0:00:19 > 0:00:20Good afternoon and welcome to Politics Scotland.
0:00:20 > 0:00:22On today's programme:
0:00:22 > 0:00:26Gay sex was illegal in Scotland until 1981 -
0:00:26 > 0:00:28finally, all those convicted have received an apology.
0:00:28 > 0:00:33Targets for tackling child poverty are expected to be set in Parliament
0:00:33 > 0:00:43today - but why is it proving so hard to eradicate?
0:00:44 > 0:00:46Allegations of sexual harassment, a ministerial career on the line, tax
0:00:46 > 0:00:53avoidance. And the small question of Brexit. I will have the latest news
0:00:53 > 0:00:53from Westminster.
0:00:53 > 0:00:55Good afternoon and welcome to the programme.
0:00:55 > 0:00:57Allegations, resignations, blunders, tax avoidance and yesterday,
0:00:57 > 0:01:00a Welsh Minister took his own life.
0:01:00 > 0:01:03It's been quite a week again already, and it's only Wednesday.
0:01:03 > 0:01:06They used to say a week was a long time in politics.
0:01:06 > 0:01:08In the current climate it's more like a day
0:01:08 > 0:01:10is a long time in politics.
0:01:10 > 0:01:12With me throughout the programme is the journalist and
0:01:12 > 0:01:13broadcaster, Ruth Wishart.
0:01:13 > 0:01:17We are sitting here in a very unusual situation, because for the
0:01:17 > 0:01:24first time I remember the view is that a government minister
0:01:24 > 0:01:28approaching Heathrow airport will be fired after she lands. I know it is
0:01:28 > 0:01:33a cliche nowadays to say you couldn't make this up, but you
0:01:33 > 0:01:37couldn't?It is quite extraordinary. The whole week, the whole month has
0:01:37 > 0:01:44been extraordinary. I can't see how Priti Patel can survive. There have
0:01:44 > 0:01:49been so many allegations surrounding her visit to Israel. I know there
0:01:49 > 0:01:53are is new material. The Jewish Chronicle is disputing the version
0:01:53 > 0:02:00of events out there. But when did you last take Lord Pollock with you
0:02:00 > 0:02:07on holiday? She had meetings with the Prime Minister of Israel. She
0:02:07 > 0:02:13allegedly went to the Golan Heights. Just to spell that out, the
0:02:13 > 0:02:17allegation, and are not quite sure we are certain of this, but the
0:02:17 > 0:02:21reports say that she went to visit an Israeli military hospital, which
0:02:21 > 0:02:26is to be fair is helping Syrian refugees. However, it is an Israeli
0:02:26 > 0:02:31military hospital in the occupied Golan Heights, in an occupation
0:02:31 > 0:02:35Britain does not recognise and has not recognised since 1967, and she
0:02:35 > 0:02:42is a government minister?Correct. Not just the UK government, but the
0:02:42 > 0:02:46UN doesn't recognise it. It is the crass regard -- disregard for
0:02:46 > 0:02:51ministerial niceties. As summary said yesterday on TV, it is as if
0:02:51 > 0:02:54she is running alternative foreign policy. That might be all right if
0:02:54 > 0:02:58we had a Foreign Secretary in whom we have absolute confidence. But he
0:02:58 > 0:03:03did not know about it either. Live it is that thing. How could they
0:03:03 > 0:03:09possibly get the idea this was OK? I really do wonder whether she thought
0:03:09 > 0:03:17she wasn't going to get found out. But then of course you had Benyamin
0:03:17 > 0:03:21Netanyahu meeting the Prime Minister in London. And at that point the
0:03:21 > 0:03:25Prime Minister found out that one of a relatively junior ministers had
0:03:25 > 0:03:28already met him.There are some commentators saying that this focus
0:03:28 > 0:03:33on Priti Patel is taking attention away from Boris Johnson, and that
0:03:33 > 0:03:40his behaviour this week, they argue, has been worse. It is actually
0:03:40 > 0:03:47prejudicing individuals. This was him suggesting that Nazanin
0:03:47 > 0:03:49Zaghari-Ratcliffe was teaching journalism in Iran when she wasn't.
0:03:49 > 0:03:54Of course she wasn't. She was on a holiday. She was visiting her
0:03:54 > 0:04:03parents. I think you may be right. If Patel gets sacked, it would be a
0:04:03 > 0:04:07useful diversion from the Boris situation. That is indeed more
0:04:07 > 0:04:10dangerous. It is bad enough as it is endangering the life of a British
0:04:10 > 0:04:16citizen who has been in jail for 19 months. But if this were an isolated
0:04:16 > 0:04:21incident with Boris, you could perhaps think she is in no position
0:04:21 > 0:04:24to sack another senior minister having just lost the defence
0:04:24 > 0:04:30minister. But this is a whole series of gaffes from Boris. He seems
0:04:30 > 0:04:33incapable of finding the time to read his own briefs. He has the
0:04:33 > 0:04:39attention span of a gnat. He is a disaster, frankly.We will discuss
0:04:39 > 0:04:40more about the government later.
0:04:40 > 0:04:43Let's cross now to College Green to find out how well the current
0:04:43 > 0:04:45batch of under pressure cabinet ministers are weathering.
0:04:45 > 0:04:51David Porter has the forecast.
0:04:51 > 0:04:57David, Priti Patel is about to land, I believe?Yes, she has landed or
0:04:57 > 0:05:02will be landing shortly. I think it will be a case of Priti Patel pretty
0:05:02 > 0:05:07soon gone.
