16/01/2013 Politics Scotland

Hello and welcome to Politics Scotland. Coming up: Freedom of

Information laws will be passed at Holyrood, without a controversial

royal secrecy clause. Alex Salmond sets out his thinking

on a constitution for an independent Scotland. Modern

constitutional thinking says its citizens have the right of

engagement & protection from government, this is the way the

world is moving. As a modern democracy Scotland should move in

that direction. The year of Natural Scotland begins. What is it and how

can we benefit? MPs have backed plans for a Scottish independence

referendum and now the House of Lords are having their say. Good

afternoon. Let's turn our attention first to the Freedom of Information

legislation that's likely to be passed at Holyrood this afternoon.

I'm joined in the studio by our political commentator for the

afternoon, Mike Wade. He writes for The Times. Good afternoon and will

come. Mike, these new laws are there to update the previous

legislation, aren't they? That is very much what we are therefore.

There had been some concerns expressed that there was an

absolute exception proposed for the Royal Family, but also some other

companies were likely to be exempted. The Scottish government

has moved all the way it on the royal family but some arms-length

companies could be exempt for some time. These are housing

associations and private companies which might undertake public sector

work? Won very well known company was one you might want to find out

information about if you possibly can. Back with you in a moment,

Mike. Let's cross to Holyrood now and pick up on this issue, and a

few others, with Paul Martin from Labour, Willie Rennie, the leader

of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, and from the SNP we have Stewart

Maxwell. Good afternoon to you all and thank you for joining me. First

of all, we were discussing freedom of information legislation. If

campaigners are one thing that law extended to cover housing

associations, why has that not happened? That power already exists

in section 5. By statutory instrument, you can extend the list

of bodies but it is proper that the Government consults properly a

matter and make sure it is the right thing to do, and we will

cover all the bases when it is time to do that. This current bill means

we can keep ahead of the game and we have made sure it is the most of

August legislation in the UK will stop it tightens up some areas and

extends the length of time prosecutions can take. This still

leaves open the door for further extensions to these powers. What is

the point of leaving the door open at this point? We're having a stage

three debate this afternoon and it is likely to be passed at Holyrood

today. Why not put this in the current bill? The powers currently

exist in the 2002 bill so we do not need more changes currently to

extend the number of bodies. That will be dealt with after

consultation with specific bodies including some of the ones you have

been discussing. Paul Martin, you say you what this legislation to

keep track of taxpayers' money but many people have accused the

Freedom of Information legislation is of abusing taxpayers' money. The

phrase, slippers charter, has been used. -- snooper's. There has been

a lot of scrutiny but let's nick it very clear, he refers to the door

are many open and it has been open for the last five years for them to

bring forward this and they have not done that. There were failings

by the previous government and there are some concerns that we

have to bring forward some additional organisations to be

included in this legislation. can turn to Willie Rennie. We have

been hearing that the campaigners have won the extension to people

like housing associations, but does he make a clear case that a that

already exists and that we have kept an open mind about extension

in the future? It has always existed that he is correct in that

respect but it is coming up for six years and the SNP have not acted

once. Not one single extension has been added. They have not added one

organisation and that whole time and that is why we have 130 arms

length organisations. The public pound is not under scrutiny as it

once was and that has to change. would like to back up on another.

We're covering today. Alex Salmond is talking about a written

constitution which seems like a fairly modern idea, and that is one

that you're party supports. It is all about things like access to a

homeland in education. Is that something you would support? This

is something Labour and Liberal Democrats have campaigned for a

foray very long time and would like to see delivered, but this is just

the fat is say, really. It is not focusing on the real things like

how an independent Scotland could afford such things and that is at

the centre of the independence debate, which is why Alex Salmond

likes to talk about things like that rather than the substance of

how he would achieve it. The UK did not pay much heed to a written

constitution. Are you in favour? it was the Labour Party which

deliver the first Scottish Parliament in the hundred years'.

Within one year, Tony Blair deliver the referendum. The decided

overwhelmingly to deliver a Scottish Parliament with tax

varying powers. We will not now see a referendum until 2014 so why will

not take any directions from anyone in connection with the way the

Labour Party have been effective in going forward and the mother and

democracy. You seem to have had some support from Willie Rennie and

the Liberal Democrats but do you not think that sitting down this

compares with what other modern European democracies have? These

were just some ideas which could be included such as that Scotland

would not have weapons of mass destruction in its land or water.

