08/11/2017 Politics Scotland

Good afternoon and welcome

to Politics Scotland.

On today's programme:

Gay sex was illegal

in Scotland until 1981 -

finally, all those convicted have

received an apology.

Targets for tackling child poverty

are expected to be set in Parliament

today - but why is it proving

so hard to eradicate?

Allegations of sexual harassment, a

ministerial career on the line, tax

avoidance. And the small question of

Brexit. I will have the latest news

from Westminster.

Good afternoon and welcome

to the programme.

Allegations, resignations, blunders,

tax avoidance and yesterday,

a Welsh Minister took his own life.

It's been quite a week again

already, and it's only Wednesday.

They used to say a week

was a long time in politics.

In the current climate

it's more like a day

is a long time in politics.

With me throughout the programme

is the journalist and

broadcaster, Ruth Wishart.

We are sitting here in a very

unusual situation, because for the

first time I remember the view is

that a government minister

approaching Heathrow airport will be

fired after she lands. I know it is

a cliche nowadays to say you

couldn't make this up, but you

couldn't?

It is quite extraordinary.

The whole week, the whole month has

been extraordinary. I can't see how

Priti Patel can survive. There have

been so many allegations surrounding

her visit to Israel. I know there

are is new material. The Jewish

Chronicle is disputing the version

of events out there. But when did

you last take Lord Pollock with you

on holiday? She had meetings with

the Prime Minister of Israel. She

allegedly went to the Golan Heights.

Just to spell that out, the

allegation, and are not quite sure

we are certain of this, but the

reports say that she went to visit

an Israeli military hospital, which

is to be fair is helping Syrian

refugees. However, it is an Israeli

military hospital in the occupied

Golan Heights, in an occupation

Britain does not recognise and has

not recognised since 1967, and she

is a government minister?

Correct.

Not just the UK government, but the

UN doesn't recognise it. It is the

crass regard -- disregard for

ministerial niceties. As summary

said yesterday on TV, it is as if

she is running alternative foreign

policy. That might be all right if

we had a Foreign Secretary in whom

we have absolute confidence. But he

did not know about it either. Live

it is that thing. How could they

possibly get the idea this was OK? I

really do wonder whether she thought

she wasn't going to get found out.

But then of course you had Benyamin

Netanyahu meeting the Prime Minister

in London. And at that point the

Prime Minister found out that one of

a relatively junior ministers had

already met him.

There are some

commentators saying that this focus

on Priti Patel is taking attention

away from Boris Johnson, and that

his behaviour this week, they argue,

has been worse. It is actually

prejudicing individuals. This was

him suggesting that Nazanin

Zaghari-Ratcliffe was teaching

journalism in Iran when she wasn't.

Of course she wasn't. She was on a

holiday. She was visiting her

parents. I think you may be right.

If Patel gets sacked, it would be a

useful diversion from the Boris

situation. That is indeed more

dangerous. It is bad enough as it is

endangering the life of a British

citizen who has been in jail for 19

months. But if this were an isolated

incident with Boris, you could

perhaps think she is in no position

to sack another senior minister

having just lost the defence

minister. But this is a whole series

of gaffes from Boris. He seems

incapable of finding the time to

read his own briefs. He has the

attention span of a gnat. He is a

disaster, frankly.

We will discuss

more about the government later.

Let's cross now to College Green

to find out how well the current

batch of under pressure cabinet

ministers are weathering.

David Porter has the forecast.

David, Priti Patel is about to land,

I believe?

Yes, she has landed or

will be landing shortly. I think it

will be a case of Priti Patel pretty

soon gone.

soon gone. When she comes, probably

in a ministerial car, to Downing

Street, she will be told quickly

that her services are no longer

required. I think the way that

Downing Street has been briefing

from last night and this morning,

letting it be known that she had

been ordered back from a trip to

Africa, it would be absolutely

extraordinary now if she was not

relieved of her post. I think it

would probably be more damaging its

Theresa May suddenly said, actually,

OK, I understand what you have done,

it's not good, apologise and we will

forget about it. It will cause

problems if she goes to the

backbenches. She is very much on the

Brexit side of the debate. She is a

fervent supporter of Brexit. She is

also very ambitious. Theresa May

will be thinking, I don't

particularly want her outside the

tent. I think things have gone so

far now that if Theresa May was not

to sack her, that would cause more

problems for her in the long-term.