0:05:07 > 0:05:10soon gone. When she comes, probably in a ministerial car, to Downing
0:05:10 > 0:05:13Street, she will be told quickly that her services are no longer
0:05:13 > 0:05:16required. I think the way that Downing Street has been briefing
0:05:16 > 0:05:19from last night and this morning, letting it be known that she had
0:05:19 > 0:05:25been ordered back from a trip to Africa, it would be absolutely
0:05:25 > 0:05:29extraordinary now if she was not relieved of her post. I think it
0:05:29 > 0:05:32would probably be more damaging its Theresa May suddenly said, actually,
0:05:32 > 0:05:38OK, I understand what you have done, it's not good, apologise and we will
0:05:38 > 0:05:42forget about it. It will cause problems if she goes to the
0:05:42 > 0:05:47backbenches. She is very much on the Brexit side of the debate. She is a
0:05:47 > 0:05:52fervent supporter of Brexit. She is also very ambitious. Theresa May
0:05:52 > 0:05:55will be thinking, I don't particularly want her outside the
0:05:55 > 0:05:59tent. I think things have gone so far now that if Theresa May was not
0:05:59 > 0:06:02to sack her, that would cause more problems for her in the long-term.
0:06:02 > 0:06:07And it is quite extraordinary, when you think about it, yes, she is a
0:06:07 > 0:06:11member of the Cabinet, a fairly junior member at a fairly small
0:06:11 > 0:06:16department. With all respect to the Department for International. Yet
0:06:16 > 0:06:22this was someone who on holiday, didn't decide whether she was going
0:06:22 > 0:06:27to have one or two Pina Coladas after lunch and lie on the sun
0:06:27 > 0:06:32lounge, but decided to do a freelance foreign affairs operation,
0:06:32 > 0:06:37talking to the Israelis. As you mentioned to Ruth, there is some
0:06:37 > 0:06:39argument over what Downing Street and when Downing Street knew it. I
0:06:39 > 0:06:45think to some extent that is all a side issue. It would be absolutely
0:06:45 > 0:06:49extraordinary, and I think it would be a real sense of Theresa May's
0:06:49 > 0:06:56diminished power as Prime Minister may she did not sack Priti Patel.
0:06:56 > 0:07:01David, you were listening to Ruth and I discussing that. It is this
0:07:01 > 0:07:05basic question, I am sure a lot of people watching will think as well,
0:07:05 > 0:07:09which is Priti Patel is a government minister, how on earth could she
0:07:09 > 0:07:16have got it into her head that this was OK?I honestly, absolutely have
0:07:16 > 0:07:22no idea. Common sense, and we don't always have huge amount of common
0:07:22 > 0:07:29sense, all of us, from time to time... But I cannot understand how
0:07:29 > 0:07:34a Cabinet Minister, someone who should know the ministerial code,
0:07:34 > 0:07:39knows the proprieties of government, thought it would be a good idea,
0:07:39 > 0:07:43geographically, I can understand she wanted to go on holiday in Israel,
0:07:43 > 0:07:48but then to enter into negotiations with a government privately, without
0:07:48 > 0:07:54civil servants, without people from the embassy present. But not only
0:07:54 > 0:07:58geographically where she was, but also one of the most incendiary
0:07:58 > 0:08:01political argument in the whole world, Middle East politics, which
0:08:01 > 0:08:07quite frankly makes Western politics look like a kindergarten at times.
0:08:07 > 0:08:12It does seem extraordinary issued then did go to the Golan Heights, to
0:08:12 > 0:08:15an Israeli medical facility, and was perhaps considering using UK
0:08:15 > 0:08:21government funds to give to the Israeli army to help refugees in
0:08:21 > 0:08:26that area. On the face of it, it seems pretty extraordinary. And
0:08:26 > 0:08:31certainly, yeah, if you get the chance to speak to Priti Patel, I
0:08:31 > 0:08:34think there will be a lot of people wanting to ask a simple question.
0:08:34 > 0:08:40What were you doing?Where does this leave Theresa May's government? That
0:08:40 > 0:08:47is to ministers in a week. She can't fought to keep going like this.At
0:08:47 > 0:08:51this rate of attrition there will be nobody in the Cabinet in a week.
0:08:51 > 0:08:55That is not a flippant answer. In the past week we have lost the
0:08:55 > 0:09:00Defence Secretary, a key ally of Theresa May, over those sexual
0:09:00 > 0:09:04harassment allegations that were swirling around Westminster. Now we
0:09:04 > 0:09:08have another Cabinet minister, we think, who will go, basically
0:09:08 > 0:09:10because she started a freelance foreign affairs operation without
0:09:10 > 0:09:17the knowledge of Downing Street. And the Foreign Office as well. It will
0:09:17 > 0:09:22mean one Remainer has gone, one Brexiteer has gone. You have to
0:09:22 > 0:09:26bring it down to the Brexit debate and what the balance will be.I was
0:09:26 > 0:09:30going to ask you about that. We have almost forgotten that Brexit is
0:09:30 > 0:09:35happening. And that that is supposed to be the sole focus of the
0:09:35 > 0:09:38government. The Speaker has got involved as well. The SNP and others
0:09:38 > 0:09:43have been demanding the release of so-called impact assessments five
0:09:43 > 0:09:52different areas of the economy will be affected by Brexit. As I
0:09:52 > 0:09:55understand it, John Bercow has given the government until the end of
0:09:55 > 0:09:58today to publish these things. Will they do it and what happens if they
0:09:58 > 0:10:06don't?No, John Bercow called one of the Brexit team, Steven Baker, one
0:10:06 > 0:10:08of the Department ministers, to call of the Department ministers, to call
0:10:08 > 0:10:12-- to make a statement to MPs yesterday. He said, yes, we will
0:10:12 > 0:10:17publish these papers but it will take a couple of weeks. Conveniently
0:10:17 > 0:10:20for the UK government, Westminster is now in recess for a few base.