Some of these questions would be for a future independent Scotland

to determine what the written constitution contains, but the idea

of basic principles of education and not having nuclear weapons in

Scotland are the kind of things I think the Scottish people would

support. I just want to turn to another constitutional point. The

Lords are debating giving the power to Scotland to have that a

referendum. Some have said that Alex Salmond will do what he likes

ones that referendum is delivered at Lord's Forsyth said that Alex

Salmond did not give out any clear indication he would abide by the

electoral prescriptions? This is exactly the same as what the UK

parliament do, they will listen to the advice, the very careful advice,

provided by the Electoral Commission and move forward on that

advice. That is exactly what the UK Government has done and what the

Scottish government will do. Scottish government are following

what the UK Government is doing? do not want to see what has

happened in the past which is the SNP Government accusing -- abusing

their majority in the Scottish Parliament. We want to ensure there

is a fair referendum put forward in 20th November 14 up or whatever

that date is to be. It needs to be fair and objective and it needs to

be interrogated in a fair manner which does not see the SNP are

abusing their majority. This is the positive message from the no

campaign. They are saying that the Scottish Parliament is not the

democratic place, an assault on this very institution! I want to

take up this point with Willie Rennie. Lord Forsyth made this

point and he is one of your Coalition colleagues. Do you agree

with him? Not always the! He is known for his strong views.

Everyone is nervous how the SNP will handle this and that is why

there is such close scrutiny. I am pleased about the commitment shown

today, saying they will follow the advice. If we have those kind of

standards, I think it will be good. Willie Rennie, Paul Martin and

Stuart Maxwell, we will let you get off to take part in that debate

just now. Thank you. We are going to discuss

this here in the studio just now. Good afternoon to you both. We were

talking about that extension to private bodies such as housing

associations. Stuart Maxwell made the point that that exists already.

Are you happy with that? The power has existed since 2002. We had a

promise that the power would be used quickly and it has never been

used. Other hopes were raised in 2010 when the Scottish government

undertook a consultation which proposed a list of bodies to be

covered by freedom of information legislation and the even produced a

draft order, but then nothing happened. He we are hugely

disappointed that nothing has happened since then and it is a

problem created by successive administrations, but we are where

we are just now and we have to concentrate on the opportunity

today to strengthen freedom of information laws. The fundamental

point which makes it important for people at home is that for people

who are housing association residents, you believe they can no

longer access that information? 2002, housing associations were in

the original bill at stage three, and it was said that they would be

withdrawn for various reasons but there would be further consultation

and inclusion in the future. That did not happen. We have a twofold

problem. According to the Scottish Information Commissioner, many

tenants lost their information rights when they were transferred

to housing associations and then you have all the tenants who never

had freedom of information who want to get all sorts of information

about the homes, the community that the 11. Not personal information

because that is protected, but all sorts of other technical

information, so they do not have the freedom of information right.

Others have lost their right such as if a council has transferred the

public service over to the leisure Trust also up the problem with

Freedom of Information legislation is that it is a robust but it has

not been kept up-to-date without changes have been delivered in

Scotland. There has been an opportunity to fix that every year

since 2002 and that has not happened. As a working journalist,

we're talking about these changes kept up-to-date. Are there any

changes that would make your job easier or harder? I am not sure the

new legislation would benefit journalists massively. Quite often

I have found that freedom of information can be been very slow

process. Organisations can hide behind Freedom of Information

requests and take time and let the story die. I find it can be better

if you surprised them. Generally I do not use a Freedom of Information

very much because I find it can be slow and even an overwhelming

process. Does that staked a chord with you? Been the case of

journalists, does that sound like the legislation is not working

properly? I think it is the very interesting discussion because that

is not the one we have been having over the last several months. That

is about how freedom of information can be made simpler and more

accessible, but it was created initially to solve a problem, which

is the public right to know and they were so often refused. The

strong element is the enforceable right that the Scottish information

commissioner. In on your behalf. It is about empowering ordinary people

but I understand the point that is being made. We will have to leave

it there. We can go live to the chamber at Holyrood where the

Conservatives are speaking on this The fact that it wasn't done in the

intervening period from the initial act being passed I think is neither

here nor there. I think it is important we seat mechanism being

utilised but for that reason I don't think it is strictly

necessary. In the absence of a regulatory impact assessment - I'm

slightly nervous about what impact it might have - and I'm slightly

concerned it could cut against the better regulation agenda. For those

reasons, we'll not be supporting Amendment 70. Thank you. Willie

Rennie. I support the proposals from Elaine Murray. I think they

are sensible. If we are trying to get a regime that follow the public

pound, this is the way we should proceed. It seems a relatively

simple and devolved way of operating. It means that we can

make sure that rather than relying on the kind of retrospective

Section 5, swi worthy in its own right and should be used. -- which

is worthy. It allows us to have a proactive scheme so we can tract

our public pound with regards with the freedom of information ajeem. I

think it is a sensible way to proceed. I think that's the way

that we should proceed. Thank you. I call on the Cabinet Secretary.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Amendment 7 is similar, in many

