03/10/2012 Politics Scotland

Hello, do welcome to politics Scotland. Coming up, the Transport

Secretary pulls the emergency cord on the west coast rail franchise

after flaws were found in the bidding process.

As One Nation Ed Miliband delivers an off-the-cuff speech, will he

deliver for his party? And MSPs examine -- examine whether

cameras should be allowed in court. But first, three civil servants

have been suspended due to mistakes in the bidding process for the boy

West Coast Mainline. The Government said it was cancelling the

Government -- contract awarded to FirstGroup. Virgin trains will

continue to run the service. We are joined by a our economy editor,

Douglas Fraser, and political commentator if -- commented before

the afternoon, Hamish McDonnell. First, Douglas, an absolute

catastrophe for the UK Government. What went wrong? The they have not

explained fully. The crucial part of the statement that came out this

morning from Patrick McLoughlin, the Transport Secretary, explained

that mistakes were made in the way that inflation and passenger

numbers were taken into account numbers were taken into account

numbers were taken into account with this franchise and how much

with this franchise and how much with this franchise and how much

money bidders were asked to money bidders were asked to

guarantee as a result. Basically, a franchise stretching out 15 Years

has required the bidders and the Government analysing the beds could

guess where inflation will be and how passenger numbers might change

over the next 15 years. When you are looking at that the economy

recovering, constraint meaning passengers will not rise, a lot of

guesswork is required. And the lack of risk assessment that was carried

out within Government allies itself to the money guaranteed by this

bidding process, that seems to be the core of this problem. It is

central to the ladies for untried has worked. This is not a marginal,

technical issue, right at the edges of this arrangement of how there

really is done in Britain, this is fundamental to the way franchises

work. Companies bid, a lot of money put up front in order to have the

right to run the services and get profit back again, and it seems

this was really pushed -- this has pushed are really flawed model to

the limit. Hamish McDonnell, the system up in the air, a new

Transport Secretary and the helm, I get -- bet he was grateful he was

not there are few weeks ago. Yes, the one thing he can see coming

into this is that it was not his fault, as he has only been in the

job for a couple of weeks. Politically, this is hugely

embarrassing for the UK Government. These were at -- these issues were

raised by Ed Miliband in his speech yesterday. He talked about the

issue of confidence, describing the Government as an incompetent shower.

He also questioned the entire basis of the franchise model by saying,

why are companies making lots of money and ticket prices still going

up? He seems to head home on both of those and politically this is

not good. For the previous Transport Secretary, Justine

Greening, her reputation has been thoroughly trashed. We it has, you

get the feeling that maybe David Cameron would have preferred to

pick of the reshuffle for a couple of weeks so that she could be

sacked as a result of this anyway. I think she will find it to get

back -- difficult to get back in the Cabinet any time soon. Thank

you very much. Let's speak to our Westminster Correspondent in

Manchester now covering of the Labour conference. Good afternoon.

I am sure there will be reverberations down the track in

Whitehall this afternoon. It seems amazing, doesn't it? It seems

extraordinary, and one of those ironies we like to talk about. This

building behind me, now known as Manchester Central, was the central

station for Manchester before it was turned into a conference centre.

Here in Manchester, I think most delegates, their initial response

initially was pure disbelief, they could not believe this situation

where a franchise process had gone through the Department of Transport,

the Government came to a decision in favour of FirstGroup, the

Aberdeen-based company, and that was that. It seems only. Virgin

said they would take legal action and people in the Department of

Transport started looking at the case, that they realised their

assumptions in the franchise process had gone completely awry.

By that is regarding -- that is regarding future passenger numbers

and future inflation. Not only is it the West Coast line there is a

question over, will virgin be allowed to continue to run it or

will the Government in effect takeover and directly run that?

They have been at pains to say the trains will carry on running, the

same rolling stock, sane drivers, passengers will not see a change,

but this is hugely embarrassing. We're not talking about the West

Coast line only, they have had to hold three other franchise

agreements they were looking at, tendering processes they were

looking at, but it raises the old question over what happens to the

future of rail franchises in Great Britain. Just one more statistic -

before the general election in 2015 it is thought there are something

like 15 of these processes which were due to go through. If they

have problems resolving this, that could put some of those in jeopardy.

