01/06/2016 Politics Scotland

children are always known. The named person is about a universal service

where every child in Scotland has a quasi social work type individual.

I'm joined this afternoon by Moray Macdonald,

who is a former Director of the Scottish Conservatives,

and is now a PR executive with Weber Shandwick.

This is a tragic case, but it is unclear whether it was a pilot area

for the named person, whether Liam Fee had a maimed person or whether

it was done under the other scheme. It is clear that Fife was a pilot

area for the scheme and Fife an area where similar projects have been

under way for some time. What is not clear is whether Liam was part of

this. That I don't really understand. The authorities will

know. And must know whether he was in a scheme or not. I think it is a

shame that they're not just being honest about that. It is possible

for some reason to do with administration they haven't found

out, but I find it hard to believe the First Minister's office haven't

been in touch with Fife Council to find out the situation. For obvious

reasons, people might not want to know the identity of a named

individual in this case, but as you say it is difficult to know why it

should be a secret whether or not there was a person. You don't

have to say who it was, whether it was male or female, what their

profession was, so they can't be identified. But if this scheme is

but this is not a good start. The person wouldn't have to be

identified, but I'm sure as soon as it was made clear that Liam Fee did

have a named person, if that was the case there will be a witch hunt on

to find that person. And the media will want to put questions to that

person about why he or she didn't do what they were expected to do under

the named person's act and how come they didn't see what was going on

when we saw in the media, there was clearly some neighbours who had

concerns about the behaviour of the parents. And some concern about what

was going on with Liam. It seems the It seems the problem wasn't people

didn't know there was a problem. It is consistent from what I see from a

lot of other similar cases, there is questions raised and previous child

abuse cases where people have raised concern and it has not been acted

on, whether it has not gone into the system properly, whether somebody

has forgotten or someone didn't know what to do, or sometimes it has been

suggested someone has passed it off, saying that is your view and I'm

sure they're OK. One of the most difficult things with this act is I

don't believe it is as intrusive as some of the campaigners against it

say its, but I don't think it is a great bit of legislation. It was put

through in a rush. There is a requirement for something there to

try and make sure that the gaps are filled between all the authorities

involved in a child's life and it is how you fill that without going to a

totally intrusive nanny state. We will be back with you later.

Well, the Scottish Parliament's committee structure for the coming

term was revealed yesterday and after May's election

saw the SNP returned as a minority administration,

it would seem the party has lost its in-built majority

Our Political Editor Brian Taylor joins me now.

Is this on face of it, I think they're saying the SNP control eight

out of 15 committees. How does that compare to last time? I think they

convene eight committees. Control is a different matter. The convenor has

a lot of control over the business of the committee and the importance

they attach to particular items. But the SNP does not have a majority on

any of those 15 committees and nor should it. It doesn't have a

majority in the chamber and it is reflecting Parliamentary arithmetic.

They did have a majority and it was the way in which the committees

conducted their business, there was a feeling by some, though I feel it

was exaggerated, that the committees were too sub servient to the

Government agenda. If you're a convenor of a committee, do you have

a deciding vote? You have a dividing vote in a situation where the

committee is divided. If there isn't a majority, that isn't going to

arise. The other lot can vote against you. The attempt is not to

approach it in that way. The attempt when the Parliament was established

and the way the committees work is for folk to almost set aside party

allegiances. Is that possible? No. But it is possible to some extent.

The idea is you build a career, some expertise within the committees,

scrutinising ministers and ventilating issues of concern to

people and scrutinising legislation. One of points Tricia Marwick made

was one reason there are problems with the committees is they combi

scrutinising committees with select committees. Do you think we will see

any changes there? No, and I am not sure that is a weakness. At first it

was felt that would be a strength. Because those members who were

involved in wide-ranging inquiries say into the health service, would

garner expertise which they could deploy in scrutinising legislation.

The legislation didn't just come through it and they go through it

line by line, they are meant to hold a general inquiry into the bill and

for that to be effective the MSPs have got to know something in the

first place. I covered the Westminster Parliamentary system for

a good number of years and it has strengths as well. But when

government backbenchers are placed o' an committee bill, they're told

to sit quiet and do their correspondence and not join in. It

is a very different approach to the one attempted at Holyrood. I do not

think that MSPs will be ready yet to abandon that approach of expertise

from one form of committee work moving into the other. Thanks you.