respects to an amendment that Alieen Murray put forward at stage

2, although I appreciate she has made some changes to reflect the

discussions that took place at stage 2. As I said at stage 2 I'm

not unsympathetic to the intention behind this provision. Certainly it

is the case that consultation has shown this the public favours the

public authority being the access point to information. However, the

concerns I I have about this amendment are very similar to the

concerns I had at stage 2. And this is that there are - or there maybe

unintend, indeed unpredictable consequences of it. The amendment

concerns any organisation exercising any function of an

authority or providing any service, the provision of which is a

function of the authority. Given the numerous organisations that

that might include it, becomes apparent very quickly that it would

be unclear which organisations might be expected to be holding

information on behalf of a particular public authority it.

Would become almost inpop for an authority to know what information

it holds and this would be exacerbated when information is

held further down the supply chain. Administering these arrangements

potentially place burden on all individual public authorities as

well as additional administrative burdens on them and other

organisations. It would place a considerable policing burden on the

Information Commissioner. The amendment provides the relevant

information, "Relates to an exercise or function in relation to

a were vision or service." The meaning is unclear and imprecise.

It leaves considerable potential for ambiguity and uncertainty as it

what information may be within scope. Of particular practical

concern, the arrangement - again I would point out to members that the

term "arrangement" is undefined in the amendment. The arrangements

must include provision for the timely provision of the information

to the authority in the event of a request for information. That would

apply down the supply chain and it would become increasingly difficult

for the authority to comply, with as it has no direct control down

that chain. Dr Murray has also, herself, pointed to an issue around

interpretation of the value of contract. Now, I hear what Elaine

Murray says and it maybe that she thinks she knows what is meant by

the �1 million in the amendment, but with the greatest of respect

I'm not sure that's sufficient if there is lack of provision about

what it means in respect to the example she used around that.

That was Nicola Sturegon, the Deputy First Minister speaking in

the Chamber there about freedom of information legislation. I'm still

joined by Mike Wade from the Times in the studio. Freedom of

information can be tricky for governments, can't it? Yes, I think

Tony Blair makes the point in his autobiography, that he didn't

regret the war in Iraq and did regret the freedom of information

legislation and fox-hunting. The snooper's charter. Maybe it was a

phrase he coined. If you look like a case like Lockerbie, it seems to

me, when you go after that case, that freedom of information will

get you so far but it doesn't necessarily get you to the truth.

So, like I said earlier, governments - or officials find

ways not to give you information. They always do that. Now the First

Minister, as we pointed out earlier, has said rights to a home and free

education could feature in a constitution for an independent

Scotland. He made the comments during a speech in London this

morning. Westminster is preparing it transfer the power to hold a

referendum to Edinburgh. Mr Salmond was speaking to our Political

Editor, Brian Taylor. He set out what he considered were the

practical gains of a written constitution.

