09/02/2014 Sunday Politics Scotland

Good morning and welcome to the Sunday politics. The winter storms

forced the government to take control. Is it hanging the

environment agency out to dry? Embarrassment as the immigration

minister resigns having employed a cleaner with no right to work here.

Ed Miliband promises an end to the machine politics of the Labour

Party, but will his reforms really weaken the role of the unions? And

coming up on Sunday Politics Scotland: Planned reforms to the

legal system have been branded "a shambles" by opposition leaders.

We'll be speaking to the man at the top, Justice Secretary Kenny

MacAskill. about strife on the Underground. All

of that and after a week of very public coalition spats can David

Cameron and Nick Clegg keep the coalition show on the road? Two

senior party figures will go head to head. And with me, Helen Lewis, Nick

Watt and Iain Martin who would not know they Somerset Levels from their

Norfolk Broads, but that will not stop them tweeting their thoughts.

We start with the strange Case of the Immigration Minister, his

cleaner and some lost documents. Yesterday Mark Harper tendered his

resignation, telling the media he had discovered the cleaner who

worked for him for seven years did not have the right to work in the

UK. The Communities Secretary Eric Pickles said he had done the

honourable thing. I was sad to see him go, he was a strong minister.

Had he been a member of the public he would not have done anything

wrong, but he set himself a very high standard and he felt that

standard and honourably stood down. This would seem like a good

resignation, maybe unlike the Baroness Scotland one years ago on a

similar issue, but have we been told the full story? We wait to see that.

Labour have picked up saying he is an honourable man, that the reason

why he resigned is these very owners checks that landlords and employers

will have to perform on employees over their documentation. The most

interesting line is that, we do not require them to be experts or spot

anything other than an obvious forgery. The suggestion that there

is the document he was presented with originality, which he lost, was

on home office paper and was perhaps not entirely accurate. That is the

embarrassment. He is the minister putting through a bill that will

demand tougher checks on people and he himself did not do enough checks

to discover she was illegal. There is an odd bit where he involves the

home office later to check her out as well. He writes a resignation

letter and he has to hold himself to pay higher standard. He has done the

David Laws approach to this, resign quickly and he can come back. David

Cameron wants him to return swiftly to the frontbenchers. He is a state

school educated lad. He is the kind of Tory that the Tories are in short

supply of. He is a rising star. I would caution on this idea that it

is customary that whenever anyone resigns, it is always thought they

will come straight back into office. If only the outside world worked

like that. It is not, in a company if the HR person resigns, he is such

a great chap he will be back next week. There is a silver lining for

David Cameron is he has been able to move Harriet Bond up as he moves

everyone up. But nobody will see her in the whips office because she is

not allowed to appear on television. And if you three want to resign? Do

not hate you are coming back next week. But we will do it with honour.

It has been a hellish week for residents of coastal areas with more

storms bringing more flooding and after Prince Charles visited the

Somerset Levels on Tuesday the Government has been keen to show it

has got a grip on the situation at last.

For last weekend's Sunday Politics I made the watery journey to the

village of Muchelney, cut off for a whole month. Now everyone has been

dropping in. First it was Prince Charles on a park bench pulled by a

tractor. He waded into the row about how the floods have been handled.

Next it was the chair of the Environment Agency, Lord Smith, who

faced angry residents. Sought the river is out. That is precisely what

we are going to do. Where he faced, a resident, he did not need that

many. David Cameron went for a look as well and gave the region what it

wanted, more pumps, more money and in the long-term the return of

dredging. There are lessons to learn. The pause in bridging that

took place from the late 1990s was wrong and we need to get dredging

again. When the water levels come down and it is safe to dredge, we

will dredging to make sure these rivers and stitches can carry a

better capacity. The Environment Secretary Owen Paterson has not been

seen again because he is recovering from emergency eye surgery. In the

meantime the floodwaters rose ever higher. Some residents were told to

evacuate. In Devon the railway was washed away by the waves leaving a

big gap in the network. Look at the weather this weekend. If you can

believe it, the storms keep rolling in. What is the long-term solution

for flood prone areas of the country? I am joined from Oxford by

the editor of The Ecologist magazine, Oliver Tickell, and by

local MP Tessa Munt. Tessa, let me come to you first. What do you now

want the Government to do? I want it to make sure it does exactly as it

promises and delivers what every farmer and landowner around here

knows should have been done for years. First, to solve the problems

we have right now, but to make sure there is money in the bank for us to

carry on doing the maintenance that is necessary. Was it a mistake not

to do the dredging? When the waters start to subside does dredging

become a key part of this? Yes, of course. It is something the farmers

have been asking for four years. When you wander along a footpath by

a river and you see trees growing and there is 60% of the capacity

only because there is silt, it needs to have a pretty dramatic action

right now and then we need to make sure the maintenance is ongoing.

Oliver Tickell, was it a mistake to stop the dredging? If the dredging

had happened, the land would not be covered in water for so long?