And it is quite extraordinary, when

you think about it, yes, she is a

member of the Cabinet, a fairly

junior member at a fairly small

department. With all respect to the

Department for International. Yet

this was someone who on holiday,

didn't decide whether she was going

to have one or two Pina Coladas

after lunch and lie on the sun

lounge, but decided to do a

freelance foreign affairs operation,

talking to the Israelis. As you

mentioned to Ruth, there is some

argument over what Downing Street

and when Downing Street knew it. I

think to some extent that is all a

side issue. It would be absolutely

extraordinary, and I think it would

be a real sense of Theresa May's

diminished power as Prime Minister

may she did not sack Priti Patel.

David, you were listening to Ruth

and I discussing that. It is this

basic question, I am sure a lot of

people watching will think as well,

which is Priti Patel is a government

minister, how on earth could she

have got it into her head that this

was OK?

I honestly, absolutely have

no idea. Common sense, and we don't

always have huge amount of common

sense, all of us, from time to

time... But I cannot understand how

a Cabinet Minister, someone who

should know the ministerial code,

knows the proprieties of government,

thought it would be a good idea,

geographically, I can understand she

wanted to go on holiday in Israel,

but then to enter into negotiations

with a government privately, without

civil servants, without people from

the embassy present. But not only

geographically where she was, but

also one of the most incendiary

political argument in the whole

world, Middle East politics, which

quite frankly makes Western politics

look like a kindergarten at times.

It does seem extraordinary issued

then did go to the Golan Heights, to

an Israeli medical facility, and was

perhaps considering using UK

government funds to give to the

Israeli army to help refugees in

that area. On the face of it, it

seems pretty extraordinary. And

certainly, yeah, if you get the

chance to speak to Priti Patel, I

think there will be a lot of people

wanting to ask a simple question.

What were you doing?

Where does this

leave Theresa May's government? That

is to ministers in a week. She can't

fought to keep going like this.

At

this rate of attrition there will be

nobody in the Cabinet in a week.

That is not a flippant answer. In

the past week we have lost the

Defence Secretary, a key ally of

Theresa May, over those sexual

harassment allegations that were

swirling around Westminster. Now we

have another Cabinet minister, we

think, who will go, basically

because she started a freelance

foreign affairs operation without

the knowledge of Downing Street. And

the Foreign Office as well. It will

mean one Remainer has gone, one

Brexiteer has gone. You have to

bring it down to the Brexit debate

and what the balance will be.

I was

going to ask you about that. We have

almost forgotten that Brexit is

happening. And that that is supposed

to be the sole focus of the

government. The Speaker has got

involved as well. The SNP and others

have been demanding the release of

so-called impact assessments five

different areas of the economy will

be affected by Brexit. As I

understand it, John Bercow has given

the government until the end of

today to publish these things. Will

they do it and what happens if they

don't?

No, John Bercow called one of

the Brexit team, Steven Baker, one

of the Department ministers, to call

of the Department ministers, to call

-- to make a statement to MPs

yesterday. He said, yes, we will

publish these papers but it will

take a couple of weeks. Conveniently

for the UK government, Westminster

is now in recess for a few base.

