07/03/2012 Politics Scotland

Hello and welcome to the programme. Coming up: north Sea oil is at the

heart of the debate as the latest figures show how much Scotland put

in and takes out the UK pot of cash. Fairer prices at the pumps as the

cost of fuel rocket. We will hear from campaigners. And hear that

Westminster, the Prime Minister leads tributes to the six British

soldiers killed in Afghanistan. The political top today is all about

the government expenditure and revenue Scotland Review. The

opposition say that Finance Secretary cannot add up. Joining me

is the political editor for the Times. Thanks for joining me.

Looking at these figures, is it all lies and statistics? It is Spain.

Who do you believe? I think the SNP are probably right in the sense

that the fiscal deficit of an independent Scotland would be less

severe than that of the UK as a whole. That is the good news for

the SNP. The bad news is that a person reading of the diggers leads

you to believe that an independent Scotland's economy would be wholly

dependent on fluctuating while revenues. -- figures. I would think

that up on the basic figures, and a key figure probably is the fiscal

deficit, I think we have to believe the SNP on that. Going further

along on the subject, it brings into question the whole idea of an

oil funds and with an Alex Salmond could possibly get away with

spending �1 billion, or putting away �1 billion per year into an

oil find. He has recently confirmed that is not a plan for the short-

term but perhaps the long term. I think these figures rather confirm

that view. It is quite a dry aspect of politics but it is fundamentally

critical to the independence debate. Whoever wins the economic argument,

you could probably say, will went to the referendum. The closer we

get to the referendum, the more focused there will be on the cold,

hard figures. Remember, people will not be deciding on what happens for

example to the BBC. There will be happen -- deciding on what happens

to their pocket books and their wallets. It is hard for people to

make a decision because they have these two differing perspectives

and they do not know who to believe. The it all depends on how it is

presented by the respective sides. Who can simplify it for people and

0.2 unalterable fact. As I say that, I know full well that economics is

a dismal science and is full of unalterable fact. Let's move on to

Vince Cable and his attack on the UK coalition government's

priorities and criticising the lack of growth. If I was being kind to

be coalition I would said there was a dialogue but if I was being

realistic, I would say there is a fight going on. It is an argument

between what do you tax - income or wealth? The curious thing about

this argument is it is not divided down straight play with them and

Tory lines. Some Tories, including Cabinet ministers, like William

Hague and George Osborne, who said that wealth should be taxed more

than we income. Unfortunately David Cameron does not appear to think

that. The Times portrait that in an amusing way. Yes and Michael Gove

was portrayed as part of that welly boot brigade. Today at Holyrood, a

debate on the health committee report which called for a bad

review of the ten-year-old National Care Standards. MSPs also said

equality and human rights should also be embedded in the delivery of

care services. We will cost to the temper now. -- cross to the chamber.

This was the committee's first inquiry of the parliamentary

session and I would like to take the opportunity to thank the 51

organisations who submitted evidence to the inquiry and indeed

the clerks, and particularly the service users and carers that we

met on our fact-finding visits. The report will enable us to provide

the Government with a very clear as deer on areas for improvement.

While we found the system sufficiently rigorous to identify

care service for older people which are failing to deliver a high

quality care, there are still some areas the Government needs to

address. I will cover those areas related to inspections of care

services, complaints to National Care Standards, the workforce,

commissioning and procurement practices and I am sure that other

members of the committee will pick up on other subject. A key issue

raised was a criticism of the proposed reduction in the frequency

of inspections of care homes conducted by the care inspectorate.

We are pleased that the committee's inquiry prompted the government to

address this concern by increasing the frequency of inspections. They

are conducted against four themes. But not all seems our cover that

each inspection. This was criticised by eight Scotland who

felt the age scheme should be assessed as part of the whole

review. Whenever a -- when an inspection is conducted there seems

to be some contradiction between the Government and the care

inspectorate's in response to the issue of inspecting against four

themes. The Government states that the care inspectorate is assessing.

However, the care inspectorate's response states this is not the

case. All four themes are inspected in medium to high risk assessments,

but only a sample of 10% of better- performing services will have all

quality teams inspected. Therefore, the care inspectorate will not be

providing a blanket approach to all of these themes being inspected for

all inspections. To provide maximum insurance about quality of care,

the Cabinet Secretary believes that all four teams should be covered.