0:10:20 > 0:10:25There are plenty of people who are very angry, saying if these
0:10:25 > 0:10:28assessments are being done and you have them in a form which is
0:10:28 > 0:10:32publishable, go ahead and publish them. The UK government view on the
0:10:32 > 0:10:37argument being fought by -- and the argument being put forward by Steve
0:10:37 > 0:10:40Baker yesterday was, we still have some work to do. We will publish
0:10:40 > 0:10:44them but we will do it in our own timescale. Probably within the next
0:10:44 > 0:10:48three weeks. That will not please the Speaker. That will not please a
0:10:48 > 0:10:54lot of opposition MPs. As with so much at Westminster, it comes down
0:10:54 > 0:10:59to Brexit. The point I was making is that when Theresa May comes to
0:10:59 > 0:11:03reshuffle her Cabinet, whether she just replaces Priti Patel, she is
0:11:03 > 0:11:09not have to decide if she goes a Brexiteer, as Priti Patel is, or
0:11:09 > 0:11:14puts someone who is more favourable to the remaining case. -- Remain
0:11:14 > 0:11:20case. That would be a balancing act. What it does show, under normal
0:11:20 > 0:11:24political times, and my goodness we are not in normal times, or if this
0:11:24 > 0:11:28is the new normality, we have to get used to it, in normal political
0:11:28 > 0:11:31times if a Prime Minister had a decent majority in the House of
0:11:31 > 0:11:36Commons and was a strong Prime Minister, probably both the Foreign
0:11:36 > 0:11:40Secretary and Priti Patel would have gone by now. It is a sign of the
0:11:40 > 0:11:43Prime Minister's weakness that it is probably only now, this afternoon,
0:11:43 > 0:11:45but she is going to sack Priti Patel.
0:11:45 > 0:11:46David, thank you.
0:11:46 > 0:11:49The Scottish Parliament has not been immune from the sexual harassment
0:11:49 > 0:11:51scandal, which claimed its first Holyrood scalp at the weekend,
0:11:51 > 0:11:53when Mark McDonald stepped down as Minister for Childcare.
0:11:53 > 0:11:56It's understood a complaint was made about text messages he had sent.
0:11:56 > 0:11:59The implication from his action being that whatever he'd said
0:11:59 > 0:12:02was too bad to let him continue as a Minister, but not bad enough
0:12:02 > 0:12:04to prevent him continuing to serve Aberdeen Donside
0:12:04 > 0:12:08voters as their MSP.
0:12:08 > 0:12:18Joining me now from Holyrood is Brian Taylor.
0:12:19 > 0:12:26Brian MSP is arguing themselves up to debate this issue tomorrow?In
0:12:26 > 0:12:31the last 20 minutes, Marie Todd has been confirmed by Parliament as the
0:12:31 > 0:12:34replacement for Mark McDonald. She was advanced by the First Minister.
0:12:34 > 0:12:39There wasn't a vote. It was agreed across Parliament. Nicola Sturgeon
0:12:39 > 0:12:42took the chance in welcoming Marie Todd to make a reference to Mr
0:12:42 > 0:12:48McDonald, saying only that these were not the circumstances in which
0:12:48 > 0:12:53one wished to see a minister departing, but saying he had made
0:12:53 > 0:13:02the right decision. That is echoed by the Conservatives. Marie Todd was
0:13:02 > 0:13:06agreed as the replacement.That means that Marie Todd can start work
0:13:06 > 0:13:11from this moment?She is now the Minister having been endorsed by
0:13:11 > 0:13:18parliament.What was the reaction of MSPs? Everything about this
0:13:18 > 0:13:22situation is unusual. A minister had resigned, but the public are not
0:13:22 > 0:13:29really sure why.No. And I think frankly that is not a situation
0:13:29 > 0:13:35which will persist. Mr McDonald is not being -- seeing constituents
0:13:35 > 0:13:39currently. He has not been in Parliament. If he is to continue as
0:13:39 > 0:13:44a nest -- a set -- entered as speed, as we are told he will, you will
0:13:44 > 0:13:48have to come to Hollywood at some point. He will have two faces
0:13:48 > 0:13:57allegations. He is going to have to speak at some point to gives some
0:13:57 > 0:13:59degree of explanation, not least to his constituents, who appeared
0:13:59 > 0:14:07puzzled.There has been some comment about why it is OK for him to be an
0:14:07 > 0:14:11MSP and not a minister. I guess it is the same situation at Westminster
0:14:11 > 0:14:17with Michael Fallon?It is. The government minister is your job. It
0:14:17 > 0:14:23is in the gift of the Prime Minister. Being an MSP or MP is
0:14:23 > 0:14:26different. You are elected by the voters. You are chosen by the
0:14:26 > 0:14:34people. I make no comment whatsoever about Mr McDonald or Sir Michael
0:14:34 > 0:14:37Fallon as to whether they should continue as elected politicians,
0:14:37 > 0:14:40what you are elected by the people and there are good reasons why it is
0:14:40 > 0:14:46made difficult to oust someone to countermand the public choice, with
0:14:46 > 0:14:51reasons dating back to the period at Westminster when the Crown was seen
0:14:51 > 0:14:54to be interfering too much in Parliament and Parliamentary
0:14:54 > 0:14:59privilege arose as a result of that. And also it is felt that if it were
0:14:59 > 0:15:03too easy, if it were too simple to replace an MSP just on the basis of
0:15:03 > 0:15:08a single complaint, then yes, what those complaints would come from,
0:15:08 > 0:15:11political opponents and vested interests. All of that said, it is
0:15:11 > 0:15:16perhaps baffling to people that he has committed something, done
0:15:16 > 0:15:21something that he regarded as being not contiguous with being a
0:15:21 > 0:15:26government minister, and yet he remains an MSP. It does puzzle
0:15:26 > 0:15:32people to some extent and perhaps he needs to offer an explanation.