There are plenty of people who are

very angry, saying if these

assessments are being done and you

have them in a form which is

publishable, go ahead and publish

them. The UK government view on the

argument being fought by -- and the

argument being put forward by Steve

Baker yesterday was, we still have

some work to do. We will publish

them but we will do it in our own

timescale. Probably within the next

three weeks. That will not please

the Speaker. That will not please a

lot of opposition MPs. As with so

much at Westminster, it comes down

to Brexit. The point I was making is

that when Theresa May comes to

reshuffle her Cabinet, whether she

just replaces Priti Patel, she is

not have to decide if she goes a

Brexiteer, as Priti Patel is, or

puts someone who is more favourable

to the remaining case. -- Remain

case. That would be a balancing act.

What it does show, under normal

political times, and my goodness we

are not in normal times, or if this

is the new normality, we have to get

used to it, in normal political

times if a Prime Minister had a

decent majority in the House of

Commons and was a strong Prime

Minister, probably both the Foreign

Secretary and Priti Patel would have

gone by now. It is a sign of the

Prime Minister's weakness that it is

probably only now, this afternoon,

but she is going to sack Priti

Patel.

David, thank you.

The Scottish Parliament has not been

immune from the sexual harassment

scandal, which claimed its first

Holyrood scalp at the weekend,

when Mark McDonald stepped down

as Minister for Childcare.

It's understood a complaint was made

about text messages he had sent.

The implication from his action

being that whatever he'd said

was too bad to let him continue

as a Minister, but not bad enough

to prevent him continuing

to serve Aberdeen Donside

voters as their MSP.

Joining me now from

Holyrood is Brian Taylor.

Brian MSP is arguing themselves up

to debate this issue tomorrow?

In

the last 20 minutes, Marie Todd has

been confirmed by Parliament as the

replacement for Mark McDonald. She

was advanced by the First Minister.

There wasn't a vote. It was agreed

across Parliament. Nicola Sturgeon

took the chance in welcoming Marie

Todd to make a reference to Mr

McDonald, saying only that these

were not the circumstances in which

one wished to see a minister

departing, but saying he had made

the right decision. That is echoed

by the Conservatives. Marie Todd was

agreed as the replacement.

That

means that Marie Todd can start work

from this moment?

She is now the

Minister having been endorsed by

parliament.

What was the reaction of

MSPs? Everything about this

situation is unusual. A minister had

resigned, but the public are not

really sure why.

No. And I think

frankly that is not a situation

which will persist. Mr McDonald is

not being -- seeing constituents

currently. He has not been in

Parliament. If he is to continue as

a nest -- a set -- entered as speed,

as we are told he will, you will

have to come to Hollywood at some

point. He will have two faces

allegations. He is going to have to

speak at some point to gives some

degree of explanation, not least to

his constituents, who appeared

puzzled.

There has been some comment

about why it is OK for him to be an

MSP and not a minister. I guess it

is the same situation at Westminster

with Michael Fallon?

It is. The

government minister is your job. It

is in the gift of the Prime

Minister. Being an MSP or MP is

different. You are elected by the

voters. You are chosen by the

people. I make no comment whatsoever

about Mr McDonald or Sir Michael

Fallon as to whether they should

continue as elected politicians,

what you are elected by the people

and there are good reasons why it is

made difficult to oust someone to

countermand the public choice, with

reasons dating back to the period at

Westminster when the Crown was seen

to be interfering too much in

Parliament and Parliamentary

privilege arose as a result of that.

And also it is felt that if it were

too easy, if it were too simple to

replace an MSP just on the basis of

a single complaint, then yes, what

those complaints would come from,

political opponents and vested

interests. All of that said, it is

perhaps baffling to people that he

has committed something, done

something that he regarded as being

not contiguous with being a

government minister, and yet he

remains an MSP. It does puzzle

people to some extent and perhaps he

needs to offer an explanation.

Now, this will be debated tomorrow,

Brian, but coming back to it, it's a

very difficult issue. I would be

interested in your view whether we

know as yet whether this is a

widespread problem within the

Scottish Parliament? Obviously there

have been issues we have just been

talking about come to light and

weather MSPs themselves and the

political parties are likely

tomorrow to come up with any

interesting ideas about what can be

done about it.