What do you think of this change? Is it going to be more open? It is not

an unexpected change. The SNP don't have a majority. The reason the

committee system was set up the way it was, in Westminster they have

revising chamber, the House of Lords. On occasion that does give

the UK Government a bloody nose and delays legislation and Blakes the

Government think again -- makes the Government think again. What that

chamber does is it makes sure that legislation is accurate and does

what it is meant to do. There have been occasions where legislation in

the Scottish Parliament has gone through too quickly and we have had

some clumsy laws. Because the SNP was able to get it through quickly.

It was the same when Labour and the Liberal Democrats were in power

remember. As a coalition in the first Scottish Parliament they had a

majority and they had a majority in the committees as well. I think it

will make the Parliament more interesting. Previous, in the last

session the SNP got some issues through quickly that you might not

have expected and this time things will be looked at in more detail it

Well, in the Chamber today, MSPs will it vote on whether to impose

Roseanna Cunningham, the Secretary for Environment, Climate Change

This ambition underpins the land use strategy. Working with nature is

also at the core of our commitment to continuing action on biodiversity

protection and habitat restoration. Scotland provides the major part of

UK's contribution to the EU's network of protected sites, with

over 15% of our land area designated for habitats and species. We are a

stronghold for a number of species and we have led the way in creating

a statutory frame work to prevent nonnative invasive species. No

natural asset presents a greater opportunity to fulfil our nation's

potential than our seas. They're home to more than 6,000 species and

also have around 25% of the potential renewable energy resource

in European waters. Unlocking that resource will help us achieve our

climate change target and contribute to our ambitions for growing the

rural economy. This government published Scotland's first national

marine plan last year. Marking an important step in the implementation

of national and European legislation. It seeks to balance the

competing interests of different marine industries with protecting

the marine environment. We a aim to complete the marine protected

network and ensure it is well managed. We must also manage and

support land use and wildlife, sustainably. The uplands are areas

with challenges and we have hastened the 2016 review of deer management

so it will be completed by October. I can advise that I will consider

fully the finding from the review of current measures to protect mild

mammals, such as Foxes from being hunted with dogs. If they need to be

improved, we will do that. I intend to carry out a wider review of

legislation and policy to prevent and address wildlife crime. The

biggest threat to our ambitions comes from Chai mate change -- Chai

mate change. We have -- climate change. We have a record on which we

can be proud. But we want to achieve more. I will work with colleagues to

drive forward activity to meet our targets to reduce greenhouse gas

emissions. We are on track to exceed our 2020 target for a 42% reduction

from base line levels. The historic agreement reached at the UN climate

talks last year has established certainty about the global low

carbon future and presented Scotland with an opportunity to continue to

lead the world. As the First Minister announced last week, we

will establish a new and more testing target for 2020 of reducing

actual Scottish emissions by at least 50%. And we will look for

support across the chamber for the actions we will need to take to make

that target. We recognise the need to empower communities to adapt to

meet challenges. We will continue to support communities across Scotland

to reduce their carbon emissions through our climate challenge fund.

Many of the projects supported by the fund encourage the reuse of

every day items and extend their life through repair and maintenance.

This is at the heart of our approach to create a more circular economy to

keep valuable materials in circulation for as long as possible,

preventing waste and creating business and career opportunities in

the food, drink, construction, energy and remanufacturing sectors.

I also intend to reduce food waste by one third by 2025, the first such

targeting Europe. -- in Europe. I wonder if the minister's research

says that fracking is in fact safe, and if the minister goes ahead with

it, how will that help with the climate change targets? I think I

have built with the situation in terms of the question that Mark

Rosko asked earlier. I have indicated what the government's

position is man the member is aware that the minister for an engine she

will be closing this debate and will pick on more of the specific issues.

I want to move onto land reform now. Our new land reform act seeks to

transform our relationship with the land by helping to create a fairer

Scotland. As the First Minister set out last week, one of the key

priorities in my portfolio will be to implement the act's key measures,

including the preparation of a land rights and responsibility statement.