Clearly it is necessary to do at least some dredging on these rivers

and in particular because these rivers are well above ground level.

They are carrying water that comes down off the hills well above the

level of the flood plain on the Somerset Levels. They naturally tend

to silt up. But the key thing is that is only a small part of the

overall solution. What we need is a catchment wide approach to improve

infiltration upstream and you also need to manage the flood plain on

the levels and upstream so as to have active flood plain that can

store water. This idea it is just about dredging is erroneous.

Dredging is a part of it, but it is a catchment wide solution. Dredging

is only a small part of the solution he says. Yes, of course it is. But

look here. With the farmer is locally, the landowners, they know

this land will carry water for a few weeks of the year, that is not a

problem. But this water has to be taken away and there is a very good

system of drainage and it works perfectly well. In my area there are

serious problems because the dredging has not taken place. There

are lunatic regulations around were when they do do some of dredging,

the Environment Agency is asked to take it away because it is

considered toxic waste. This is barmy. We need to take the stuff out

of the rivers and build the banks up so we create protection in the

future. We have to make sure the dredging is done but make sure the

drainage works well and we have pumps in places and we have

floodgates put onto the rivers. We need to make sure repairs are done

more quickly. All right, let me go back to Oliver Tickell. Is it not

the case a lot of people on your side of the argument would like to

see lands like the Somerset Levels return to natural habitat? Looe I

would like a degree of that, but that does not mean the whole place

needs to turn into wilderness so it will remain agricultural landscape.

Everybody, all the interested parties who signed up to a document

called vision 2034 the Somerset Levels envisages most of the area of

the Somerset Levels being turned over to extensive grassland and that

is what it is best suited for. Let me put that to Tessa Munt. Have you

signed up to this where you will end up with extensive grassland? I have

seen it, but grass does not grow if water is sitting on this land for

weeks and weeks. What you have to remember is a lot of the levels are

managed very carefully and they are conservation land and that means

cattle are allowed to go out at certain times of the year and in

certain numbers. It is well managed. Do you accept it should return to

grassland? Grassland, fine, but you cannot call land grassland in the

flipping water is on it so long that nothing grows. It is no good at

doing that. You have got to make sure it is managed properly.

Drainage has been taking place on this land for centuries. It is the

case the system is there, but it needs to be maintained properly and

we have to have fewer ridiculous regulations that stop action. Last

year the flooding minister agreed dredging should take place and

everything stopped. Now we have got the promise from the Prime Minister

and I thank Prince Charles for that. Is it not time to let the local

people run their land rather than being told what to do by the

Environment Agency, central Government and the European Union?

The internal drainage boards have considerable power in all of this.

They wanted to dredge and they were not allowed to. The farmers want to

dredge that is what is going to happen, but they have signed up to a

comprehensive vision of catchment management and of environmental

improvement turning the Somerset Levels into a world-class haven for

wildlife. It is not much good if your house is underwater. The

farmers themselves, the RSPB, the drainage boards, they have all

signed up to this. The real question now is how do we implement that

vision? You give the money to the drainage boards. At the moment they

pay 27% of their money and have been doing so for years and years and

this is farmers' money and it has been going to the drainage boards

and they pay the Environment Agency who are meant to be dredging and

that has not happened. We have to leave it there. We have run out of

time. Last week saw the Labour Party

adopts an historic change with its relationship with the unions.

Changes to the rules that propelled Ed Miliband to the top. Ed Miliband

was elected Labour leader in 2010 by the electoral college system which

gives unions, party members and MPs one third of votes each. This would

be changed into a simpler one member, one vote system. A union

member would have to become an affiliated member of the party. They

would have to opt in and pay ?3 a year. But the unions would have 50%

of the vote at the conference and around one third of the seats on the

National executive committee. The proposals are a financial gamble as

well. It is estimated the party could face a drop in funding of up

to ?5 million a year when the changes are fully implemented in

five years. The leader of the Unite trade union has welcomed the report

saying it is music to his ears. The package will be voted on at a

special one of conference in March. And the Shadow Business Secretary

Chuka Umunna joins me now for the Sunday Interview. Welcome back. In

what way will the unions have less power and influence in the Labour

Party? This is about ensuring individual trade union members have

a direct relationship with the Labour Party. At the moment the

monies that come to us are decided at a top level, the general

secretaries determine this, whether the individual members want us to be

in receipt of those monies or not so we are going to change that so that

affiliation fees follow the consent of individual members. Secondly, we

want to make sure the individual trade union members, people who

teach our children, power via -- fantastic British businesses, we

want them to make an active choice, and we are also recognising that in

this day and age not everybody wants to become a member of a political

party. We haven't got much time. The unions still have 50% of the vote at

Labour conferences, there will be the single most important vote, more

member -- union members will vote than nonunion members, their power

has not diminished at all, has it? In relation to the other parts of

the group of people who will be voting in a future leadership

contest, we are seeking to move towards more of a one member, one

vote process. At the moment we have the absurd situation where I, as a

member of Parliament, my vote will count for 1000. MPs are losing...