A series of questions

are going to happen tomorrow to the

Scottish parliament corporate body,

the organisation which is

responsible for Parliament's rules

and regulations, for the running of

Parliament. Those questions range

from the membership of that body to

its remit, whether they should be an

audit of sexual harassment policy.

In terms of the extent of it, I

don't think anyone thinks here that

it is as extensive as appears to be

the case at Westminster. I don't

think anybody here think that sexual

harassment is endemic in Holyrood.

The phrase we heard, didn't we, was

claims of a catalogue of abuse but

do you think that's maybe not quite

like that?

I'm not going to comment

on that because we don't know. We

know for example that they have

already been complaints to

Parliament -- there have been no

complaints to Parliament in the 18

years of Parliament, that have been

complaints to individual parties,

but it is equally possible there are

other anxieties and worries that

have not been brought to the

attention of authorities for

whatever reason. Once we have the

audit, Parliament will survey the

extent of this problem, then we will

have more knowledge but the common

view here is that it is not endemic

but you know what, nobody really

knows.

You say it is questions to

the corporate body. Presumably MSPs

will have a chance to say, look,

here are some ideas of what we could

do about this?

They will do exactly

that and it has been agreed that the

session will be extended and that

this will indeed turn into a

substantial debate on the topic.

Do

we know from any of the questions

being put in whether people are

coming up with fresh ideas?

The one

perhaps concrete idea, this question

of the audit, that is already

underway. The suggestion of a new

code of practice. One suggestion, a

concrete idea has come from Kezia

Dugdale, to persuade the members of

the existing body to stand down and

for there to be gender balance in

the new body. The idea of reform has

been advocated by the Scottish

Government by the corporate body is

exactly that, an entity. It owes its

existence to Parliament and the

parliamentary vote, so there may

have to be significant change for

that to happen. It has been pointed

out that if political parties wanted

a balance on the body, they could

have nominated them, including Kezia

Dugdale's Labour Party.

Let's go one

stage back to what was said about

what this shows us about the British

government. Do we in any meaningful

sense have a government is what has

been raised in one sense?

One thing

I found extraordinary was that all

of these proposed replacements are

being calculated on whether they are

Remainers or Brexiteers. We surely

shouldn't be discussing cabinet

ministers in terms of their

ideological purity, but in terms of

competence? This is not the

strongest government...

I'm sorry to

be flippant but I can't remember who

made the remark earlier on this

week, but somebody commented that

the argument before was that the

government only had bandwidth for

Brexit, now it doesn't even have

that.

It's a thorough mess and the

curare of that is how good are the

opposition going to be in their

polarity --

polarity -- totality in opposing a

weakened government and the Prime

Minister?

Now, sexual harassment. Do

you expect any new ideas to come up?

That have been some new ideas and

the idea that the corporate body

should be gender balanced seems to

me to be a reasonable idea. I would

say that, wouldn't I? I spent some

time at Westminster and as you know

it is full of bars and nicks and

crannies and late-night sittings and

late night would have rows as well.

The very fact that Holyrood is a

different animal, even the

chronology of the day is different,

the bait at 5pm and so forth, I

don't think there is a similar

situation at Holyrood. But

politicians are people and some

people behave badly. I am slightly

perplexed by the Mark McDonald

situation because the First Minister

seemed to suggest yesterday that he

was resigning the something that was

not normally a resignation matter.

Now, I don't know anything about

this any more than anybody else but

I wonder if that means that he has

been indulging in sexual banter

perhaps that is inappropriate rather

than sexual misconduct.

There was

the suggestion of text messages but

we don't really know.

I'll tell you

what is an helpful by everybody here

and that is conflating minor

behaviour with serious assault.

There have been a couple of

allegations of rape and to conflate

these...

Not at Holyrood, we should

make clear.

No, sorry, that has been

one allegation of rape from a labour

activist and a potential one but it

is difficult to conflate a whole

range of behaviour.

We can discuss

this further but just for the moment

we need to go over to the First

Minister, Nicola Sturgeon.