This must be about enshrine in fairness to all parties into public

policy, and my aim is to tweet for this statement to underpin future

land reform. I will also establish a land commission. The aim is to

appoint commissioners by the end of this year, with the land commission

in operation on the 1st of April 2017. This government is committed

to making land ownership more transparent and inclusive through

community ownership, and one of our priorities for government is to

introduce a mandatory public register of landowners' controlling

interests. I can announce today that that consultation on that register

will begin this summer. So that we can meet the ambitious target of 1

million in community ownership by 2020, we will still a activity by

increasing the Scottish land fund from ?3 million to ?10 million. Of

course, wise and productive use of our land is not just a rural

concern, but also an open one. Too often, it is our most deprived

communities that are most blighted by vacant and derelict land and poor

quality living, working, leisure and play environments. That is why we

will continue to support the Scotland green network, yours

largest green space project. 80% of Scotland's severely deprived areas

are within the CS GM, which equipped to over 100,000 residents living in

areas which require dedicated support. Having outlined some of the

key priorities in government in my portfolio, it is clear that I will

be busy in the coming years. But I hope other members will join me in

being busy. We can all agree that Scotland's stunning natural

environment is one of our most precious assets. I hope there is

more we can agree on in the lifetime of this Parliament on how to use our

country's natural capital wisely and productively, and how to strive for

and achieve our world leading ambitions on climate change and on

how to empower communities by reforming land ownership and

management. I could not be more proud to be Scotland's first Cabinet

Secretary for the environment, climate change and land reform.

These are issues which have long been close to my heart, and indeed,

I think I was making speeches in the House of Commons in the 1990s on

land reform. I see David Stuart nodding. He was probably there for

some of those speeches then. I promise to listen to all voices,

ideas and views and to seek consensus where it can be found,

which I think is in many places. But I also promised to drive forward our

priorities for government and to lead on the policies I have

outlined. This portfolio has a clear interest in government policy on

fracking, but the minister for business, innovation and energy

leads on it and will therefore addressed the issue more fully in

his closing speech. Roseanna Cunningham, the Secretary

for Environment, Climate Change And we'll be back to hear more

from that debate a little later. Now, I'm joined from

the Scottish Parliament by Joan McAlpine from the SNP,

the Conservatives' Alex Johnstone, Patrick Harvie from

the Scottish Greens and Alex Cole-Hamilton

from the Liberal Democrats. I want to see if we can get some

information. Starting on the Liam case, there is a debate. It appears

that Fife was a pilot area for the named person's legislation. It seems

clear for some reason whether or not this child had a named person. Have

any of you got any specific information? No. And personally, I

would suggest that it is irresponsible of those to be

throwing around claims and counterclaims about this case. It is

not the kind of issue people should be trying to score political points

from. But it is not necessarily scoring political points. Given that

the stated aims of the named persons legislation, if this child was part

of a pilot scheme, it is not unreasonable for the public to said,

what he or not? And I am sure those questions will be asked. But various

claims and counterclaims have been thrown around without justification

at the moment, and I think those who have done so are every bit as

irresponsible as those who, during the election campaign, were throwing

around phrases like State Guardian in every home or undermining human

rights. Joan McAlpine, I see the point Patrick Harvie is making, but

it isn't unreasonable for the public to say, we would like to know, if

there was a pilot scheme here... Nobody is suggesting that a named

person should be identified, for obvious reasons, but it is difficult

to say why whether there was a named person should somehow be a secret.

This is a matter for the review that is being conducted by the local

authority. There are obviously serious questions and lots of

aspects of this tragic case. I don't think we should pre-empt that

inquiry. But their reader was a named person in this case, or that

wasn't. It is somewhat mystifying as to why that should be a secret. The

key thing is that this was referred. Concerns were raised with the local

child protection agencies and clearly, they were not followed up.

I am sure that concern will be part of the review. Alex Johnstone, what

do you make of this? It is important that individuals are protected in

these circumstances. But that is also important that we make up our

minds about how we progress these matters in the full knowledge of the

circumstances involved. If there is no attempt made to clarify whether

there was a named person involved here or not, it is impossible to

make a fair decision based on inadequate information. Monica

Lennon, on that point, it is difficult again to know why it

should be so mysterious. I believe the Scottish Government has already

claimed that the pilot project for the named persons legislation in

Fife has been a success. So how can you on the one hand said has been a

success and then, when a specific case comes along, refused to say yes

or no to the question, what this part of the pilot scheme? The most

important thing is that Scotland is still come to terms with what

happened to Liam Fee. It is a tragic case and anyone who watched the

coverage in the news would have been shaken by it. People who have spoken

to me about it are not calling for names and they are not talking about

a named person. The Scottish Labour Party has been clear about a named

person in terms of where we go next with that. There should be a review

and the commission is the best person to take that forward. But

anyone who wants to jump in and make political points to patient think

carefully before they continue along that road. No one is making

political points, we are simply asking the question, can we asked

the public not know whether or not the named persons pilot programme

was operative in this case? I don't see how that is scoring political

points. Well, the named person has become a political football during

the campaign. But we need some calm today. We need to remember that a

little boy lost his life. No one is denying for a second that this is a

tragic case. Of course people up and down the country are upset by this.