The sort of ideas that the SNP would contribute to a process that

would engage all of Scotland as well as all the Scottish political

parties are things like a protection in terms of free

education. Scotland pioneered free education hundreds of years ago. We

have a policy and we've restored free education but it should be a

constitutional protection. The right of every Scottish family to

have a home. We have statute but shouldn't it be a constitutional

provision? Shouldn't there be a constitutional were vision banning

weapons of mass destruction from an independent Scotland? The right and

terms of protection about how countries are taken into

international conflict. A huge issue ten years ago, the illegal

war in Iraq, with disastrous consequence, the House of Commons

misled into that conflict, shouldn't thereby a were vision in

the constitution which say these are the provision that is have to

be met if Scottish forces are to be committed to an international

conflict? So these are the things which you can put in a modern

constitution which engages the citizens and are the big issues of

the day. It could be said these are not constitutional issues per se,

they are policy issues. You have listed the SNP manifesto or part of

it. I have listed things that the SNP regard are so important that we

would propose are in the constitution. Education, isn't it a

policy issue to be debated? It is a right for Scottish citizens to have

access to free education. Modern constitutional thinking says that

citizens have right, they have the right of engagement and protection

from governments. This is the way the world is moving. In the Commons,

almost perhaps more particularly in the Lords, Lord Forsyth and others

are saying this is a blank cheque to your government. They are

concerned about this. There are MPs and Lords saying this. It is a

blank cheque to your government. Will be respond, responsibly, if

you like, to this? Or will you exercise powers in ways that

perhaps add to their fears, for example over the wording of the

question? We are going to have a referendum in Scotland, which is an

exemplar in terms of international experience. But, frankly, we don't

need lessons from Michael Forsyth, Lord Forsyth in the unelected House

of Lords about the democratic impertives that will follow. These

are people in the last ditch. He can not stand the idea that Scot

sland now in charge of our own destiney. That's basically what

sticks in the craw of Lord Forsyth and he and his colleagues, I

suspect will be in that last ditch for some time to come. Will you

exploit the powers given. Will you, for example insist on your own

wording on the question? Will you insist on your own plans for the

funding for the campaign? In terms of the referendum, the process that

will be abided by in Scotland as we provide a exemplar in international

experience are those that would be abided by in a Westminster

referendum. The Electoral Commission makes the testing

arrangements, which they are doing and then Parliament decides. That's

what happens in Westminster referendums. What sticks in the

craw of Michael Forsyth and what he and his colleagues object to, is

the decisions are being made in Scotland. If it was being made in

the unelected House of Lords they would be entirely comfortable with

that. But you welcome the section 30 move,

presumably? I think it is an example of how, if governments talk

to each other, and come through proper negotiations they can come

with up a good conclusion. I welcome the fact that the ps

passage of the section 30, already passed in the Scottish Parliament,

means we can get on to deciding the whys of independence and the SNP's

concentration will be in spelling out advantages of Scotland being an

independent country. On the wherefors for a moment as well as

the whys, do you expect much change to the question you proposed when

you put it forward to the Electoral Commission? We put it forward. The

Electoral Commission are doing their job of evaluating the

question. They'll make their report and Parliament will decide. It is a

fair and responsible process and it is a process we are going through.

In every respect, this is going to be a referendum, not just made in

Scotland but that will stand up to the most stringent of international

scrutiny. The First Minister speaking there

to Brian Taylor. I'm joined by Mike Wade our commentator for the

afternoon. Mike, many modern European democracies have written

constitutions. It's interesting, of course, Britain has never - the UK

has never had one. Where are the positives and negatives of one?

slightly sceptical, I must say about the written constitution. The

granddady is the American constitution. You know, Mr Salmond

referred to the big issues of the day. The big issues of the day in

the 1770s and 1780s was gun ownership in America. It is

enshrined in the American constitution. We know what problems

they have with that now. The First Minister talks, forbg, or implies

free housing. -- for example. Free housing or free education is of

course desirable. But in two generations when they have run out,

do you want it enshrined into the constitution. You could have an

issue like immigration taking off in a big way, if you are suggesting

everyone in Scotland has free education and fre housing. Now,

Scotland -- free. Now, Scotland wants more immigration but that

could capitalise in a an awful lot more. Brian Taylor was asking Mr

Salmond there if there were not more constitutional but policy

questions. It was interesting the one about Trident. In some ways, if

that was in a written - you know, no nuclear weapons in an

independent Scotland, if that was written into the constitution, that

could bind future governments, couldn't it? I think so. Also, you

are including some things in and some things out. What else are you

going to keep out? Are you going to say, for example, a vivisection or

a controversial issue like that, we don't agree, so will that be

enshrined in the constitution? I don't know so. Many things can come

in or out of the reckoning. I think the mystery of the British cons

stuegs, it fits well for some people -- constitution.

It is unusual in the world but it has worked pretty well for a long

time. Finally, just to tie everything up politically, we are

speaking to the MSPs about Lord Forsyth's points, Brian was

bringing that up, Lord Forsyth said the transfer of powers, the section

30 order should happen once the dated and question should be agreed.

Now it was interesting, Mr Salmond put the point that of course the

Scottish Parliament was a democratic organisation,

democratically elected and would decide and, you know fairly decide

what was going to happen I did agree with the First Minister. It

is the democratic choice in Scotland. It's what people want and

that's what should happen. There are one or two sect r sectors risen

up about the SNP controlling pamt. Well that was what democracy was

about. That's what the Labour Party in Scotland - if they were

concerned about that, they perhaps should have organised a better

election campaign in 2011. Back with you in a moment. Now, David

Cameron has lost control over the Conservative Party over Europe Ed

Miliband claimed ahead of the Prime Minister's long-awaited speech on

the UK's relationship with Brussels. The party leaders clashed at Prime

Minister's Questions, with Mr David Miliband warning that Friday's

speech would only result in a fresh round of Tory in-fighting on Europe.