She has formally

apologised to gay men

convicted of sexual offences that

are no longer illegal.

Gay sex was illegal

in Scotland until 1981,

with the age of consent finally

reduced to 16, 20 years later.

Addressing MSPs at Holyrood

yesterday, Nicola Sturgeon confirmed

that new legislation

being introduced would automatically

pardon gay and bisexual men

convicted under historical laws.

Her political opponents

welcomed her statement.

This morning, the historical sexual

offences pardons and disregards

Scotland Bill was published.

Scotland has travelled so far recent

years in relation to LGBT I equality

that it still shocks us to recall

that as recently as 1980, well

within my lifetime, consenting

sexual activity between men was

still classed as criminal activity

in this country and the age of

consent was only lowered to 16 in

2001, two years after this

Parliament came into being. Before

then, hundreds of people in Scotland

were liable to be convicted as

criminals simply for loving another

adult. Presiding officer, the words

inscribed on this Parliament's Mace

set out the values which we seek to

uphold and promote, integrity,

wisdom, justice and compassion. Even

within the lifetime of this

Parliament, this nation's laws have

created suffering and perpetuated

injustice. The legislation we have

published today addresses that

injustice. It provides an automatic

pardon two men convicted of same-sex

sexual activity that would now be

legal. In addition, the bill

establishes a new procedure so that

people can apply to the police for

their offence to be disregarded from

criminal records. This means that it

will not appear in future on a

disclosure certificate. The

legislation therefore has both a

symbolic and practical value. The

pardon sends this unequivocal

message to anybody convicted of an

offence for the activity which is

now legal, the law should not have

treated you as criminals and you

should not now be considered as

such. Instead, this Parliament

recognises that a wrong was done to

you. They disregard has a important

practical consequence. It allows

people to ensure that a past

criminal record will no longer have

an impact on their day-to-day life

and that will change people's lives.

At present, as the equality network

and others have highlighted to us,

there are some people who were

convicted merely showing love and

affection to their partner is still

have to explain their criminal

record every time they move job or

apply for a promotion. That is quite

simply unacceptable and we are

determined that that will end. So

today, as First Minister, I

categorically, unequivocally and

wholeheartedly apologise for those

laws and will be hurt and the harm

that they caused to so many.

Presiding officer, nothing that this

Parliament does can raise those

injustices, but I do hope that this

apology, alongside our new

legislation, can provide some

comfort to those who endured those

injustices. I hope that it provides

evidence of this Parliament's

determination insofar as we can to

address the harm that was done.

If

we turn to the detail of the bill as

it progresses, our focus will be on

the practical implication and on the

detail. There are two essential

components of the change. The pardon

and the disregard process for

individual men to have their

criminal records erased. I believe

that both aspects are necessary and

right. We are clear that the record

should be set straight so that they

are all pardoned but it is obvious

that retrospective changes to

criminal records needs some kind of

process and has to be managed. That

is the function of the disregard

process and the Scottish Government

approach in our view is

proportionate and while we will look

at the changes in detail as they are

published, at this stage we are

breed -- we believe the change to be

correct in its fundamentals. It is

also reasonable to note that this

does not apply when the act is still

a crime, and that is only correct.

We will scrutinise the bill in a

constructive spirit as an attempt to

fulfil its aims in the best way

possible. Scotland is now a better

place to be gay than at any time in

my lifetime and this action will

make it better still. We welcome

today's statement and we back the

principles of the bill as it

proceeds.

Today is a landmark day in

Scotland's LGBT history. In

apologising the First Minister I

accept that for Scotland to fulfil

its vision of an inclusive future it

must be at peace with its past. This

bill will bring about piece by

pardoning all the men convicted of

same-sex sexual activity that is now

legal. That pardon will lead to the

crucial formality of wiping the

slate clean, clearing the criminal

records of those convicted so that

no such scars of history appear on

documents like disclosure checks.