But you can't just reply to questions about important matters of

public policy by saying we should not be talking about that, we should

simply feel it is a tragic case. Today isn't the data draw

assumptions, to make conclusions and point the finger. No one is pointing

any fingers, we are simply asking a basic question. That is reassuring

to know. But the named person review is an important issue. Alex

Cole-Hamilton, what do you make of this? I would echo the points the

other panellists have made about what a terrible tragedy this has

been. There will be questions to be answered, as there should be

whenever there is a child death in these circumstances. Leaving aside

the merits or demerits of the named person scheme, we need to look at a

range of measures that failed in this case. The named person is just

one of them, if that was part of the jigsaw. Far from being a state

Guardian or social worker for every child, the named person is there to

be a point of contact for parents and families. There not that make

sure every child is safe all of the time. It is just part of the jigsaw

puzzle. There are still questions to answer in this debate, but today is

a day for coming to terms and reflecting on the tragedy of Liam

Fee's case and reviewing that with the spirit of making sure it can

never happen again. Now, let's cross back

to the chamber, where are responding to the Government

on the debate about We also need to move away from

recycling rates as our only measure of success, because after all,

recycling is only the third best or third worst option on the waste

hierarchy. We need to encourage waste prevention and reuse. We a

nationally accredited we use brand in Revolve and an increasingly

professional third sector, and we need to recognise those successes.

An example of sending the wrong signal is where a local authority

chooses to roll out an effective waste prevention campaign, something

like love food, hate waste, and as a result of doing that, the food waste

arising is reduced. Therefore, the recycling rate is reduced by the

local authority doing the very thing we want them to do. So we need to

look at other mechanisms for analysing that. The use of a carbon

metric, or the development of a circular economy metric. We also

need to represent design more strongly than it is done in the

making things last strategy. Politically, design sits with

culture, but given that 80% of the lifetime environmental impact of a

product is decided at design stage, we need to intervene then. That

means aligning cultural and industry funding and making sure that while

we produce the world's greatest designers, they are retained here in

Scotland. One solution would be to create a design hub that links

academia with industry and ensures that we are engaging in product

design, business model and system design. Somewhat tangentially in

terms of land reform, we must ensure that ownership is not the focus of

the debate and rather, use land more sustainably for the common good.

Therefore, we need to create a circular economy for Scotland. We

need to ensure that we meet the needs of this generation and the

next, and parliament have the pleasure of moving the amendment of

the motion in my name. I now call to move amendment to 26.4. I start by

congratulating the Cabinet Secretary on her new role and not the wealth

of experience. Do all those in other parties with responsibilities in

this portfolio, I look forward to working with them. I want to also

pay tribute to Sarah Boyack, who worked for 17 years and this

Parliament on sustainable development and so much more. Her

understanding of and commitment to renewable energy was ahead of its

time, and her towering intellect, in my view, and grasp of planning and

structural issues enabled her to be a fine minister and a Shadow Cabinet

secretary. I am sure we all wish her well. Climate change and all

environmental issues are an incredible responsibility, and bring

many opportunities. I am pleased to hear that the Cabinet Secretary is

stressing that she will work with those responsible for other

portfolios, transport, energy, housing and agriculture. If we are

to forge action and legislation which protects future generations

while creating new jobs and butter quality-of-life now. So I welcome

the promotion of climate change to Cabinet level. The changes needed as

we shift towards a low carbon economy are not easy to make for any

political party. While I always hold the Scottish Government to account

when necessary, I will work with the government where possible.

