05/06/2013 Politics Scotland

Scotland. Coming up, the Justice Secretary stands accused of

neglecting local justice. The thorny issue of land reform.

Labour urge debate -- Labour urged changes. Ed Miliband accused the

Prime Minister of being complacent and out of touch. David Cameron

accused him of weak leadership. Scottish Government has welcomed a

survey which says there is no sign of investors being deterred of

coming to Scotland because of the possibility of independence. The

report says Scotland produced a sparkling performance in attracting

foreign investment last year. have chosen to invest more in

Scotland. The Norwegian engineering firm are looking to expand their

Aberdeen base where they make high-tech equipment for the oil and

gas industry. So, why here? We have almost 3000 people in the Aberdeen

area alone. It allows us to tap into the pool of talent that we see. It

has all the experience of 30 years of working in this industry. Other

companies are following suit. Ernst and Young have identified 76

projects last year where overseas companies sought to invest in

Scotland, that is up on the previous year. Scotland's share of investment

rose and is now the number one place for investment outside London. We

have been investment up and down the company. A Spanish company chose the

Port of Leith for a new wind turbine plant. A Japanese firm bought a

stake in... What impact is there for next year's referendum? There is no

obvious implication from the Independence debate on the level of

investment. But we are reporting the facts as they were in 2012 and who

knows what will happen in 2013. Politicians have been quick to

react. Ministers at Holyrood say it is proof independence would not

scare off investors. Their Westminster rivals say stability

within the UK makes Scotland attractive. Let's look at political

reaction to the report. Joining me as Hamish MacDonell and Glenn

Campbell is at Holyrood. Good afternoon to both of you. Glenn,

what has been the reaction to this report at Holyrood? The record of

investment in Scotland have been welcomed by the parties and

Government as well. All sides see it as a good record, however they

dispute the underlying reasons for it. Those who want Scotland to

remain within the UK say it is evidence of the strength of

Scotland's position as a devolved nation, those on the other side of

the argument say this proves that Scotland could be successful as an

independent country and that the warnings that investment would be

deterred as a result of the independent -- independence

referendum verdict, that they have proved those warnings wrong. That

has been good news for campaigners for a yes vote. I suppose this

report is another battle in the long war that is running until September

2014. Yes, there are reports and interventions almost on a daily

basis coming from the campaigns and coming from outside interests as

well. Academic reports, a wide range of contributions to this debate. Of

course, how each of those contributions are interpreted

depends on the prospective of the politicians who are making the

comments. This is a classic example that whilst all sides recognise

these are a good set of figures, they cannot agree whether or not

they make the case for or against independence. Hamish MacDonell, this

report can cut both ways? Yes, it is important to say right from the

start this is good news for the yes camp. It underlines the claims that

the uncertainty over independence, the debate over the uncertainty of

independence has been deterring business. This report blows that out

of the water. But that is as far as you can take it. It is not concrete

evidence supporting either side in the actual lead up to the

referendum. As the interview from Ernst & Young, this is how things

stood in 2012, they were looking at last year. When you look at it, Alex

Salmond have been doing a lot of work behind-the-scenes trying to

pull inward investment into Scotland. When you look at the power

and clout of the Scottish Government have, as a semiautonomous region, it

is doing better at that than other regions outside of London. Scotland,

if you call it a region in that regard, it is interesting that

English regions are not able to compete in that regard, London gets

the lion's share of investment. London has that gravitational pull

that pulls in a lot of investment and perhaps sucks it away from other

regions in England. But the Scottish Government has the ability to get

out and win things on behalf of of Scotland because that can represent

the country in a way other regions cannot do. The justice secretary

Kenny MacAskill and Scotland's top judge Lord Gill have been defending

closing courts. MFP is at yesterday 's meeting question them about the

reforms which are expected to save �4.5 million. We are not immune to

the financial pressures, they affect all walks of life. I am reassured by

the commitment which SBS has given of avoiding compulsory redundancies.

