02/11/2011 Politics Scotland

Hello and welcome to Politics Scotland. Coming up on the

programme: A major finance group says green energy companies should

be cautious about investing due to uncertainty over the independence

referendum. It's round two of the minimum price

for alcohol debate. We will see if the arguments have moved on. And

what will a Greek referendum on the euro bail-out mean for our economy?

Here at Westminster that issue is very much on the minds of MPs as

well. And how to pay for public sector pensions.

First, a major finance group has urged extreme caution over

investing in Scotland's renewable energy sector, partly because of

the independence referendum. Citigroup said the process of

constitutional change could create huge uncertainty. Here's our

business correspondent David Henderson.

He wants Scotland to be the Saudi Arabia of renewables, and this week

he is taking that message to the Middle East. But will Alex

Salmond's drive for independence scare off investors? The The SNP

see wind, wave and tidal power as a vast untapped resource to be used

to power Scotland and be exported to other parts of Europe. But that

will require a huge amount of investment. Today a major finance

group warned of the risks of investing in Scotland as it debates

independence. The financial giant Citigroup said the independence

referendum will create huge uncertainty and that renewable

investors risk seeing their assets stranded in a newly independent

Scotland. It's been seized upon by the SNP's opponents. When it comes

to vital industries like green technology the combination of a

green investment bank sponsored by the United Kingdom Government and

the many natural advantages there are in Scotland, can actually make

this a great industry for people in Scotland, but will only do that if

we keep our country together. recent times we have seen �750

million invested in renewable energy in Scotland and therefore,

if investors were scared away that wouldn't have happened and they've

all known of our plans for a referendum. The independence debate

is creating tension between business and the SNP Government,

but now the debate is entering stormy waters.

I am joined by our political editor Brian Taylor to discuss this

further. Good afternoon, Brian, thank you for joining me. How much

weight does this analyst from Citigroup carry, do you think?

not the weight of the individual analyst nor of the group, although

they're a large one, it's the weight of the arguments perhaps

relevant in this regard. Broadly, this Citigroup report is making two

points. Firstly, that the referendum itself, the process per

se carries with it uncertainty and that in their world equates with

risk. They argue that post- independence should that come about

there would not be sufficient consumer base in Scotland to

support the subsidies they believe will continue to be required for

renewables, against that Scottish Ministers here at Holyrood put two

points. They say that there are companies flocking to Scotland

right now to invest in renewables at a time when they know exactly

that there's going to be a referendum. Secondly, they believe

that in the new energy market across Europe, not just across the

UK, but Europe, there will be a continuing requirement, a

continuing demand, if you like, for renewables, and that of itself will

generate funds that will be required to continue that energy

development. This line of uncertainty is an emerging theme

from big business, the CBI mentioned it in September, as well.

How damaging is it do you think for the Scottish Government hearing

about these claims? It's difficult, because it obliges them again to

defend the timing of the referendum, they're putting back for three or

four years, because they said they promised to do in the second half

of the parliament, also because in strategic terms they believe now

with economic uncertainty would not be a reasonable time for them to go

ahead with suggesting independence to the people of Scotland. So it

poses a challenge to Ministers, but as you say they've heard it before,

it's not one they haven't encountered previously. So, Alex

Salmond this morning on the radio was very robust in criticising the

approach taken by the report and also Ministers here at Holyrood are

doing exactly that. A tricky this one for the opposition parties,

particularly when it comes to renewables I suppose, they don't

want to talk Scotland down? They don't. On the one hand we have a

statement from Labour which they're pointing out the sal kwrepbt point

in the report about the uncertainty of the timing of the referendum and

uncertainty of the process itself. You also have the situation, they

don't want to go too far, if they get overeager in pursuing the

campaign against independence it might seem as if they're talking

Scotland down to some extent with regard to the energy pros --

prospects of the country. The temptation to seize upon this

report for the opposition will be great but equally we have Scottish

Ministers against that adamant on the points that companies are

already coming here, already investing as Alex Alex Salmond put

it, you don't need to listen to one broadcaster, you can read the book.

Secondly, the belief in the longer- term Scotland's marine renewables

particularly would be a huge contribution to European energy

needs. It's a question of confidence, are you optimistic or

pessimistic about Scotland's energy pros text -- prospects?

Thank you very much. With me for the duration of this

afternoon's programme is Lorraine Davidson of The Times. Good

afternoon, thank you for joining me. It's a tricky one this for assix --

Alex Salmond, we are hearing from business about this uncertainty.

It's not helpful for the sector or the Government. Alex Salmond has

had this pressure from op sis parties -- opposition parties. That

line of attack hasn't really had great reasonance among the public.

People are not marching to squares around Scotland saying give us our

referendum now. Part of the reason it hasn't taken off is because you

haven't had big business coming in and saying we are not sure about

coming to Scotland, unless you guys know what you are doing. But it's

the age-old problem, we know businesses don't like uncertainty.

The SNP have been dealing with this issue nor for 20 years in the run-

up to devolution, I think they did badly in the 99 election partly

because of the idea of uncertainty and business being very hostile.