We were able to work with Derek McKay the transport minister to

bring about the award for a cycling scheme which we had thought up and

was developed as community links plus. SNP plans to slash air

passenger duty are irresponsible, taking millions out of public

services. Today, with our amendment Scottish Labour asks the Government

to support a ban on fracking. The science is clear to meet our climate

change goals we must oppose fracking. Methane has been upgraded

as a greenhouse gas for a good reason. The last thing Scotland

needs as we shift to a low car upon economy is what some have called a

transition fuel. Fracking is just another fossil fuel and we don't

need it. Not at the moment. I want to develop this argument. This

Government needs to make clear they will not issue any licences for

fracking. Labour's amendment provides a cheer choice. The

divisions in this chamber are clear up to a point. Labour, the Greens

and Liberal Democrats are opposed to fracking. On the other side are the

Tories. It is less clear when we look at the SNP. In the run up to

last year's general election some SNP candidates couldn't shout loudly

enough about their opposition to fracking, but the SNP government

refuses to ban it. Nicola Sturgeon claims to be a fracking sceptic, but

won't go further than a temporary freeze. Today, we will see once and

for all which side of the debate the SNP members are really on, if they

vote against our amendment, they're saying they want to keep the door

open to fracking. And only a vote... Only a vote on a ban will show...

Not at the moment. Only a ban will show beyond doubt that the

Parliament rejects fracking in Scotland. So the SNP you have a

choice between working with left centre parties like Labour to ban

fracking or working with the Tories, to push through fracking in

Scotland. Will the Scottish Government support our call for a

ban or not? There are already many... I am not going the take

interventions. I'm short of time. There are... I am sure that the new

minister for energy will be highlighting the issue from the SNP

perspective. There are many challenged communities on the coal

belt in Scotland which face untackled opencast restoration. This

is an environmental justice issue that I asked the cabinet Secretary

to address. We need to develop renewable energy options to generate

and supply energy. In 2014, 845,000 households were living in fuel

poverty and half of all pensioners. The SNP was late with his plans for

a warm home bill during the election. The cabinet Secretary does

need to show how Scotland will ramp up the adoption of affordable

renewable heating. I'm sure she will have much support on this. Marine

renewables holds immense possibilities and transport skills

are essential and I ask the cabinet to Secretary to work with the new

Secretary for education on initial and in jobs skills development. More

broadly, environmental regulation must be right to enable sustainable

development by land, sea and air. And the implementation of the

national marine plan and the marine protected areas will be fundamental

to our seas and those who depend on them now and in the future. And in

this context I want to pay respect to Richard Lochhead. Biodiversity

must be addressed. Support for the behaviour change will be essential.

Research budgets must be protected for flooding, as discussed by the

cabinet Secretary and maintaining a robust interface and further

developing partnerships with NGOs and businesses will be vital. I want

to recognise the contribution of Aileen McLeod, now that we have the

new land reform act, the development of land rights statement, the role

of commission, and the regulations themselves will be fundamental to

progress and Scottish Labour stands ready to contribute to this. I move

the amendment in my name. Thank you. I call Andy Whiteman to speak to his

amendment. Thank you. Can I congratulate Roseanna Cunningham on

her appointment. It is a great honour to be elected to this and I

want to thank the staff who made us new members welcome. Irwant to thank

my colleague in the Green Party who have given me incredible support

over the years and my family and the voters of Lothian for putting their

trust in Alison Johnson and myself. I was particularly grateful to a

veteran of this place who gave me the following pieces of advice.

First, be yourself and stick to your principles. Second, expect surprises

every day. That certainly is true for example after decision time last

Thursday, I returned to my office to find a parcel wrapped on my desk and

I discovered a green knitted woolly hat, from former MSP, Mary Scanlon,

which will be my first registration of gifts. I know I have many

admirers on Tory benches, particularly Mary's successors on

the Highland list. You don't need to wait until you retire to give me

more gifts. The third piece of evidence is to remember why you're

here and who put you here. All good advice. This Parliament has huge

potential to transform the lives of people in Scotland. And in relation

to the challenges of climate change, the solutions lie in areas such as

energy demand reduction in housing and transport. Act of the travel,

urban planning and a programme of reforestation and ecological

restoration. Transport is the sector that has seen least progress in

terms of reducing carbon emissions and the focus on the use of private

car privileges men and higher earners. The new cabinet Secretary

will be faced with formidable vested interests in addressing the

questions she will be put. She will need all her experience to persuade

her cabinet colleagues they must work together to achieve such

ambition. She has some critical decisions to take, on topics such as

wildlife crime and the future of beavers. That brings me to land

reform. I first met Roseanna Cunningham in the nineties. We were

part of a group campaigning... STUDIO: Now back to Brian Taylor.

