06/02/2014 Politics Scotland

A very warm welcome to the Scottish Parliament here at Holyrood. Loads

happening. By majority parliamentary committee has said don't scrap the

automatic requirement for corroboration in Scottish law. More

fallout from the Budget vote, when it was backed by MSPs overwhelmingly

yesterday. All of those topics could come up in questions to the First

Minister, the topic of this programme.

Thank you. We are taking questions as part of general questions before

we move to the business of First Minister's Questions. The First

Minister is preparing for that. Thank you very much, presiding

officer. What engagements are planned for the rest of the day?

Later today I will be doing one or two wee things to take forward the

Government's programme for Scotland. Order. That is such a relief to me.

One person's wee things person's ridiculous frippery. On

person's ridiculous frippery. On Tuesday, in what the Financial Times

described as the highest profile intervention yet from business, the

chief executive of BP said he was against Scotland leaving the United

Kingdom. He said there was too much uncertainty, including what currency

and independent Scotland would use. In response, the First Minister told

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

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

First Minister now named the many chief executives of oil companies

like BP in favour of Scottish Independent -- independence? Yellow

macro there are hundreds of people in Scottish business arguing for

welfare and benefit for the people of Scotland from independence. I

thought the most important thing that Bob Douglas said was that the

investment plans of BP, announced very recently, in the last two

years, would be continuing. Of course that is absolutely right

because they are done on an economic basis. BP recognised that just as

over the last 40 years, it has been business sensible and lucrative for

them to invest in the North Sea, and so that will be the case over the

next 40 years. I think what we should do in these matters is looked

at the investment decisions. We should look at the sparkling

performance, to quote Ernst Young, of inward investment in Scotland. We

should look at the substantial investment being made in Scotland.

That is what indicates the confidence in Scotland's future and

that is what she should recognise. Not wee things, but very

that is what she should recognise. things indeed. The First

that is what she should recognise. like answering the question he was

asked. Not for the first time does the First Minister decide for other

people what they are saying. He tells the United Kingdom what is in

their interest in relation to currency and he tells Europe about

what he thinks might happen in the future to Scotland. He is now

telling Bob Dudley what he thinks about the future for his company.

Listen to what he says, rather than asserting what he says. BP have

invested ?35 billion in the North Sea. They are planning to invest

another ?10 billion by 2017. BP's North Sea investment employs 4000

people and they have extracted to date more than 5000 barrels of oil

and gas. I suggest we should listen to what Bob Dudley says. The first

minister said that many, many chief executives backed Scottish

independence so I ask him again, can the First Minister named the many

chief executives of companies comparable to BP who backed

independence? As I said, Business for Scotland has hundreds of members

arguing for business in Scotland. But putting words into Bob Dudley's

mouth, I would prefer to quote him exactly from the 5th of February,

talking about projects including the exploration scheme. They will keep

production going past 2050. I was quoting him exactly in pointing out

the substantial investments that BP and other companies are making in

the waters around Scotland at the present moment. Now, it was not

always like that. I have a range of quotes here that investment dried

always like that. I have a range of Government, because of

always like that. I have a range of tax changes, not to mention the 2011

Alexander Osborne swipe at the industry which also dried up

investment. That is why production has been declining over the last few

years. However, thanks to the investment going in, Oil and Gas UK

forecast production could reach 2 million barrels per day at the end

of the decade, up from 1.5 million in 2015, so I think investment

talks. But I do think what Bob Dudley said is important. I have

been looking at what another Bob was saying in The Herald today. The

Labour store bought. He is somebody -- stall wart. He is going to be

voting yes in September, not because of strong nationalistic feelings but

because he believes in democracy and equality. Perhaps she should also

listen to the many Labour Party members, Alan Lawson, Charles Gray,

all declaring yes. Look at the reasons why they are declaring for

yes. And perhaps even she will decide to see the arguments for

justice, equality, prosperity and investment in an independent

Scotland. Sorry, I was only taking the First Minister at his word when

he said there were many, many chief executives who support

independence. And having said it, I presumed he would be able to give us

at least one, rather than all of that displacement activity there. On

Tuesday, the chief executive of Sainsbury's said of Scotland, once

it is a separate country, we and other

it is a separate country, we and industry and of course the revenue

structure, too. If you were to strike that today, there is no doubt

that Scotland is a more costly country in which to run a grocery

business. Sainsbury's says there are negative consequences to

independence. So do ASDA and Morrisons. It may not matter to you

but it matters to shop workers the length and breadth of this country.