Mr Speaker, when the Prime Minister first became leader of the

Conservative Party, he said that their biggest problem was they

spent far too much of their time banging on about Europe. Is he glad

those days are over? CHEERS AND JEERS

I think that even the leader of the Labour Party should accept the fact

that there is a massive change taking place in Europe. A change

that is being driven by the changes in the eurozone and, Frankly, this

country faces a choice and political parties in this country

face a choice - do we look at these changes and see what we can do to

maximise Britain's national interest? And do we consult the

public about that? Or do we sit back, do nothing and tell the

public to go hang. I know where I stand. I know where this party

stands and that's in the national Let's talk Waco credit where he

stands today! I shoot to congratulate tunnel link their -

deciding on the eight of his speech. Well done at! Another example of

the Rolls-Royce operation of 10 Downing Street. What is his answer

to this question that investors need to know - will Britain be in

the European Union in five years' time? Can I first of all

congratulate him up on an important decision he has made - Ditcheat the

shadow chancellor in place until 2015. Rarely do we see so much

cross-party support! My view is that Britain is much better off in

the European Union and it is right for us to see the changes taking

place in Europe and to make sure that we are arguing for the changes

that Britain needs, so that therefore we have a better

relationship between Britain and Europe, be a better organised

European Union and the consent of the British people. What are his

choices? Maybe we are making a bit of progress. In October, 2011, we

what shoulder to shoulder through the lobby. You might call at two

parties working together in the national interest. The Foreign

Secretary said at the time, and he was going to Australia to get as

far away from the Prime Minister as possible, the reason for our fault

is that an additional referendum would create the economic

uncertainty at a difficult time. Was the Foreign Secretary erect?

-- right. He only wants to talk about process because he dares not

speak about the substance. I do not think it would be correct to have a

referendum today because we would be giving the British people a

false choice close-up millions of people in this country want Britain

to stay within the European Union but they think their chances to

negotiate better relations. Throughout Europe, countries are

looking at forthcoming treaty change and wondering what they can

do to maximise their interests. Let's look at the substance and

give up the field jocks. -- feeble jokes. First of all, I thought the

jocks were pretty good but I am talking about the substance. How

his position appears to be an inner out the referendum now would be

destabilising, but promising one in five years' time is just OK for the

country. What does that mean? That his ideas of businesses seeing a

closed for business I'm hanging around Britain. What did Lord

Heseltine say? He is one of the few mainstream voice is in the

Conservative Party and he said that to come back to a referendum about

the negotiation that has not begun on a timescale you cannot predict

on an outcome that is unknown seems to me like an unnecessary gamble.

As Lord Heseltine right? It is no secret that when it comes to Europe

there are disagreements between myself and Michael Heseltine. He

was one of the leading voices were batting joining the single currency

and I am delighted that we have not joined that. Under my leadership,

we never will. That is still the view of thousands of businesses up

and down the country. I want a more flexible and competitive Europe

that can take on the challenges of the global race and the eyes of

nations in the south and east. reason he is changing his mind is

because he has lost control of the party. The problem is this. He

thinks the problems in Europe will end on Friday but they are just

beginning. Can he confirm that he is now giving the green light to

Conservative Cabinet minister has to campaign on different positions

on whether the art for against the European Union? It is so Britain's

interests to seek a fresh settlement that is more flexible

and competitive and that a is what we will see.

Let's stay down at Westminster and speak to our correspondent, David

Porter. Let's speak to our commentator Mike Wade again. He is

under real pressure from Ed Miliband and is being repeatedly

asked about the way cabinet ministers will respond. I am sure

there will be an awful lot of the same time pop stuff once he makes

that long awaited speech on Friday morning. The chance was that David

Cameron had lost control of his party on Europe. Think back to the

1990s and all the problems the Conservatives suffered over Europe

then. David Cameron said he would be making his vision on how a

conservative parliament would deal with Europe in future in his speech

on Friday. He does not what to box himself up into a particular

position at the moment but you can see what a key political issue

Europe is also up -- Europe currently is. The section 30 border

was debated yesterday and this afternoon it will be debated in the

House of Lords? And about one hour, the House of Lords will be doing

what the House of Commons dead yesterday. -- did. It did not even

go to a vote yesterday because MPs were in agreement. The government

whips are fairly confident that this will go through and next month

we'd all go to the Privy Council and then it will be up to the

Scottish Parliament to frame the legislation. Everyone thinks that

will be in the autumn of 2014. Joining me now there are three

Scottish MPs with an interest in this and on the variety of other

issues discussed this week. Let's start first with all things

Scottish bash the section 30 order which was debated in the House of

Commons yesterday. Not a huge amount of disagreement but I think

everyone in Scottish politics is now really saying it is time to get

on with the referendum campaign? The most important thing now is

that the process is over at the Scottish Parliament can legally

hold a referendum and we can get to the arguments, which are the

important things. No one of our generation will have a bigger

decision to make and we have to discuss the real arguments at stake.