Apparently the SNP are going to abstain in this and say we have got

a review, we will make up our minds when we get the review thank you.

Yeah. I think the position is they will abstain when the vote is taken

later. There is an amendment down by Labour and Greens on fracking. The

debate is a generic debate on the environment. Given the Parliamentary

arithmetic, it would seem the SNP would either lost the vote or would

have to vote with the Conservatives to defeat the Labour or Green

amendment. I understand they have decided to abstain that they will

take the Parliamentary hit such as it, regardless of whether it is the

Labour amendment or the Green amendment and say that Parliament

has spoken on an interim basis. The ministers will argue the review

continues, and it is only when the scientific review is finished that

ministers will set out their position and may well at that point

require to come back to Parliament for a further vote. Are you

suggesting that they have decided to abstain because they don't want to

be seen to be voting with the Tories. I think that is one element.

The other element is they will argue, the mood of the Parliamentary

group was, perhaps as guided by ministers, that abstention is in

line with what they're doing with fracking. They're abstaining from

taking a decision until the scientific review is complete. A

moratorium is not a ban, it is a pause. They would say what they're

doing, are they proud of it? The position is that a Government wants

to find it in? No, but hey, welcome to minority Government and not

having a majority in the Parliament. So I think they would say they are

abstaining in line with the Government position. Do I think they

will ban fracking? Yes I do. But the scientific evidence, that industrial

evidence, the economic evidence may point perhaps to some degree towards

fracking. The political difficulty for the SNP is in going against both

the Labour and the Greens and the Laboureds. Laboureds. This could be

-- Liberal Democrats. It notice just on this particular thing, there are

a few issues where actually the Tories are closer to the SNP than

any of the other parties. If the SNP don't want to vote with the Tories

that, could cause problems. Certainly with tax. Their income tax

position is a lot closer to the SNP's than Labour and the Liberal

Democrats with a penny on the standard rate or the Greens with an

unheaval with the stm. System. Will they require a Tory vote. Let's wait

and see. They may be able to prise the Greens away. But now I don't

think they they want to be seen voting with the Conservatives. Look

at the speeches Nicola Sturgeon has made, sthe has tried to argue that

in terms of ideology she is remote from the Conservatives and trying to

squeeze them out. That may not be possible on every occasion, but

they're trying to side step it. To stay away from that Conservative

allegiance. Thank you very much for that. What do you make of this? This

could be, I mean as Brian said, there is a particular situation with

fracking, but there could be a general problem for the SNP they

might need the Tories to get some of their measures through. But having

accused Labour of being toxic for campaigning with the Tories in the

referendum, it is a problem for them? It is and it isn't. Debates

happen like this every week and lots of them don't mean anything. They

don't change the law. They don't even influence policies. It is

Parliament saying we think the environment is great, we think

whatever the policy is you're looking at it great or bad. Losing

today's vote doesn't impact on anything. There is nothing going to

change. But I think Brian is right... It is a credible position

for the SNP to take, to say we have commissioned an expert review on

fracking, if you don't mind, we will wait until that review reports

before we commit ourselves. And they have to say that, because there is

no point in setting up a report to look at it and not waiting for it to

come out. The SNP other difficulty is they are split on it. There are

some I would suggest not many SNP MSPs in favour of fracking. Some are

against. By going for an about tension, rather than voting to keep

the moratorium in place, they will get their members behind themment

for Labour it is a strange position. They're trying to pabg take a

populist position. They're voting against jobs. Fracking would create

jobs in the central belt at a time when jobs are going in the energy

fields. Do you know, do the trade unions have strong feelings about

this? That is what I'm surprised about. I'm surprised trade unions

haven't been speaking louder about this. Just last week Ineos announced

that 100% of his research people who have been based up here are moving

down south. Because fracking has been approved in England. So some of

that skims have already gone. I think it will be difficult for them

to be pulled back up. Brian is probably correct and the Parliament

will vote against fracking. Would that concern you personally, critics

say it is not just fracking there are a series of issues the do with

technology or the development of technology where Scotland is saying

no to GM crops, no to nuclear power, no to fracking. And some of these

decisions, GM crops taking without scientific advice. People are saying

is this the image... Some people say that is the image, we want to be

seen as a green country. But others say, well hang on, it looks as if we

are turning our face against much of modern industry. It does concern me.