Business in Scotland is not now hos till, they're -- hostile. At the

end of the day they will be able to say businesses don't like

uncertainty, we accept that, but at the end of the day they're

pragmatic and if Scotland has this vibrant sector, this untapped great

resource in tidal and wind energy, quarter of what's around in the

whole of Europe, then businesses will come in. But you can probably

expect to see Citigroup invited around faster than the Bishop of

Paisley was. Now, we are in the middle of

National Adoption Week, the charity Barnardo's Scotland is launching a

national adoption service saying there is a need to increase and

speed up adoptions where it's in the best interests of the child.

Their call will be echoed in Holyrood this afternoon during a

Scottish Government debate on the issue. Stephanie Stone from

Barnardo's Scotland is here now. Thank you very much for joining me.

What is it you want to hear from the Scottish Government this

afternoon on their adoption strategy? We hope that they will be

bringing in measures that will minimise the time scales it takes

for young children in particular to be adopted. At the moment we have a

number of young children, hundreds of young children in the care

system, maybe of -- many of them under five who need to be adopted.

Delaying these khaeurpb's lives is -- children's lives is of crucial

importance. We know the emotional damage that delay means to these

children and we need ways of hastening the processes. Adoption

is not just about social work processes, it's about the court

system and it's about the children's hearing system. So there

needs to be something done that ensures that once a child enters

the process that there are time- scales adhered to and the process

happens quickly for them. It's a difficult balance to strike, you

want to hasten it but you don't want to rush it because such a

momentous decision for that child? Absolutely, it's a huge decision

for the child and there has to be clear evidence that says that a

parent is not going to be able to resume the care of that child

safely before these decisions are made. But, unfortunately, for so

many of our parents they have such entrenched problems that it will

take them some years to get over these difficulties, particularly if

they're around the areas of mental health, or substance misuse and for

very young children their lives are on hold whilst parents address

these problems. So it's a very difficult decision for social

workers to make. But we have to find ways of once these decisions

have been made of pursuing adoption much more quickly. Thank you very

much. Stay with us, we are going to go live to the chamber at Holyrood

and hear what Angela Constand -- Constance the Minister has to say.

As you say, the Minister is at the moment on her feet, she's

acknowledged there are still delays in the adoption system and has said

that a multiagency approach is needed where everyone is working

together. Labour, however, want to see a definitive, definite

timetable on improvements, on what's for many a emotive and at

times harrowing issue. Let's cross now live to the chamber.