From the SNP's point of view, some criticisms yesterday that the SNP

Government has not said it will be bound by the advice of the

Electoral Commission. Why is that? Can I say first that I thought the

initial debate was very good and the Secretary of State's, it's

perfectly captured the mood of a historic transfer of power. There

was some rather intemperate nonsense later a bit dictatorships

and I'm sure there will be apologies for that in due course.

The Scottish government are now in exactly the same position as the UK

Government. The Scottish government will consider that advice. We will

look at what the Electoral Commission say before we jumped the

gun on everything else falls up how important do you think it is that

the parties signed up to what the Electoral Commission will say about

the funding of the campaign and the question? To disregard the advice

would be damaging to the SNP's position. No British Government has

disregarded it, sometimes negotiated but never disregard it.

I make my comments yesterday that the SNP should be careful but if

they take the advice, what we want is the referendum that everyone has

confidence in and where the result will not be challenged by any site.

Whoever wins will win and the losers will follow from that. I am

not in favour of independence but arm are very much in favour of a

clear and independent process. you worried that if there is

knottier referendum until 2014, the daughters and Scotland will get a

bit fed up with all of this? It is such an important decision, and

there is a fairness to the idea that an early referendum has some

advantages, but this is the time for a proper debate. There is no

bigger decision and there is no going back so we have the

opportunity now to talk about the substance. We believe we are better

together and will be making that argument strongly. Do you believe

we need the length of time that it will take to make this decision?

The debate about this process has been interminable for the

electorate and very boring. Up we do have a lot to discuss. There are

a lot of positive and transformational ideas to get

across. Even with Alex Salmond being interviewed this morning, he

talked about the written constitution that could enshrine

the right to education brought to a home. It is incredibly exciting and

unlike my friends here, I am confident people will respond

positively. The longer this goes on, the more uncertainty there is and

that is damaging, but I agree that we have started the process and it

has taken time to get to this point. All credit to the UK Parliament for

recognising that we should transfer the power to Scotland which some

did not think we would do. The SNP have to recognise there are a lot

of questions they cannot answer. Not because they have the

intelligence but because it is not under their control. Even when we

get to November, 2014, I think there will still be unanswered

questions which is why people make cautiously say this is too

difficult and will decide positively to stay within the

United Kingdom. Do you think we're moving towards having some kind of

referendum on Britain's relationship not just with Scotland

but with Europe as well? Anyone watching the Prime Minister's

Questions today would see the Prime Minister who appears to be a

prisoner of his backbenchers. He has been rendered speechless at

Brady should see him come out and make this speech. -- Friday should

see. How is he going to be able to convince his European partners when

it all the rhetoric is about departure from his backbenches?

What they referendum on Scotland, you would surely say that with

something as important as Europe that the people of United Kingdom

or whatever it encompasses at the time should have their chance to

have their say on Europe? thought that should have been under

the last pilot and Labour did not deliver. We're not talking here

about changes coming from Europe that David Cameron might want to

consult on falls up we are talking about him that desperate to pander

to the right wing of his party. What I am saying is that the only

threat to Scotland's place in Europe comes from a right-wing Tory

party which want to drag the UK out of Europe under any circumstances,

irrespective of what David Cameron might negotiate. I do not expect

you to get the Conservative cause any credence. From the Liberal

Democrat point of view, you wanted a referendum but the party now

seems to be backing away from that? I am in favour of neither reading.

We think any decision should be put to the people in their referendum

but I do not think we should be having a this in the middle of a

negotiation which makes no sense. I do actually agree with both David

Miliband and Ed Miliband what is that for Britain to be threatening

to leave creates a huge uncertainty for us and is incredibly dangerous.

Nick Clegg described it as chilling. There is no place for Britain

outside of Europe. Negotiation is fine but threatening to leave will

It has been a perishly cold day here. We'll let them get back into

the warm. Back to you. You get back inside as well. Thank

you very much. Now let's speak to our commentate ore in the studio,

Mike Wade. It was interesting to see those exchanges at Prime

Minister's Questions. David Cameron under a lot of pressure and the

Labour spokesman saying that Mr Cameron is a prisoner of his own

backbenchers when it comes to Europe. He is in a lot of trouble.