They still have a lot of power. I am a member of the GMB union and the

Unite union, also a member of the Fabians as well so I get free votes

on top of my vote as a member of Parliament. We are moving to a

system where I will have one vote and that is an important part of

this. You asked how many people would be casting their votes. The

old system, up to 2.8 million ballot papers were sent out with prepaid

envelopes for people to return their papers were sent out with prepaid

turnout. The idea that you are going to see a big change... Even if

your individual party members. In one vital way, your purse strings,

your individual party members. In the unions will be more powerful

than ever because at the moment they have to hand over 8 million to

than ever because at the moment they fraction of that now. They will get

to keep that money, but then come the election you go to them and give

them a lot of money -- and they will have you then. They won't have us,

as you put it! The idea that individual trade union members don't

have their own view, their own voice, and just do what their

general secretaries do is absurd. They will make their own decision,

and we want them to make that and not have their leadership decide

that for them. Let me go to the money. The Labour Party manifesto

will be reflecting the interests of Britain, and the idea that somehow

people can say we are not going to give you this money unless you do

this or that, we will give you a policy agenda which is appropriate

for the British people, regardless of what implications that may have

financially. They will have more seats than anybody else in the NEC

and they will hold the purse strings. They will be the

determining factor. They won't be. Unite is advocating a 70% rate of

income tax, there is no way we will have that in our manifesto. Unite is

advocating taking back contracts and no compensation basis, we would not

-- there is no way we would do that. How many chief executives of the

FTSE 100 are backing Labour? We have lots of chief executives backing

Labour. I don't know the exact number. Ed Miliband has just placed

an important business person in the House of Lords, the former chief

executive of the ITV, Bill Grimsey. How many? You can only name one?

Bill Grimsey, there is also John Mills. Anyone who is currently

chairman of the chief executive? With the greatest respect, you are

talking about less than half the percent of business leaders in our

country, we have almost 5 million businesses, not all FTSE 100

businesses, not all listed, and we are trying to get people from across

the country of all different shapes and sizes. Let's widen it to the

FTSE 250. That is 250 out of 5 million companies. The largest ones,

they make the profits and provide the jobs. Two thirds of private

sector jobs in this country come from small and medium-sized

businesses, and small and medium-sized businesses are an

important part of a large companies supply chains. So you cannot name a

single chairman from the FTSE 250, correct? I don't know all the

chairman. Are you going to fight the next election without a single boss

of a FTSE 250 company? I have named some important business people, but

the most important thing is that we are not coming out with a manifesto

for particular interests, but for broader interest. Let me show you,

Digby Jones says Labour's policy is, "if it creates wealth, let's kick

it" . Another quote, that it borders on predatory taxation. They think

you are anti-business. I don't agree with them. One of the interesting

things about Sir Stuart's comments on the predatory taxation and I

think he was referring to the 50p rate of tax is that he made some

comments arguing against the reduction of the top rate of tax

from 50p. He is saying something different now. Digby of course has

his own opinions, he has never been a member of the Labour Party. Let me

come onto this business of the top rate of tax, do you accept or don't

you that there is a point when higher rates of income tax become

counter-productive? Ultimately you want to have the lowest tax rates

possible. Do you accept there is a certain level you actually get less

money? I think ultimately there is a level beyond you could go which

would be counter-productive, for example the 75% rate of tax I

mentioned earlier, being advocated by Unite in France. Most French

higher earners will pay less tax than under your plans. I beg your

pardon, with the 50p? Under your proposals, people here will pay more

tax than French higher earners. If you are asking if in terms of the

level, you asked the question and I answered it, do I think if you reach

a level beyond which the tax burden becomes counter-productive, can I

give you a number what that would be, I cannot but let me explain -

the reason we have sought to increase its two 50p is that we can

get in revenue to reduce the deficit. In an ideal world you

wouldn't need a 50p rate of tax which is why during our time in

office we didn't have one, because we didn't have those issues. Sure,

though you cannot tell me how much the 50p will raise. In the three

years of operation we think it raised ?10 billion. You think. That

was based on extrapolation from the British library. It is at least

possible I would suggest, for the sake of argument, that when you

promise to take over half people's income, which is what you will do if

you get your way, the richest 1% currently account for 70 5% of all

tax revenues. -- 75%. Is it not a danger that if you take more out of

them, they will just go? I don't think so, we are talking about the

top 1% here. If you look at the directors of sub 5 million turnover

companies, the average managing director of that gets around

?87,000. Let me narrow it down to something else. Let's take the 0.1%

of top taxpayers, down to fewer than 30,000 people. They account for over

14% of all of the income tax revenues. Only 29,000 people. If

they go because you are going to take over half their income, you

have lost a huge chunk of your tax base. They could easily go, at

tipping point they could go. What we are advocating here is not

controversial. Those with the broadest shoulders, it is not

unreasonable to ask them to share the heavier burden. Can you name one

other major economy that subscribes to this? Across Europe, for example

in Sweden they have higher tax rates than us. Can you name one major

economy? I couldn't pluck one out of the air, I can see where you are

coming from, I don't agree with it. I think most people subscribe to the

fact that those with wider shoulders should carry the heavy a burden. We

have run out of time but thank you for being here.