This will assist cases where vulnerable will -- witnesses will be

able to give evidence. At the moment there are no vulnerable witness the

filler teas in this area. Many of Scotland's court date from Victorian

times and are not fit for purpose in the 21st-century. The reality is it

is a better use of a shrinking budget to concentrate funds on a

smaller number of better equipped courts where better facilities are

provided. Either it is about saving money or delivering better justice,

which one is it? It is not either, or. It is about both. It is exactly

the same as what we have done with police Scotland. We have to make

changes, we cannot ignore there are huge budget cuts. This is driven by

financial cuts which we cannot ignore. But the target that Scottish

ministers set save the percentage of cases disposed of within a 20 week

period should be 85%. Edinburgh is currently achieving 58.4%, despite

of the fact you have told us sheriff clerk has assured us his court is

operating under capacity. Yet it is missing your target by a very

significant degree. My local court is delivering very close to your

target, why are you going to close my court and move it to Edinburgh?

do not think it is your court as such, you are the elected

representative and it covers a wide area of East Lothian. Things move

on, I know you have spoken in Parliament about how it was their

pre-Reformation. Equally were a whole variety of other matters which

have had to change from capital punishment to the stocks. Life moves

on. The background to all of this is important, and that is that the

cottage -- Scottish Court service has to receive a reduction in its

budget of 20% over the four year period from 2011-2015. We have no

choice in the matter, that simply have to be done. 40% of our running

costs at the moment are tied up in the buildings forming the Court

estate. And the very considerable cost of the upkeep and maintenance

of those. Are these changes about saving money or delivering a better

justice system for Scotland? My own feeling is that a good intellectual

case could be made for these changes even if we were not living in these

rather unusual economics -- circumstances. There is a good case

to be made in modern Scotland for having centres of specialisation and

excellence and for making the most efficient use of resources that you

can. If you were to sit down today and plan a justice system for

Scotland based upon an network of high courts and sheriff courts, it

would be nothing like the present pattern. The present pattern is

really based on a Victorian model. Hamish MacDonell is still with us.

It is almost surprising at their reaction, the anger these closures

have generated. It is not surprising in relation to local constituencies.

This is a classic case of where the central Government has to make cuts

because all departments are being cuts, and the impact at a local

level. It puts the Government at all with constituency local MSPs,

including their own who want to fight to keep those services open.

You saw a lot of that coming out in the committee today, anger and

resentment from local MSPs who have been lobbied hard to keep the local

courts open. Scotland has been described as having most inequitable

landownership system in the Western world. In today's debates at

Holyrood labour or calling on Scotland to address that. The

Government say they are committed to land reform and community ownership

has flourished under its the greatest public benefit. We will

support bold solutions which promote ownership. Recognising the economic

and social benefits that can bring. When the Scottish Government

launched the land review group it was to promote new relationships

between land, people, economy and environment in Scotland. The L R R G

was announced by the first Minister last year. At the time he said, I

want this review to deliver radical change in rural and urban areas. We

support the establishment of an expert group delivering on land

reform, it will never be easy. Elements of the 2003 act are still

being challenged and shoo it is not an easy path for politicians to

tread. An expert independent group can provide knowledge to make

recommendations and push the agenda forward. However the interim report

has been largely met with criticism from land reformists. The lack of

expertise, the decision to narrow the re-met, and the dearth for

radical proposals. Community land Scotland have welcomed aspects of

statement from Professor Jim Hunter, an original member of the LR RG who

said if the Scottish Government are serious about land reform, ministers

and the Government machine more generally must be directly involved

in the work that we do. We are six years into MSN -- SNP Government who

has done nothing about the fact that Government continues to be stuck

with the most inequitable, on reformed, undemocratic landownership

system in the democratic world. Notwithstanding my hope that our

respective parties can stay united in the need for further land

reform, can the member remind the chamber of why her party was unable

to build into the 2003 act the measures she is now calling for the

SNP Government to enact? I am disappointed by that approach, I

thought we agreed on the need for radical land reform? The member will

know how difficult it is to make progress on this. We are prepared to

look at radical solutions and there is time in this Parliament to

deliver. Perhaps the strongest criticism this week has come from

the Scottish tenant farmers Association whose chairman said, I

fail to understand how this review of land reform can take place

without considering land tenure. An opportunity has been missed to

highlight to the Government the best way to go about land tenure. There

is a strong and justifiable mood of cynicism amongst tenant farmers that

they have been sidelined and an opportunity has been missed to

provide direction for this neglected rural community of Scotland. The

minister looked to be supporting this. He said I very much look

forward to the next stage as they move into the second stage of their

work looking at radical options for community landownership before the

final report in 2014. It is right the minister recognises the work of

the group, but does the Government share the disappointment that it

will no longer look at farm tenancies, land value taxation?