Just briefly, one more question on this, we are hearing from Patrick

McLoughlin that he is blaming his officials, no sign of ministerial

responsibility. As a policy is just knew in the door. As far as he is

concerned, I think that is the best thing that could have happened to

them. He said he realised what was going on yesterday and that is why

he had to pull the agreement for the West Coast mainline and look at

it again. The Department of Transport has suspended three staff

involved. Patrick McLoughlin does he is going to take the flak for

this. The one thing that gives him some kind of solace will be he has

only been in the job three weeks on this one, and he can see all of

this was done before he got there. He knows now that his job,

politically, is to try and sort this out. A we will be back with

you later, thank you very much. More on this from a Scottish angle

from our political editor, Brian Taylor. He is in Holyrood 4 oz.

Thank you for joining me. I think the transport minister probably

heard about this late last eight or early this morning, and he is

obviously very concerned. He is frankly angry, his response will

probably be the same as many others in reaction to these developments,

which is, what a way to run a railway. I think Keith Brown is

angry and upset. This story was broken at a very late time and the

information was not relayed to some of those involved in the tendering

process, let alone the Minister for transport in Scotland. He is also

apprehensive about the point of the general impact it has on the

franchise system. He is concerned immediately about the West Coast

Mainline, but also concerned about the impact it could have on at the

wider tendering process with an eye to ScotRail. And I think that is

probably coming up for renewal quite soon. A great deal of

concerns there. It is not one of the immediate concerns, but it

would be in further trouble, and the concern is if they are now

questions, and it appears there are, over the entire basis of

franchising, how can these other franchises be tendered in the

future? We are expecting the report on individual actions by the end of

October, and the wider report on the impact on franchises by the end

of December. Keith Brown is demanding urgent talks with the

Department of Transport to try and resolve this. I think he will have

to wait in line for that, there are a few other trains shunted up ahead

of that, not least sorting out this astonishing double over the West

Coast mainline. -- astonishing muddle. Do as far as this remains

for Scotland in at the near term, I suppose the West Coast will

continue running and the Scottish Government will be trying to keep

relations open with minced -- Westminster.

Keith Brown was clear his principal objection is just that. He was also

asked about the continuity of the service, are their concerns over

who will be running it, and he said absolutely none. Brits -- Sir

Richard Branson said it would make sense for Virgin to continue to run

the service rather than for it to be transferred to the Government.

The view was that if the Government could not run the process, how

could they run the railway? Thank you very much. I am joined in

the studio by Craig Johnson, our regional organiser for the RMT

union. Thank you for coming in. We have been hearing about the

politics of this and what may happen, but a lot a people are very

concerned about the staff. What does this mean for staff currently

employed by Virgin? They thought they were going to be moved to

FirstGroup in December but that is obviously not going to happen.

staff have been in a state of limbo since the announcement was made

that FirstGroup were going to get the franchise, and the situation

has not been made any better with the chaos around the franchise bid.

They are now in the position where they do not know whether there will

be working for Virgin, directly operated railways cop -- railways,

or FirstGroup. That shows the shambles of the system. It is not

the first time, as two franchises have collapsed on the East Coast

Main Line already. Have the staff been calling the union to try and

find out where they stand? The we have been sending staff drew our

members on a periodic basis to ensure everyone is kept up-to-date.

We do not know what is going on. The truth is that privatisation is

a complete failure and the only way forward is to renationalise the

railways. That is a tricky situation, we have seen the failure

of franchises on the east coast and now on the West goes, but can the

country afford to nationalise the railways? There does not seem an

impetus to do that. Ed Miliband certainly was not saying he was in

favour of nationalisation. Politicians have to answer to the

public, but the reality is privatisation is a failure. We have

the most expensive train fares in Europe and taxpayers have to

subsidise franchises four times more than British Rail used to get.

Most of the money from franchises is still taxpayer-funded. We

believe it should be publicly owned, working for the benefit of the

economy, local communities and passengers. Under privatisation it

works for a lot of spivs, franchise holders and contract holders.

are two investigations ongoing, how does this work in other countries

where there are no franchises? Obviously the franchise system

looks fundamentally flawed from where we stand at the moment.