He seems to have - he has so many constituencies to serve, over

Europe, it's impossible for him to do the job. You know, he took a

call apparently from Angela Merkel at the weekend asking him to change

his speech from Sunday to Friday. He has that constituency to serve.

That was because it clashed with a French-German celebration. He has

his own backbenchers to please. He has business to please. He actually

can't serve all those constituencies. He doesn't look

like a strong leader at the moment. Very tough for him now. Of course

Mr Cameron was attacking lib and saying that they were only dare --

Labour and saying they were only daring to debate the process and

not the substantive point. referendum on Europe could be a

problem for Labour. I'm fairly certain that Labour would go in

fairly united. Well not completely but thrust would be support for EU

membership, I'm sure of. Of course there are dissenters in Labour.

They are not as numerous or difficult as the Tories.

interesting point about the dissenters. Ed Miliband kept

pushing that point. What would he do with Cabinet ministers? Would

they be allowed to dissent? Would there be freedom there? It is

amusing Hague is on the other side of the world. There are huge

dissepbts and divisions within the Conservative ranks. -- dissents. I

really don't think Cameron can do a lot about that. This is a key

moment for him. The Scottish point. The SNP there making that point

that they had been debating the section 30 order to give Edinburgh

the powers to hold the referendum here. He called it boring for the

electorate. Now it seems that the parties are getting ready for the

real debate. I think that's true. The "yes" campaign, since its

launch, hasn't really come up with very much, from where I'm standing.

There has ban lot of gripes about the negativity of Better Together

but the "yes" campaign hasn't really made the pace yet. Stuart

Hosie from his own point of view better be right. They have lost

ground and they have gone down in the polls because they have not

been making the pace on this. for a taste of yesterday's topical

questions at Holyrood. The Health Secretary, Alec Neil explained how

access to treatment for people with rare medical conditions in Scotland

would be improved. It follow his Government's launch of a �21

million found help meet the cost of so-called orphan medicines, used to

treat illnesses affecting fewer than one in 2,000 people To ask the

Scottish Government how price willing impact on the availability

of orphan and ultra-orphan medicines SNP Presiding officer,

pricing of medicines is a debatable matter and pricing debates are

ongoing. These proposals are being taken place by the Department of

Health in England and the pharmaceutical industry throughout

the UK. We hope that agreement on a pricing system which reflects the

value of medicines, in terms of clinical effectiveness can be

approved, along with a wider contribution that that should make

to societyal benefit and or meeting unmet needs. In the meantime, work

is under way in Scotland it develop a fund to cover the cost of

successful individual patient treatment request for high-cost,

low-volume orphan medicines which have not been recommended for

routine use by the Scottish Medicines Consortium. This report

is a response to interim advice by an independent expert who is

leading a strand of work, within the new medicines review, to

examine the current IPTR arrangements. The fund will cover

the cost of orphan medicines for individual patients, for whom there

are clear clinical grounds for their prescription through the IPTR

arrangements. The fund of �21 million will be available from 1st

March 2013 for a period of 13 months until the UK system of value

pays pricing is established. The fund is in addition to the existing

NHS board funding allocations and it will not be applied

retrospectively. Detailed operational arrangements will be

developed and will be announced in due course.

Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for that comprehensive response. In

light of what he just said, does the Cabinet Secretary share my

concerns that the medicine was offered at a higher cost in

Scotland adds it was in England and can he give any insight on the

higher price by the decisions made by the Scottish Consortium. I am

concerned that any pharmaceutical company would offer their drugs at

a more expensive rate than they do south of the border. A decision of

the -- detail of the decision will be published on the website.

manufacturer of the drug have indicated they will be resubmitting

the drugs to the SMP with a patient access scheme as it was in England.

Clearly it is a matter for the SMC to carry out the reassessment of

the drug once it has been committed. But I would observe that

specialised commission groups, who carried out the drugs' assessment

during the first assessment were clear that without the patient

access scheme discount, the ratio would be mo more than the range

that NICE has set out for ultra- orphan drugs. 3013 has been Des

ignaid the year of Natural Scotland by the Scottish Government. It is

billed as a chance to highlight the country's natural assets.

We are joined by the Chief Executive of Scottish natural

heritage. Good afternoon. Thank you for joining us.