wonder if she would accept that there is considerable work going on

looking and land tenancy issues? Would she access that this is a

very, very sensitive area on which progress is being made, and the

deliberations of yet another outside group would not exactly be helpful

given the stage of talks taking place? I wouldn't accept that. For

example, up until the publication of the report last week on tenant

farming was to be part of the review until the group announced they were

passing the buck to the tenant farmers' Forum. Another review was

proposed. The proposed review... Sorry, I really pushed for time,

there are a few points I would like to make. The proposed review from

the Scottish Government looks pretty narrow. It's about passing proposed

legislation and then scrutinising it and not much else. Unless the

government wants to give more detailed today on who will be

conducting the review, what it will look at, what is the timescale, will

it deliver, there is a need for additional tenancies and better,

more secure and longer tenancy terms than at present. The interim report

recognises that this aspect of rural Scotland is problematic and requires

expert attention. The forum has its uses, but as a place where nothing

is done without consensus and the balance of power is so skewed, I

would argue that compromise cannot deliver the change needed. We will

bring you more of the land reform debate a little later, but first

let's cross to the garden lobby at Holyrood and chat with the SNP's

Annabelle Ewing, Ken Macintosh of Scottish Labour and Jim Hume from

the Scottish Liberal Democrats. Thank you for joining me. Looking at

land reform, as it is being debated in the chamber just now, Annabelle

Ewing, Professor Jim Hunter was very critical of the current system. He

has resigned from the land reform review group, calling the present

system inequitable. The Scottish Government has been defending that,

saying it is not inequitable. issue of land reform has, of

course, been an issue that has been looked at by this Parliament in the

past. Ground-breaking legislation was passed in, I believe, 2003.

There are many thorny issues out there which were not resolved in

2003, and we are certainly determined to find a way forward

with these very complex issues. I think that has been recognised by

the tenor of the interim report of the land reform group. I think it is

to be welcomed, but I think there is much more to be done and I will look

forward to further discussions to see what we can do to tackle the

outstanding issues of land reform. After six years of an SNP led

government, you would think that land reform might be something the

SNP would be really keen to reform, your partners in the yes campaign,

the Green Party, saying that if SNP ministers aspire to be like

Scandinavia where they have a much fairer system of land ownership, why

can't you have that kind of system in Scotland? It didn't happen in the

2003 act, for reasons alluded to in the debate which we have just come

from a moment ago in the chamber. There are many complex issues to be

resolved. If we look at bon tenancies, Ireland that last year we

looked at an amendment to the agricultural holdings legislation in

Scotland. At that time it was made clear that there would be a review

of agricultural holdings in general within 18 months of the legislation

being passed last June, and that is what the Cabinet Secretary has

confirmed. It may be that the pace of change is not as everyone would

desire to see, but by the same token these are very complex issues which

have been looked at. I hope that all parties can continue to work

together to find solutions in the future. Ken Macintosh, the 2003

legislation passed under the Labour/Lib Dem executive, Johann

Lamont wants to further reform this and in the spring conference

speech, the Labour Party conference beach, she said that if it is in the

public interest communities will have the right to purchase land,

even when the landowner is not a willing seller. The reaction on

twitter was incredulous, almost calling it a land grab that she was

suggesting. I think radical changes needed. I don't like to throw

statistics around, but just to remind you, at the moment, 16 people

own 10% Scotland 's land. Just over 430 people own half of Scotland's

land. That gives you some idea of the unfairness of land ownership in

Scotland at the moment. There are actually some good things in this

report. I was pleased when Alison Elliott was asked to chair a review.