It could be Taylored to meet the individual needs of a child and

provide them with security, stability and greater

predictability in their lives. The Scottish Government brought this

legislation into effect in 2009 and along with this we introduced

legislation which provided recognition for kinship carers for

the first time. This also can provide stability, security and

predict kwrabgt in --ability in the lives and experiences of looked

after children and parliament has come together to debate the role

and support the kinship carers receive and we discussed the work

that the Scottish Government is involved in to secure the access to

benefits and support for these carers. Yes. The parliament

welcomed the steps taken by the Government to ensure that kinship

carers received the same benefits as foster carers, but that hasn't

been implemented throughout Scotland. What steps will she take

to make sure that there's not a postcode lottery in support and

financial support for kinship carers? As Miss Grant is aware

local authorities are best placed to make decisions about financial

support, both for kinship carers and children at that local level. I

think that's a very important part of local democracy that we should

support and cherish. I think we also have to acknowledge that

kinship care is distinct from foster care and that kinship care

is very much a fundamental, a type of family care that families have

done for generations and I am sure that we can all look at the history

of our own families and see examples of kinship care. Now this

Government has done more than anyone else to support kinship

carers and we will continue to engage with the Westminster

Government constructively, particularly on the issue of

welfare reform. I suppose no matter where we stand on these issues

politically, I do think we all agree that kinship care is another

important option to provide permanent care for our children and

that's made possible by the looked after children regulations and

permanence orders, both of which are unique to Scotland. I do very

much cherish this consensus that we have for our looked after children

and I won't be using our most vulnerable children as a political

football. But what I would say is that if I need to ruffle a few

feathers to make progress for our looked after children, I will,

because I think what this Government is about in partnership

is that we have to support and challenge each other, both within

this parliament and both at local and national Government and, of

course, within the voluntary sector. The children looked after

statistics shows that whilst fewer children are being received into

care, they are coming into care younger and are being looked after

for much longer. While aspects of this are given a clear sign that we

are getting it right for more of our young people, in the sense that

those who are at risk are being identified younger and earlier, but

what we now need to focus on is the overall care journey and the length

of time that journey takes. And we all recognise I am sure that formal

attainment and securing improvements in a child's life

chances is only possible with the secure attachments that safe,

stable, nurturing home environment can support. Appropriate, timely

and child-centred care planning will ensure that these placements

are achieved. However, we will all have examples of where intervention

could have happened earlier. This was highlighted in the care and and

permanence planning for looked after children report and this

report was published on 20th June 2011 by the Scottish childrens

report administration. The report found children are still waiting

for a significant period of time in a system that should be working

with their needs and and rights at the centre. Two years may not seem

long for adults, but it is an eternity for children and some may

say that this time-skaeubl is -- scale is justifiable but it it

never be acceptable for a child to be more than ten years for a

permanent home - nor can it be acceptable for the majority of

children as is the case in this report, to have waited more than

four years. I will take the point. I mow, Minister, you are aware I

adopted a daughter and have some knowledge of this, but I wonder if

you would agree with me that time is still required in these issues,

particularly when it comes to home assessments and the suitability of

those who are going to adopt a child. That time should not be cut

in any way. We must be very, very careful in how we deal with those

who are going to benefit from having a child that is not a birth

child, so that the time - I do say that the bureaucracy thereafter

then we should take side to that, Pather son will agree that we can

both achieve thorough and timely assessments. While I can imagine

where parents often contest or birth parents often contest an

adoption in court, I can see how an adoption would take for example two

years. But in terms of other examples, other options to achieve

parents for children, whether it is foster carers, a parents' order.

That does not need to take two years. I think across the system we

have to remember that time is off the essence. Our children grow and

develop from the day that they are born. At the end of the day they

only have one childhood. The report is very important and I

published the Scottish Government's response to the report on 21 June

outlining our plans to address the issues raised. Our aim is nothing

less than a radical shift? Care planning towards fewer placements

for children, early permanence decisions for every child, and a

system that puts the child at the very centre. And this offers

children in care the best possible chance for securing an adoptive or

permanent placement. Our response lays the building blocks towards a

goal that sees the care system deliver every child a safe, stable

and enoughing home. A child's journey through care starts with an

assessment of the parents' capacity to provide the consistent care that

a child needs to attain their potential. Therefore, we recognise

the need for more robust assessment tools to determine parental

capacity and to identify the support that parents need in order

to provide the care for the child. Through the work supported by the

early years framework we are committed to identifying children

at risk and taking the steps to prevent that risk materialising. We

are committed to taking effective action to help parents, families

and communities to develop their own solutions using accessible

high-quality public services. Whether that's parenting classes,

therapeutic support for parents experiencing drug and alcohol

problems, and support with health and disability issues as opposed to

name but a few. We want to support every child in their whole journey

through care, the transition they experience and beyond. We need to

ensure that appropriate decisions are made quickly and that support

is in place to provide permanent care for children, who cannot live

with their birth parents. Our response looks to highlight and

share good practice in these areas. We plan to make use of our new

centre for excellence for looked after children, which launched in

September. We are asking the centre to work collaboratively with our

partners to improve the experiences in the lives of all looked after

children, their families and care leavers. Will it work to ensure

that all those involved in the care of looked after children have the

appropriate skills, knowledge and support, and this any decisions

about looked after children are well evidenced and always have the

child's welfare and rights at is paramount consideration.

This Government places great importance on working in

partnership in order to deliver our ambitions for Scotland's children.

And we are in a period of engagement with key stakeholders

about how to translate the key areas of work into specific

activities. I have written to local authorities seeking their

involvement in this process. The Scottish Government started the

work to create a more responsive system. Very already mentioned the

centre for excellence, which will be instrumental in the future work

being undertaken. But we have also created Scotland's first national

adoption register, which is already providing greater opportunities for

placing children in stable and permanent families. I I urge local

authorities to make a commitment to use the national register by the

ends of this year. As corporate parents I would ask each one of us

to challenge local authorities, health service, organisations and

our own constituencies to engage with this work being undertaken.

Every organisation involved in the lives of looked after children will

have examples of practice which works to promote the wellbeing of

the children it serves. Each of hawse a duty to help, identify and

promote good practice as widely as possible. I do also intend to

increase the pace of change. I will be asking all local authorities to

provide me with their adoption services plans by April 2012. And I

will expect to see an bottom Britishous approach and evidence

that every local authority has clear plans to raise the numbers of

young people afforded permanence or adoption.

We are after all... One of the issues facing minority communities

in particular visible mirnt communities is the fact that --

minority communities is that adoptions are not taking place in

their own communities. Children are being denied those opportunities.

They lose language and culture and a religious background. I wonder if

you can instruct local authorities to try to marry these up by traig

to make the adoption system easier and better understood by the

minority communities, so they can play a fuller role in the

community? I thank the member for that point. That's an example of

the type of work that we would want to see evident in the adoption and

permanence plans that local authorities will have to provide me

by 2012. I will be vigilant to the point that he makes.

Finally, Presiding Officer, I want to say that we are all as corporate

parents responsible for ensuring that the care system is child-

centred and provides appropriate and timely decisions and secures

permanent placements as soon as possible. And that we owe it to

looked after children to ensure that they have access to the

opportunities that this can provide. I move the motion in my name.

APPLAUSE Angela Constance, the Minister. And

Stephanie Stone from Barnardo's Scotland is still here with us.

