22/06/2011 Politics Scotland

Hello, and welcome to Politics Scotland. Coming up on the

programme this afternoon. We'll be live in the chamber for an

emergency statement on pension provision. The Finance Secretary is

attacking Westminster changes which could result in a summer of

discontent in Scotland. Celtic and Rangers head for

Holyrood as it is their turn to give evidence on the new anti-

sectarian legislation. I notice the efforts being made to

shout me down. That traditionally happens in Scotland than people

challenge the nationalists. Those of us who want to challenge the

neo-fascism of the nationalists must be prepared to have

discussions. Here at Westminster we will have

reaction to those comments plus the first Scottish questions since the

Holyrood elections, last month. The The Prime Minister said today that

you cannot stick your head in the sand when it comes to public sector

pension reform. Major changes are in the pipeline to make public

servants pay more and work longer for what they have described as

"worse pensions". The Finance Secretary John Swinney is due to

make a statement on that in the next few minutes. I'm now joined by

Iain Tasker from the STUC and our commentator for this afternoon,

Lorraine Davidson from The Times. Good afternoon. First of all, to

you, Ian. These changes are necessary, aren't they? You have to

make the savings? I do not believe the changes and the way they are

being imposed on public sector workers are necessary. If we look

at the last time there was reforms in all public sector pension

schemes into 1007, there were significant changes to ensure

sustainability. -- 2007. They were properly negotiated between trade

unions and the Government, as employers. That has not happened on

this occasion. In relation to the local government schemes, this is

just a cash grab on public sector workers.

Ed Balls, the Shadow Chancellor, says that you are walking into the

Chancellor's trap? We are taking the views of our affiliated trade

unions who have taken the views of their members. There is a growing

strength of feeling, in relation to a 3.2% contribution increase being

deposed, that this is the final straw. They have had pay freezes, a

higher cost of living, and really they will have to consider that

public sector workers are being pushed and will not be able to

afford to stay in pension schemes. This seems to be a reserve issue,

what are the politics behind John Swinney's statement this afternoon?

John Swinney is already imposing a pay freeze on public sector workers

in Scotland. I think people realise they may have to play a part in top

economic times. If they accept a pay freeze, they will not accept

another raid on their take home pay. There comes a point where if you

are talking about people on wages up to 18 grand a year, you are at

the point where even if they do accept it, they physically cannot

make the money go far enough. They cannot feed their children and

babies contributions. It is a different story North and South of

the border. In the South, the UK government instinctively wants a

small estate, smaller public sector, and is trying to build up a

narrative of people with gold- plated pensions. That does not

carry in Scotland. You have got traditionally a bigger public

sector, people who are not earning big sums of money in the public

sector but are roaming around the average wage or less. -- are

earning. They have pensions around �6,000 per year. If you are a

refuse collector, that is what you are looking at. Should you have to

have your pay frozen and take home even less of it, effectively take a

pay cut, because you have to dip into your pension payments more? It

is a better argument for the SNP to be having with Westminster than a

pinhead dancing over the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court,

which affects no one. This argument effects over half-a-million in

Scotland. Thank you. We will now go across to

the chamber for John Swinney's statement, live.

Thank you. John Swinney is on his speech so without further ado,

workers to deliver devolved services and their dependants.

Although we are discussing pension arrangements for staff delivering

devolved services, many of the issues are reserved to the UK

government. The stance of the UK government has been said that

previously. It was reinforced in a speech last Friday. The purpose of

this statement is to set out to Parliament the view of the Scottish

Government on the UK's proposals, given the will have an impact on

many staff delivering devolved services in Scotland. This

administration does not have responsibility for decisions in

this respect. It is a long-term issue affecting the well-being and

livelihoods of social workers, nurses, firefighters, teachers and

others. Around half-a-million people. These individuals were cut

deliver health, education and other services, on which fellow citizens

depend. It is right, therefore, the Scottish Parliament should hear a

statement on the matter. This government has not believe the

proposals of the UK government represents the correct course to

address the issue of public pensions at this time. We believe

the UK Government must reconsider the proposals, before seeking to

impose very significant changes on public service staff at this time,

and in the man and at the pace signalled by the Chief Secretary.