0:15:32 > 0:15:37Now, this will be debated tomorrow, Brian, but coming back to it, it's a
0:15:37 > 0:15:42very difficult issue. I would be interested in your view whether we
0:15:42 > 0:15:45know as yet whether this is a widespread problem within the
0:15:45 > 0:15:49Scottish Parliament? Obviously there have been issues we have just been
0:15:49 > 0:15:53talking about come to light and weather MSPs themselves and the
0:15:53 > 0:15:57political parties are likely tomorrow to come up with any
0:15:57 > 0:16:02interesting ideas about what can be done about it.A series of questions
0:16:02 > 0:16:07are going to happen tomorrow to the Scottish parliament corporate body,
0:16:07 > 0:16:10the organisation which is responsible for Parliament's rules
0:16:10 > 0:16:14and regulations, for the running of Parliament. Those questions range
0:16:14 > 0:16:21from the membership of that body to its remit, whether they should be an
0:16:21 > 0:16:27audit of sexual harassment policy. In terms of the extent of it, I
0:16:27 > 0:16:30don't think anyone thinks here that it is as extensive as appears to be
0:16:30 > 0:16:35the case at Westminster. I don't think anybody here think that sexual
0:16:35 > 0:16:42harassment is endemic in Holyrood. The phrase we heard, didn't we, was
0:16:42 > 0:16:45claims of a catalogue of abuse but do you think that's maybe not quite
0:16:45 > 0:16:49like that?I'm not going to comment on that because we don't know. We
0:16:49 > 0:16:54know for example that they have already been complaints to
0:16:54 > 0:17:00Parliament -- there have been no complaints to Parliament in the 18
0:17:00 > 0:17:03years of Parliament, that have been complaints to individual parties,
0:17:03 > 0:17:06but it is equally possible there are other anxieties and worries that
0:17:06 > 0:17:13have not been brought to the attention of authorities for
0:17:13 > 0:17:18whatever reason. Once we have the audit, Parliament will survey the
0:17:18 > 0:17:24extent of this problem, then we will have more knowledge but the common
0:17:24 > 0:17:28view here is that it is not endemic but you know what, nobody really
0:17:28 > 0:17:32knows.You say it is questions to the corporate body. Presumably MSPs
0:17:32 > 0:17:37will have a chance to say, look, here are some ideas of what we could
0:17:37 > 0:17:41do about this?They will do exactly that and it has been agreed that the
0:17:41 > 0:17:47session will be extended and that this will indeed turn into a
0:17:47 > 0:17:52substantial debate on the topic.Do we know from any of the questions
0:17:52 > 0:17:57being put in whether people are coming up with fresh ideas?The one
0:17:57 > 0:18:00perhaps concrete idea, this question of the audit, that is already
0:18:00 > 0:18:09underway. The suggestion of a new code of practice. One suggestion, a
0:18:09 > 0:18:14concrete idea has come from Kezia Dugdale, to persuade the members of
0:18:14 > 0:18:18the existing body to stand down and for there to be gender balance in
0:18:18 > 0:18:24the new body. The idea of reform has been advocated by the Scottish
0:18:24 > 0:18:28Government by the corporate body is exactly that, an entity. It owes its
0:18:28 > 0:18:32existence to Parliament and the parliamentary vote, so there may
0:18:32 > 0:18:36have to be significant change for that to happen. It has been pointed
0:18:36 > 0:18:44out that if political parties wanted a balance on the body, they could
0:18:44 > 0:18:49have nominated them, including Kezia Dugdale's Labour Party.Let's go one
0:18:49 > 0:18:52stage back to what was said about what this shows us about the British
0:18:52 > 0:18:59government. Do we in any meaningful sense have a government is what has
0:18:59 > 0:19:04been raised in one sense?One thing I found extraordinary was that all
0:19:04 > 0:19:09of these proposed replacements are being calculated on whether they are
0:19:09 > 0:19:15Remainers or Brexiteers. We surely shouldn't be discussing cabinet
0:19:15 > 0:19:18ministers in terms of their ideological purity, but in terms of
0:19:18 > 0:19:24competence? This is not the strongest government...I'm sorry to
0:19:24 > 0:19:28be flippant but I can't remember who made the remark earlier on this
0:19:28 > 0:19:31week, but somebody commented that the argument before was that the
0:19:31 > 0:19:34government only had bandwidth for Brexit, now it doesn't even have
0:19:34 > 0:19:42that.It's a thorough mess and the curare of that is how good are the
0:19:42 > 0:19:49opposition going to be in their polarity --
0:19:49 > 0:19:51polarity -- totality in opposing a weakened government and the Prime
0:19:51 > 0:19:59Minister?Now, sexual harassment. Do you expect any new ideas to come up?
0:19:59 > 0:20:02That have been some new ideas and the idea that the corporate body
0:20:02 > 0:20:06should be gender balanced seems to me to be a reasonable idea. I would
0:20:06 > 0:20:11say that, wouldn't I? I spent some time at Westminster and as you know
0:20:11 > 0:20:15it is full of bars and nicks and crannies and late-night sittings and
0:20:15 > 0:20:18late night would have rows as well. The very fact that Holyrood is a
0:20:18 > 0:20:23different animal, even the chronology of the day is different,
0:20:23 > 0:20:28the bait at 5pm and so forth, I don't think there is a similar
0:20:28 > 0:20:31situation at Holyrood. But politicians are people and some
0:20:31 > 0:20:35people behave badly. I am slightly perplexed by the Mark McDonald
0:20:35 > 0:20:39situation because the First Minister seemed to suggest yesterday that he
0:20:39 > 0:20:43was resigning the something that was not normally a resignation matter.
0:20:43 > 0:20:47Now, I don't know anything about this any more than anybody else but
0:20:47 > 0:20:51I wonder if that means that he has been indulging in sexual banter
0:20:51 > 0:20:55perhaps that is inappropriate rather than sexual misconduct.There was
0:20:55 > 0:21:00the suggestion of text messages but we don't really know.I'll tell you
0:21:00 > 0:21:04what is an helpful by everybody here and that is conflating minor
0:21:04 > 0:21:07behaviour with serious assault. There have been a couple of
0:21:07 > 0:21:13allegations of rape and to conflate these...Not at Holyrood, we should
0:21:13 > 0:21:20make clear.No, sorry, that has been one allegation of rape from a labour
0:21:20 > 0:21:24activist and a potential one but it is difficult to conflate a whole
0:21:24 > 0:21:27range of behaviour.We can discuss this further but just for the moment
0:21:27 > 0:21:34we need to go over to the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon.
0:21:34 > 0:21:35She has formally apologised to gay men
0:21:35 > 0:21:37convicted of sexual offences that are no longer illegal.