Through the years, women and men,

intersex, of all faiths and none

have marched together demanding

tolerance and respect with pride and

passion. That much has led us here

today. This apology is a product of

their work, their sweat and tears

and I thank them deeply and

personally for it. And crucially it

allows our Scotland to take another

step of progress towards an equal

and progressive future for all.

Thank you.

APPLAUSE

APPLAUSE

It is time now to go live to the

garden lobby of the Scottish

Parliament.

Our line-up of MSPs today includes

Clare Haughey from the SNP,

Michelle Ballantyne

from the Conservatives,

Johann Lamont from Labour

and Liam McArthur from the Lib Dems.

Now, you folks have been discussing,

haven't you, child Parliament in --

child poverty in Parliament and the

idea of setting targets which should

in some way be enforceable for

meeting targets in child poverty.

Michelle Valentine, I'm curious in

that I doubt anyone was standing up

saying child poverty was a great

thing and they wanted more of it. I

just wonder whether binding targets

is the best way to tackle it?

I

think what we are saying is that

income targets are one thing but

what you really need to do is

address the underlying drivers of

poverty and we feel there is a

missed opportunity in this bill to

actually look at the key drivers

that cause the poverty such as

workless households, drug and

alcohol addiction, the educational

attainment gap and of course

mitigating the breakdown of

families. These are the things we

really want to address that we want

to sort out child poverty.

Clare,

can you explain why you think

targets are a good idea and secondly

what that means? Are these legally

binding targets and in the case of

the government target, what is

legally binding?

Did a thinning,

it's nice to speak to you. It's

important that we have targets. We

have to be able to measure targets

and see how far we have come. The

Scottish Government is investing

huge sums in challenging the

attainment target, we have invested

in baby boxes, committed to building

50,000 affordable homes in this

Parliament and all of this will help

in challenging the issues of child

poverty which I think we can all

agree is something we shouldn't have

to be battling.

But what does

binding targets mean in practical

terms? Let's say the targets aren't

met, what happens? There is no legal

recourse to a government for not

meeting a target, is there?

I think

again we have to have measures to

see how far we have come. You know,

we have two measure where we are

going, we have to look at the

investment we are putting in to

challenging poverty, bridging the

attainment gap, improving the health

of our nation and being able to

measure that against where we have

come from.

That is an argument,

isn't it, we often criticise the

Scottish Government for putting in

place grand ideas but not actually,

and not just the SNP government but

Labour governments before it, for

putting in projects which have grand

ideas but there are no benchmarks so

that we know whether the policies

are actually working or not. So in a

sense this is a step in the right

direction, isn't it?

I think that is why labour and SNP

did use targets. We have a legally

binding targets inside the health

system. We test everything we do

against that. It is not just that we

do lots of good things. Spending

money on this priority, does it

improve the situation or make it

worse? We have a range of things we

can spend money on. If you set a

target on closing the Child poverty

gap, the focus is on that. You test

everything you offer against that.

You wouldn't prioritise a cut and

air passenger duty because that

would not be Oney -- money that will

make a difference. I want a coming

together between the rhetoric and

the aspiration of the whole

parliament in tackling child

poverty, and in understanding the

causes. One thing I would say to

Michelle, there is a big issue about

precarious work, but people who are

in work, working hard. They get to

work and they are sent home after

investing in childcare. This is a

big problem for people. If we don't

address that... There are a lot of

things happening in communities and

to families that would mean people

are left in poverty and relying on

things.

Liam McArthur, the other

obvious issue is that setting a

target doesn't tell you anything

about how to meet it?

No, it

doesn't. There have been legitimate

concerns raised in the past about

where targets have been set. Joanne

rightly highlighted some of them. If

you focused on that you take

resource away from someone else

which you have already said is a

target and their priority. I think

all of us have agreed that setting a

legally binding target reflects the

priority we attach to bringing child

poverty down. It sends a message

that this is an issue not just for

one minister or government

department, but this is a priority

right across government, across the

public sector. It sends a message to

others who have a part to play in

this about the contribution they

need to make to achieving that

objective. It doesn't guarantee

anything. But I think it sends a

strong message about the work

government and agencies do.