Last October, the government decided without consulting devolved

administrations, to adopt a policy of increasing employee

contributions to pensions, by an average of 3.2% a pay by 20th April

14. The increase contributions would be staged over a three-year

period, commencing in 2012. This, alongside the �1 billion worth of

savings planned by the previous government by CAP and share schemes

poor pension contributions, is expected to deliver annual savings

of �2.8 billion from 2014 onwards. It is also expected to deliver a

further �900 million per year from the funded local-government scheme.

The UK government ask the devolved administrations do agree this

approach in principle by January of this year, to enable detailed

preparations to take their course. We made clear that he would require

to undertake dialogue with the other parties in parliament, and

with stakeholders, before giving any agreement to a proposal was

such long-term implications. In the intervening period, the UK

Government opened up negotiations with the TUC and other relevant

unions. It was therefore something of a surprise that the UK

government position was reinforced by the Chief Secretary last Friday,

before these discussions, aimed at finding a solution, had concluded.

It is important to consider the financial impact of the UK

Government's proposals on individuals will be affected. We

are concerned about the burden his policy will place on lower-paid

workers, particularly on doing the benefits we are achieving through

encouraging a move to be Scottish living wage across the public

sector. The real danger of be floored approach to employee

contributions may be to motivate opting out of pension schemes which

would be bad for individuals and society. Although the UK government

has indicated that we will roll-out a contribution increase for those

earning 15 grand or more, it has signalled an increase of up to 1.5%

a pay for those earning between 15 and �18,000. This comes on top of

other changes the UK government has decided to make to pensions using

their reserved powers. This includes indexing public sector

pensions to the price index, not the retail price index. This will

reduce the value of public sector pensions by around 15%. At a time

of a public sector pay freeze, rising inflation, increases in

national insurance contributions, higher VAT and significant rises in

fuel prices, and at a time when consumer confidence is low and we

need to kick-start economy, we believe it is wrong to require

employees to increase their pension contributions at this time. We

think it is a short-term policy, primarily geared towards deficit

reduction, but will have significant negative implications

towards the long-term retirement provision of some of the lowest

paid individuals in our society. The debate on public sector

pensions is a long-term debate which must be founded in careful

analysis. We believe that public sector pensions must be affordable,

sustainable and fair. Lord Hutton's Independent review of public sector

pensions looked carefully at the case for reform. In his conclusions

he said that despite recent reforms, further reform is needed to

recognise increasing longevity and associated costs. He also said

public sector pensions are far from gold-plated. In Scotland, average

annual pensions for civil servants around �4,000, or �80 per week. For

local government workers, it is about �90 per week. The average Far

NHS workers including GPs and hospital consultants stands at

around �7,000 per year. Lord Hutton's final report made a number

of further detailed recommendations about costs and governments. We

recognise that the case has been made for further reform. This issue

is what you need to Scotland. We will not. We will do so in full

consultation with those affected, public sector staff and

representatives. We must do it well taking into account the real and

immediate financial pressures faced by members of the public at this

time. In setting up the Government's position on pension

reform, I also need to be clear to Parliament about the constraints on

our ability to develop and apply own solutions in Scotland. The

Civil Service pensions scheme is entirely reserved and we have no

control over its provisions. In terms of legislation changes to the

NHS pension schemes, these require the active support of Her Majesty's

Treasury. Without the UK Government's agreement, we cannot

change pension rules for the key staff in Scotland to were

delivering the services for which we are rightly held to account.