The chief executives of BP, Sainsbury's, ASDA, Morrisons have

all warned about the consequence of independence. The first minister

says there are many, many chief executives in favour of his plan.

Again, I ask him, name of the many, many chief executives of businesses

comparable to BP and the supermarkets who actually back him.

The supermarket argument fell flat when it was when the first time in

December and it falls flat again. It is not shop workers that she is

quoting. This is the point. Order! In the argument about what is

important to Scotland. We need to stop talking like the political

elite, and she talks like nothing but the political elite in this

question. I could talk until the cows come home about currency

unions, but if you are sitting at home at night watching television,

that is not the language you are talking. That is the exact point.

Let's talk the language of people. Let's talk about jobs,

investment... Order. Let's talk about transformation of childcare.

Let's talk about the bedroom tax. Let's talk about what this

Parliament has achieved and don't cite the elite. Quote the people of

Scotland calling for independence. Order. Order. Well, it is obvious

the First Minister's special advisers have been an double-time

trying to find him words to put in a space so he does not have to answer

the question. It is precisely because we are concerned about the

consequences of ordinary people that we challenge the First Minister on

his accession of the last 40 years. -- his obsession. Isn't it the case

that rule number one in Alex Salmond's book of communication is

to assert something that is not true and keep on repeating it often

enough in the hope that people believe it. In the hope that people

believe it to be true, even when it is not. The First Minister cannot

explain what the currency would be in an independent Scotland, but

every major supermarkets, not the elite, every major supermarket can

say that the price of groceries would go up and the chief executive

of one of our biggest oil companies has recommended that Scots reject

separation. The Institute of chartered accountants say that he

has failed to answer basic questions on pensions. The First Minister's

responses to stick his fingers in his ears and carry on regardless. At

what point does the First Minister acknowledged that the chief

executive of BP, that our supermarkets, that ICAS may know

what they are talking about and that leaving the UK may be bad for the

people of Scotland? On the white paper, the chief

people of Scotland? On the white and Gas UK said, we are encouraged

by commitments to increase exploration and measures to maximise

recovery of oil and gas reserves. We welcome the assurance of future

decommissioning and we welcome consultation on future fiscal

changes. I am quoting about the things that matter. Investment dried

up during the period of Labour Government because of taxation

changes. It dried up in 2011 after the dawn raid from Osborne and Danny

Alexander and now investment is subject in the North Sea and the

waters around Scotland and that will increase production. If we did not

have to work until the wee small hours to find these quotations, we

can look at Pages eight and nine of the Daily Record this morning. This

is her friend and ally, not even a Labour MP. They will not turn up at

the conference because they don't like her policies. I am talking

about her friend and ally. We need to stop talking like the political

elite and start talking in the language of the people. I could talk

until the cows come home about currency unions but if you are

sitting home at night watching television, that is not the language

you are talking. Will she take advice from Margaret if not from me?