She's been listening to that statement. They were talking about

taking a scythe to bureaucracy. Did did Minister ace words mean much to

you? Did you get much of a commitment to taking that scythe to

bureaucracy? Obviously it is encouraging that they are going to

ask for adoption plans. Hopefully local authorities will say how they

are managing their attitude to adoption and how they are

evidencing what they are doing. In terms of the assessment of adoptive

pcts I think the Minister said, and I agree with her, that rigorous

assessment and the length of time it takes are not necessarily one

and the same thing. So assessments can be rigorous and they can be

very well evidenced without necessarily taking the length of

time that they have been taking. There is the other aspect, of

course, of the length of time it takes to get children through the

courts system. The two things go hand in hand. One didn't start

after the other stops. We need to be working concurrently so that

Children's Plans are processed quickly at the same time as we are

assessing is families, taking on the task of adoption. I want to

pick up on the dialogue between the Scottish Government and the local

authorities. What's happening at the moment? Is the Scottish

Government keeping a close enough eye on local authorities? We were

hearing from David Cameron this week, in England he was naming and

shaming local authorities? I think the system? Scotland is slightly

different. Yes the Government obviously looks at the figures and

is interested in them and will be taking note where they are not

happy, but it's a different system. I don't think you can transfer

necessarily the style of one to the style of the other.

There's a big change with the national adoption register, I take

it that's just started, so it is maybe difficult to assess its

success so far. The national adoption register is welcomed by

everybody in the adoption field in Scotland. And in fact it's one of

the reasons Barnardo's moved back into adoption. Having that register

enables speedy linking of families available for adoption with the

children who are looking for adoptive families. To the best of

my knowledge the register is doing well. There are already a number of

links they are pursuing. I'm not aware if matches have taken place

yet but I do understand there's a number of links that are being

pursued. The Minister mentioned the centre of excellence. Can you tell

us more about that, and is your charity involved in that? Yes, some

people from our charity are on the steering group. The centre of

excellence is very much welcomed as the Minister said. We are looking

for them to assist local authorities and organisations like

ourselves in evidencing how we move forward with the best plans for

children. Why do you think adoption is

hitting the headlines just now? We are hearing from the Prime Minister,

we have a statement in Parliament today. It is National Adoption Week,

but it is certainly an issue that's raised, that is going up the

political agenda, compares to years past? It is. I think it is because

we are so much more aware of the numbers of children who've remained

in care for an unhealthy length of time. These children have remained

in the care system. They are part of the reason why the numbers of

looked after children has increased. These children weren't placed for

adoption many years ago when some of them should have been. This has

become an urgent issue. We know the emotional damage that's inflicted

on these children because they are not living in homes where they've

been claimed. I think people realise that this has to change.

Stephanie Stone from Barnardo's Scotland, thank you.

You're watching Politics Scotland from the BBC. Still to come on the

programme: It is not a magic bullet solution but it's a crucial part.

It is the missing piece of the jigsaw in Scotland. As the Scottish

Government relaunches plans to tackle problem drinking, political

opponents brew up challenges to minimum alcohol pricing.

The UK Government has revised its plans to change public sector

pensions to try to avert strike action at the end of this month.

David Cameron was asked about that during Prime Minister's Questions,

and he was also asked about the latest on the euro crisis. Here's a

flavour of what happened. Speaker, with the average 60-year-

old living ten years longer than in the 1970s public sector pension

reform is essential. Will the Prime Minister ensure that reform is fair

for my constituents, in terms of the taxpayer, and public sector

workers? My honourable friend makes an important point and the Chief

Secretary to the Treasury will be making a full statement to the

House. It does seem to be absolutely vital that we do

something that's fair to taxpayers and to public sector workers. The

costs of our public sector pensions system is up by a third in the last

decade. It isn't fair to go on as we are, but the new arrangements

must be fair to people who work hard in the public sector and on

whom we are all relying. Can I tell the House that low and middle

income earners will see getting more from their public sector

pensions. Everyone will keep what they've built up so far. Anyone

within ten years of retirement will see no change in their pension

arrangements. At the end of this people in the public sector will

actually still get far better pensions than people in the private

sector. It is time the party opposite was clear they do not

support the strikes later this month.

THE SPEAKER: Ed Miliband. Mr Speaker, does the Prime Minister

believe that grove of 0.5% over the last year and unemployment at a 17

year high point to the success or failure of his economic plan?

Obviously everybody wants the British economy to grow faster.

That's what everybody wants. But I have to, I have to, very to say to

the honourable gentleman, yesterday's figure of 0.5%, which

was better than many people expected, isn't it noticeable that

he cannot even bring himself to welcome news like that?

The key issue I think we value to address is this. There is a global

storm in the world economy today, and it is in our interest to help

others confront that global storm, but we have also got to keep the

British economy safe. We won't keep it safe if we add to our deficit,

add to our debt and put interest rates at risk.

THE SPEAKER: Ed Miliband. Speaker, first he blamed the Labour

Government, then he... First he blamed the Labour Government, then

he blamed Europe. Yesterday he was apparently blaming his Cabinet

colleagues for the lack of growth in our economy. The truth about

this Prime Minister is when things go wrong it is never anything to do

with him. People in my constituency in north Belfast and right across

the country are desperately worried about the increasing costs of gas,

electricity, home heatling oil -- home heating oil. What will the

Prime Minister do to help people in this situation? And will he reverse

the cuts to winter fuel allowance, which hits senior citizens? It is

not good enough surely to say he's following the plans of the

opposition. He's done so many things differently from the

opposition, why isn't he going to do something different with winter

We have kept the plans set out by the last Government. On the cold

weather payments we have actually taken the increase in cold weather

payments that was meant forever one year and maintained that so if

there is a phrrly cold winter people will be getting that help.