Does the Cabinet Secretary believe that? The committee also calls on

the Scottish Government to ensure the care Inspector as the necessary

support to fulfil their roles. We also heard evidence that there

should be greater support from whistleblowers. Our recommendation

was that the care inspectorate published guidance for all staff to

raise concerns on a confidential basis. The government's response

refers to the Scottish social services guidance however this

guidance does not make specific reference to the confidentiality of

whistleblowers being protected. I therefore see the Cabinet

Secretary's views on the issue of confidentiality in relation to

whistle blowing. Another key recommendation of the report called

for the government to conduct a review on the National Care

Standards. We are pleased the Government accepted a

recommendation by announcing it will conduct a review of the

National Care Standards. I asked the Government to tell us when this

review will get under way. As well as being in need of an update, the

committee felt that the National Care Standards should have equality

and human rights issues at their very hard. The Scottish Human

Rights Commission told me they believe the care inspectorate

should be encouraged to develop its understanding of human rights

standards as they apply in care settings. The right to be free from

unattended or careless neglect. The right to be protected from

pharmaceutical or medical abuse. The right to live as independently

as possible. Respect for privacy. Respect for modesty. The government

response to this report made no explicit reference to human rights

although I am keen to hear an assurance from the Cabinet

Secretary that human rights will indeed be embedded in the National

Care Standards. This can only help improve people's understanding of

how they can be delivered in practice. Another area considered

by the committee was for the care workforce. The workforce is vital

to ensure our care services of the highest quality. For many years,

the Social care workforce has been undervalued. The workforce is often

poorly paid. Poorly treated. Poorly trained. The workforce needs to be

registered, invested in and paid at least the living wage. We heard

from Lord Sutherland during our evidence sessions that there were

no incidents is in the ad -- in Edinburgh up their care home staff

had left their jobs during the summer to take castle jobs at the

Edinburgh Festival. Because it paid better. What does that say about

the value we place on that work force? Good Commission and

procurement practices go hand in hand in determining the quality of

the care delivered by our care services. The committee supports

the view held by the collision of care and support providers that the

care they inspect and has far fewer teeth are to challenge

commissioning practice compared with its powers of intervention in

service delivery. The government's response is at odds with this view.

See CPS have reiterated their position on the issue. There is no

standard for commissioning and procurement on which to assess an

authority's performance. There are no minimum frequency of inspection

of these functions. And there are no provisions under which the care

inspectorate can issue improvement or condition notices for poor

practice in commissioning. In the light of these comments, and last

week's publication of the Audit Scotland report on commissioning,

which I will quote from, they said, councils have been slow to develop

strategic commissioning. Only 11 of 32 council area has had a

commissioning strategies covering all social care services. They also

noted that there is a risk that councils focus too much on reducing

costs when procuring services and give up insufficient regard to the

range and quality of services and their impact on individuals. Given

the position of a sea CPS and Audit Scotland's report, will the

government explore further? I am sure I speak for all of my

colleagues on the committee when I say that I do not see this debate

as an end to our work on this issue. Indeed, our current inquiry into

the integration of health and social care will doubtless raise

issues about the assessment and monitoring of different services.

We will also explored in further detail the provision of care and

home services during our forthcoming scrutiny of the self

directed support bill. Finally, I believe that we all recognise the

commitment to elderly care has been promoted across government, across

parties, and across this Parliament. I believe we must maintain this

commitment and never lose sight of the fact that dignity, compassion,

kindness should always be at the heart of care for the elderly.

Presiding officer, I believe our inquiry has been about doing just

that. I: Nicola Sturgeon. Thank you. I welcome this debate on the

regulation of care for older people brought forward by the committee

following their inquiry and report on what I consider to be a matter

of fundamental importance. I want to complement Duncan McNeill on

what I taught was a very good and passionate speech. After the

election last year and in response to some understandable concerns, I

made clear my personal commitment and the commitment of the

government to improving care for older people in Scotland, something

we have continued to be a firm sense, in words and indeed in the

actions we have taken. The care we provide for our roles are people is

generally good but in my view, being generally good is not good

enough. Incidents like those at the care, and remind us of the need to

be constantly vigilant and to be asking how to do things better. In

the evidence I gave to the Committee on 4th October, I

confirmed the importance the Government attaches to this inquiry.