RMT union has said that franchising has been flawed from the very

beginning. The rest of Europe do not go down this line. Ironically,

a lot of our railways are owned by a state railways of Europe.

Northern Line has a big stake in it from the Netherlands National

Railway. It is a bit of a shambles. Let's make sure we move forward for

the benefit of the country, and the only way to do that is to make it

publicly accountable, and get rid of these speculators and spivs.

Back to Holyrood now, where the Labour bid -- Labour Party have

secured a debate on the contrary's future. Johann Lamont sparked a

controversy last week when she questioned which policies we could

still afford. The debate will lay down at the gauntlet to the

Scottish Government about how they could afford giveaways such as the

council tax freeze. Johann Lamont made that argument

again at the Labour Party conference in Manchester yesterday,

now it is her chance to do so in front of the Scottish Parliament.

We know that there are elderly people in our communities who seek

a different face every time they are due a visit. We remember all

too well the powerful test any of the widow of the late Ken Maitland,

who had the indignity of having 106 carers through his door in one year.

We know there are elderly people who opt out of carer support

because it is no longer working for them. Is this really the kind of

care we want to see for our grandparents, mothers and fathers

and for ourselves when the time comes? I decided enough was enough.

Every week we are told by this SNP Government how wonderful life is in

Scotland, and any overhanging problems can be swept away with one

that magic solution. The presentation we hear from the First

Minister every Thursday bears no resemblance to what I am hearing in

my community and across Scotland every other week. But we're not

playing the game any more. We cannot tell these women that

everything is going to be fine. We cannot finesse something that is

not delivering for people. We will refuse to have respect for a

Scottish Government which claims to care, but refuses to acknowledge

these women and their concerns. A Government which refuses to

acknowledge what is going on in the real world. This Scottish

Government does not like to be confronted with the reality. In

March, the First Minister accused my colleague, Jackie Baillie, of

telling scare stories about the shortage of blankets in Scottish

hospitals, and it took 92-year-old Helen Macbeth, at Jack Bar, a great

grandfather, to come to the Parliament to tell him about their

experiences before he was prepared to accept an old people were going

without blankets at night. The First Minister told his party

People are very positive about New all tuition fees under-threes end

of council tax. I would hazard they guess that some of these women I

met come from your constituency. It is not convert to tell them it is

fantastic, when every day of their lives, the poet is not. They ask,

how can this go on? We Kate these take us all circumstances in our

community? He should listen to people from across a or communities

who are telling us something different. He said he will not

allow it tuition fees for Scottish students. He did not say, unless

you are a part-time student worry graduate. He did not say that

before he cut the bursaries of students by nearly �9,000. He did

not say the rocks will melt with the sun before he let the number of

people going to college dropped by 18,000. He did not see any of these

things. He let Mike Russell go- ahead and make all of these things

happen. It is the same guest biggest betrayal of Scotland's

young people. It cannot be finessed or wished away. This cannot be

explained by a plot the use of statistics. This is what is

happening in the real world and the Scottish National Party government

refuses to acknowledge it. Mike Russell, who penned that great work

A I wonder if she would tell us what she would say to NHS Scotland

when they say they are deeply concerned by any return to a

tuition fees for Scottish students? When they say, in an e-mail to us

all this morning, it is clear that Scotland has the country and

society values the principle that access to education should be based

on the ability to pay and not the wealth to pay. I would say to the

National Union of students, is the right that students who cannot get

the place any further education college should pay the price for

Mike Russell's policies? We do them a grass grave disservice that

implies one set of students are more important than another. This

is a man whose great work tells us of his plans to privatise the NHS

and tells us that Scotland's real problem with the union is that they

get too much money out of it. They say they are killing us with

kindness. We do not agree with him on many things, but for those of

you not watching Scottish Labour Party conferences, let me read this

passage from Mike Russell, universality now drags down with

the quality of service for those most in need and the ability of

government to provide such services. However, or political parties do

not have the courage to address this issue for fear of losing votes.

Mind could rustle. Can I thank the Minister of Power rethink the sales

of my book once again. I talked about the loss of 20 by 1,000

places south of the border she seems they think I will now believe

I was wrong. Presiding Officer, that is the generous contribution

to the debate I will make. Will she now admit that she is wrong about

Scotland's young people? The real difference was that when he wrote

the book, he up paused Alex Salmond. He now realise and his patronage.