What we have seen today, with the Scottish Government's reaction, is

rather than making common cause with Labour, because there is the

potential for a shared agenda, rather than making common cause, the

SNP are throwing the brakes on and saying, we don't want to see radical

change. This government has the whole of Scotland on hold. I don't

recall that statement being made. The example you just gave,

Annabelle, when you look at land tenure, farming tenancies, tenant

farmers, that has been dropped from this review. But we know that tenant

farmers are in a very precarious position and we should be looking at

this issue. Even if you broaden its beyond landholdings in the

agriculture sector, if you look at community ownership of wind power,

at the moment, this could be a real revolution in Scotland. Let me

interrupt. Advocating... You are about radical measures, are you

advocating to take the land from the landowner if they are not a willing

seller? That is what we should be looking at. There are number of

vested interests in work controlling the land in Scotland, and we should

not allow them to entirely block progress on the land reform agenda.

We are suggesting that an expert group is the way to do this, we

should get the democratic approval of the people of Scotland, but their

ways to address this. This is not a land grab in some sort of Zimbabwe

and style or a Communist uprising, this is about local communities

taken the drug taking control of the band that they live on. I don't

think it is asking much. Jim Hume, from the Liberal Democrats,

listening to that, a more radical agenda on your right hand side, are

the Liberal Democrats friends of landowners, would you advocate such

radical action as Ken Macintosh is putting forward? Reign Ross Finnie

drove forward land reform and the previous administration. --. It has

been done in a benign way. It was not an absolute right to buy. At the

moment, we have a major problem. In the last six years of the SNP

Government there has not been any movement at all on land reform, we

are seeing no tenancies for farmers in Scotland at all. No secure

tenancies whatsoever. There has to be concerned security back into that

market, the only way that new entrants can come into that

important business industry is by giving tenancies out. I think

scaring... Scaremongering that land would be taken off to be given to

vested interest communities is a step too far and only adds to the

insecurity that is out there at the moment. When you hear the figures

that Ken Macintosh laid out, that land ownership is parted up in

Scotland, do you think a radical changes needed? We need to put some

security back into the tenancy letting market. We have to do that

very, very quickly. Otherwise we will have no new entrant is coming

into one of the most important industries in Scotland. Another

story making the headlines, Annabelle Ewing, the rise in inward

investment, this Ernst & Young survey. What is your reaction? It

cuts both ways, the Scotland office says these companies are investing

in Scotland because it is part of the United Kingdom and they will not

be put off because of independence reform. Yesterday they said that the

independence debate was having a damaging effect on inward

investment. In terms of this Ernst & Young report, the inward investment

is at highest level it has been in Scotland 15 years. I think that is a

tremendous job well done on the part of the Scottish Government, Scottish

development International and the many people involved

behind-the-scenes to secure this terrific boost for the economy.

There are two messages, one is that this is what we can do with a

government determined to create jobs and growth in Scotland, this is what

we can do with the limited powers of devilish and, just imagine what we

could do if we had the full economic levers that every other economic --

independent country takes for rancid. This is what the no campaign

had been bleating on about, that there would be no inward investment

in Scotland. Ken Macintosh...We can't believe a word that they say.

Ken Macintosh, we heard that the referendum would cause uncertainty,

looking at these figures, it clearly hasn't? Independence is the thing

that will cause concern or difficulty, not knowing whatever

currency will be. These are good figures. Why do these companies want

to set up in Scotland? There are so many good things about Scotland,

about devolution, which makes is a good country to operate in. Part of

it has to be access to the whole of the UK and the whole of the European

market? Annabelle pulls-macro arguments make me laugh, she says

every time there is good news it is because we have the Scottish

Government, every time there is bad news it is because of the

Westminster Government. Jim Hume, you are part of the UK Government

wanting a referendum on Europe now. That will cause uncertainty. What is

your reaction? Liberal Democrats are not supporting any referendum, that

is quite clear. That news!We have some very good figures. We are still

part of the UK at the moment, we have UK trading and investment, 160

plus offices throughout the world, the UK Government organisation who

are working to get investment into Scotland. We are seeing the benefit

of two governments, Scottish and UK, who have all been working very hard

to get investment into Scotland. We still have 199,000 unemployed, there

is a lot of work to be done. Thank you all. Let's pick up on some of

those issues without political commentator, Hamish Macdonell. Land

reform, quite if I read a bait. It was interesting to hear Ken

Macintosh. He is backing up what Johann Lamont said, land could be

compulsorily taken away from landowners. My own view is this is

based on a rather naive and simplistic assumption that all

public ownership is good and all private ownership is bad, therefore

you must take land from private owners and give it to the

community. I think that is simplest it because there have been very good

cases of community land buyouts, but others haven't worked and in others

the community have turned down the offer when the land has been offered

to them. Private landowners invest a lot in their tenant farms. It is not

a straightforward simplistic as the Labour Party are trying to make out.