We get assurance that the analysis of issues and recommendations would

form a key part of our commitment to continued to review the read the

lesson of care so I thank the Committee for the work they have

done and the recommendations they We have seen a new regulatory

landscape taking shape over the past year. The care inspectorate

was established as a regulator for care services. That has contributed

significantly to the simplification of the scrutiny landscape,

particularly regulation of care. As part of the -- these reforms, we

introduced a review building on the existing systems in place for

service users. I am pleased to see the committee's report welcomed the

steps taken by the care inspectorate to engage uses in this

process. It is also important to note on record that some of the

other initiatives the care inspectorate has been taking to

improve involvement of carers and users themselves, that comes as

part of a wider programme of improvements including changes to

the inspection and how findings of inspections are publicised. All of

this and the recommendations of the Health Committee's report is

important to improve public confidence in a regulation regime

and to ensure care continues to improve, highlighting high

performance as well as poor performance. As Duncan McNeil has

said, in the autumn I announced a number of other steps I would take

to strengthen the regulatory regime and improve public confidence in

regulation. That followed from the tragic incidents at a nursing home

and was in part to in response to public concern arising from a BBC

Panorama investigation of the Winterbourne care few home in

England. To honour that commitment, these regulations came into force

in February this year, which meant that the committee's call that they

may eat for the increased inspection frequency to commence

before April this year. The regulations now make it a statutory

requirement that all care services are inspected at least once every

12 months as the minimum frequency. They also stipulate that

inspections should be carried out on an unannounced basis and that

the same regime will also apply to care homes services for the elderly,

which is an important aspect of care for the elderly. We will

continue to work with other agencies as well as the UK

Government to bring forward recommendations for financial

robustness in the sector. We will respond to a recent report on

commissioning as well. In response to the committee's concerns about

resources, we have also made clear that we will continue to ensure

appropriate funding will be found. Efforts and resources will be

targeted where they are most needed, in particularly -- in particular,

the proposed budget settlement for the next financial year. The care

inspectorate is not as funded by government but also by the fees

that it charges. I intend to launch a review of the 10 spectra's fees

by means of a public consultation. My intention is that that the

system will be in place for 2013 and that will mean the - we meet

the committee's request that the Government clarify its intentions

for fees charged by the care inspectorate. We intend a

consultation to be under way by June of this year. I think it is

important that we consider such a review in the context of the work

on the integration of health and social care services, new models of

care and the implementation of dementia standards. I would also

give Duncan McNeil assurance that human rights will be at the centre

of that review and at the centre of the National Care Standards, just

as they are already at the centre of our dementia standards. Finally,

as well as the work in older people's care, the care

inspectorate is currently developing a new approach to

working together with the diverse services. That also demonstrates

the importance we all place on driving improvement in person

scented accountable services in a genuinely joined-up way. I said in

my statement last September and I repeat today, I fully intend to

listen to concerns and to debate on the regulatory regime. I have no

doubt this is an issue we will come back to debate in Parliament on

many occasions. It is vital, and they take this responsibility

squarely, to make sure that we take whatever steps required to ensure

confidence in the care system and in the regulation of that care

system. I want to thank the Health and Sport Committee for its work

and say that I look forward to working with them and others in the

chamber to continue to provide services that older people have the

right to expect. Let us get some reaction from a

senior policy and parliamentary officer for Age Scotland, Callum

Chomczuk. Your charity was mentioned in the debate. We heard

from Duncan McNeil that he was concerned about the reduction of

the number of inspections. How come said I knew about that? The charity

of fairly -- very pleased that they are investigating the regulation of

care for the people. As the Cabinet Secretary mention, a number of

cases raised concern. One example, a care home when from been rated as

good to being close down in matter of months because of the standards

of care. Our submission to the committee made it clear that we

thought they should be an increased level of inspections, a greater

frequency of inspections. They should also be announced. We are

pleased to see that the Government has responded to this

recommendation. Duncan McNeil also pointed out the need for increased

protection for whistleblowers, people, maybe staff, who complain

about the lack of care in some homes. Do you feel they have enough

protection? I think there will always be ways the inspection

regime can improve. Protecting whistleblowers is essential to that.