Regulations about local government pension schemes, be funded scheme,

and police and firefighters schemes which a pay as you go, are within

our control. In the past however, details of the police and

firefighters schemes have been agreed on a UK-wide basis. In terms

of funding, her Majesty's Treasury have made it clear that if we do

not introduce increases to employee contribution rates, as specified by

them, they will reduce Scotland's block grant by a corresponding

amount in respect of pension scheme costs, met by the Treasury, from

annually Managed Expenditure budgets. Bobby mechanisms very, the

consequences would be the same, or all schemes we have responsibility

for. -- while the mechanisms very. By 2014, the teachers and NHS

pension schemes in Scotland are projected to be generating an

additional �230 million per year in extra employee contributions, if

the Treasury's policy is applied. Ticking together all of the changes

to schemes which could affect our budget, higher employee

contributions in line with the Treasury policy would generate �400

million per year in additional revenue. If we were not to

introduce the increases to employ contribution rates, we may need to

find �400 million per year to replace that funding. That would

lead to further pressure on public services and public sector jobs in

Scotland. So, we have limited powers to act differently from the

UK given the assumptions that have been made by the UK government on

the effect on public finances of increased contributions. And that

is, the Treasury is able, once again, to exercise control over

Scottish Resources. By taking his cause, the UK Government is making

it difficult for us to pursue our approach of discussing how to

achieve a fair balance of costs in the short and long-term. For

example, by using cost sharing arrangements and ensuring proper

consideration of and consultation on these far-reaching changes.

Clearly, we need an open and constructive dialogue about taking

this issue forward. Last week, the first minister and I discussed

local government issues. I have also discussed the matter with the

STUC and other relevant trade unions to share this fear. As a

government, recalling on the UK government to reconsider their

policy on contribution rates and consider this alongside Lord

Hutton's long term recommendations, within the context of current

constraints on public sector pay and rising household costs. There

are also pressing for a more appropriate timetable for

consideration of this issue. We believe the UK government has not

taken account of uniquely Scottish actors and the importance we, and

this Parliament, place on thorough consultation. The issue of pension

reform requires consent to be built. We do not believe that has been

achieved and we get the UK government to take a different

cause. This statement has been designed to help inform the public

discussion that must take place on this vital question. I also hope

the UK government and the Treasury in particular will take careful

note of the views expressed in this Parliament, representing as a do,

the will of the people of Scotland. Finally, let me address the

question of industrial action, which has been proposed by some but

not all of the trade unions involved. Is that the government

does not believe there is a case for industrial action to be taken

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 50 seconds

one negotiations on this issue one I think that disappointed many of

our affiliated trade unions. It will have angered many individuals

as well. It is a fine line about when the time comes, to say, if you

are not going to negotiate sensibly, if you were going to come out with

public pronouncements while these negotiations are ongoing, then we

are going to have to take action. The finance Secretary was very

sympathetic to your cause, but he did say that many Scots would be

affected by industrial action. have taken a lot of points from the

Cabinet Secretary's statement and we will try to arrange a meeting

with John Swinney about how we can engage with the process. And yes,

as happens in any industrial action, there will be people disadvantaged

by that industrial action. We also have to look at the terms of -- and

conditions a public sector workers. They will be disadvantaged because

public sector workers bodily deliver services but they also

access these services, -- not only. Industrial action has to be taken.

The finance Secretary was clear in saying that he believed the UK

government had jumped the gun on the consultation. John Swinney's

statement is all about trying to position himself as being on the

side of the public sector in Scotland. He is saying, I will work

with you, stick with us, do not cripple Scotland would strikes are

we try to get the economy moving. The bottom line is, nobody takes

industrial action lightly. It is always a last resort for any trade

union to take members on strike. Stable lose pay again in doing that.

I do not think there is any appetite for a strike at at the

same time, you also have John Swinney thinking ahead to an

independence referendum. If he can build this up as in Scotland, we

would go a different way, we would protect our public sector and you

are pensions from the UK government... And also, you are

seeing a move from the SNP to say that this is not about holes in

pension pots which are nobody will be more inclined with Trent to fill.

It is about trying to reduce the UK Government deficit. This was caused

by bankers and all the rest of it. You can hear it now, why should be

harder labourers of Scottish -- Scotland be solving the problem

while those who caused it get off scot-free? This will run and run.

John Swinney made clear he wants Scotland to go its own way. It is

complicated as to how these pensions are devolve in Scotland.

Can you take us to? The biggest scheme that the Scottish Government

has did will control over is the local government pensions. That is

a well funded scheme. There is no argument for an increase in

contributions to actually fund that scheme. That support what Lorraine

is saying. This is a cash grab on lower-paid workers. Then there are

schemes, where they cannot take any positive action without the

Treasury. And then there is the Civil Service pension scheme, over

which they have no control whatsoever. It does appear the

Scottish Government's hands are tied in relation to funding. They

are going to get the money back from the Scottish Government one

way or the other, either through contributions or removing it from

the budget. It is quite is tasteful, when it is a threat.