Dashmack Rock he opposed Alex Salmond. It makes no sense

whatsoever. Unlike Mike Russell, I am not against universality. I just

want to know how we're going to pay for it. We know these concerns

exist at the heart of government, yet they are too cynical to voice

them. Let me quote the Health Secretary, it would be

inappropriate to use scarce resources to fight some of our

retired bankers who already received substantial pensions. But

now the asset Deputy First Minister does not approve of means testing.

If Nicola Sturgeon is approving of this, I look forward to a looking

at the maintenance allowance into dental treatment and ending hotel

charges in care homes. I look forward to her were to ring the

bell which will with the wrong means-testing and legal aid. Anna

liked it also know where she is going to find the money to pay for

it all. We have the Deputy First Minister who decry is anyone who

defies her definition of the word. Be 0 these things are not

consistent. This dishonest government continues to insist that

an independent Scotland, we could enjoy Scandinavian welfare while

cutting taxes. He is right about one thing there was there but we do

have scarce resources. �3.3 billion is still to be removed from the

Scottish budget. I agree with them that the Conservative dogma is

cutting too far and too fast. But these cuts will have to be

addressed. What precisely did she imagine John Swinney was asking the

other people to do. He asked them the question, what do we do in

tough times and Beveridge said, we ask the question not do something

as desirable, but whether it is desirable and in tough times, we

expect those with the broadest backs to carry the heaviest burden.