Many

things can affect child poverty. I

take the point about targets. But

basically the big issue here is that

if you want to do something quickly

about child poverty, you increase

child benefits and child tax

credits?

I think there has obviously

been a proposition in relation to

increasing child benefit by £5 a

week. We have got some concerns

about that. If this is specifically

about addressing child poverty, you

want to find ways of directing the

resource more effectively on to

those who need it most. I think

probably a stronger argument in

relation to using the levers of tax

credits rather than child benefit.

There is a debate to be had, and

certainly, as you say, I think what

today is about is making sure that

that calculation is made.

OK.

Michelle Ballantyne, you don't think

that the targets are particularly a

good idea. Do the Conservatives have

any specific thing you would like

the Scottish government to do now

that may have some impact?

That is

not quite what I said. I said

targets were just one element. The

targets are important in terms of

setting measures. But the point here

is it is not just about income. And

targets along do not change child

poverty. It is about the four

elements that we now have a real

impact on child poverty. And

actually, within the bill what we

are looking at really is around

delivery plans. It is that bit

around delivery that is important.

It is what those delivery plans look

like that will potentially change

child poverty and what happens on

the ground.

All right. Clare

Haughey, delivery plans, not quite

sure what that means. Do you have

any specific plans? You agree target

is a good idea but do you know how

to meet it?

I think the biggest

threat to child poverty is the

roll-out of Universal Credit. We

have seen report after report

condemning the UK government for a

rolling out Universal Credit for

people with debt and rent arrears.

That is the biggest threat.

Johann

Lamont, is anything you say -- you

think should be prioritised?

I would

be investing in local government.

That is where life chances are

determined. A child coming to school

perhaps with a lot of challenges in

their home, into school whether

fewer people to support them. Less

likelihood of being able to support

that charge to learn, fewer teachers

etc. That applies across local

government. When you talk about

child poverty, it can't just be

about a line in a bill here. It has

to be about how you invest in those

services that actually can close the

gap. It is a big issue. The biggest

challenge is not to be overwhelmed

by it. But focus everything you do,

and every spending decision, on,

does this make things better or not?

And sadly, we are caught up in this

Parliament too often with things we

can offer people rather than a plan

for addressing poverty.

That is what

you are doing today. Tomorrow you

will be asking questions about

sexual harassment, which has become

a big issue. I am just curious,

Johann Lamont, there is some debate

about what in practical terms can be

done. Do you have any suggestion?

I

think this is a problem that goes

way beyond this Parliament. I think

people feel quite overwhelmed by

what has happened. What I am struck

by is that people in parliament are

looking at how we give folk a voice.

The reality is people are silenced

facing sexual harassment because

they are not in a position to speak

out. We should be mindful of that.

We should be thinking how we support

everyone experiencing this problem

across our communities. And the fact

is, the very fact we are talking

about it, saying it is unacceptable,

it is a preventative message, it is

about this is unacceptable, it is

protection, we will support people

if they will speak out, and it is

provision of support for people who

feel vulnerable. These are basic

things, but I do think we can look

at how it is delivered but we don't

address the broader culture, which

has been self evident over the last

period. This is not particular to

one place, one time, one class, one

profession. It is something far too

many women experience in their daily

lives and we need to give voice to

that. I think the work we have done

in the past shows we understand a

lot but there is clearly more to be

done.

Clare Haughey, do you think

there is more to be done within the

Scottish Parliament? Or is it such a

broad issue that coming up with

that? Plans of action can't really

deal with it?

I agree with almost

everything that Johann Lamont has

said about sexual harassment through

workplaces, not just in Parliament.