Thank you both very much. Still to come on the programme. The

first Scottish questions since the SNP's Holyrood election and there

was a very different atmosphere in the chamber. The front pages of

this morning's newspapers were full of what could be considered an

offence under the new anti- sectarian legislation that is being

rushed through Holyrood. There was speculation that making the sign of

the cross or singing the National Anthem could lead to prosecution.

Today at the Justice Committee, the Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland

spelled out why specific new laws were needed to address the

sectarian problem. It is not attended to criminalise

jokes of satire about religion or religious beliefs. It is not

intended to criminalise the singing of national anthems. In the absence

of any other aggravating behaviour, of course. It is not intended to

criminalise the making of religious gestures while thinking -- singing

national anthems, in the absence of further aggravating behaviour.

I am joined by John Lamont of the Scottish Conservatives and for the

SNP, Humza Yousaf. You were both in that committee which finished a

short time ago. John, that was all across today's front pages, about

the flower of Scotland and the national anthem being illegal. You

brought that up with Roseanna Cunningham yesterday. Were you

being mischievous? It was quite clear in the legislation that these

things would not be illegal. point is, it is not clear. We all

recognise this type of behaviour is not acceptable and you recognise

that the Government and football clubs have got to take action to

We should not be rushing through this bill which could have all

sorts of unintended consequences, one of which which could be the

result of singing our national anthem or the flower of Scotland

could result in criminal section. It was clear what the Lord Advocate

was saying there. If you were to do it in an offensive way that could

cause offence to a reasonable person, that is what would be

illegal. The scenario that I put to the Lord Advocate today was that of

someone was singing the British national anthem amongst its Celtic

fans, would run result in criminal action. He could not answer that.

That is the source of situations that are uncertain as defined

within the Act. We will wait to see what the guidelines actually say.

There is too much uncertainty. We are rushing through this far too

quickly. Take stock, think about what we're doing. We need to know

it is precise enough so we are catching the people that this is

designed to capture. There is lots of uncertainty about this

legislation. You were putting the Lord Advocate under quite intense

questioning about the legislation covering people travelling to and

from that all matches. You were pointing out that that was quite an

clear in what is being laid out. think the police evidence was very

clear yesterday. They said, we are ready to take this forward, we will

be issued with guidelines. I think what is important is that we have

trust in the integrity and the judgement of not just the police

but the courts, the prosecutor for a school as well -- the pocket of

fiscal as well. I think of the police are ready to go forward with

this, then we should have absolute trust in that. Do you not think it

would be better not to rush this legislation, but a more considered

time. The evidence today was that you are not putting that into a

report. The bill will go through as his. In an ideal world, we would

give people as much time as possible. The priority is clear

from the police, from the law officials, from the football clubs,

the one this legislation before the football season starts. The head of

the SFA said it would be incredibly challenging to bring this

legislation midway through the season. He also said there would be

natural to bring it in before the season starts. I think that has to

be the priority and I am glad we are getting through this evidence.

It is clear these laws are needed. We are hearing from the Lord

Advocate wide such things like each of the beach are no longer

considered applicable for dealing with football matches. He is saying

it is an outdated offence. Action is needed. I do not dispute that.

But this bill is not the answer. We need to take time to reflect what

new laws we need to bring forward to deal with this behaviour, not

just the football clubs, but in wider society. It is sending out a

clear message that it is not accepted in wider society either.

We should not simply be passing law for the sake of it. We need to be

taking our time, taking measured actions in response to this problem.

And we should not be passing an act of Parliament - will present

consequences. That is my fear. We have express clear it sounds about

why we should hold back, take stock and consider what we are doing.

Humza Yousaf, to pick up on that, to change the view of society, that

seems to be the over arching theme from the Scottish Government, that

this is going to change the mood music in Scotland. Do you think it

will? No 1, be it Government our backbenchers suggest this

legislation will be a magic bullet to deal with this problem. This

will be an instrumental part but you cannot undervalue the need for

education. It will be important and continue to be important so we must

continue to provide support for groups that do this. It is part of

a wider package. Thank you both very much.