Over the past week it seems that Nick Clegg has activated a new Lib

Dem strategy - 'Get Gove'. After a very public spat over who should

head up the schools inspection service Ofsted, Lib Dem sources have

continued to needle away at the Education Secretary. And other

senior Lib Dems have also taken aim at their coalition partners. Here's

Giles Dilnot. It's unlikely the polite welcome of these school

children to Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg and his party colleague

schools minister David Laws would be so forthcoming right now from the

man in charge of schools Conservative Michael Gove. Mr Laws

is said to have been furious with The Education secretary over the

decision to remove Sally Morgan as chair of Ofsted. But those who know

the inner working of the Lib Dems say that's just understandable. When

you have the department not being consulted, it would be possible for

him to not publicly comment. The remarkable thing would be if he

hadn't said anything at all. We should be careful to understand this

is not always part of a preplanned decision. There is a growing sense

that inside Number Ten this is a concerted Lib Dem strategy, we also

understand there is no love lost between Nick Clegg and Michael Gove

to say the least, and a growing frustration that if the Lib Dems

think such so-called yellow and blue attacks can help them with the

election, they can also damage the long-term prospects of the Coalition

post 2015. One spat does not a divorce make but perhaps even more

significant has been Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander's

recent newspaper interview firmly spiking any room for George Osborne

to manoeuvre on lowering the highest income tax rate to 40p. All this

builds on the inclusion in Government at the reshuffle of

people like Norman Baker at the Home Office and Simon Hughes at Justice

people who are happier to publically express doubt on Conservative

policy, unlike say Jeremy Browne who was removed and who has made plain

his views on Coalition. It is difficult for us to demonstrate that

we are more socialist than an Ed Miliband Labour led party. Even if

we did wish to demonstrate it, doing it in coalition with the

Conservatives would be harder still. Nonetheless a differentiation

strategy was always likely as 2015 approached, so is there evidence it

works? Or of the work we publish shows the Lib Dems have a huge

problem in terms of their distinctiveness, so attacking their

coalition partners or the Labour Party is helpful in showing what

they are against, but there are bigger problem is showing what they

are for. And one Conservative MP with access to Number Ten as part of

the PM's policy board says yellow on blue attacks are misplaced and

irresponsible. At this stage when all the hard work is being done and

the country is back on its feet, the Lib Dems are choosing the time to

step away from the coalition. That is your position, but do you suspect

coming up to the next election we will see more of this? I think the

Lib Dems are about as hard to pin down as a weasel in Vaseline. And

with the public's view of politicians right now, and wants to

be seen as slicker than a well oiled weasel? And we have Lib Dem peer

Matthew Oakeshott and senior Conservative backbencher Bernard

Jenkin. Matthew, the Lib Dems are now picking fights with the Tories

on a range of issues, some of them trivial. Is this a Pirelli used to

Lib Dem withdrawal from the coalition? I do not know, I am not

privy to Nick Clegg's in strategy. Some of us have been independent for

some time. I resigned over treatment of the banks. That is now being

sorted out. But what is significant is we have seen a string of attacks,

almost an enemy within strategy. When you have Nick Clegg, David Laws

and Danny Alexander, the three key people closest to the Conservatives,

when you see all of them attacking, and this morning Nick Clegg has had

a go at the Conservatives over drug policy. There is a string of

policies where something is going on. It is difficult to do an enemy

within strategy. I believe as many Lib Dems do that we should withdraw

from the coalition six months to one year before the election so we can

put our positive policies across rather than having this tricky

strategy of trying to do it from within. Why does David Cameron need

the Lib Dems? He probably does not. The country generally favoured the

coalition to start with. Voters like to see politicians are working

together and far more of that goes on in Westminster then we see. Most

of my committee reports are unanimous reports from all parties.

Why does he need them? I do not think he does. You would be happy to

see the Lib Dems go? I would always be happy to see a single minority

Government because it would be easier for legislation. The

legislation you could not get through would not get through

whether we were in coalition or not. The 40p tax rate, there

probably is not a majority in the House of Commons at the moment,

despite what Nick Clegg originally said. It does not make much

difference. What makes a difference from the perspective of the

committee I chair is historically we have had single party Government

that have collective responsibility and clarity. The reason that is

important is because nothing gets done if everybody is at sixes and

sevens in the Government. Everything stops, there is paralysis as the row

goes on. Civil servants do not know who they are working for. If it

carries on getting fractures, there is a bigger argument to get out. If

it continues at this level of intensity of the enemy within

strategy as you have described it, can the coalition survived another

16 months of this? It is also a question should they. I never

thought I would say this, I agree with Bernard. Interestingly earlier

Chuka Umunna missed the point talking about business support.