As far as the question of what the Government is doing in terms of

chief executives, one senior defence executive quoted in the FT this very

morning, commenting on the use of the dark arts, that is the UK

Government putting pressure... Well, I am just quoting. Order. I am sure

because of their friendship to all these chief executives, she reads

every morning that the UK Government is putting pressure on companies to

speak out about independence, suggesting anxiety about the opinion

polls and the referendum result. That is what is happening at the

present moment and that is why things like jobs, investment, the

bedroom tax, transformational childcare will carry the day in

September. Question number two, Ruth Davidson. Thank you, to ask the

First Minister when he will meet the pro-minister. Well, no plans, but I

think there is every chance of meeting the Prime Minister on the

24th of February in Aberdeen, the same day that the Cabinet and our

Government will be ten miles apart. Instead of talking down to Scotland

from the seat of power in London, I know that the STV studios are free

that evening, where the debate could take place that people in Scotland

want to see. Not waving but drowning and sounding increasingly desperate

but I can see why he wants to. Today's justice committee report

makes clear that the case has not been made for abolishing the general

requirement for corroboration. It asks the Government to look again at

this hugely controversial proposal. That is a significant and rare

intervention. Can I ask the First Minister for his response? Responses

from the Justice Secretary, Minister for his response? Responses

looking at the safeguards in the matter. His credentials cannot be

disputed. The human rights judge and practitioner, over many years, he is

hugely respected and it is right and proper that the Justice Secretary

has asked someone of this distinction to review the

legislation and make absolutely clear that in changing and removing

the general rule of corroboration there is not the risk of miscarriage

of justice. But I would ask Ruth Davidson to reflect that we know

there are miscarriages of justice taking place in Scotland at the

present moment. These miscarriages of justice are the hundreds, some

people would argue thousands, of cases that cannot come to court, and

victims who do not get their day in court. Do not get access to justice.

Because instead of deciding on the sufficiency of evidence which is the

general principle in law of many jurisdictions, we have uniquely a

general rule of corroboration which makes it impossible to take some

cases, particularly sexual and domestic violence cases, to court.

If this review can identify appropriate Parliamentary safeguards

for a route forward, that surely allows a something in terms of the

concern for victims that all of this Parliament could find its way to

support. Every party in this parliament is concerned about the

victims but the best way to do it this is by positive action. The

Justice system in this country has served us well for decades. Two

former heads of the judiciary also that this plan is wrong. This is now

about the integrity of this Parliament. What we, as members, are

being asked to do, is vote through a bill that we know to be deeply

flawed on the grounds that Kenny MacAskill says he will sort it

later. There is an obvious solution here. Leave the scrapping of

corroboration out of the bill. Ask Lord Bonymaen to report on the whole

issue and then let us look at it again. Surely, first Minister, it is

better to make good law later than bad law now. As the proposal would

come back after Lord Bonymaen's findings to committee and

consultation to this Parliament, it is impossible to argue that the

integrity of Parliament is jeopardised by something that

requires Parliament and committee's support. I think she should have the

good look at what the lord president said this morning. He said today

that he was grateful for the sensitive response to the widespread

discussion of the proposal and for letting him see the terms of

reference. This will enable the issue to be looked at in wider --

and greater length by a wider body of professionals and should allow

thorough consideration of the issues. If he can welcome the review

by Lord Bonymaen, I think this entire Parliament should welcome it.