Lorraine Davidson from the Times is still with me. I was picking up on

that point with Humza Yousaf, he was putting the Lord Advocate under

intense questioning their about under how this legislation will

actually work. It is interesting that even loyal SNP MSPs are asking

questions about how it is going to work. I think there is genuine

concern about the speed at which this is going through. It will be

done and dusted by the end of this week. SNP's -- MSPs feel this was

done quickly. To be fair to the Lord Advocate, this is something he

has been looking at for the last 20 years. This is something he went to

the Cabinet with before what we saw over the summer. The Lord Advocate

has spent a lot of time on this, does understand this and has come

up with the sensible set of proposals. But when you hear the

committee yesterday and today, there are genuine concerns about

how it is going to be enacted. The police training on this is going to

be absolutely crucial. I think there are fears about what they are

saying, we are not going to run an arrest on a whole mob chanting.

What are you going to do? Pick on the one -- take on one man doing it

outside the state and? The police are also talking about the would

not go to a pub with two Mackworth three officers. They would need 20

are 30. This raises concerns about how heavy handed the approach would

be to this. If they would approach a man with the knife, they would

manage to do that with two officers. Why someone would need 30 officers

to arrest someone singing a song, I do not understand. MSPs are quite

right Leesing, hold on a minute. We need to be clear about this.

Roseanna Cunningham said there had to be a review. If there were

unintended consequences, they would have to be monitoring this

legislation quickly and may be pulling back on some of it or

refining it further down the road. If you are a politician, your job

is to make sure you do not sign up to something like this in the first

place. Thank you very much for that. Now to the first Scottish questions

at Westminster since the recent Holyrood -- Holyrood elections.

There was questions about the closure of course garb questions

and some interesting comments made by some Labour MP.

Questions to the Scottish Secretary of state. Mr Speaker, I have

regular conversations. Inflation is being pushed higher by a rising

global commodity prices. This is a global problem which requires

global solutions. Thank you Mr Speaker. It is clear the VAT hike

in January has helped to drive up inflation which is squeezing family

income is, hitting consumer spending and holding back strong

growth. Will he now speak up for businesses in Scotland and urge to

the Chancellor to reverse that VAT rise to help improve consumer

confidence and bring down inflation? As he knows, before

market -- Chancellor said he would have done exactly the same in

relation to VAT. And secondly, a cut in VAT would do nothing to

reverse global commodity price rises, but we do a lot to reverse

the Government's credibility to get the deficit down. This does not

seem to be important to the party opposite. In answer to the question,

I was confirmed that four out of the last five years, the rise in

domestic gas rises have out gone up incomes. The as the honourable

member will know, the Government is concerned about the rise of fuel

prices, in particular gas prices. One of the measures which it has

taken is to ensure that poorest families to have protection and

relation to their field costs. Minister will welcome the inquiry

announced today by Ofgem on the price rise announced by Scottish

Power and the way they have announced that changed to consumers.

Does he agree with me that it is completely inappropriate for energy

companies to have added to the increased cost of living in

Scotland with the hike in domestic bills. What is he doing about it?

As the honourable lady knows, there is widespread concern in Scotland

at the actions, particularly in relation to the recent rises in

fuel costs by Scottish Power. As she knows from previous questions,

the Secretary of State and I have raised these questions with these

companies. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think what Scottish consumers are