Business is worried about this anti-European rhetoric and that is a

deep split between the Liberal Democrats and the UKIP wing of the

Tory party. That is really damaging and that is something we need to

make our own case separately on. Do you get fed up when you hear

constant Lib Dem attacks on you? What makes me fed up is my own party

cannot respond in kind because we are in coalition. I would love to

have this much more open debate. I would like to see my own party

leader, for example as he did in the House of Commons, it was the Liberal

Democrats who blocked the referendum on the house of lords and if we want

to get this bill through it should be a Government bill. We know we can

get it It strikes me that given that the

attacks from the Liberal Democrats are now coming from the left, is

this a represent -- does this represent that Nick Clegg now

accepts that the only way he can save seeds is to get disillusioned

left voters to come back to the fold? The fact is that we have lost

over half our vote at the last election. At the moment there is no

sign of it coming back. And we're getting close to the next election.

I welcome it if Nick Clegg is starting to address that problem but

just talking about the centre is not the answer. Most Liberal Democrat

voters are actually radical, progressive people, who want to see

a fair country and they'll is divided society will stop we must

make sure that we maximise our vote. Final question. We know what you

want. What what do you think will happen? Will this coalition survived

all the way to the election or break-up beforehand? It will

probably break up beforehand. The long-term economic plan is working.

Further changes are being held back by the Liberal Democrats. When will

it break-up? It has lasted longer than I thought. But when will it

break-up? At least six months before the election. Do you think it will

survive? It has delivered a lot that is running out of steam. It depends

what happens in the May elections. There will be very strong pressure

on the Liberal Democrats to avoid a wipe-out by coming out and putting

our own policies forward to show that we can be encouraging with

Labour next time. You both agree, television history has been made!

You are watching the Sunday politics.

Good morning and welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland. Coming up on the

programme - Not creaking, but croaking. Claims that our courts are

operating under pressure. It's the latest in a string of criticisms

over planned changes to the justice syste. -- system. We'll put these

points to the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill who joins us live.

And after the intervention of BP boss Bob Dudley in the independence

debate, why it's important for the campaigns to seek endorsement from

business. There's growing concern that

Scotland's prosecution service is under severe strain. Sources within

the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service have told Sunday

Politics that it's a system "that's not creaking but croaking". A rising

workload is causing delays in court and that's being noticed by Judges

and Sheriffs. The removal of corroboration could further increase

case, an issue that the Justice Secretary is under fire over again

this week. -- increase cases. We'll speak to him in a moment, but first

Andrew Kerr has this report. It seems that the lock to shares are --

law practitioners are tackling those who make the law. Cases show that

figures have risen: And staff numbers are falling: Case numbers

take a long time and there are constant adjournments. The system is

said to be not creaking, but croaking. A staff survey reflects

that, only 16% had confidence in senior management, and we heard that

sickness levels are appalling in both admin and legal. There are

major issues in terms of the workload, the stress, the lack of

separation time -- preparation, and there are some courts that do not

take place because of a lack of resources. They are under great

pressure and that is increasing. And there are concerns it could get

worse if corroboration is abolished. The centuries-old requirement is

being struck down in the criminal justice will. What could be the

consequences? Nobody can get a handle on how many cases that will

be. What the additional workload will be. But what is clear is that

our members and staff in the fiscal service are already under pressure.

Even a relatively small number of additional cases will create even

her pressure. -- further. The CEO PFS said:

they say it will help them to prepare for future impacts such as

corroboration going. There will now be a enquiry into safeguards needed.

