. > :30:30.David Cameron has promised. Some of these anomalies emerge. People will
:30:30. > :30:34.have to think twice because I don't see how you can have regulation on
:30:34. > :30:40.paper press, it would have to cover both sides. Also because of this
:30:40. > :30:44.issue of how you implement, how you set up a statutory underpinning,