0:21:37 > 0:21:39Gay sex was illegal in Scotland until 1981,
0:21:39 > 0:21:42with the age of consent finally reduced to 16, 20 years later.
0:21:42 > 0:21:44Addressing MSPs at Holyrood yesterday, Nicola Sturgeon confirmed
0:21:44 > 0:21:46that new legislation being introduced would automatically
0:21:46 > 0:21:48pardon gay and bisexual men convicted under historical laws.
0:21:48 > 0:21:58Her political opponents welcomed her statement.
0:21:58 > 0:22:03This morning, the historical sexual offences pardons and disregards
0:22:03 > 0:22:07Scotland Bill was published. Scotland has travelled so far recent
0:22:07 > 0:22:12years in relation to LGBT I equality that it still shocks us to recall
0:22:12 > 0:22:17that as recently as 1980, well within my lifetime, consenting
0:22:17 > 0:22:20sexual activity between men was still classed as criminal activity
0:22:20 > 0:22:26in this country and the age of consent was only lowered to 16 in
0:22:26 > 0:22:312001, two years after this Parliament came into being. Before
0:22:31 > 0:22:35then, hundreds of people in Scotland were liable to be convicted as
0:22:35 > 0:22:41criminals simply for loving another adult. Presiding officer, the words
0:22:41 > 0:22:46inscribed on this Parliament's Mace set out the values which we seek to
0:22:46 > 0:22:50uphold and promote, integrity, wisdom, justice and compassion. Even
0:22:50 > 0:22:55within the lifetime of this Parliament, this nation's laws have
0:22:55 > 0:23:00created suffering and perpetuated injustice. The legislation we have
0:23:00 > 0:23:05published today addresses that injustice. It provides an automatic
0:23:05 > 0:23:08pardon two men convicted of same-sex sexual activity that would now be
0:23:08 > 0:23:13legal. In addition, the bill establishes a new procedure so that
0:23:13 > 0:23:17people can apply to the police for their offence to be disregarded from
0:23:17 > 0:23:23criminal records. This means that it will not appear in future on a
0:23:23 > 0:23:25disclosure certificate. The legislation therefore has both a
0:23:25 > 0:23:32symbolic and practical value. The pardon sends this unequivocal
0:23:32 > 0:23:35message to anybody convicted of an offence for the activity which is
0:23:35 > 0:23:39now legal, the law should not have treated you as criminals and you
0:23:39 > 0:23:44should not now be considered as such. Instead, this Parliament
0:23:44 > 0:23:50recognises that a wrong was done to you. They disregard has a important
0:23:50 > 0:23:54practical consequence. It allows people to ensure that a past
0:23:54 > 0:23:57criminal record will no longer have an impact on their day-to-day life
0:23:57 > 0:24:01and that will change people's lives. At present, as the equality network
0:24:01 > 0:24:06and others have highlighted to us, there are some people who were
0:24:06 > 0:24:09convicted merely showing love and affection to their partner is still
0:24:09 > 0:24:13have to explain their criminal record every time they move job or
0:24:13 > 0:24:17apply for a promotion. That is quite simply unacceptable and we are
0:24:17 > 0:24:24determined that that will end. So today, as First Minister, I
0:24:24 > 0:24:28categorically, unequivocally and wholeheartedly apologise for those
0:24:28 > 0:24:35laws and will be hurt and the harm that they caused to so many.
0:24:35 > 0:24:38Presiding officer, nothing that this Parliament does can raise those
0:24:38 > 0:24:44injustices, but I do hope that this apology, alongside our new
0:24:44 > 0:24:48legislation, can provide some comfort to those who endured those
0:24:48 > 0:24:52injustices. I hope that it provides evidence of this Parliament's
0:24:52 > 0:24:57determination insofar as we can to address the harm that was done.If
0:24:57 > 0:25:01we turn to the detail of the bill as it progresses, our focus will be on
0:25:01 > 0:25:05the practical implication and on the detail. There are two essential
0:25:05 > 0:25:09components of the change. The pardon and the disregard process for
0:25:09 > 0:25:12individual men to have their criminal records erased. I believe
0:25:12 > 0:25:17that both aspects are necessary and right. We are clear that the record
0:25:17 > 0:25:21should be set straight so that they are all pardoned but it is obvious
0:25:21 > 0:25:24that retrospective changes to criminal records needs some kind of
0:25:24 > 0:25:29process and has to be managed. That is the function of the disregard
0:25:29 > 0:25:32process and the Scottish Government approach in our view is
0:25:32 > 0:25:35proportionate and while we will look at the changes in detail as they are
0:25:35 > 0:25:40published, at this stage we are breed -- we believe the change to be
0:25:40 > 0:25:46correct in its fundamentals. It is also reasonable to note that this
0:25:46 > 0:25:52does not apply when the act is still a crime, and that is only correct.
0:25:52 > 0:25:55We will scrutinise the bill in a constructive spirit as an attempt to
0:25:55 > 0:26:00fulfil its aims in the best way possible. Scotland is now a better
0:26:00 > 0:26:03place to be gay than at any time in my lifetime and this action will
0:26:03 > 0:26:07make it better still. We welcome today's statement and we back the
0:26:07 > 0:26:14principles of the bill as it proceeds.Today is a landmark day in
0:26:14 > 0:26:17Scotland's LGBT history. In apologising the First Minister I
0:26:17 > 0:26:21accept that for Scotland to fulfil its vision of an inclusive future it
0:26:21 > 0:26:25must be at peace with its past. This bill will bring about piece by
0:26:25 > 0:26:30pardoning all the men convicted of same-sex sexual activity that is now
0:26:30 > 0:26:40legal. That pardon will lead to the crucial formality of wiping the
0:26:40 > 0:26:43slate clean, clearing the criminal records of those convicted so that
0:26:43 > 0:26:48no such scars of history appear on documents like disclosure checks.