We found that there was a real lack of engagement with service users,

and most people would agree that service users have to be at the

centre of any regulation regime. They have to be consulted fully to

make sure their views are taken into account so that inspectors can

get a real understanding of what is going on in care homes. Nicola

Sturgeon promised a review of National Care Standards in June.

She pointed out that equality and human rights would be at the heart

of that. I suppose that is the mark of a decent modern society, is a

de? Absolutely. We really welcomed the progress made by the Government

on this issue and many other issues relating to the care of older

people. Catt plays an important part of the society, but we all

agree that the best approach is to try to treat older people in the

community and at home for as long as possible. It is not only cheetah

-- cheaper, but what older people one. For Duncan McNeil also made a

point about the value of the workforce. It was concern into here

that some members of the workforce going work at the Edinburgh

Festival because they earn more money there. While some people in

care homes paid so little, when some of the owners make a very tidy

profit? Duncan McNeil raises a very important. There. Standards of

staff and training of staff and leadership of the management in

care homes are absolutely central to ensuring we have got a really

high standards and that vulnerable older people are looked after at

the highest possible levels. We have to have much more specialist

staff in care homes. Dementia is increasingly prevalent across the

country. It is important that people who suffer from dementia in

care homes have access to specialist nurses. This is not

widespread across the country. It is something we hope the Government

will invest in. Your original point was well made, that many care home

staff are underpaid. The Government should make sure that proper

salaries are in place. Callum Chomczuk from Age Scotland, Thank

you very much.. The Finance Secretary John Swinney

said that Scotland is in a stronger financial position than the rest of

the UK, but Labour said figures show the benefits of sharing risk

and reward are part of the Union. I am joined by Kenneth Gibson from

the MSP, Ken Macintosh from Labour and Tavish Scott from the Liberal

Democrats. Kenneth Gibson, I was saying to Angus McLeod, is it all

lies, damned lies and statistics? He was telling the truth here?

think people can log on to the Scottish Parliament website and see

the figures. The Labour press release is being economical with

the trees, but what was clearly shown by the figures is that

everyone in Scotland would be �510 a year better off if we were

independent. You point out that the Scottish -- Scotland's gave 9.6% of

the cash and receive 9.3% of it back. Labour point out there is at

an annual �19 billion deficit from Scotland to the rest of the UK. It

is difficult to work out he was right. That is why people should go

and look for themselves on their website. Labour's figures, that �19

million figure is suspicious. It is surprising that Labour did not the

much larger UK figure, because it shows, to be in a much stronger

fiscal position. Ken Macintosh from Labour, the SNP criticises your

figure. Who is writing this debate? I think the comparison is quite

interesting. Kenneth Gibson is suggesting that we are drowning in

debt. That is not much of an argument, I have to say. The a

interesting argument he came up with there is that his figure

produced from the First Minister that Scots would be �500 pay year

better off, that bears a fascinating similarity to a figure

from opinion polls recently that Scots were -- if Scots were offered

�500 a year more, they might be more willing to vote for

independence. This figure is more to do with the SNP's political will

than with economic reality. Tavish Scott, Your leader Willie Rennie

set that Mr Swinney could not add up. I dread to be the -- bring the

Coalition into this, but if the UK governments had a bit more growth,

we would not be in this position. think the think the UK Government

is right is to have budget responsibility. People watching

today would not believe any politician on any figure because

they are being manipulated for political purposes. The one thing

the UK Government has done to try to get it right is to try to take

the politics out of the Government's statistics and put in

an independent body he then produce a report quite separate from the

political process. Then politicians can argue about the interpretation

of that. What we need in Scotland is that approach. Why would you

believe a word the SNP government say when they want to manipulate

those figures to make the garda bid for independence? Now is the time

it Scotland's team have an independent body so that we can

argue about the figures, but that we do so once the figures have been

produced by an independent body. Tavish Scott, you have been arguing

for devo max. The security of spending has been debated recently.