The other steps is making sure that energy companies give people proper

information about the lowest tariffs they can get and we have

proper reform of the energy market. Again something that the party

opposite has now suddenly started to talk about but did nothing about

in Government. When the Prime Minister goes to G20 meeting over

the next couple of days, will he try and persuade his colleagues of

the urgency of coming up with some detail on the eurozone settlement

reached last week. It's not at all clear how Greece is going to get

out of the difficulties, even if this referendum passes. European

banks will need shoring up well before next summer and as for the

new rescue fund which may be needed sooner than we think, it doesn't

actually exist. Will he not accept the G20 now now needs to show the

same urgency and sense of of purpose two years ago when it met

in London. Otherwise governments are going to be condemned to being

dragged along in their weight. is right in what he says about the

urgency of this meeting and the necessity of its agenda. I think

some progress was made at the European Council meeting a week ago

where actually for the first time they did accept a proper write down

of Greek debt which has to be part of the solution. Also a proper

recapitalisation of Europe's banks, done to a credible test, rather

than the incredible test we have had in months gone by. And the

final element which he refers to rightly, which needs to have more

detail added and more substance added, and that is to make sure

there is a proper firewall to stop contagion in the eurozone. The need

has got even greater. Of course we can't involve ourselves in Greek

domestic politics but it's become even more urgent to put meat on the

bones of these plans to show that we are removing one of the key

obstacles to tphroeble growth -- global growth, which is the failure

to provide a proper plan to deal with problems in the eurozone.

will be back to Westminster in a few moments. First, Scotland has

taken a major step towards becoming the first country in Europe to

introduce a minimum price for alcohol. The Scottish Government

has launched its plans for a vote on the issue during this

parliamentary session. It was defeated last time, but here's a

flavour of the arguments for and against in this second round.

Moderate and responsible drinkers will not be affected by minimum

pricing, partly because they don't drink very much but also because

the products they tend to drink are not those that will be affect.

Minimum pricing is about targeting the very cheap, very strong

products that are doing so much damage to our communities. The

relationship between the price of alcohol and the consumption of

alcohol is well known. We see it emerging evidence from Canada that

a minimum price reduces consumption, so it's not a magic bullet solution,

we never said it is, but it's a crucial part of an overall approach

and right now it's the missing piece of the jigsaw in Scotland.

Our view it won't tackle the people this is aimed at. For example, it

won't have impact on people who drink in pubs, because the price is

unlike throeu reach that level. Also, for the small amount of extra

money those people are likely to carry on spending anyway. It will

penalise responsible families who the might want to share a bottle of

wine at home, they might have to pay more. Let's go to the Scottish

parliament garden lobby now, I am joined by Jim Eadie from the SNP

and Dr Richard Simpson from Labour. We have seen last time and now time

the overwhelming evidence in favour of a minimum price for alcohol. We

have been hearing Labour talk about their problems during the Scottish

election campaign, perhaps they should have got on board with

backing minimum pricing for alcohol, why in this second round are you

not supporting it? First of all, the word overwhelming isn't correct.

There's only one study and that is the Sheffield study which is a

modelling study and there is a little evidence from Canada in

terms of the social responsibility pricing. And the Scottish police

forces and the Chief Medical Officer for for Scotland. That's

not evidence, that is opinion. There is a lot of opinion out there

in favour of it, I accept that. But the fact remains that it is a

single modelling study, that's only been tried once and that's in an

Aboriginal community in us a and it was a particular situation that

wasn't apply to Scotland -- Australia. It's an opinion, but

it's gathered from their own frontline evidence, isn't it?

it's not gathered from their own frontline evidence because they

don't know about minimum pricing. Many people are actually

understandably very concerned about alcohol, as is the Labour Party,

they also set, as we do, that price and sraeupblt are -- availability

are major issues, but the problem with minimum pricing is first of

all there is a question of its legality, will the courts strike it

down? And the UK Minister skapb Milton has said the advise she

received that will happen. It will give �140 million windfall to

supermarkets. It will not deal with binge drinking and the Sheffield

group have admitted that. Fourthly, it will not tackle heavy drinking

in the 18-24-year-old, where even the doctors have grave concerns

about the substantial increase. The Sheffield study show it is will

minimally affect that group. That's some of the reasons. There are many

more. I will give you one more, and that is that it will only affect

the poorest 30%. The least well-off. The top 70% of earners will not be

affected at all and therefore hazardous drinking which is much

more in that particular group, that's the richer people drink more,

they will not be affected. We need a cultural change. Let's turn to

Jim Eadie, what do you think of that, there is a raft of arguments

against that Dr Simpson has put forward and particularly on the

point about this opinion as opposed to evidence coming from the Chief

Constables, for example? Can I deal with that. It will not do for

Richard Simpson to talk about the problem but to do nothing about it.