Let me return to Ruth Davison, because when this issue was raised a

few weeks ago, I gave a reference to a case, and I think some people were

confused by this reference, this is the Lee Cyrus case, the case of

someone whose trial could not be brought in Scotland because of a

lack of corroboration. The point is this. A colleague appeared on STV

news on the 13th of December and this is what he said. I am very

concerned that we are not seen criminal proceedings against this

individual. This is an issue that the Justice Secretary needs to look

at. Why this is the case and why his victims in Scotland are not getting

justice. The reason the victims were not getting justice was the general

rule of corroboration. The solicitor general's letter to Annabelle Ewing

the 31st of December, there was no prosecution because of a lack of

corroboration. More importantly, in hundreds or thousands of cases,

cases cannot get into court not because of a lack of evidence but

because of a general rule that is unprecedented in any other legal

system. That is why it is imported, with the appropriate safeguards the

Parliament has in place, and I would say it is right and proper to

question this, but what is not right and proper is for one member of a

party to demand an explanation for why the case cannot get caught and

then went to discover it is due to a lack of corroboration, to not come

and discuss it and then for another member of that party to refuse to

recognise these problems. What issues will be discussed at the next

Parliament? Issues that are important to Scotland. I heard what

the Minister said regarding the rules of corroboration. To say that

he needs somebody like Lord Bonhomie rules of corroboration. To say that

does not paper over the -- does not fix things. It simply papers over

the cracks. Lawmaking in reverse is a shoddy way to expect Scotland's

Parliament to act. Doesn't the first Minister see that? I don't think the

position is being expressed barely there. The appointment of Lord

Bonhomie, as the president said today, is because of the widespread

discussion of the proposal and I would have thought that release

could have been welcomed across the Parliament. It is not a quick fix.

It is a distinguished judge who is looking to make absolutely certain

that as this changes made, appropriate safeguards are there to

prevent miscarriages of justice. That is a substantial point and any

recommendations would come back here for discussion and for approval by

this Parliament. By definition, this change cannot take place unless and

until this Parliament is satisfied that the proposals that have come

forward right. Given that the justice secretary is prepared to do

that, can they not accept that there is a real problem, because after his

second question, I will come unto the people who have identified the

real problem and are fighting for justice. Coming at except that the

way forward -- can they not except that the way forward to protect

against miscarriage of justice is to allow these hundreds and thousands

of people access to justice? What he is actually doing is asking Lord

Bonhomie to fit new locks to be stable a year after the horses will

have bolted. He knows this is a complete shambles. Three weeks ago,

I warned the first Minister that his planned on corroboration were

cracking. He said they were exactly the right thing to do. I said the

justice secretary was candid. He said, he was doing his best. Since

then, Kenny MacAskill rushed and un-sign letter to the committee just

minutes before their decision was finalised and within minutes of

that, he rejected their report. He knows this is a shambles but I will

not go on. Will he now overruled the justice secretary before he causes

serious damage? Two things. I think if anybody thinks someone with the

distinction of Lord Bonhomie except a job -- access a job like this

without understanding the seriousness of it is wrong. Nothing

can happen within this bill unless it has the acceptance of this

Parliament. It will not be implemented unless that happens. The

other side of this matter is a press release from rape crisis this

morning. Rape crisis Scotland is extremely disappointed that the

justice committee has been unable to agree with the corroboration

changes. Let's listen to Anne-Marie who has waived her right for

anonymity to say that the impact of the general rule of corroboration

which made it impossible for a successful prosecution as a victim

of a very, very serious crime, points out that the impact of this

is not something that victims are making up. It is not something that

victims are making up. Because we have the general rule which makes it

impossible to bring many cases to court, and I know on the Labour

benches there are people who believe this, because in the Labour Party

manifesto it was there that this should be changed.

hundreds, perhaps thousands of people who cannot, because of this

general rule, bring their cases to people who cannot, because of this

court. There is as -- a feeling of serious injustice. Safeguards can be

provided to make sure there is no danger of miscarriage of justice, so

surely this Parliament in its heart can find a way and means of allowing

these thousands of people to get access to justice so that justice

can be and be seen to be done? Thank you presiding officer. To ask the

first Minister what representations the Scottish Government is making to

the UK Government with regards to financial assistance for the bedroom

tax? I think there was general Government -- general agreement

across the chamber in the debate yesterday that the best mechanism to

support tenants affected by the bedroom tax is to discretionary

household payments. The Scottish Government has made racist son shall

number of -- a substantial number of representations to the UK Government

on this matter, starting in December 2012 when we asked for an amendment

on the bedroom tax. We then asked for up exemptions for the most

memorable. Then the 6th of March 2013, we asked for the scrapping of

the bedroom tax, then we asked for DH be funding to be raised and now

we are asking for that feeling to be raised or removed so that

discretionary housing payments can be given to those who need it. It

has been a good week for this Parliament because we have been

addressing the issues of great popular concern in

addressing the issues of great the injustice of the bedroom tax.