But certainly in Parliament we need

to look at our guidelines. We need

to look at the processes. We need to

let people know they can't come

forward. -- can come forward. Their

complaints will be treated with

respect and in confidence. We need

guidelines so that people can have

an idea of how to do that and also

of the remedies we want, the

outcome. We need to ensure

complainers feel confident in the

process that the Parliament has a

round about them.

Michelle

Ballantyne, this is kind of a

cross-party issue. I will put a

Labour idea to you. Richard Leonard

suggested at the weekend that in the

Labour Party they might like to have

someone who is independent, or

seemed to be independent, perhaps

not even a member of the Labour

Party, that people felt they could

approach. This issue is not just

about what happened in the last week

in Parliament but in parties. Maybe

all the parties could do that?

Yes,

I'm pleased to say that the

Conservatives, my party, have

reacted quickly. A new code of

conduct has been delivered. It does

provide the ability to have the

confidential line that you can ring.

You can feel confident that

information will be kept secure and

treated with respect. Any problems

or complaints look that will include

independents. We are already down

that line.

I am not doubting that

but the issue is, do people really

believe that? If that has been there

already and the problem is people

haven't been coming forward, then

they clearly think that somehow or

other this process is not what you

have just described?

I think the

problem is, or rather the benefit

now, is that we are talking openly

about

about it and the system now make

sure that people listen to and they

have confidence to make that phone

call. Potentially there was a

problem across the board before of

people not feeling they could make

the phone call, that they could talk

to somebody. So actually, having the

conversation now is hoping that

confidence, I think. That is

important. But I think within each

party you need to be able to do it

internally as as cross -- across

workplaces, and be clear that you

will be respected and listen to.

Liam McArthur, do you think there

are a specific things that could be

done? Is it really about changing

the culture?

It is certainly about

changing the culture. There is no

dispute about that. Some of the

stuff we have been discussing here

are procedural issues which are

absolutely crucial. They need to be

seen to be independent, to allow

anonymity and give people the

confidence to bring forward

complaints are issues of consent, or

simply advice. At that stage also,

provide a degree of Pastoral support

as well. But fundamentally, this is

about changing cultures. I think if

anything good is to come out of

this, it has to be that we have this

debate that allows us to send a

strong message about what is

acceptable and what is not, and

ensure that the instances of this

going forward, not just in

Parliament but in politics -- or in

politics, but in wider society,

become less if not entirely

nonexistent in the future.

We will

leave it there. Thank you for

joining us. Ruth, are there any easy

answers to this? You can set up as

many mechanisms as you like but if

people still feel, and are not just

talking about Parliament, I'm

talking about any organisation, if

people feel even if they treat me

sympathetically, even if the people

I'm accusing is punished, the bottom

line is I will not get the promotion

Mwale will get back at me some way?

That has historically been the case

because as many commentators have

said it is about an abuse of power.

Not infrequently, the victim of

sexual harassment is not in that

position of power, and the person

who is abusing them is perhaps their

employer or their immediate boss.

However, the me too campaign is

fascinating. It encourages men and

women from all professions and

industries to say, this happen to

me. This is so widespread. It is

such a global reaction. I have got a

kind of modest hope that we will see

a changing culture.

Deeming that

just because it is out there now --

do you mean... The big test is if

this all dies away, the media

attention goes away from it and it

is not the top of the news. It is

whether three months than the line

someone suffers an instance of this

and they feel confident enough to

say, this time I am going to

complain?

I was worried about that,

not least because 56 days into this

crisis, a lot of male commentators

started to say, it is a lot of fuss

about nothing. -- five or six days.

I thought it was perhaps when to go

away. But this time I think those

men, and it is a minority of men,

but those men who think it is

acceptable behaviour will, I think,

now think once or twice or thrice

about it because they know there is

a new confidence abroad among female

employees. I think, to quote a movie

that is a favourite of mine, I'm mad

as hell and I'm not going to take it

any more.

Ruth, thank you. That is

all we have time for. Brian Taylor

is here tomorrow. I will be back

next week.

Until then, goodbye.