The Scottish Government is determined to listen to what the

healthcare professionals on the ground, people who work in GP

practices, in our health centres, the people who know the reality of

alcohol misuse in our accident and emergency departments. What they

tell us is they want the Government to do this, they want to us

introduce minimum pricing and that is why we are determined to tackle

this, this time around. Now, if you consider the point that was made

about teenager drinkers t cannot be right that in Scotland today a

young person, a teenager, can buy enough alcohol to kill themselves

for �5 or less. This Government is determined to tackle that. We will

Bring It On Home forward -- we will bring forward minimum pricing. It's

time, frankly, that you listen to them, instead of lecturing them

about what they should be saying on this subject. What about that, Dr

Simpson? Well, as usual, they try to compound evidence out of opinion

and that is not correct. I will say this, to suggest that we do not

want to take this issue seriously is rubbish. I was the deputy

justice Minister that commenced the process that led to the licensing

bill which has not been fully operational until 2009 and has

already demonstrating a reduction in deaths, so to say we are not

taking this seriously is rubbish. I will tell you the other thing, and

that is that the public out there and the professionals indeed want

the parties to have a discussion about all possible measures. What

the Government has done with this minimum unit Bill is to introduce a

Bill that's so narrow it will not allow any debate, discussion, it it

treats it as a magic bullet. That's not the case. If he can assure me

today that Bill can be amended, I will be very, very happy but I tell

you... Take him up on that point. He is sticking his head in the sand.

The Government has always been willing to discuss with other

parties. We will look positively at any constructive proposals that are

brought forward, provided they are evidence. But the reality is, and

you cannot escape this, Richard, that the healthcare professionals

on the ground want this to happen. The Chief Medical Officer for

England and for Wales and for Northern Ireland and for Scotland

wishes this to happen. The directors of public health in every

health board in Scotland say they need minimum pricing if we are to

rebalance Scotland's damaging relationship with alcohol. This

Government is determined to tackle the problem and if the other

parties want to join us in their battle we are absolutely prepared

to work with them to achieve that. Dr Simpson, one more point about

you mentioning that Anne Milton said it may be illegal, in this

case as some people have said is the law not an ass in this case and

we could actually try and put minute phoupl pricing -- minimum

pricing forward and it could be challenged by the European Union

but let's go ahead and do it? it's khaplged by the European --

challenged by the European Union it will be be -- challenged. We are

part of Europe, the law is what it is. I will say if Jim Eadie is

saying to me today that Bill that they have just produced is capable

of amendment, with the substantial number of proposals which Labour

has come forward with, then I will be much happier. But tkoeu not

believe that is the case. We will find that the amendments we were

proposing will be ruled out. The only recourse for the Labour Party

will be to actually go for a private members Bill in order to

address some of the problems that we accept are there and can be

addressed and should be addressed, but by a raft of other measures.

Minimum unit pricing penalises the least well-off in our communities.

It does not address the culture. Take up on that point, Jim Eadie.

They do have concerns about this single measure. The evidence

produced by the Sheffield model study, and which will be rerun

before the Scottish Government sets a price, made it clear in the first

year would you save 50 lives and prevent hospital admissions, that

has to be something worth doing. -- it's what the healthcare

professionals want. This Government will rise to the challenge and do

what is necessary to tackle our damaging relationship with alcohol.

Thank you both very much. Let's rejoin Lorraine Davidson from

The Times to talk about this more. A very heated debate there,

obviously. Nothing has cooled down over the year, what do you make of

it? The Labour Party are now in danger of tying themselves

newspaper knots, they got very difficult time at the election and

in part it was because of this kind of oppositional attitude. Their

arguments now around this are basically that it could be illegal,

well the Scottish Government can't bring forward legislation unless

it's passed through their lawyers and has been deemed as something

that can stand up to a challenge. There is a case of tobacco that was

set at minimum price in Italy which did fall foul of EU laws and it was

a similar public health argument. So, there are fears around that but

they must have legal advice that tells them they can go ahead. The

offer of the sunset clause could have been grabbed back, all the

arguments about it won't make much difference, she was putting forward

a sensible proposal of let's bring it in, let's try it because at the

end of the day Scotland has a serious problem with this and it's

kids, young people going out drinking cheap stuff on street

corners, getting completely boozed up, and committing extreme acts.

They are rerunning the Sheffield study to look at the price, do you

think it might be ramped up to even 50p a unit? I don't think that

would be surprising if that were to happen T could be critical the

level at which this is set in terms of the impact. Certainly, for

people who are going out and yes they might be drinking too much

Chablais or whatever over a weekend but they're not the people causing

complete and utter carnage. It's the stuff at the lower end and

actually even at the 45p level it's the cider and all this, the cheap

vodkas that young kids are using to get boozed up on that are the real

problem and even at 45% the difference to that is significant.

Let's widen out the debate. We saw a heated exchange there. We have

seen between Labour Party and the SNP a number of heated exchanges

over the independence referendum, the argument at Westminster, we

have seen the Lib Dems being criticised for having a - do you

think there is there is tension? think tension is putting it lightly.