Under de faire plus, welfare would be devolved fruit -- to Scotland.

do not been there is any consistency -- in consistency. The

point I am making, not about devolution plus, it is about the

independence of government figures and statistics. The people who

depend on them, whether they are economists talk businesses or other

organisations in the country, they should have confidence in the

figures that are produced by government. Irrespective of whether

you believe in devolution plus or independence or the status quo, you

should believe that the Government figures are independent. Kenneth

Mackintosh -- Ken Macintosh from Labour, you say that the positive

aspect is the redistributive element of the UK. A scholar to

porter goes alone? I do not think that at all. I do not accept that

Scotland is a nation of subsidy junkies. But that is the point

you're making, the redistributive element. No, the point I'm making

is that we share the risks and rewards, the good times and the bad.

We are part of the UK economy. It is difficult to see Scotland as a

separate economy from the UK. We are very much part of the same

economy and with all the strands of that. We're not as one economy

based on one commodity, or oil, but a huge manufacturing base. We have

a huge university sector so shared with the UK. We have a common

taxation basis. That makes for a fantastic trading opportunity and

it makes for shared risk. We have all got pensions in this country. A

lot of people are worried about them. I would rather have my

pension risk pooled and shared with everyone in the UK with the whole

UK economy behind that and take a chance as people have done in

Greece and Ireland and all these other countries of -- on more

Part of the benefit is surely the �470 billion in capital injection

and fiscal guarantees following the Bank crisis, that is not included

in these figures? That is nonsense because the amount of money that

went into that was based on where the assets were based. Am

suggesting to people to look at the figures for themselves on our

website. The reality is that the dead polecat but having an

independent Scotland would be lower than in the UK. We to export

building's per year and we are part of a European and global economy,

not just the UK. I think we can look at what other smaller

countries like Norway, Singapore, Sweden, and we believe and an

independent Scotland that would be progressive and prosperous. Thank

you very much. Angus MacLeod from the Times is still with me. Did

Kenneth Gibson nail that point on the banks and the fiscal

guarantees? I think he sidestepped it. The point he made about growth

this is an important one. We are only two weeks away, but it and the

Chancellor is under a Supreme pressure at the moment to try to

come up with measures that inject growth into the economy on both

sides of the border. That brings us to Tavish Scott's point about an

office for budget responsibility. The function of the Office for

budget responsibility has not worked out very well for the

treasure the of the Chancellor because it has repeatedly pointed

out the low levels of growth of the UK economy. What will George

Osborne to in two weeks' time to promote that growth? Tavish Scott

is pointing out it would be good for Scotland. People can look at

these figures on the Parliament website. But it is difficult to

extrapolate from them. There is a huge benefit here of neutrality. If

that lies with an office of budget responsibility, that is self-

evidently better. Political parties always have another agenda when it

comes to figure's. Johann Lamont made the point at the level

conference at the weekend, the redistributive element of the UK.

Does that make it sound like Scotland is relying on handouts

from down south? I don't think so. I view of how the UK economy

operates is that it is a two way process. You cannot say that a

country that produces as much in North Sea oil revenues as Scotland

as is simply keeping them to itself. You cannot say of the UK, that can

afford something like the bank bail-out, is doing nothing for

Scotland. It is a two way process. When 11 part of the country is in

problems, there is another part of the country to help out, and that

is one of the fundamentals for the argument for the union that is

being made by the Unionist parties. Thank you very much. Fuel

protesters are lobbying Parliament to try to persuade the Chancellor

to lower tax on petrol and diesel. They say it would create tens of

thousands of jobs. We will cost to Westminster and our reporter David

Porter. There has been a lot of reaction about the sad news from

Afghanistan about the deaths of six British soldiers? That's right.

That news came through just a couple of hours before the

highlight of the parliamentary we peer at Prime Minister's Question

Time. I think many MPs were very saddened by what had happened but

it also brought home very sharply the fact that we are in a very wide

and real conflict in Afghanistan and from time to time, incidents

like this will happen, which unfortunately end in the loss of

life, the loss of one life is very serious but when you lose as many

people as this in one single incident, it really does bring home

the nature of the conflict in Afghanistan. Talking to many people

here at Westminster, they say it just reminds them of the situation

in Afghanistan and wanting for the clarity of the government's long-

term intentions as far as Afghanistan is concerned. Here at

Westminster today it has been very busy. As you mentioned in your

introduction, there is a major lobby going on at Westminster of

those who would like to see a reduction in fuel duty. Many

hundreds of protesters are here at Westminster now lobbying their MPs

across the road in the Houses of Parliament. One person who has has

died -- has joined me is Howard Cox. Thank you for coming from that

lobby to join us. In essence, what is the argument you are putting to

MPs? We want the government to change their mind set about fuel

duty. In the past it has always gone up and that is only making the

price, 60% of fuel is on fuel duty, and it is making it unsustainable.