0:26:48 > 0:26:56Through the years, women and men, intersex, of all faiths and none
0:26:56 > 0:27:00have marched together demanding tolerance and respect with pride and
0:27:00 > 0:27:05passion. That much has led us here today. This apology is a product of
0:27:05 > 0:27:10their work, their sweat and tears and I thank them deeply and
0:27:10 > 0:27:14personally for it. And crucially it allows our Scotland to take another
0:27:14 > 0:27:19step of progress towards an equal and progressive future for all.
0:27:19 > 0:27:26Thank you. APPLAUSE
0:27:26 > 0:27:28APPLAUSE It is time now to go live to the
0:27:28 > 0:27:34garden lobby of the Scottish Parliament.
0:27:34 > 0:27:36Our line-up of MSPs today includes Clare Haughey from the SNP,
0:27:36 > 0:27:38Michelle Ballantyne from the Conservatives,
0:27:38 > 0:27:41Johann Lamont from Labour and Liam McArthur from the Lib Dems.
0:27:41 > 0:27:47Now, you folks have been discussing, haven't you, child Parliament in --
0:27:47 > 0:27:50child poverty in Parliament and the idea of setting targets which should
0:27:50 > 0:27:56in some way be enforceable for meeting targets in child poverty.
0:27:56 > 0:28:02Michelle Valentine, I'm curious in that I doubt anyone was standing up
0:28:02 > 0:28:06saying child poverty was a great thing and they wanted more of it. I
0:28:06 > 0:28:10just wonder whether binding targets is the best way to tackle it?I
0:28:10 > 0:28:13think what we are saying is that income targets are one thing but
0:28:13 > 0:28:18what you really need to do is address the underlying drivers of
0:28:18 > 0:28:22poverty and we feel there is a missed opportunity in this bill to
0:28:22 > 0:28:27actually look at the key drivers that cause the poverty such as
0:28:27 > 0:28:30workless households, drug and alcohol addiction, the educational
0:28:30 > 0:28:33attainment gap and of course mitigating the breakdown of
0:28:33 > 0:28:36families. These are the things we really want to address that we want
0:28:36 > 0:28:42to sort out child poverty.Clare, can you explain why you think
0:28:42 > 0:28:47targets are a good idea and secondly what that means? Are these legally
0:28:47 > 0:28:52binding targets and in the case of the government target, what is
0:28:52 > 0:28:55legally binding?Did a thinning, it's nice to speak to you. It's
0:28:55 > 0:29:00important that we have targets. We have to be able to measure targets
0:29:00 > 0:29:05and see how far we have come. The Scottish Government is investing
0:29:05 > 0:29:10huge sums in challenging the attainment target, we have invested
0:29:10 > 0:29:14in baby boxes, committed to building 50,000 affordable homes in this
0:29:14 > 0:29:18Parliament and all of this will help in challenging the issues of child
0:29:18 > 0:29:21poverty which I think we can all agree is something we shouldn't have
0:29:21 > 0:29:26to be battling.But what does binding targets mean in practical
0:29:26 > 0:29:31terms? Let's say the targets aren't met, what happens? There is no legal
0:29:31 > 0:29:36recourse to a government for not meeting a target, is there?I think
0:29:36 > 0:29:41again we have to have measures to see how far we have come. You know,
0:29:41 > 0:29:44we have two measure where we are going, we have to look at the
0:29:44 > 0:29:51investment we are putting in to challenging poverty, bridging the
0:29:51 > 0:29:53attainment gap, improving the health of our nation and being able to
0:29:53 > 0:30:03measure that against where we have come from.That is an argument,
0:30:03 > 0:30:05isn't it, we often criticise the Scottish Government for putting in
0:30:05 > 0:30:11place grand ideas but not actually, and not just the SNP government but
0:30:11 > 0:30:15Labour governments before it, for putting in projects which have grand
0:30:15 > 0:30:18ideas but there are no benchmarks so that we know whether the policies
0:30:18 > 0:30:22are actually working or not. So in a sense this is a step in the right
0:30:22 > 0:30:28direction, isn't it?
0:30:28 > 0:30:35I think that is why labour and SNP did use targets. We have a legally
0:30:35 > 0:30:42binding targets inside the health system. We test everything we do
0:30:42 > 0:30:45against that. It is not just that we do lots of good things. Spending
0:30:45 > 0:30:50money on this priority, does it improve the situation or make it
0:30:50 > 0:30:54worse? We have a range of things we can spend money on. If you set a
0:30:54 > 0:30:57target on closing the Child poverty gap, the focus is on that. You test
0:30:57 > 0:31:04everything you offer against that. You wouldn't prioritise a cut and
0:31:04 > 0:31:09air passenger duty because that would not be Oney -- money that will
0:31:09 > 0:31:15make a difference. I want a coming together between the rhetoric and
0:31:15 > 0:31:18the aspiration of the whole parliament in tackling child
0:31:18 > 0:31:22poverty, and in understanding the causes. One thing I would say to
0:31:22 > 0:31:25Michelle, there is a big issue about precarious work, but people who are
0:31:25 > 0:31:33in work, working hard. They get to work and they are sent home after
0:31:33 > 0:31:40investing in childcare. This is a big problem for people. If we don't
0:31:40 > 0:31:43address that... There are a lot of things happening in communities and
0:31:43 > 0:31:45to families that would mean people are left in poverty and relying on
0:31:45 > 0:31:51things.Liam McArthur, the other obvious issue is that setting a
0:31:51 > 0:31:56target doesn't tell you anything about how to meet it?No, it
0:31:56 > 0:31:59doesn't. There have been legitimate concerns raised in the past about
0:31:59 > 0:32:05where targets have been set. Joanne rightly highlighted some of them. If
0:32:05 > 0:32:08you focused on that you take resource away from someone else
0:32:08 > 0:32:11which you have already said is a target and their priority. I think
0:32:11 > 0:32:19all of us have agreed that setting a legally binding target reflects the
0:32:19 > 0:32:22priority we attach to bringing child poverty down. It sends a message
0:32:22 > 0:32:27that this is an issue not just for one minister or government
0:32:27 > 0:32:29department, but this is a priority right across government, across the
0:32:29 > 0:32:35public sector. It sends a message to others who have a part to play in
0:32:35 > 0:32:38this about the contribution they need to make to achieving that
0:32:38 > 0:32:43objective. It doesn't guarantee anything. But I think it sends a
0:32:43 > 0:32:51strong message about the work government and agencies do.Many
0:32:51 > 0:33:00things can affect child poverty. I take the point about targets. But
0:33:00 > 0:33:04basically the big issue here is that if you want to do something quickly
0:33:04 > 0:33:09about child poverty, you increase child benefits and child tax
0:33:09 > 0:33:12credits?I think there has obviously been a proposition in relation to
0:33:12 > 0:33:17increasing child benefit by £5 a week. We have got some concerns
0:33:17 > 0:33:23about that. If this is specifically about addressing child poverty, you
0:33:23 > 0:33:26want to find ways of directing the resource more effectively on to
0:33:26 > 0:33:31those who need it most. I think probably a stronger argument in
0:33:31 > 0:33:36relation to using the levers of tax credits rather than child benefit.