She is of course in complete denial. There are people out there facing

the consequences of SNP cuts every day. You may think it is funny. But

if you are a care worker and a mother worried about the quality of

a child's education on a parent whose child cannot get access to

college, it is not funny on imagine, it is their real world. How are

they going to protect? And who are they going to put the burden on? It

is the report, commissioned by John Swinney, warned that the

contentious issues such as the continuation of universal

entitlement must be considered or openly and transparently rather

than an polarised terms. I cards they SNP to listen to the man who

responded to their request and set up a commission. It seems that in

Scottish politics, it is impossible to consider these debates openly

and honestly. The debate has been closed down because it suits some

people to keep it polarised. Which people in Scotland were shadier

referring to end the something for nothing statement? The people who

are living with the consequences of you're cuts that living with the

consequences that everything is straight forward. Everybody pays a

price and in tough times, it should not be the bomb rubble but those of

us with broader bags. -- the vulnerable. As Leader of the

Opposition, it would have been easier to sit back and pretend we

could pay for everything for ever- more. However, I take care too much

about Scotland to do that. I care too much about public services to

let them bleed to death. The debate is not about means testing, but

about what we can afford. It is about a affordability and

sustainability and how we protect the most horrible in these tough

times. But the SNP has to say about universality will be of little

consequence to people who cannot get a place in the colleges that

people who cannot get the standard of care required. The SNP do not

have the basic understanding of fairness. That is the truth. I will

give you one example. Is it the at a mother has to pay �5 a day for

the Breakfast Club just to ensure she can get to work. We need an

honest debate. As long as the SNP close this debate and have a false

argument about this, they denial about the cuts they are

implementing now, the people who pay the price for that will be that

people of Scotland who do not have the ability to set at the table and

listen to the words of Alex Salmond. These people deserve to have their

words there. Let us speak again to Hamish. Johann Lamont made a very

strong defence of her opinions. With is what she really believes

then. She is very passionate about this. She sees this as not a left

or right issue, but this is about sticking up for ordinary people,

who she feels are getting squeezed by the cuts imposed by Westminster

and, as she sees it, the SNP government. But people are going to

say, I like my three benefits. It is a tricky one to sell to the

public. He yes, it is the hard one. There is a difficulty about been

right and tackling a debate which needs to be addressed. She is the

only party leader in Scotland to has got to grips with that, but it

is different to selling that to the voters, who have a tendency to like

populist policies. In her mind, she is tackling something which has to

be tackled, but it is a courageous move. The UK Labour Party is now

looking at this. Ed Miliband made almost echoes of what Johann Lamont

was seen there. Yes, it is right for the United Kingdom government

to look at this. There in the same position as in the the Welsh

government, the Northern Ireland government and the Scottish

government. The amount of money to spend has gone down and they have

been borrowing a lot more. Now that there are cuts having to be made,

it is very difficult to make cuts in things you are having to pay for

you and year out. Speaking of Ed Miliband, he promised to bring the

country together as One Nation. He also launched a full-scale attack

$:/STARTFEED. We won the war because we birth One

Nation. We had peace because it Sapphic -- successive governments

understood we were One Nation. Every time Britain has faced its

greatest challenges, we have only come through the storm because we

were One Nation. The Government has forgotten that

lesson. With one million people out of work, we cannot succeed as a

country. With the gap between rich and poor growing wider and wider,

we cannot succeed as a country. With millions of people feeling

that hard work and effort are not rewarded, we cannot succeed as a

country. And with so many people having been told for so long that

the only way to get on is to be on your own, in it for yourself, we

just can't succeed as a country. Yes, friend, to come through the

storm, to overcome the challenges we face, we must rediscover that

spirit that British people never forgot, that spirit of One Nation.

One Nation - a country where everyone plays their part, a

In all, there is no more important area of our common life than the UK

itself. One of our four countries, Scotland, will be deciding in the

next two years whether to stay aboard to go. -- or two ago. A lot

to be clear about this - Scotland could leave the United Kingdom come

but I believed we would be far worse off as a result. Not just in

Pounds and pence, but in the soul of a our nation.

You see, I don't believe that Solidarity stops at the border. I

care as much about a young person, unemployed, in Motherwell, as I do

about a young person, unemployed, here in Manchester. We have common

bonds, we have deep bonds with each other. The people of Scotland, and

the people of the rest of the United Kingdom. And by the way, if

you think about the people of Scotland and the Olympic Games,

they were not cheering on just the Scottish athletes of Team GB. They

were cheering on all the athletes of Team GB.

That is what the SNP don't understand. Why would a party that

claims to be left-of-centre back on the redistribution, the Solidarity,

the common bonds of the United Kingdom? Friends, it is up to us,

it is up to us. We, the Labour Party, must be the people who fight,

defend and when that the battle fought the UK. -- and win the

Let's head back to Manchester now, to speak to our correspondent at

the Labour conference. David, looking at that, do you think Ed

Miliband managed to infuse the delegates in the hall? I think

there was no doubt they were pretty pleased with what he said, and also

the way he said that, speaking off the cuff, without notes, speaking

for more than a work and basically giving his idea of what he wanted

to take Labour. You asked the question, did he enthused the

delegates? Let's find out, I am joined by two Scottish delegates,

Taylor Scott and law man, both Labour delegates from Glasgow or

thereabouts. -- Laura make man. I am sure that you will see it is a

fantastic speech, what were the points that you wanted to hear?

was enthused to see such a passionate speech, and as you say,

of the calf. -- off the cuff. The atmosphere was electric and there

was a real sense of our future. There was not a lot of detail, it

was more big picture stuff. We cannot be going out with a

speech full of policy. We have to look to the future, where a party

rebuilding Britain, rebuilding ourselves. That slogan, rebuilding

Britain, is on the building behind you. Behind the platform is the

slogan, One Nation. He used the term One Nation 46 times. As a

Labour activist, argued comfortable using a slogan better known from a

Tory Prime Minister? I think One Nation is an idea that we are

united as a country. Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland

is built on a partnership of common values, shared passions and

interests. We are united country, we have the same problems, same

aspirations, and that is what One Nation means to us as Labour

members. I was speaking to some Scots yesterday come and they

thought he might find it hard to go to the doorstep and sell that, One

Nation, people of Scotland saying we are a separate nation.

honestly believe that the people of Scotland are interested in jobs and

economic growth, and not this obsession with constitutional

separation. A thick on the doorsteps people will be encouraged

to hear the idea of One Nation, that we are genuine -- genuinely

all in it together. What did you have to say on the

whole independence argument? He was very strong on that, wasn't he?