It is crippling businesses, communities and people at home.

They cannot continue at this level of steel prices. We are trying to

convince the government, very simply, to cut duty to get the

economy motoring. In a report that we commissioned, from the centre of

Economics and Business Research, a modest 2.5 pence cut in duty will

generate 175,000 jobs and 0.33 % growth in GDP. All of this at no

cost to the Treasury. I think most people would be confused if you say

you can reduce the tax on something, how will the Treasury get more

money as a result? Simply because it will stimulate the economy.

Economists with brains better than the have worked tirelessly for the

last months and they have gone through, using the Treasury's own

model and figures, they have come up with the fact that 2.5 pence

will cost the Treasury no money and it will generate jobs. People

coming off the dole will mean less benefit being paid, people spending

more in the community generally, more VAT, more pay-as-you-earn tax.

We think it is worth it. Politically, it would be very

popular but it would not help the government's green credentials.

Many people talk to us about this. We are quite green are cells but at

the moment we cannot afford to be green. We have to get the economy

motoring. Once money is coming then we can produce more efficient fuel-

efficient energy suppliers. Thank you very much. As we were

mentioning, very busy day here at Westminster and inevitably the news

that came out of Afghanistan first thing this morning meant that Prime

Minister's Question Time would perhaps be a rather more muted

affair than is normally the case. The Prime Minister and a lot of MPs

wanted to pay tribute to those who had died in Afghanistan. Here is a

flavour of pm cues from earlier today. -- Prime Minister's

questions. Can I join the Prime Minister than expressing a profound

sadness at the News of the six soldiers who lost their lives in

Afghanistan. It reminds us of the sacrifice that our servicemen make

on our behalf. They demonstrate the art most service and courage. Are

we know them and of those who have lost their lives in Afghanistan an

immense debt of gratitude and our thoughts are with their family,

friends and colleagues at this terrible time. The commander of the

battalion said to me today that his men have high morale. They know

they are doing an important mission for the future of this country and

the world and they want our support as they go about it. An odd

delivery driver from Dartford to as a married father of study and the

sole earner for his family. He worked 20 hours per week. From next

week, unless you work 24 hours per week, he will lose all of his

working tax credit. He says he has approached his employer to increase

his hours but has been told there simply are not the hours there. He

would love to work full-time. What is the Prime Minister's advice?

me set the context for this. I will answer the question very directly.

We need to reform the tax credit system because we have a massive

budget deficit. When we came to office, tax credits were going to

nine out of ten families including people write up the income scale,

including members of parliament. What we are doing is dealing with

the basic unfairness that we would ask a single parent to work 16

hours before getting access to the tax credit system. It is only right

to say to couples that between them they should work 24 hours. 12 hour

siege. If they do that they will be better off. The reality is that

Loring, families will lose their tax credits. Middle-income families

are losing their child benefit. Does the Prime Minister understand

why people just don't believe him when he says we are all in this

together? I really think it is time for the right honourable gentleman

to listen to his own shadow chief secretary, who said that we must

ensure we passed the test of fiscal credibility. If we don't get this

right, doesn't matter what we say about anything else. She is right.

Reducing our deficit means tough decisions. Question number 10.

look forward to visiting Scotland soon. I am not so sure of that I

know he is coming to my constituency very soon indeed.

Indeed, later this month, to the Tory party conference in Troon, he

will be there. But I want to know whether are not he agrees with me

that the uncertainty that is being created by the nationalists around

this separatist idea of a referendum that has been delayed

longer than it should be is not leading to an uncertainty of inward

investment spot in my constituency and elsewhere? Will they come with

me while he is in train to see some inward investment or potential

inward investments? It is a promise to made to me at a meeting one year

ago. When he asked me this question a year ago I did actually made with

a delegation from his constituency. I agree with every word he said. If

he wants to come and share the platform with me, he is welcome.