0:33:36 > 0:33:41There is a debate to be had, and certainly, as you say, I think what
0:33:41 > 0:33:52today is about is making sure that that calculation is made.OK.
0:33:52 > 0:33:57Michelle Ballantyne, you don't think that the targets are particularly a
0:33:57 > 0:34:02good idea. Do the Conservatives have any specific thing you would like
0:34:02 > 0:34:05the Scottish government to do now that may have some impact?That is
0:34:05 > 0:34:09not quite what I said. I said targets were just one element. The
0:34:09 > 0:34:13targets are important in terms of setting measures. But the point here
0:34:13 > 0:34:18is it is not just about income. And targets along do not change child
0:34:18 > 0:34:22poverty. It is about the four elements that we now have a real
0:34:22 > 0:34:26impact on child poverty. And actually, within the bill what we
0:34:26 > 0:34:33are looking at really is around delivery plans. It is that bit
0:34:33 > 0:34:39around delivery that is important. It is what those delivery plans look
0:34:39 > 0:34:41like that will potentially change child poverty and what happens on
0:34:41 > 0:34:48the ground.All right. Clare Haughey, delivery plans, not quite
0:34:48 > 0:34:53sure what that means. Do you have any specific plans? You agree target
0:34:53 > 0:34:59is a good idea but do you know how to meet it?I think the biggest
0:34:59 > 0:35:02threat to child poverty is the roll-out of Universal Credit. We
0:35:02 > 0:35:05have seen report after report condemning the UK government for a
0:35:05 > 0:35:12rolling out Universal Credit for people with debt and rent arrears.
0:35:12 > 0:35:18That is the biggest threat.Johann Lamont, is anything you say -- you
0:35:18 > 0:35:21think should be prioritised?I would be investing in local government.
0:35:21 > 0:35:26That is where life chances are determined. A child coming to school
0:35:26 > 0:35:30perhaps with a lot of challenges in their home, into school whether
0:35:30 > 0:35:34fewer people to support them. Less likelihood of being able to support
0:35:34 > 0:35:39that charge to learn, fewer teachers etc. That applies across local
0:35:39 > 0:35:42government. When you talk about child poverty, it can't just be
0:35:42 > 0:35:47about a line in a bill here. It has to be about how you invest in those
0:35:47 > 0:35:50services that actually can close the gap. It is a big issue. The biggest
0:35:50 > 0:35:55challenge is not to be overwhelmed by it. But focus everything you do,
0:35:55 > 0:36:01and every spending decision, on, does this make things better or not?
0:36:01 > 0:36:05And sadly, we are caught up in this Parliament too often with things we
0:36:05 > 0:36:10can offer people rather than a plan for addressing poverty.That is what
0:36:10 > 0:36:15you are doing today. Tomorrow you will be asking questions about
0:36:15 > 0:36:19sexual harassment, which has become a big issue. I am just curious,
0:36:19 > 0:36:24Johann Lamont, there is some debate about what in practical terms can be
0:36:24 > 0:36:30done. Do you have any suggestion?I think this is a problem that goes
0:36:30 > 0:36:33way beyond this Parliament. I think people feel quite overwhelmed by
0:36:33 > 0:36:38what has happened. What I am struck by is that people in parliament are
0:36:38 > 0:36:45looking at how we give folk a voice. The reality is people are silenced
0:36:45 > 0:36:47facing sexual harassment because they are not in a position to speak
0:36:47 > 0:36:52out. We should be mindful of that. We should be thinking how we support
0:36:52 > 0:36:57everyone experiencing this problem across our communities. And the fact
0:36:57 > 0:37:02is, the very fact we are talking about it, saying it is unacceptable,
0:37:02 > 0:37:07it is a preventative message, it is about this is unacceptable, it is
0:37:07 > 0:37:11protection, we will support people if they will speak out, and it is
0:37:11 > 0:37:15provision of support for people who feel vulnerable. These are basic
0:37:15 > 0:37:21things, but I do think we can look at how it is delivered but we don't
0:37:21 > 0:37:24address the broader culture, which has been self evident over the last
0:37:24 > 0:37:28period. This is not particular to one place, one time, one class, one
0:37:28 > 0:37:33profession. It is something far too many women experience in their daily
0:37:33 > 0:37:37lives and we need to give voice to that. I think the work we have done
0:37:37 > 0:37:40in the past shows we understand a lot but there is clearly more to be
0:37:40 > 0:37:45done.Clare Haughey, do you think there is more to be done within the
0:37:45 > 0:37:52Scottish Parliament? Or is it such a broad issue that coming up with
0:37:52 > 0:37:58that? Plans of action can't really deal with it?I agree with almost
0:37:58 > 0:38:02everything that Johann Lamont has said about sexual harassment through
0:38:02 > 0:38:07workplaces, not just in Parliament. But certainly in Parliament we need
0:38:07 > 0:38:11to look at our guidelines. We need to look at the processes. We need to
0:38:11 > 0:38:16let people know they can't come forward. -- can come forward. Their
0:38:16 > 0:38:18complaints will be treated with respect and in confidence. We need
0:38:18 > 0:38:22guidelines so that people can have an idea of how to do that and also
0:38:22 > 0:38:26of the remedies we want, the outcome. We need to ensure
0:38:26 > 0:38:29complainers feel confident in the process that the Parliament has a
0:38:29 > 0:38:34round about them.Michelle Ballantyne, this is kind of a
0:38:34 > 0:38:39cross-party issue. I will put a Labour idea to you. Richard Leonard
0:38:39 > 0:38:42suggested at the weekend that in the Labour Party they might like to have
0:38:42 > 0:38:46someone who is independent, or seemed to be independent, perhaps
0:38:46 > 0:38:49not even a member of the Labour Party, that people felt they could
0:38:49 > 0:38:53approach. This issue is not just about what happened in the last week
0:38:53 > 0:39:01in Parliament but in parties. Maybe all the parties could do that?Yes,
0:39:01 > 0:39:05I'm pleased to say that the Conservatives, my party, have
0:39:05 > 0:39:08reacted quickly. A new code of conduct has been delivered. It does
0:39:08 > 0:39:13provide the ability to have the confidential line that you can ring.