I think he has shown he is a man leading the UK Labour Party a

partnership with the Scottish Labour Party. Both speeches

yesterday reminded people that Labour is the party of the people,

whether it is in Glasgow, Manchester or the South of England,

we are the party united with the same problems. There might be

regional daft -- differences, but the same problems and aspirations.

He did not put it as starkly as this, but he was arguing that

Labour brought around devolution in Scotland and Wales, therefore

labour ought to lead the fight against independence. It is true,

we did bring about devolution. I think it is important the parties

work together to maintain the Union. We are stronger together, that is

what is important. The country is in economic crisis, people are

interested in putting food on their tables, feeding their children,

having jobs and security, they are not interested in this constant

obsession, as I said already, with constitutional separation. It may

not be at the top of people's agenda, as was indicated there, but

we know it is coming. How important is it that the parties work

together. And would you be happy if your party leader with -- shared a

platform with David Cameron to fight independence? I agree with

Laura, the argument on separation and independence supersedes party

politics. We cannot rely on the SNP giving us their vision. We have to

say, this is what is important to us as a country, but as Labour

members we will say, the other party that brought devolution,

where the party that will win back power for Holyrood, but we're not a

party striving to centralise control. Like the SNP, they are not

the party of devolution. And I repeat my question, would you be

happy if you're leader shared a platform with David Cameron the

fete independence? The fete independence, yes, we are at United

Kingdom, David Cameron is the Prime Minister of this country, we do not

agree ideologically, but for the future of the UK, together is

stronger. Would you agree with that? Yes, I think there is

absolutely supersedes party politics. This is about everyone

coming together to fight for a United Kingdom, to fight for what

is best for people, and I for 1:00am happy to see that happening.

Thank you very much for joining us this afternoon. We'll go back into

the hall to listen to a question and answer session Ed Miliband is

having. He is having the second bite of the cherry, if you like.

After his keynote speech yesterday, he is back in the hall with a

A plans to tackle anti-social garden hedge owners have been

unveiled. Mark big Donald is proposing a change in the law to

make it illegal to grow hedges more than two metres tall if it

adversely affect neighbours. Audrey Alexander used to grow

vegetables in her front garden, but her neighbour's hedge stands at 50

feet tall, and that is not enough light for a plant to grow.

Mediation has been tried and failed. Our last hope is a change in the

law. It is exhausting, emotionally

draining the to have a winter where it is a sunny day and you are in

darkness, it is very demoralising. I suffer from seasonal affective

disorder, so I have to leave my own House to go somewhere else to get

sunshine, which I should have in a south-facing hands. Hedges like

these can call up to 80 feet tall. If you are in dispute with a

neighbour over a hedge like this, under current law There is little

you can do about it. In fact, Scotland is the only part of the UK

that does not have legislation to tackle this issue. Under the

proposed law, when mediation fails and hedges are deemed to be too

high, local councils will be able to move in and cut them down.

Because a other forms of dispute can be resolved, this is the one

the outstanding issue that cannot, so it causes a lot of stress and

anxiety for people who find themselves with neighbours with a

high hedge, having a Bill that will resolve that will make us better.

With Government backing the Bill is likely to become law by spring next

year. Let's speak to our political commentator Hamish McDonnell again.

This kind of change in the law by Holyrood would be hugely popular,

I'm sure. These things really annoy people. Yes, I think there is a

tendency for some in the political classes to sneer at these issues

and see them as being quite small. I remember the Tory MSP who cut --

brought in legislation on dog fouling and told me it was his

crowning political achievement. It affected the lives of more people

than anything else. These things are important, in MSP's postbags

they do not get questions about the constitution or fiscal tax policy,

they get questions about dog fouling and hydrogens. This

questions -- at -- and high hedges. This will bring us into line with

the rest of the UK. To move back to a more esoteric concept, the one-

off One Nation, proposed by Ed Miliband in his conference speech.

What exactly was he meaning by eight One Nation, do you mean to --

do you think? Do it is a very general concept. In its heart, it

is about being against divisions, the sort of divisions he suggested

were being created by the coalition Government, putting public against

private sector, but in Scotland against the rest of the UK, rich

against poor, that sort of thing. He was trying to tie everything

together under this slogan of One Nation. Yes, it was taken from a

former Conservative Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, but it was

generally an extraordinarily good speech. It had a theme to tie it

all together, he was confident, relaxed, he got standing ovations,

and yes, it was a little light on the policy side - I thought when is

he going to come up with all these great policies to back up this idea,

and there were one or two, but a very good speech to try and propel

them upwards, the light on policy. Thank you for Europe dues. MSPs

have been told allowing television cameras into court would lead to

making it into a Holyrood liked situation.