Certainly feelings are running very high at the moment. Labour feeling

really done down after the election. SNP perhaps getting carried away in

the way New Labour did, after a landslide, you feel invincible.

They need to be careful of that and shouting down anyone and everyone

that disagrees with them and there is some stuff, if you look at

social media, if you say anything that's remotely critical of the SNP

or the Scottish Government, Ian Grey had a point, you will be

attacked and it's pretty nasty stuff. So they need to find a way

of putting a lid on that and taking people with them and continuing in

the consensual approach they had before the election. There is a

danger with politicians that the SNP have got very good

communications structure, but you get amateurs coming in, youngsters

that think they're doing the right thing, think they're being on

message but they cross a line and get carried away and you get people

who have actually never been in the real world and they live in this

political bubble, they think that's what you do, they think politics is

about being nasty to people. People out there are fighting to keep jobs

and pensions, the last thing they want is politicians getting down to

the level of, he wasn't very nice to me, and I think he is a dictator.

It's absolutely pathetic and just really puts people off politicians.

OK, thank you. With the surprise announcement by

the Greek Prime Minister to put the euro deal to the people of Greece

in a referendum grabbing the political agenda, there are now

real and genuine concerns for the future of the single currency. With

that and the other issues being discussed at Westminster today,

let's cross to our correspondent No shortage of topics featuring

amongst MPs here. We have the issue about Greece, the euro and whether

Greece will default on its payments. We also have the thorny issue of

public sector payments and the political row which has blown up

today about renewable energy and the uncertainty that could be

caused by an independence referendum. In shortage of topics

for me to discuss with my four guests.

That warn from Citigroup today that the instability caused by will we

have a referendum and when will that be is potentially putting

investors off coming to Scotland. It is utter nonsense. A lot of

investment is going into Scotland in renewables at the moment from

companies likes Mitsubishi and others. We have a great deal of

businesses supporting us in the last election. We made clear we

would have an independence referendum. This is not a problem

for businesses investing in Scotland at all. Malcolm Bruce you

represent a north-east constituency. Are you seeing any companies

hesitating putter their hands in their pockets to invest because of

the referendum question? There is uncertainty. Tax changes by

Government also causes uncertainty, and I've made my views known about

that. You can't dismiss Citibank as being ill informed. They are saying

future investors may look askance at Scotland because of the

uncertainty this presents. We have enough trouble in the eurozone

because of the Greek referendum. Uncertainty is what the markets

make. You cannot just dismiss that as irrelevant because it doesn't

suit your argument. David Mundell, cue decide between referendum on

Scottish independence is going to be held. The Scottish Government is

in the best place to resolve it in the short term by telling us what

they propose in their referendum. We've got no detail on it, when it

will take place, what the questions are. We've repeatedly asked for

answers. Nothing's been forthcoming. That's why we do have the uncertain

ti. They want to know what's happening with the referendum and

when it's taking place. Surely if a company thinks it is a good

business proposition to invest in Scotland the politics wouldn't be a

determining factor. I don't agree with that. Particularly at the

moment, in terms of renewables, where the renewable obligation

comes from the whole of the country, that's the uncertainty that

Citibank were pointing to. Why would poim invest in a situation

where the renewables would be severely cut in Scotland or

consumers' bills will go up very high. It is not good enough to

dismiss and belittle people he doesn't agree. There's a serious

issue for him and the SNP to address. Public sector pensions. We

seem to have the unions, despite the meetings today, still on a

collision course with the Government. I think any collision

course is the fault of the Government for the way in which

they've behaved in these negotiations up until now. I hope

there's a negotiated settlement. I'm a former trade union official

and I know from my experience that getting a negotiated settlement is

the best way forward. If there is any difficulty it will be the fault

of the Government. If the Government was more generous there

wouldn't be threats of strikes? Government wants a negotiated

settlement. Negotiations are ongoing. It is disappointing we've

got the prospect of strike action before there is an opportunity for

those negotiations to conclude. I Fawley understand that those people

who are affected by decisions like this are not going to be happy

about it but we have to be realistic about public sector

pensions in the long term, and make sure that they are sustainable and

that we have the money that people can get the pension that they are

expecting. From a party political point of view, are you happy that

it is your party and indeed your Chief Secretary to the Treasury,

Danny Alexander, who seems to be digging his heels in on this and

saying no, we are not going to go any further? I'm happy that we have

a coalition Government that is determined to tackle the financial

and economic problems facing this problem with a sense of purpose and

unity, that are giving us lowest interest rates in Europe outside

Germany. That I think is a huge benefit to the people of Scotland

and the whole of the UK. We have to take these difficult decisions and

see them through. Of course we have to negotiate and of course we've

got to accommodate people's concerns and come one the best

outcome. If we did not and took the advice of other parties, interest

rates would shoot up. Economic uncertainty would increase and the

economy would be in a much worse state than it is now. Is this going

to be one of those rare occasions between Government in Scotland and

in London actually speak with a common voice? The position of the

Scottish Government is quite clear. They don't want to increase pension

contributions. It's the wrong time to do so. That's taking more money

out of hard-pressed families at a difficult time. It is going to do

nothing for consumer confidence. There's a real issue that people

may opt out of these schemes rather than pay the increased

contributions that they can't afford. That's a disaster waiting

to happen in future. The difficult the Scottish Government face is the

Treasury have made clear if they don't implement the rules the

budget will be slashed. But, if the money has got to be saved or if you

can't afford the pension bill as it is, surely not good saying to

people, we are not going to expect tow pay any more into your not

but it's the timing as well. People are very hard pressed at the moment.