Opposition leaders say that corroboration must not go before it

reports back. Is it not better to work out the fix before deliberately

causing the problem? This is a shoddy way to expect the parliament

to act. If the review can provide safeguards which make sure there is

no danger of miscarriage of justice is then surely this Parliament, at

heart, can find a way and means to allow these thousand people to get

access to justice. With concerns about corroboration,

and a raft of other reforms, there is much for the justice secretary to

deal with. And the justice secretary joins me

now. Good afternoon. Starting with that quote saying that the system is

not creaking but croaking. Do you recognise that description? I do,

because I practised in the courts and heard the same complaints. There

are challenges in the Crown office but they also put on record that

there are fewer cases, and that put this in context, there is a 39 year

low in recorded crime, the lowest homicide rate since records began,

and a 60% reduction in knife carrying. Scotland is a safer place

and the record of police and prosecutors is outstanding. Are you

saying that those in the legal system are complaining for no

reason? No, there are significant challenges. Organisations, public

and private, face challenges. ?1 billion of cuts from Westminster

cannot be dealt with easily. But the record of police and prosecutors is

exemplary. Is your attempt to change the law on corroboration placing

further strain on things? The dean of advocates described the plan as a

beginner a poke. -- a pig. You are asking for a change in the law,

which will then be reviewed, and further changes will be visited

later. Who would vote for that? Politicians are often divided, but

where there is unity - police, prosecutors, victims organisations,

brave individuals who give up their anonymity to speak out - we have, as

a retired High Court judge put it, significant sections of society,

who, by the category of victims that they are, are denied access to

justice. That cannot be right. The justice committee at the parliament

is against it. On the scales of justice we have 170 rape victims in

the last two years that the Lord Advocate said lacked access to

justice because of corroboration. 3000 cases every year. It is not

tens, not hundreds, thousands of able denied access to justice. --

people. Surely your case would be even stronger after the review? The

Case against corroboration has been made. Not just by victims

organisations but why those individuals who have spoken out

because they were abused as children and denied access to justice. And it

is not just sexual offences. It affects children and the vulnerable,

far too many big aims are denied access to justice. -- far too many

victims. Let's look at the position of the Labour Party. They had a

manifesto commitment to remove corroboration, and they will now

vote against it. But then, that is what we accept it from the Labour

Party. Whether it is minimum pricing of alcohol, the removal of

corroboration, if the SNP government say yes, they will say no. It would

be shameful were not so tragic. If we look at the statistics

bulletin of recorded crime in Scotland from 2009-2012, an average

of 7000 sexual offences recorded, a clean-up rate of 66%. In England,

same period, 54,000 sexual offences, just 30% cleared up. They do not

have corroboration yet the rate seems much worse. We have an

outstanding police service, south of the border there are real

difficulties. They are losing officers because they are not

implementing the changes we're making in terms of single service.

In terms of crime rates, sexual offences is one of the few areas

where the rate is increasing. It is because of public awareness and

because police and prosecutors deal with things much better, understand

the victims needs and the need to treat them with dignity and respect.

Can you give any guarantee that if you get your way there will be more

prosecutions? I cannot give any guarantee because that is ultimately

for the court. This is about access to justice. It was put to me by a

victim who was groomed and had to live with the long-term consequences

of being abused. She said that this was about her having access to

justice. She wanted to look the perpetrator in the eye and say, you

did this to me. She recognises that there is the possibility a court

will not believe. But we cannot enforce convictions. But what we can

guarantee is access to justice. But how do you deal with the thousands

of extra cases brought about when they are already under strain? It

has been made quite clear that the Crown has increased legal officials

since 2007 despite a degree is in cases. They recognise that it would

be challenging. -- decrease. We are prepared to rise to that challenge

is a government. Will you put in more cash? I am not prepared to say

to a victim of rape, a child who is abused, to say, that is just tough.

You are a victim of crime where there is no access to justice. We

will not cash limit it. We will guarantee people have access to

justice. Can I guarantee convictions? No. That is for the

jury and presiding judge. But we must give the access to justice to

those who are denied it. This is not the only area that is controversial

with people in Scotland's former times more likely to be stopped and

searched. A lot of these, they take place with youngsters with alcohol.

Knives and drugs are protected by T Lott is about alcohol. I have to

deal with the parents whose children have suffered and the police

officers who have to take young girls into custody on a Friday night

because they are drunk and vulnerable. I sometimes actually

think the police taking alcohol consensually from those youngsters

is a good thing, and many of these stops on youngsters relate to

alcohol. In 2010, there was an average of 1888 stop and searches

per day but only 20% were positive. That is one in five and I think it

is positive. 70% were consensual searches. What we are seeing is that

Scotland is a safer place. We have seen a reduction of 60% in knife

crime since we came into office. What we are saying about alcohol,

taking them away from youngsters, they can get into difficulties

because young girls are vulnerable and young guys can do stupid things

with alcohol. This is about prevention, not just prosecution.

When you look at the statistics for children, in the same period

children under 14 were searched 26,000 times. Are you comfortable

with those statistics? I met with children in Scotland than they were

perfectly comfortable because they could understand that a lot of the

offences perpetrated by children are not against people you rage or my

age but against other youngsters. In terms of older youngsters, it can be

to do with drugs and weapons, and children do try to access alcohol

and take it and problems come about. What sort of relationship will they

have with the police when they are older? I think they have a good

relationship and I have always been impressed, but youngsters recognise

the good job police do. The majority of stop and searches carried out

with the consent of the individual and for good reason on the basis of

intelligence. The police are polite and carry it out with dignity and we

know it makes Scotland a safer place. I was at an event in Fife and

had to meet with the family of a young man who had been stabbed. They

take the view that a slight and convenience for a young man is much

better than a lifetime's tragedy for the family.

A poll carried out for the BBC suggests the economy is the issue

that matters most to voters taking part in the referendum. So perhaps

it's no surprise to find interest in which side businesses are backing.

It was a subject Johann Lamont returned to again and again at this

week's First Minister's Questions, after the man at the helm of oil

giant BP weighed in with his personal view on the issue.