So few people have such control over such large portions Scottish land.

The trouble is that ordinary people often have no access to that land,

they can't live there and can't use it. It is sealed off. I think that

is the point that is often felt. first land reform act changed all

that, it changed the whole way in which people were able to access

land in Scotland, they could access all that was. That part of it was

fuelled by the 2003 act. I think the idea of compulsorily taking land

from landowners if the community want it, there is something else

underlying it. One thing Ken Macintosh touched on, wind power.

What happens is the landowners often get a lot of money for making --

putting words in -- wind turbines on the land, money which could go to

the local community if it was able to manage that land. The renewables

revolution is pushing this debate one way. Let's pick up on reaction

to what the trio were faint. It has gone into party politics. The

politicians were saying what we expect them to say. Annabelle Ewing

said it was all because independence was around the corner and it was not

frightening businesses. Jim Hume pointed out the network of

organisations which the British Government has set up around the

world to pool inward investment in. A network which Scotland, at the

moment, have access to. For the first time in one month David

Cameron was answering Prime Minister 's questions. He accused Labour of a

U-turn on economic policy. In heated exchanges in the Commons, Ed

Miliband chose to press the Prime Minister on the English health

service. On the issue on what people said a few years ago, the very first

time the leader of the opposition came to that dispatch box, he

attacked me from taking child benefit away from higher earners.

Yet, today we learn it is now Labour's official policy to take

child benefit away from higher earners. Two years ago during the

Prime Minister's listening exercise on the health service he said this,

I refuse to go back to the days where people had to wait for hours

on end to be seen in A&E. Let me be clear, we will not. What has gone

wrong? Not a word about what he's said two years ago. The very first

time he stood at that dispatch box totally condemning and attacking in

the strongest possible terms, what now turns out to be Labour policy.

What confusion and weakness from the Labour leader. He asked about

accident and emergency and I will do with it directly. We are now meeting

our targets for accident and emergency. There was a problem in

the first quarter of this year, that is why Sir Bruce Keogh will be

holding an investigation. But the crucial fact is this, over the last

three years there are now 1 million more people walking into our A&E

units every year. We must work hard to get those waiting times down and

keep them down, but we will not do it by following Labour's policy and

cutting the NHS. What a complacent answer from an out of touch Prime

Minister. The independent King 's fund says the number of people

waiting more than four hours in a knee is higher than any time in nine

years. Can he explain to the countrywide A&E waiting times have

gone up under his watch. More than a quarter of NHS walk-in centres have

been closed. If you close NHS walk-in centres, you power up

pressure on A&E departments. That is obvious to everyone else, why is it

not obvious to him. In the first quarter of this year there were

problems, one of the problems is the GP's contract signed by the last

Labour Government. They signed a contract letting GPs get out of out

of hours. Everyone will see a Prime Minister who cannot defend what is

happening on his watch. Patients waiting on trolleys, operations

cancelled, a crisis in A&E. Our NHS is not safe in their hands. It is

under this Government the number of doctors and operations are up.

Waiting lists are down, that is what is happening. And it interesting

that in a week that was about to be -- that was supposed to be about

their economic relaunch, they cannot talk about their policies. They told

us they wanted to keep child benefit, now they want to scrap

child benefit. They told us they were going to be men of iron

discipline, yet they said, do I think the last Labour Government had

too much national debt? No, I do not think there is any evidence of that.

They are the same old Labour. when a journalist, masquerading as a

lobbyist, entrapped a Tory MP, that the Prime Minister decided it was

time to launch an all-out attack on the trade unions. He conveniently

forgets to mention the Labour peers. We do have a problem in Parliament

with the influence of third parties. Clearly the matter of all

party Parliamentary groups which is a matter for the House. As they

promised in the coalition agreement, we will bring forward a

lobbying register and we will bring forward registers to make sure the

trade unions behave properly to. Let's head to a very sunny College

green at Westminster. Yes, the sun is back and Prime Minister 's

questions are back. It is the first time the Prime Minister has taken

questions in three weeks. Plenty of topics for MPs to quiz him about

from the economy to issues of Parliamentary sleaze. Let's discuss

some of these issues with three men who were there. Tom, it should have

been a day where Ed Miliband could tackle the Prime Minister but

actually he was asking the questions and creating some difficulties.