The economy is bumping along. Consumer confidence is very low. To

take money out of people's pockets at a time like this is the wrong

thing to do. It will reduce confidence and spending and make

matters worse rather than improve them. We seem to have what is

almost an opera going on in Greece at the moment, agreeing a deal and

then saying they'll have a referendum on it. For someone with

a financial background like yufrbgs how worried shwe be about what's

happening in Greece? I think we should be very worried, and the

Greeks should be worried to. A small economy, which isn't that

important, is holding us to ransom, because it is unable to meet its

commitments, having signed up to a deal. If Greece says no, we have a

crisis with the euro, our biggest trading partner. We've got to

recognise that it has long-term implications for Scotland. An opt

Scotland doesn't even know what it is currency is, nor what the

conditions are, is adding uncertainty on uncertainty, which

is catastrophic. Britain is in a difficult position. We are on the

outside looking in. We are not a member of the euro, so we are not a

member of the key countries making those decisions. Yet we could be

hugely influenced and affected by what happens. Well, we are going to

be impacted by what happens with the euro that's why it is important

to us that there's a dealing on Greece, a deal that holds, that

sustains and that there's a deal on the whole euro issue. We want to

see more flesh on the bone, in relation to that. There's been a

number of discussions, most of which have been good words but not

actually action. We need that to be followed through in the forthcoming

days.. We can't pretend that there'll not be an impact on

Britain by a failure of the euro. Whilst I wouldn't support Britain

being in the euro, I don't want to see it fail. There must be a sigh

of relief that your party did not take introduce the euro when you

were in Government? I don't think the economic conditions were ever

right to make that decision, so it didn't happen. What's important now

is that there is real leadership from the Government at the G20 in

Cannes. We need to get international action to get this

resolved as quickly as possible. We have seen the toxicity of the

European issue for the Conservative Party at Westminster that.

Shouldn't stop David Cameron trying to take leadership in the G20 to

try to get this resolved. A yes or no answer to look into your

economic crystal ball, is Greece going to default on its payments,

and will the euro survive? I think it is likely that Greece will

default. I think it is likely if it does it will crash out of the euro

and the euro will have to rethink its parameters? It is possible but

tinge euro will survive. Yes, they will default but the euro will

survive in some form. Thank you all. Gentlemen, thank you for joining us.

There you have it, Andrew. Pessimism about Greece's position

and also some concern about the euro and the future of the euro as

well. It is an issue I think we'll be returning to in the weeks and

months ahead. Indeed, David. Thank you.

I'm joined for a final time by our political commentator from The

Times, Lorraine Davidson. Let's pick up on the European issue.

David said it was an opera going on in Greece. Malcolm Bruce said he

was very worried. How worried should we be and what would the

impact be in the UK and Scottish economies? It is disastrous. It is

more of a Greek tragedy really. It's a very unwelcome development,

having a referendum which, as all the politicians have pointsed out,

it is difficult to see how could it be won. It is going to have

terrible implications for the your open. Our economy is intrinsically

linked to Europe's. We've got politician there is saying phew,

isn't it good we didn't go into did euro! All it means that we didn't

go into the euro. Our economy is linked to theirs and yet we are not

at the important meetings where we can influence the debate and rescue

the euro. It is almost the worst possible position. This will impact

on us massively and yet we are not in there fighting. In fairness to

Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, they did put together a sustainable

deal to ensure the survival of the euro. Our panel there pretty much

thought that Greece would default. If they did, the contagion might

spread? It might, you could end up with people thinking we can't play

about with this, we are now staring down the barrel of the gun. If

everybody starts dropping like flies, the disastrous impact of

that right across Europe, I think reality might kick in. Committee

can get into did Domesday scenario. That's why we are seeing the

markets falling, because they always look at worst case scenarios,

because they have to, but I think in reality it could be contained in

Greece. There was a Greek mirror to Scottish politics, the Greek

referendum causing uncertainty about the euro. We heard about

Citigroup causing uncertainty. That was denied strongly in that

discussion. One of the SNPs' problems in materialy days of the

Scottish Parliament was the uprising of business. That's gone

away, because they've been in government. They've been pretty

business friendly. Alex Salmond's problem was that he stood up at

conference and he said it would be powered on the back of renewables.

Now a serious player is saying don't go near Scotland, this is a

bit of a problem. So, they seem to be linking that to the referendum

rather than the aftermath of the referendum. So I can see a

situation now where the opposition are going to be buoyed by this and

they are going to be trying to stir up other companies. If David

Cameron had any sense he would be trying to wind people up and using

his business contacts to make this more of a debate in Scotland.