There is much debate about the currency. There are big

uncertainties for us and at the moment we are continuing to invest,

but the Ed Vaizey? -- but there is a question. Great Britain is great and

it ought to stay together. In response, the first Minister told

BBC Scotland that, and I quote, of course there are many chief

executives who are firmly in favour of Scottish independence. Could be

first Minister no name the many chief executives of oil companies

that are in favour of Scottish independence? There are hundreds of

people in business for Scotland. Scottish business is arguing for

wealthier than benefit to the people of Scotland from independence, but I

thought the most important thing that Bob Dudley said, was that the

investment plans for BP would be continuing. With supermarket bosses

weighing and is well it has become tip for tat over who has more

friends in the business community. They think any party is endorsing

their possession is a good thing because they think people will trust

and impartial figure such as a businessman or an academic. Whether

that works is obviously a moot point. It depends who's listening.

If another Scottish businessman was listening, they could take them more

seriously than someone on the dole in a housing scheme. With each

campaign listening, you can expect small companies as well as giants to

take sides. I can see why when you're a large multinational and

taking business decisions, you might think a particular way, but at the

same time that is not how most of our members take decisions. We work

on a much more pragmatic level, so I am not sure people will be making a

direct comparison. In the seven months to go until the referendum,

we may see more business people showing their political colours but

how will that influence the result? Joining me from Newcastle is Ivan

McKee who is a board member for Business for Scotland and in

Edinburgh is Ian McKay, who is chair of the Institute of Directors which

we should point out is nonpartisan with regard to the referendum. When

someone like Bob Dudley gives us our personal view, doesn't sway voters?

People getting a lot of credit to what businesses said. Most people

would expect businesses to take a good look at the situation so I

would understand that people would put some weight on what business is

seeing. He has said that as a personal view and he does not even

have a vote so does that invalidate what he said? Anyone is entitled to

his view and he made it clear it was his personal view. They stated just

this week they see Aberdeen as the centre of the oil operation in the

UK beyond 2050. At the end of the day, the oil is in the North Sea and

that is where oil companies will operate. How important is the

endorsement of business given that you are an organisation trying to

get business people together? It adds value and that the end of the

day everybody only has one vote but in previous referendum campaigns,

the business vote was largely on the normal site. -- no side. As

businesses look at the economic case and the opportunities Scotland opens

up, many more are coming to recognise the value of that and the

opportunity for business. Would you encourage more business leaders to

speak out? Edward encourage politicians to declare their hand a

bit more. I am reminded of Bill Clinton's slogan in 1992 when he

talked about change or more of the same. His organisation has declared

that centrist and would probably agree with that slogan, but I tend

to remember the other slogan which was the economy, stupid. It is not

good enough for us simply to say everything will be the same and it

does not really matter whether people have doubts, and that in fact

Alex Salmond is right and it is the -- the investment that matters, one

should begin to come concerned if those people in charge are starting

to question matters like currency, increasing investment and so on.

That has to be of concern. When a lot people start seeing it, the main

thing we should be looking at his answers from the politicians trying

to win votes. A Scottish -based company employing 3500 people around

the world. He spoke about uncertainty over currency, trade and

tax which could involve running the business from someone else. Do you

welcome that kind of intervention? I welcome everybody taking part in the

debates because the more people that are, we are the facts of the

strength of the Scottish economy and the fact we generate more tax than

the rest of the UK and higher GDP, the more people become aware of

that, the more likely they are to support a yes vote in September.

Alex Salmond has made his position clear in the past. That is his view

and as I said, we have 1300 members and growing that have taken the

opposite view. In terms of uncertainty, business looks at risk

and uncertainty and looks at what makes more sense for it. Our members

have come to the conclusion that the opportunity Scotland offers

outweighs the negatives. Business leaders are asked to assess risk.

Could the same be true for the points made of politicians on the

Better Together said, that they need to spell out potential tax changes

if there is a no vote. When you're doing this kind of analysis, you

have to remember the weaknesses as well as the strengths. I personally

understand his position, he has 1300 people employed in businesses who

think it is best to have a yes vote, but the position of many businesses

as we do not want to be leading this campaign. Are you afraid to speak

out? I do not think we are afraid but we need to see the kind of

questions we are asking is what would be good for business and for

the Scottish economy whoever wins this referendum? Let me give you one

example on the subject of mail. When you look at the White Paper, you

have a position where we are told the Royal Mail will be the

privatised and so on. I asked the question in the past, how do you do

that? How do you the privatised company that is working on the stock

exchange and how much will it cost to run a mail service in Scotland

that the same level or better than it currently is getting the Scottish

geography. -- given. Just tell us what it is we are voting for and

what it would cost. That is a basic of any business, they want to know

the numbers and how these things back up. -- stack up. If you look at

the White Paper there is a section which looks at how the balance sheet

would look in the first year of independence based on current

numbers and projections, and that is more detail than you will get from

any of the UK parties. That is the way it works and there is a cost

that section in the White Paper. -- costed. That is my point. Yes, there

are numbers but they are also assertions which are uncosted and

could cost us a lot of money. I ask that we start to see just how much

the assertions on both sides will actually cost us. That would be

great but even in the UK context you do not have any information for the

parties for 2015 manifestoes, and in terms of the currency it is clear to

everyone in Scotland will continue to use the pound after independence,

but it is down to the UK government at this time to sit down and at the

end of the day it is them that have refused to negotiate to give clarity

on some of these issues. They want the uncertainty in the debate but

the voters of Scotland deserve better than that adds to have more

clarity. Thank you both very much. You're

watching Sunday Politics Scotland. Let's cross now for the news from

Reporting Scotland with Andrew Kerr. Good afternoon. A new, privately-run

body to get people on long-term sick leave back to work is being set up.