Difficult for Ed Miliband. It is the first time for several weeks the

Prime Minister has turned up, he seems to have forgotten he is there

to answer questions not ask them. Relating to the issues around

welfare, Ed Miliband will be speaking tomorrow setting out a

vision. Everything else ahead of that is speculation and we wait to

see what he says tomorrow. Speculation but from very good

sources, and Labour are not going to reverse those child benefit cuts,

are they? I do not know. What I do know is that Ed Miliband has said

right from when he was elected, that there are disastrous policies which

have been implemented by the Government. Ed balls said this week

that the reality is we are in a position where we will have two plan

coming into office and not able to overturn everything got cut. I knew

the BBC is impatient, but wait until tomorrow and there will be more

information then. What do you make of the fact Labour has made a U-turn

on those policies? It is surprisingly has had a U-turn, cars

they could not explain where they would be getting the money for these

policies. They have opposed every single welfare reform. Their

position was ridiculous, now it is uncertain. No wonder Tom cannot

answer the question, I doubt anyone in the Labour Party knows what the

policy is in the Labour Party. Stewart, you will be sitting on the

SNP benches, what do you make of those two points of view? I thought

Ed Miliband was weeks two days. For the first time in six weeks he did

not go on the -- on the economy to avoid tough questions on his own

economic policy. In terms of what we do know from the speculation, Labour

have said the coalition cuts are the starting point which implies more

council tax rises. They seem to be hinting at regional welfare

payments. If we end up with a policy which is more tax increases, more

cuts to fund higher welfare payments in London, you will end up with an

extremely unfair economic policy and one which might be anti-Scottish and

go against ordinary working class people in England. If Labour is

rethinking some of their economic policies, you might have to do the

same thing. Economic policy, social policy is constantly under review --

under review and there's nothing wrong with that. But we have all

agreed the child benefit cuts were particularly pernicious. We know

that means testing is expensive and with means testing it is not just

those who shouldn't get that do not get, it is those who ought to get

that do not claim. That is very interesting from Stewart, because he

will know that Nicola Sturgeon's group on welfare have delayed their

report. It will be interesting to hear what the SNP set out as

policies if they get a yes vote in the referendum next year. One other

issue was the latest Parliamentary sleaze allegations. Of Europe

backbenchers not happy with this idea of a recall saying it is

actually a stitch up that the Prime Minister is embarking on. I recall

has been discussed for some time and it was in the coalition agreement.

It is important these are properly debated in Parliament. Recall is not

like not liking your MP and wanting to vote him or her out. The public

should have a say, and as this measure is debated in Parliament I

think we will see that point of view widely discussed. Do you think

constituents should be able to recall website some committee set up

by the wets here which would give it censure in the first place. This

cannot be about not liking your MP, that is what elections are for. It

has to be something real, substantive and proven. Let's see if

it would deliver the kind of service that would deliver a recall.

allegations, of course, are that an MP and some peers have accepted

money for offering access. This recall would not affect that, would

it? There is the issue on recall and the issue for registered lobbyists.