There while Bank of Scotland has recently axed 300 jobs mostly in

Adam and London but they have not gone completely. They have all been

outsourced to India. The Prime Minister than the Government are

the biggest shareholders on behalf of stakeholders, so when will the

Prime Minister stand up to RBS and prevent these needless job losses?

The most important thing we have to do with the Royal Bank of Scotland

is recognise that a last government Putin on behalf of the country �45

billion into that bank. At his �2,500 for every working family in

the country. The most important thing is to get that money back.

RBS must return to health, deal with its bad loans, deal with the

trouble it got into and grow the rest of its business. Then be added

in a position that we can return people the money they put into bat

back. Ba was Prime Minister's Question Time from earlier today. I

am now joined by three Scottish MPs. Gentlemen, I think we all agree a

slightly different flavour about Prime Minister's Question Time

today because of bad news from Afghanistan. It reminds us that we

are still in a very real conflict Tragic news from Afghanistan today

and our Hearts go out to those involved. There were a number of

MPs he did not want to open questions on the policy, but wanted

to know when British troops would be coming home. There is in -- an

issue about when troops are coming home. It is important that

Afghanistan is left in a secure position. We have to balance --

balance that. But it was a sombre start to PMQs. As far as the

Coalition government goes, it is one of those things that happens

when you why a government when it is on your watch, there is nothing

you can really do about it. In this case, the House has to come

together. Yes, it was tragic news from Afghanistan and my thoughts

are with the family. -- families. It is a difficult situation in

government as this timetable of handing over to local forces by

2015, that is a timetable we have to stick to. Moving on to another

subject, something you are all interested in, the fuel duty

debates. We have a lobby at Westminster this afternoon. Alan

Reid, I am not expecting you to write the budget, but how important

is it at for a -- as an MP in a rural area, that the Government

does more and recognises the problems? In a rural area like

Argyll and Bute, fuel prices are a tremendous problem. This government

has done a great deal. They abolished Labour's fuel duty, and

so on 1st April, fuel duty will be 10p less than if Labour had to kept

power. As a government, we have done a great deal. I hope the

Chancellor will have spare cash in his budget to be able to reduce

fuel duty, but it is a difficult balancing act. My preference for

tax cuts would be to increase the personal allowance for income tax.

What should the Chancellor be doing to address this problem, which

despite everything Alan Reid has said, is still causing real head

for many people? It is as much a problem for people in urban and

suburban Lanarkshire as it is in rural areas. In many of those areas

in my constituency, there isn't -- not much alternative that -- to

using your card to get to work. It is a serious situation. In the last

two years, the price of petrol has gone up under this government. In

that time, demand the Treasury has taken has increased. Our policy is

that we should immediately have a 2.5% cut in the VAT rate, which

would take three pence off the price of the pound immediately for

diesel and petrol. I am not sure if the Chancellor has already ruled

out doing anything for fuel duty in the Budget, so it may be too late.