0:39:13 > 0:39:17You can feel confident that information will be kept secure and
0:39:17 > 0:39:22treated with respect. Any problems or complaints look that will include
0:39:22 > 0:39:28independents. We are already down that line.I am not doubting that
0:39:28 > 0:39:33but the issue is, do people really believe that? If that has been there
0:39:33 > 0:39:36already and the problem is people haven't been coming forward, then
0:39:36 > 0:39:42they clearly think that somehow or other this process is not what you
0:39:42 > 0:39:49have just described?I think the problem is, or rather the benefit
0:39:49 > 0:39:56now, is that we are talking openly about
0:39:56 > 0:39:59about it and the system now make sure that people listen to and they
0:39:59 > 0:40:02have confidence to make that phone call. Potentially there was a
0:40:02 > 0:40:04problem across the board before of people not feeling they could make
0:40:04 > 0:40:09the phone call, that they could talk to somebody. So actually, having the
0:40:09 > 0:40:13conversation now is hoping that confidence, I think. That is
0:40:13 > 0:40:16important. But I think within each party you need to be able to do it
0:40:16 > 0:40:21internally as as cross -- across workplaces, and be clear that you
0:40:21 > 0:40:28will be respected and listen to. Liam McArthur, do you think there
0:40:28 > 0:40:33are a specific things that could be done? Is it really about changing
0:40:33 > 0:40:38the culture?It is certainly about changing the culture. There is no
0:40:38 > 0:40:42dispute about that. Some of the stuff we have been discussing here
0:40:42 > 0:40:46are procedural issues which are absolutely crucial. They need to be
0:40:46 > 0:40:50seen to be independent, to allow anonymity and give people the
0:40:50 > 0:40:55confidence to bring forward complaints are issues of consent, or
0:40:55 > 0:41:02simply advice. At that stage also, provide a degree of Pastoral support
0:41:02 > 0:41:07as well. But fundamentally, this is about changing cultures. I think if
0:41:07 > 0:41:11anything good is to come out of this, it has to be that we have this
0:41:11 > 0:41:13debate that allows us to send a strong message about what is
0:41:13 > 0:41:17acceptable and what is not, and ensure that the instances of this
0:41:17 > 0:41:21going forward, not just in Parliament but in politics -- or in
0:41:21 > 0:41:25politics, but in wider society, become less if not entirely
0:41:25 > 0:41:28nonexistent in the future.We will leave it there. Thank you for
0:41:28 > 0:41:37joining us. Ruth, are there any easy answers to this? You can set up as
0:41:37 > 0:41:42many mechanisms as you like but if people still feel, and are not just
0:41:42 > 0:41:44talking about Parliament, I'm talking about any organisation, if
0:41:44 > 0:41:50people feel even if they treat me sympathetically, even if the people
0:41:50 > 0:41:53I'm accusing is punished, the bottom line is I will not get the promotion
0:41:53 > 0:41:59Mwale will get back at me some way? That has historically been the case
0:41:59 > 0:42:02because as many commentators have said it is about an abuse of power.
0:42:02 > 0:42:08Not infrequently, the victim of sexual harassment is not in that
0:42:08 > 0:42:12position of power, and the person who is abusing them is perhaps their
0:42:12 > 0:42:18employer or their immediate boss. However, the me too campaign is
0:42:18 > 0:42:25fascinating. It encourages men and women from all professions and
0:42:25 > 0:42:28industries to say, this happen to me. This is so widespread. It is
0:42:28 > 0:42:32such a global reaction. I have got a kind of modest hope that we will see
0:42:32 > 0:42:36a changing culture.Deeming that just because it is out there now --
0:42:36 > 0:42:42do you mean... The big test is if this all dies away, the media
0:42:42 > 0:42:48attention goes away from it and it is not the top of the news. It is
0:42:48 > 0:42:51whether three months than the line someone suffers an instance of this
0:42:51 > 0:42:53and they feel confident enough to say, this time I am going to
0:42:53 > 0:42:59complain?I was worried about that, not least because 56 days into this
0:42:59 > 0:43:03crisis, a lot of male commentators started to say, it is a lot of fuss
0:43:03 > 0:43:08about nothing. -- five or six days. I thought it was perhaps when to go
0:43:08 > 0:43:15away. But this time I think those men, and it is a minority of men,
0:43:15 > 0:43:18but those men who think it is acceptable behaviour will, I think,
0:43:18 > 0:43:23now think once or twice or thrice about it because they know there is
0:43:23 > 0:43:29a new confidence abroad among female employees. I think, to quote a movie
0:43:29 > 0:43:32that is a favourite of mine, I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it
0:43:32 > 0:43:36any more.Ruth, thank you. That is all we have time for. Brian Taylor
0:43:36 > 0:43:40is here tomorrow. I will be back next week.
0:43:40 > 0:43:50Until then, goodbye.