It has got to be done properly. It must be a mechanism used when there

is an abuse, but just having it as a way of doing what you do in an

election is not sensible. My only concern is the Government seemed

completely disinterested in it until last weekend and are rushing to do

something quickly. We need something appropriate in place and those of us

and other parties need to make sure we test this properly and make sure

we are committed and it is about what constituents are able to do

when there is an abuse. David, you are promised a statutory register of

lobbyists, you have waited till something has gone wrong to consider

it. I think the timing is inevitably going to be linked to this issue. I

am pleased it has come forward and it should be welcomed. It is

important people understand who is in contact with their MPs and who is

getting a pass to get in and out of the House of Commons. Thank you all

very much indeed. Clearly we have much more to discuss on that

register of lobbyists. The Speaker himself has instigated a review of

those all-party groups. And there is much more to come on Ed Miliband's

speech tomorrow where they will set asked to ensure underemployment does

not become a permanent feature of the labour market. The committee is

chaired said they find their economic downturn was increasing the

number of those in the work poverty. How big an issue is underemployment

in Scotland? There were 264 workers in Scotland in underemployment,

almost 11% of Scotland's total workforce. Women workers are more

likely to be underemployed than men although there have been significant

increases in underemployment between both recently. While it is an issue

for all age groups, a third of all underemployed men and a quarter of

all underemployed women fall into the 16-24 age group. Why is it

increasing? Clearly the economic downturn has resulted in a reduction

in demand for labour, and in increased levels of unemployment and

underemployment. That is not the whole story. During and immediately

after the economic downturn, levels of unemployment were much lower than

initially predicted. It is the more flexible nature of the labour market

that has allowed firms to retain staff during these challenging

economic times, allowing employees to reduce -- allowing employers to

reduce hours rather than the headcount. We have this flexibility,

but it comes at a price with an increase in insecure, temporary and

part-time work. So rather than hearing that work is a route out of

poverty, we heard that due to people working fewer hours, receiving less

pay and having a lower level of skills, a key characteristic of the

recent economic downturn has been an increase in the number of people

experiencing in work poverty. We need to look beyond the headline

employment and unemployment statistics to find out what is

happening in Scotland's employment market. The first step needs to be

the collection and analysis of data on underemployment, the groups it

affects and the impact on the market. I hope the Scottish

Government will lead the way in undertaking this work. The Scottish

Government needs to act now to prevent skills on the utilisation

and underemployment becoming permanent features of the labour

market. We know that underemployment is not in it self a measure of the

strength of an economy. Strong economies like the German and Swiss

economies have relatively high levels of underemployment. It is

difficult to establish a clear and strong correlation between

underemployment and economic performance. Another issue

considered on this issue is the wide acceptance that a flexible labour

market is essential to delivering continued economic recovery. It is

important to recognise that some groups - young people, women, older

workers and the disabled - might be adversely affected by

underemployment. The government agrees with the committee that we

need to look further at the problem is that these groups specifically

phase. We have a duty to address challenges in the labour market

which may adversely and disproportionately affect the

Scottish workforce. As the committee request, I will be happy to raise

the matter of underemployment with the Scottish employability Forum and

seek members' views on what more can be done to help us better to stand

and address any negative impacts of underemployment in Scotland today.

I believe the government could be more aggressive in labour market

interventions. The new employment recruitment incentive and the wage

subsidy provided might be a place to start. Labour hoarding has emerged

as an issue. It is good that firms have worked to keep employees on in

the face of the downturn, but as the recession continues and demand fails

to pick up, this is proving unsustainable. In Germany, a

different approach has been tried. Workers build up reserves of

overtime and pay with employers through good economic times which

tied them over in town times. One particular government intervention

is directed at saving long-term employment in firms rather than

picking up the cost of employment benefit, the government has

intervened to subsidise jobs for up to six months rather than see a firm

go out of business for good. I believe these policies worth further

explanation. -- exploration. There is a marked difference between

Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK in terms of underemployment. I

wonder what the reasons are? It might be worthy of looking into to

see if there is something that can be learned. Northern Ireland today,

6.1%, is lower than any other part of the UK was in the boom years. The

lowest in the boom years was 6.5 cent underemployment in the

south-east, Northern Ireland today, in the height of an economic down

turn, has a lower underemployment rate than any other part of the

United Kingdom had even when the economy was motoring along. Why is

that? Is there something we can learn?