Can you tell me what is proposed about Natural Scotland. What does

it mean? OK. It is basically a whole year of events and things

tied around promoting Scotland as a place to visit but also a police

for people who live here to get out and enjoy -- a place for people who

live here to get out and enjoy. Based around the natural

environment we have, the landscapes, all the things we are world famous

for. What are the key highlights you are pushing in terms of animals

and natural highlights and areas of outstanding natural beauty. A few

things will happen throughout the year. We'll be launching Scotland's

Big Five. Five Scottish animals that people can go out and see. One

of the great things about living in Scotland is you can see wildlife

very easily. There are seals and deer and all sorts of things that

you can go and see. We will be encouraging people to do that We

will be having promotions. Visit Scotland are leading for Government

on the turnism aspect of this. They will be promoting deals with travel

companies to encourage people to get out and visit things. We are

developing things like apps for train journeys, so you cannot just

sit in the train and watch the countryside go by, but you can

learn a bit about what it is you are looking at and what lives there

as well. That's an interesting one. That of can make rather boring

train journeys perhaps a bit more interesting. Do you think it'll

really help Scots get out there and experience natural Scotland? Well,

I hope so, obviously. That's a big point, particularly for SNH. What

we know is that the number of people who live in Scotland who go

out and who enjoy the countryside, it's being going up slowly but very,

very slowly. One of the reasons we find that people don't do that is

they are not sure where to go. We want to go somewhere where they are

going to feel comfortable, they know what they are going to see.

They know what will be interesting. And that kind of holds them back a

bit at the moment. So this is a really big opportunity for us to

work with lots of other people to get that message across, to say -

look, it really is easy. And that it doesn't matter whether you live

in the north of Scotland or centre of glass go. There are

opportunities there. Here is where they are. Here is what you do and

to make people feel comfortable. Are you nervous about how this

might proceed. We had Year of Homecoming and the year of Creative

Scotland which was controversial. Have you got your fingers crossed

all will go well? Well, I'm very optimistic. I think we've had a

great start. We saw at the end of last year that Scotland came out as

one of the places in the world to visit according to CNN. You

couldn't get a better start to that. But I know we have a great asset

out there. We have wonderful countryside and great wildlife.

What's not to like about it? Finally, what inspires you most

about Scotland? If spis tors were coming to Scot whrand would you

tell them about and urge them to see? What is your favourite thing?

I should confess I started life as a marine biologist. I know when

people come across from Europe one of the things they are amazed by is

our sea shores, our sea birds and how easily it is to see animals

like seals and dolphins. You know, quite difficult in many parts of

Europe and that's a real eye-opener. I may be biased, I admit but that's

the special thing for me. That's great. Thank you very much for

coming in to speak to us. Let's get some final thoughts from

our political commentator for the afternoon, Mike Wade.

Mike, interesting, we have got another year of something in

Scotland. How successful do you think this might be? I was

greatified that Mr Jardine was so chipper. The year of Creative

Scotland ended with the Chief Executive resigning. It was an

outstanding success and the Year of Homecoming, also, had a lot of

problems. That was in terms of funding. Yes. A lot of companies

were left out. It did draw people in, that's true. I think there is

another potential risk for the Government in this one. If I was a

campaigner on windfarms, I would be using every opportunity this year

to draw attention to windfarms. The Council of Scotland are talking

about 6,000 turbines planned or in the process of being sited in

Scotland. Now it does seem to me that that is at odds, when you

think that eight windfarms planned around the Cairngorms, Scotland has

very little land in natural parks. That is going to be an issue this

year. There is no doubt about it. I had the pleasure of going on a trip

with American film journalists, to - they were here, hundreds of them,

for the premiere of Brave and we went on to train into the depths of

the Highlands and just as Mr Jardine was saying, there wasn't an

app, but there were announcements all the way up. You know,

"Waterfalls here, and mountains here ""But no-one at any point said,

"There is the windfarm." It was an eversight. You write for the Times.

The times tips has been running an interesting series on Whitehall,

ministers verses Mandarins, the senior civil servants. That has

been interesting. What has been the key finding the times Timms has

been trying to point out? -- Times . I think it is Whitehall at war

and another chink in David Cameron's armoury. Another one of

his weaknesses. What came out yesterday that was picked up and is

on the front of our paper today, is the role of the mandarins in

Scotland. This was an issue pointed out last year and in particular, at

the head of the Civil Service in Scotland. The allegations last year

thated' gone native. Now, again coming back to -- that he'd gone

naity. Now, again coming back to what Mr Salmond said, the

referendum is, quite properly, being organised in Scotland. But

that person was raised as a demon yesterday by Mr Darling. I think it

is a scare story, to be honest, personally. But the issues are

there and they will have to be resolved and they'll play out.

Interesting one in the Times this week. Mike Wade, thank you for

coming in to speak to us just now. That's all we have time for this

afternoon. There is more news and analysis of course here on BBC2