Here is a flavour of the discussion. Do there are is a real danger that

if cameras are allowed in without limitations in High Court trials

they will trivialise the proceedings and reduce them to the

OJ Simpson... There is no getting around the fact

that whether it is STD or Channel 4, it is a question of prime-time

entertainment. -- whether it is Scottish Television.

Why should an accused who is acquitted should have his trial

shown on television. You would have the allegations replayed again and

again. Could I suggest there is a wider interest in criminal trials,

and the public interest in criminal trials? After all, we pay for

everything that happens, the judge, the defence lawyer, the Crown, and

we have a right to know what is going on.

Bayern against television, despite not against television, but I am

totally opposed to television broadcasting a criminal trial. If

someone is acquitted, that is something the justice system has

done. Why should it then before a television company to put together

some kind of package of what it thinks happened in the trial, of

what it thinks the evidence amounted to come and show it to the

public and large and say this man has been acquitted but you decide

for yourselves? Trial by television. That is a very real risk. The last

point, again, is about the role of the media. We now have instant

messaging systems where people can sit in court with a mobile phone

and broadcast the evidence as it is taking place. Two witnesses who are

waiting to give evidence in the same building. Once that

information is out there, it is out there as I understand it for good.

The people who write what I am reliably informed or blogs or

diaries of some time, you cannot find them, locate them, and they

can put on the internet, this man is on trial today, I say to the

jury he has 43 previous convictions, he is a rock, a villain, a

charlatan, it is your job to convict him. And there is nothing

we can do about it, and the media will shrug its shoulders and say

that is the way it is. There is a crying need for regulation at the

hands of this Parliament to preserve the justice system that I

think is important to us all, much more than the media's ability to

cover criminal trials. I would argue that public interest

is best served by exposing the courts to as much public scrutiny

as is possible. I don't see for a second any reason why the

experience of attending court cannot be simulated, warts and all,

with the presence of carefully, strategically placed cameras.

In terms of the impact of the image of a witness in the case, we're

arguing about whether it moves on it is still, because you can have a

photograph and use that after a certain point of evidence. I cannot

see that well regulated television coverage of a trial materially

alter is the basic proposition, which is that any report has to be

fair, it has to be accurate, contemporaneous. That has always

been the case. I honestly don't understand the argument that

television is somehow so much more pernicious end the way it conveys

images of a trial. I think those experiments should continue. Free

speech in this country and in Europe carries responsibilities,

and that free speech, the rate of article 10, has to be balanced to a

rate of fair trial, article 6. We could talk about the US, because

the US values its free speech. Yet it also has other safeguards, such

as Judy vetting, which insures the right to a fair trial. We do not

have the vetting in this country, which is why contempt of court is

essential, which is why it needs to be extended and rigorously updated

to take account of technological advances. Otherwise, we're going to

have cameras in their, and with the greatest respect for the media

saying we have genuine interest, genuine interest is not a concern

for justice. We will open the floodgates on Holyrood for our

chords. Let us head to Holyrood now and get

some more reaction on our top story today - the UK government scrapping

the awarding of the West Coast rail franchise. I am joined now by Alex

Johnstone, the Conservatives' Transport spokesman. When did you

first hear the news about this? first heard this morning on the BBC.

Even many hours after this, I waited to hear from the United

Kingdom Government about what was happening. This is in contravention

to the respect agenda we have with them. People deserve to have their

voices heard and they deserve to hear this before it was announced

by the United Kingdom Government. you now trying to find out what is

happening? For what we have said as we have to have more detail. I

believe there are crucial aspects in the second of the reviews which

will look at franchising, but it has not yet had its remit fixed.

That is important as we are entering into a franchise situation

with ScotRail in Scotland. Of the review comes back in a few months'

time with significant changes to the franchise process, we could be

further down the road in our own process, so we cannot have that

sort of uncertainty, as it could undermine rail services in Scotland.