Your constituency is worst hit because of its geographical

location. At the end of the day, it is people and communities where you

live who have to pay more for your fuel -- their fuel. Unfortunately,

since the 5p could came in, the jury is out whether that was ate a

general increase orate profiteering increase. On the wider point, the

fuel stabiliser has gained a lot more currency. The Liberals were in

favour of that before they came to government. Labour, Wendy VAT

increased, people did not vote against that. Labour decided that

they seemed quite happy with that. They sat on their hands. It is

quite galling to now here Labour protests about VAT. It would be

remiss of me not to mention the GERS figures that have come back

today. You are saying that people would be better off in an

independent Scotland. The straight figures are that Scotland is a 0.4%

of the population providing 9.6% of taxation. We have a deficit of 4.4%,

the UK have a deficit of 6.6%. Scotland is in aid if -- better

fiscal position than the rest of the UK. I hope that the parties do

not talks, and down and celebrate this good news. It is ironic

hearing and is talking about straight figures from the SNP. Over

the past 25 years, Scotland has spent more than eight raised. That

is why the union should continue. Scotland does contribute a higher

share of taxation to the UK and it received a higher Crone reserve --

pro rata share. The SNP government up at him that the fuel cost to the

Western Isles. That is a question we will have to leave. The clock

has beaten us. Thank you very much. We may get in Greenock on some

things like fuel, but when it comes to the figures about what Scotland

puts in and takes out of the pot, you will not be surprised, there is

no agreement whatsoever. The debate continues. A

Conservative moved to stop the Scottish Government bringing in the

so-called Tesco tax has been defeated. The Conservative MSP

Margaret Mitchell told the local government committee that plans

were nothing more than a tax raid on a profitable company - a

profitable companies. The so-called tax attack -- Tesco

tax will come in from April. It means that large retailers to sell

alcohol and cigarettes will be hit. It will last for three years and

raised it to �95 million. The Conservative Margaret Mitchell one

to be planned thrown out at the local government committee this

morning. Can the Minister explained this tax? How can it help economic

recovery and combat unemployment, notably youth unemployment? As it

happens, you are well aware that even with the knowledge that this

supplement was being created, that has not deterred retailers from new

investments in Scotland. That includes announcements extra

employment in the country. The proof is in the pudding. Investment

is still ongoing in Scotland and it is not just the format stores I

mentioned in relation to Astor. We need to make sure we have a

workforce fit for the future. To put this in context of the overall

economy, �90 million contribution they have a three years pales into

insignificance compared to the UK Government's contributions. This

will affect job creation and the retail sector. Despite this, the

Scottish government has refused to carry out a business Regulatory

Impact Assessment. This refusal contradicts best-practice

guidelines and the recommendations of the Scottish Government's UN

Regulatory advising groups. This is a fraction of the profits of the

large companies. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. It would

come from 1% of non-domestic premises in Scotland. That is 240

of 217,000 commercial - a 270,000 commercial prospects. Of the

companies affected, of these 200 - man most of them are still

announcing new investment in Scotland. Here the Conservatives

were looking for help -- for help from Scottish Labour, their hopes

were dashed. It would be wrong for us to oppose this. We are going to

have to support this measure, however, we are disappointed that

an impact assessment has not been done with regards to the

consultation. What is the impact on business and unemployment? Margaret

Mitchell said she had heard nothing from the Minister or his fellow at

SNP MSPs on the Kentish -- committee. This is an anti-

competitive tax which will raise �95 million, endanger jobs and

investment in Scotland. It sends out a worrying precedent message

that if you make profits, then we do not mind if we make you or put

you at a competitive disadvantage to the rest of England by baking

business rates higher. Questions were asked about how the money

raised would be spent. The Minister said he could not make -- out line

where the money would go. It is appropriate that those with the

broadest shoulders bear a little bit more of the burden, and I think

that the largest supermarkets and Scotland are some of those with the

broadest shoulders. With Labour backing the SNP, the motion was

easily defeated. The result is one for the motion, five against the

motion, the motion is defeated. We are galloping towards the end of

the programme. That has picked up on one other issue with Angus

MacLeod. This weekend it is the SNP conference. An important speech for

Alex Salmond, isn't it? Yes we are in the middle of the conference

season. The speech she this weekend is a big chance for the SNP. A lot

of people will be interested to see what Alex Salmond says and how he

goes about it. I think the key strand which has emerged from SNP

strategy since the new year is this whole strand of reassurance. Salmon

will use his speech to try to convince people they should not be

scared of independence. They want to tell people that Scotland going

on its own does not mean the end to their lives as they know it. It

will be reassurance. Alex Salmond, a very good and able conference

speaker, I think he will seize his chance to drive that message of

reassurance home. It is an opportunity to rally the delegates

in the hall. He has an almost evangelical mission to spread the

word on the ground. Yes, but it has to go be on the audience in the

hall. No-one is better than that than the SNP, getting the troops

out. People do not have to be convinced of the case, the SNP will

go right and propagated. Alex Salmond has to go beyond that

immediate audience and talk to people outside because the polls

are not where the SNP wants them to be. We have had another one today

sharing independence somewhere in the low thirties. They want to see

progress poll on pole. Alex Salmond's main concern this weekend

is to talk to people outside the conference. Very briefly, it will

be an at the Sirte that is different from the Lib Dem and

Labour conferences. Yes. I will take your word for it because I was

at another conference, but the SNP will be an active place this week

in Glasgow. Thank you very much. That is all we have time for on