Gavin Brown, though. We will go live to the chamber now for more on the

debate of land reform that we were covering earlier. Mark Chisholm of

labour is now speaking. Dogs are not allowed. Four minutes,

please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am

delighted that we are debating this, I am delighted that the Labour Party

have moved on from many of the positions they adopted ten years

ago. For example, in the agricultural holdings bill, where

the SNP brought forward the idea of a compulsory right to buy perhaps

being a good idea, one of those who voted against it was, strangely

enough, Rhoda Grant. That was at stage two in committee. Some SNP

members voted against. There is no time, I'm sorry. But I don't mind

that the Labour Party are changing their mind. On the contrary, I

welcome that some of the things that I said during the passage of

previous legislation have now become even more timely. I said, for

example, in relation to the land reform Bill on the 23rd of January

2003, that the bill was timid because it lacked much of

Scotland's land, that held by companies, trusts and injuring

partnerships, beyond the reach of Right to buy. It provided under what

is now an actor. In reality, it is only that relatively small minority

of land in private ownership that is actually available to be bought. I

hope that we can explore, through the Reform group, what kind of

constraints are created by that. We don't necessarily have the

legislative power here to deal with that, but either through voting yes

in 2014 or with the usual stick support of a Tory Prime Minister who

says he is willing to help, we might see a way of an picking the trust

law which is far too often in the whole of the UK, but in Scotland in

particular in relation to land, used to conceal an official ownership, to

prevent illegal transfers of land because it is in the interest of the

trusted transfers, not the interest of the land. There is a coalition of

interest, a coalition of the willing that might pick up a very

significant challenge that there is from the structure of land ownership

where, in this place, we have very limited powers, certainly none over

company law, little over the waitress 's operate that we might

look at. -- little over the way that trusts operate. I have previous on

this, I moved Amendment 207 on the 23rd of January in the stage three

debate, which sought to make some provisions to tackle the

anti-avoidance that there was. In particular, I drew attention to the

fact that landlords were scuttling all around the place, taking cover,

hiding things, so it would be very difficult for us to know what was

actually happening. I'm afraid I was unable on that occasion to persuade

the then government that they might have said. And, indeed, apparently

in a sedentary intervention, the Tories said that trusts are very

good indeed. Rhoda Grant rightly talked about the Park estate, and I

share her discontent that part three of the Land Reform Act has as yet

not delivered a single purchase. It is a classic example, and I know the

Minister will not be able to respond to what is a legal issue that is

still in play, but I absolutely regret that we have had years and

years of legal process deliberately used to thwart community interests.

I hope we will have opportunity to fix that at some point in the

future. Colin Paterson Harvey, to be followed by Roderick Campbell.

Both Labour and SNP speakers have used the term consensus and talked

about a consensus on land reform. I have heard, consensus is in the

past, I would like to express a little empathy with Stewart

Stevenson, who clearly tried valiantly to persuade the previous

government to do something that I also failed to persuade Fergus Ewing

to do not so long ago. Perhaps we are on the wrong page on that one.

I'm afraid I don't have time any more than you did yourself. In

reality, there are serious differences on some of these

questions. I think there are people on the Labour and the SNP sides who

are and can be part of a consensus. We will have to dip out of the

debate, we are out of time. Our commentator joins us for one last

comment, Hamish Macdonell. We are looking to the Conservative

conference this weekend, we have full coverage on the BBC. It is

happening in sterling. Ruth Davidson, what did she need to do at

this conference? It is very much a case that the honeymoon is over for

her. She has been the leadership for long enough to try to stamp

authority on the party, and it is clear that of her backbenchers are

unhappy, senior people are unhappy about the direction she is taking

the party. She has to show leadership, she has to say, look, I

am the leader, you are elected me, let me lead and take you in the

direction I want to take you in. She has two bring the party together,

she has to give it some heart. By the time the party leaves sterling,

they should be united and focused and have a shared vision. If she

fails to get that, the sniping will continue. What's at the MSPs

complaining about? There have been criticism about her perform -- has

been criticism about her performance at First Minister putts-macro

questions. -- First Minister's Questions. That leads to discontent

on the backbenches. Other party members are unhappy about her

promises for more devolution. She is the leader, she has two stamp

authority. At the Scottish Tory conference, the Prime Minister will

be up speaking in Stirling, what will he tell the party faithful?

message will be a very solid, prounion, pro-United Kingdom,

pro-coalition government message. What people really want to know is

what he would offer to Scots after the referendum if they vote no. He

has held up the prospect of more powers for the Scottish Parliament,

yet refuses to say what that would be. We would love to know what that

is going to be, but I think they might wait in vain. I think the

Prime Minister will give us a pretty solid union tub thumping speech.

There will be a rather unusual figure at that conference.

The former Labour Chancellor Alistair Darling will address the

Scottish Conservative conference, I bet we thought we would never see

that. We will have to leave it there, thank you. We have run out of