Because it feels on some issues like GM and fracking that the government

or large parts of Parliament are take popular positions on it and it

is not based on science. Fracking if the report comes out and saying

fracking is safe and they vote to ban it, well why bother having a

report when it says it is safe and they go against the advice. It is

concerning. I think it is a worry in terms of the economy. The reality is

we need to have, to create energy in Scotland and if oil and gas is

running out, and fracking is cheaper, then surely we should be

looking to that. In America, many of the fracking

operations have stopped because the oil price is so low that it isn't

worth taking the stuff out of the ground. And that is part of the

problem of the global energy crisis in terms of the price of oil being

so cheap that it is just as cheap to use oil rather than paying to frack

it. There's three weeks to go

until the EU referendum and today Leave campaigners say Britain should

adopt a points-based immigration system, if people vote

to quit the European Union. Meanwhile, the TUC, which supports

the Remain campaign, is warning that a Leave vote

would see workers worse Our Westminster correspondent

David Porter joins us David, explain this latest fracas?

It is the latest of many. Immigration has taken centre stage

today. The argument being put forward by the Leave campaign is

that in their words, it would be fairer and more humane to have a

system whereby people get points. So if someone has an occupation that is

required, they would get more points if they had good English and good

health. They would stand a better chance of becoming an immigrant to

the UK. At the moment, anyone in the European Union has freedom of travel

and can move to the UK. It is an issue which is making the political

weather here at Westminster, as is the argument from the TUC, said that

on average, workers could be ?38 a week worse off if Britain was to

leave the EU. Joining me now is the SNP MP Stephen Gethin is, who is

very much in the Remain camp. There was some logic in an idea that if

you want to bring the right skilled people into this country, you do it

through a points -based system, a bit like what happens in Australia?

At the moment, there is a lot of logic in having free movement. That

benefits our economy and individuals. I benefited from free

movement of persons. I wants to see young people benefit from that in

the future. Today, we have promises on the table. Not even promises,

they are proposals. It is a bit off the back of a fag packet and we need

to see more. For instance, Scotland would like more immigration than

other parts of the UK. This could be a way of achieving it. In Scotland,

we need emigration. Emigration is a huge public. We need more

immigration. It is good for jobs. Immigration is a good thing.

Fundamentally, you are talking about the European Union. If you leave the

European Union, you lose freedom of movement. That affects the 1.5

million UK citizens who live in other parts of the European Union,

and also affects the dozens contributing to our economy here. If

you get rid of free movement, there would be a black hole in the

Chancellor's budget, given that EU migrants or expats make

substantially more of a contribution that they take away from services.

We ordered by Bernadette King, the Conservative MP. Some of you may

have seen him arriving on his bike -- Bernard Jenkin. You are from the

Leave side. Why is a points -based system better than the one we have

at the moment? At the moment, we have a points -based system for the

rest of the world, but not the EU. One of the factors that have kept

wages low, particularly amongst the low paid, the bottom 20%, is that

there is an unlimited supply of cheap labour coming in from low-wage

economies in the European Union. And there is nothing the government can

do about that. The Prime Minister has said people should not come here

unless they have a job, but he can't do anything about that while we are

in the European Union. It is not about ending immigration, it is

about restoring the choice of British voters and the British

government as to what kind of immigration policy we should have.

