02/12/2012 Sunday Politics Scotland


Isabel Fraser with the latest political news, interviews and debate in Scotland.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 02/12/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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,


Political magazine presented by Andrew Neil and Isabel Fraser.

Download Subtitles