It will operate in Scotland, England and Wales. Up to 95,000 people in

Scotland are on sick leave for longer than a month each year. The

UK government hopes it will save employers ?70 million a year by

offering medical advice and re-training.

A rugby fan has died in hospital after falling ill during Scotland's

match against England. The 60-year-old man was watching with

friends when he was taken ill around 15 minutes into the RBS six Nations

clash at Murrayfield. He died a short time later at Edinburgh Royal

Infirmary. It's the economy that matters most to people voting in the

independence referendum, a new poll by the BBC has suggested. More than

1,000 people aged 16 and over were asked which issues from a list of

ten mattered most to them. Pensions came second, with welfare third. The

results will feature in the programme Scotland's Top Ten battle

grounds to be shown on BBC Two on Tuesday.

Now let's get the weather. We can see that showers are most

frequent to the central belt and Southern up once. It will be breezy,

temperatures around seven Celsius will stop this evening and

overnight, we hold onto the wind, but it will ease a touch. Showers

remain frequent. That's it. Back to Gary.

Thank you very much. Let's look at what might feature in the week to

come. I am joined by the former Guardian

correspondent and freelance journalist, Kirsty Scott, and the

Herald's political editor, Magnus Gardham. Let's start with David

Cameron's speech. Alex Salmond writes in the Herald today. He calls

it a big mistake. Was it? He had every right to make the

speech. It was a bit much for Alex Salmond to describe it as using

sport as a political tool. Remember Wimbledon? Unfurling the sole tyre.

There was no way that David Cameron could have presented that that would

suit Alex Salmond. But he had a right. But was it a mistake to

deliver it in London? The admirers of the Prime Minister

admired the speech, the problem of course is that he doesn't have many

in Scotland. The idea is not a bad when from a campaign accused of

being negative. But is London the best place to deliver it? Possibly

not. It will be interesting to see it we hear that message from

elsewhere in England. Interesting, from another perspective, Andrew

Rodley says that there is not enough. He said that the Scots want

to be told they are loved. Is there a realisation that things are too

negative from the Unionist side? Possibly. But in terms of what is

important to voters, the economy is high up, the relationship with the

rest of the UK is low-down. That was quite surprisingly. I think David

Cameron but have ranked and are feeling stronger about that. --

would have an add-on -- would have banked on. But I think he and his

advisers understand that he is on a hiding to nothing. He could have

made the speech in Stornoway and would have got brickbats. But we

need to see something more positive from the No campaign.

A question is whether there will be more demolition for Scotland in the

event of a No vote. A piece in the Scotland on Sunday asks, where now

for the Labour Party? There is talk in a previous commitment for

tax-raising powers to be reined back.

It is a real issue for Labour. There are differences of opinion on this.

It will be very difficult for them to manage this. And to get into a

place where they can say convincingly to voters, further

devolution will be on offer if you vote no. Is Johann Lamont the woman

to bring the Labour Party together? She has to be. But to change it now

would be a disaster for them. We need to see a greater sense of

cohesion and purpose on the No campaign. Criticism of the Yes

campaign is that they do not have clarity. But people are now saying,

persuade us, what with things look like if we vote no? It is

interesting that you have the Liberal Democrats making a concerted

effort to get on the same page as the Liberal Democrats and

conservatives. But the Labour Party are not even on their own same page.

Alex Salmond will say, if you vote no, there is no change. And surveys

suggest that a beefed up Holyrood with the then more popular outcome

than the status quo. -- would be a. A BBC Scotland poll indicates that

Scots believe the economy matters most. No great surprise. We have

known for a long time people feel this way. It has been a good lesson.

We have been talking about the currency and possible monetary

union. The people on the street are saying, we need to know exactly what

will happen. And this ?500 figure, better or worse off, that could sway

undecided. I am not surprised that the economy has emerged as the key

issue. But when you get into the specifics, looking at the currency,

closely linked to the economy, issues like the European Union,

pensions, welfare, a bit lower down. The political rows, the stories that

have dominated, currency union, EU membership, they are not at the top

of peoples priorities. Maybe a lesson for politicians and the

media. Absolutely. This poll is helpful because we pick up on issues

which we think are important. Now we can understand what people actually

want to hear about. Are there difficulties on the economy for

either side? It is clearly a sign that the first Mr must do more. --

first Minister. That's all from us this week. I'll be back at the same

time next week. Until then, goodbye.