You say you want a more targeted approach, but if we have a points

-based system in the UK, I understand that that means we can be

part of the single market. Presumably, other countries in the

European Union would say, we will apply the same rules to British

workers. And what would that matter? We have tariff free trade between

the EU and UK now. Who is advocating that we should have tariffs on our

trade between the EU and UK after we leave? Nobody. You can be a

self-governing country outside the EU and you can trade with the EU are

like the United States does, like Singapore does, like Switzerland

does. It is just a question of returning our country to be a

normal, self-governing country. I am at a loss to understand why the SNP

argues that we need a stronger voice. They have a far stronger

voice as part of UK at Western star. They would get lost as a tiny

country in the European Union, if they could get in. This

fundamentally misrepresents what the EU is. The EU is made up of

independent member states who make their decisions based on being

independent member states. They retain that sovereignty and they

share it where they choose. At the moment, Scotland is lumbered with a

Tory government on 15% of the vote, the worst election result in

Scotland for 150 years of the last general election, and the decisions

you make have an impact on Scotland. Take fisheries. It was a Tory

government that said our fishery policy was expendable, not the

European Union. So the fault lies with the member state, not the

European Union. But the point about democracy is that you should be able

to change your mind. That is what the British government cannot do in

the European Union. You say we have our sovereignty. We have things

decided by majority voting and we get outvoted. All the votes that

have taken place since 2010, we have lost each of them and we get

overruled by the European Court of Justice. We don't have a Supreme

Court in our own country. Mr Jenkins, I asked the House of

Commons Library for some research about how many times the UK

Government had voted against a final council decision. Since your

government had a majority, it has not done so once. Because they give

in in secret. Well, that is your government. There are 20 member

states with democratically elected governments, a commissioner who is

appointed in much the same way as you get other ministers appointed,

and we get all this hokum about democracy from a party that once the

House of Lords! It is extraordinary. How can you be in favour of an

independent Scotland within the -- outside the UK, but you are happy to

submit to a European court in Europe? An independent Scotland

would make Scottish priorities, like renewable energy, which has been

undermined by Westminster. We have good policies from Europe, like

workers' writes. So we would make our priorities. You also talk about

the European Court of Justice. The European Court of Justice is there

when you have rules and regulations and you have a dispute, just like

any other court. There are two Scottish justice is out of 15 in the

supreme court. Do you think that is fair? Don't be ridiculous. The whole

of the United Kingdom has only one judge on the European court.

Scotland would be better off as an independent country within the

European Union and not being dictated to. This is fantasy

constitutional theory. You think the House of Lords is more democratic

than the EU? That has nothing to do with it. Is the House of Lords more

democratic than the European Union? I think I ought to chip in. We are

getting short for time. It has been fantastic to hear you interacting

with each other. A brief answer from each of you. How close is this going

to be in three weeks' time, and are you still confident Remain will win?

It is close already. We want everybody to get out there and vote

for Remain. It is so important for all of us. The SNP is campaigning

hard, but we could do with Labour and the Liberal Democrats getting

their finger out. How close is going be, Bernard? I don't think the polls

are telling us what is going on. I don't think they themselves know

what is going on. All I know is that every meeting and debate I attend,

there are people coming around to Leave. And while I haven't been in

Scotland, I am told the same thing is happening there. We have to leave

it there. It will be very interesting to reconvene for this

conversation before we vote and perhaps after. Thank you for joining

me. Let's get some final thoughts

from Moray Macdonald. The most important thing that came

out of that was that Bernard Jenkins jumped off a bike and immediately

did an interview! I don't know if Patrick Harvie is still watching,

but he has something to live up to. It was impressive, he did not seem

to be out of breath too much. You are genuinely undecided. I don't

think that is rare. Opinion polls suggest there are a lot of

undecided, maybe up to 25%. And I am not surprised by that. When you look

at the hyperbole we have seen from the Remain and the Leave campaign

over the last two weeks, the titular leading open when purdah kicked in

and the UK Government could no longer put up documents on policies

relating to the EU, each day, the Treasury was pumping out evidence

about why we must remain in the EU. Speaking to my own friends and

family, people just seem fed up about it. Some of the facts and

figures being thrown around by both sides seemed ridiculous. A lot of

people were going, I am just not convinced it will make that much

difference if we are in or out in terms of the impact on individuals.

What would each side have to do between now and the vote to convince

you one way or the other? My biggest concern about the EU is the lack of

democracy in it. I am not convinced that anyone can do anything to tell

me that that is going to change. But my biggest fear is on the economics

of it. I don't think the world will fall apart if we wrote to go out,

but if we stay in, the economy will probably be slightly better off and

we as a country will go on as we are. And even if we do come out and

the economy plummets from well, it will probably come back to normal

within a while. If we were to leave, the thing I would be most concerned

about would be the right of access across the EU, which I find an

attractive proposition. My company has offices across Europe. Employees

of hours would be affected. So what are you suggesting? You would like

less of the grand rhetoric and the wild eyed accusations ma and a bit

more hard facts that would enable you to decide one way or the other?

The wild rhetoric is the biggest problem. The biggest issue is that

David Cameron did not get a good deal at the start of this. If he

had, Remain would have been firmly in the lead.

You can keep up with the latest debates from Holyrood

I'll be back this weekend on BBC One with Sunday Politics.