Thank you for the answer. Do you agree with me that it was no small

thing for the parties in this chamber to put aside their

differences and unite to approve the budget yesterday? But the time has

come for the UK Government and Iain Duncan Smith to do the right thing,

to raise the level of discretionary housing payments in order to

mitigate the lead the impact of the obscene and hated bedroom tax on

80,000 people in Scotland? To do it and to do it now. I absolutely

agree. Removing the is a simple thing to do. It is that no cost to

Westminster and could be completed by the 1st of April. We await the

DWP's answer. We should also bear in mind the wise words of car when

Jones who pointed out in the Welsh assembly this very week that the

powers devolved assembly can allow to mitigate, but that has a danger

that things that are scrapped at UK level are pushed at extra cost on to

Scotland and Wales. We cannot mitigate the injustices of the

welfare on the people of Scotland? That is why this Parliament should

have full control so it can and social justice in this country. To

ask the first Minister what steps beyond minimum pricing the Scottish

Government would take to tackle alcohol abuse. We aim to support a

cultural change that is necessary in the longer term with regards to the

Scottish the longer term with regards to the

our call. We have got ?200 million targeted at treatment support

services including education and awareness campaigns. Thank you. Will

he support a measure in the shifting the culture Bill which includes

limiting the amount of caffeine in premixed alcoholic drinks. A study

showed that over 43% of those who consume one particular brand of

caffeinated alcohol, a brand that makes up only 1% of products. We

could also look at further -- further at selling to under age

people. This is something that the whole Parliament should act under

together. The first point she made is something we are very willing to

have a good look at. I think Rhoda Grant needs to except that the

substantial body of evidence demonstrate that affordability is a

key factor in purchasing alcohol problems. That is why we believe

that minimum pricing policy will be beneficial. What steps is of

Scottish women taking to reduce child poverty? There is progress

being made in child poverty and that progress was seen in a report by the

Joseph Rowntree foundation at the weekend. It showed that child

poverty had fallen ten percentage points in the ten

poverty had fallen ten percentage England. But maybe DNS chamber can

ignore the stark warning that as a result of welfare cuts, it is

possible, and additional month and a thousand children could be forced

back into poverty. That is against the substantial improvements made

over the last ten years. Can you tell me how independence would

produce further opportunities to address child poverty? Even for the

Labour benches, I would've thought it would be pretty obvious that when

Child poverty action say the welfare changes are affect pink families

across Scotland and could put 100 thousand children back into poverty,

even the Labour benches might acknowledge that having control of

these things in Scotland would be a tremendous asset and help in

preventing that circumstance happening. That is why, only when

Scotland's feature is in Scotland's hands, and this Parliament has full

power in its hands, will we be able to make sure the big things in

Scotland are put to rights. How about tackling it now? Children in

22 of the poorest primary schools are having their support removed to

meet commitments. We could pass more money for that. We'll the leader

meet the leader of Dundee City Council to make sure that childcare

commitment will not come detrimentally? We are tackling it

now. The percentage of children in poverty when

now. The percentage of children in as part of the measures that have

been taken by this Government, reduced. How would she suggest that

we were tackle it now when every child poverty organisation point to

the welfare changes as the threat to child poverty? Can there be the

courage to say this should be controlled in Scotland by this

Parliament? That ends first Minister 's questions. Members leaving the

chamber should do so quietly. There we have it. Robust exchanges at the

end and very robust exchanges at the beginning. Intriguing questions from

people there on corroboration. You heard a softly spoken but strongly

argued case being made by the first Minister on that issue. That is

dominating debate here. That is all from me. Time to hand you over to

the Daily Politics. had lots of women on our front

benches. We moved people around. To make the point! They normally sit on

the front bench. That is the Shadow Cabinet. We put them all together

with if you men in the middle. Cabinet. We put them all together

reorganised it. It was accurate. Let's look at this picture. I should

welcome our viewers from Scotland who have joined us. We are talking

about women