He or colleagues running this, this is surely a shambles? It is

unfortunate, but I believe the Government have done the right

thing by admitting there is a serious problem and starting this

process again. It is important there is action done as quickly as

possible. If they had done anything different, they would have been

accused of covering it up. Miliband was talking yesterday

about the incompetent government and he got a standing of nation.

Surely he was right, in light of this? By a to this announcement,

the government did believe that was in the right. The advice they got

was wrong. They have done the right thing and halted the legal process.

That is the key element of this. The main thing we have to remember

is that passengers will not be affected. There will be continuity

of service and the franchising process will now be carried out

from the start again to make sure it is a free and open process.

There are blaming the officials - what has happened to ministerial

responsibility? A where advice was an appropriate and the process was

wrongly handled, it was right for government to admit there was a

problem and put it right. That is exactly what they're doing today.

There are is a more fundamental problem here. He we are speaking to

the union before. The whole franchise system devised by the

Labour government does not work. The East Coast franchise has been

in trouble and now it there is this problem in the West. This has been

a complete shambles. Clearly, there has been a failure of ministerial

oversight, but we do want to look at the future of franchising and

rail services. We need to know what impact this will have on the future

of franchise arrangements in Scotland through stop let us not

just look at franchise arrangements. There is other aspects to look at.

We want the debate in Scotland around the future of real to go far

Warwick wider than just that. Miliband was complaining about the

rail companies making huge profits and passengers been hit with huge

increases in fares. Would you like to see the railways renationalise?

I thing there is an issue in Scotland particularly about what we

could and couldn't do to the legislature. We could look at other

methods, including a not-for-profit model. There are bigger issues

about accountability in the rail network and passengers paying

through the nose for services. They have to have a bigger debate than

simply the franchises. What is the future of railways in Scotland?

Also, the future of railways in Scotland in an independent Scotland,

what model which you use? Which you want it week nationalised? We judge

should know that the franchise requirement applies to to the

Labour Party. The approved it. The franchise under the East Coast main

line failed and we feel there are problems with the franchises. We

think it is a very expensive process and have we have seen today,

there is around the �40 million bill for others. Richard Baker

should not these basic facts. going to consider changes? The we

have to consider transport policy just now with the constraints we

have. One relates to franchise. We need to have the separation of

trains and track. We need to look at ways to improve the service. We

have looked at ways to improve for example the super service. Thank

you all very much. Let us get some final thoughts now, in the company

of our commentator for the afternoon Hamish Macdonell. The

Prime Minister speaks to the Conservative conference next week.

Is Ed Miliband now a tougher act to follow? Most Devon a life. Ed

Miliband's speech was very well received, as was Nick Clegg's at

the Liberal conference the previous week. The influence the mood of the

party and the way the country sees the leader of their party. People

see the sound bites on the use it Reid reports. That is why we do

spend so much time working on these speeches. There is a lot riding on

them. That standing ovation that Ed Miliband received for that back of

the envelope incompetent government and the likes of this incident with

the rail franchise is the sort of thing they could capitalise on?

not only did Ed Miliband say that the Government was an incompetent

shower, but the next day, it appeared that he had got it spot on.

It is important that the coalition knows where it's going to stop the

need to put out that they know the Roy road is hard, but they know

which direction they are going. They have an advantage, but they

still have to deliver. Ed Miliband made this point that borrowing is

going up and the plan is not working. When the medicine is not

working and the doctor is not working, it is time to change the

doctor. Yes, the one thing that Ed Miliband did not come up with was a

alternative plan. What David Cameron has to do it is put forward

a alternative plan. David Cameron has the reputation as a good

speaker and he has to live up to that next week. Last week, Nick

Clegg used an autocue. Yesterday, Ed Miliband did not use any autocue

and apart we just rehearsed the speech in his head. Yes, that much

of this is actually off the cuff and what is from memory is hard to

see. I think of David Cameron does march around the stage, he will

simply look a bit like the other leaders and I expect he will do

something different. That is all we have time for on the programme this

afternoon. Holyrood is in recess for the next two weeks, so we are

off the air, but our colleagues on the Daily Politics will have full