looking for his action as they are facing rises of �190 a year when

wages are being frozen. Prices are rising well above the target

inflation rate. Now borrowing is higher that. Would he now agree it

is time for a plan B and for a temporary cut in VAT which Labour

has called for? It will not surprise me at -- the honourable

lady to say No It's -- certainly not. She never acknowledges her

part as a Minister or her party's part in bringing this country to

the verge of bankruptcy, or the need to take the steps that this

Government has taken, the tough action required. She knows as well

that the Shadow Chancellor is in the majority of one in terms of his

proposal and has not set out... must move on. This is a question

about the benefits of the Union. The Government believes that

Scotland benefits from being part of the United Kingdom and that the

United Kingdom benefits from having Scotland within it. I thank him for

that answer. As someone who represents just over the border of

England, can he say whether England benefits from being part of the

Union? I wholeheartedly endorse what my honourable friend has just

said. The union is of great benefit to all of the United Kingdom,

however my constituents want to see if fairness between Scotland and

England. With this in mind, what plans as they have in mind for the

current formula? He will recall from the Scotland bill, we

recognise this as an issue across the UK. We are committed to

reviewing it when we have resolved the current financial problems that

we inherited from the party opposite. In a separate Scotland

would not have been able to survive the global banking crisis on its

own. Had it been separate, it would have been heading the way of

Ireland and Greece. He makes an important point because the scale

of the financial disaster that befell both Royal Bank of Scotland

and Halifax Bank of Scotland would have picked a crippling burden upon

Scotland. By being part of the UK, we are sharing the risks and read -

- and sharing the recovery. Does he agree that was the future of the

constitution is hotly debated, there is no place for leading

Unionists to describe the supporters of Scottish independence

as neo-fascists? I think it is incumbent upon all of us in this

debate to ensure be used moderate, appropriate language. In what used

to set, it is to benefit to the union and Scotland that the house

of Commons, Scottish affairs Select Committee is chaired by somebody

who last night discovered -- described the coalition party...

this House, we do not make challenges to one another's on her.

It is a matter for the honourable gentleman to raise. I have made my

position clear. It is important in With permission, I will answer

these two questions together. The Secretary of State and I have

regular discussions with the Deputy Prime Minister, on a range of

issues. The Government remains committed to establishing a

commission later this year to consider the West Lothian question.

Time is of the essence here. This is a difficult question. The

commission will need time to consider its recommendations, and

then this house will need time to consider the outcome of those

recommendations. It will be better for this to be done at a time of

constitutional peace rather than crisis. I do respect the honourable

lady's passion on the subject. She has a bill before the house which

touches on these issues. I understand it will be heard on the

first Friday of the September sitting, which would give the whole

opportunity a chance to debate is issues. I will convey her call for

Agency to the Deputy Prime Minister. Having passed the Scotland Bill and

with new powers devolved to Wales, does my honourable friend agree

that the last thing we want is another expensive Parliament

assembly? The British Parliament here can cope with matters --

English matters, but decided by English MPs.

I have always expressed the view that there was no desire for an

English parliament and the same two people have always written to me

afterwards to say that I was wrong. Does the minister agree with me

that the issue was more complex than the members opposite will

allow? An example of this is the debate before Christmas on tuition

fees. That may have been regarded as an English issue, but it had

tremendous consequences for Scotland. I do acknowledge the

honorable lady's.. This is a complex issue and that is why the

coalition is it established -- committed to establishing a

commission to look at the issue. I hope it will take evidence from

people such as herself. I'm sure the honorable gentleman is

right when he says there is no great demand for an English

parliament but does he not accept that the proposals effectively lead

to two classes of MPs in his has? It amounts to setting up an English

parliament, in this building. But the rate he will go down if his

government accepts having two classes of MPs in his house. I do

not acknowledge the honorable gentleman's. Because the devolution

settlement already means that MPs have different responsibilities

depending on where they are from. The government is committed to

looking at the issue of the West Lothian question which is a

substantive issue, which the previous government ignored. We

will set up a commission later this year.

The plan for growth published in the march budget set out a

programme of reforms to create the right conditions for private

sector-led growth. This month commitment -- be Government is

trying to create the right conditions for business to grow.

The at a time when the Treasury is bringing stability to the banking

sector and Banking regulation, as my honourable friend agree that the

SNP's drive offer the Scottish independence could destabilise

be asked about independence, the number of questions and the timing

of it, has an uncertainty which is no good for the Scottish economy.

Medium-sized companies are vital engines of growth and job creation,

in Scotland and across the UK. In the current climate, improving

access to funding for them is a vital priority. Can my honourable

friend tell the house what steps he is taking to address this challenge

and do they include working with organisations like the Federation

for small businesses in Scotland? My honourable friend is absolutely

right to highlight is particularly important issue. Access to finance

is a critical issue and unless we get enough lending to small or

medium-sized businesses, amongst others, my mum not get the economy

growing again. That is why it is central to be plans for growth to

make sure that we create the conditions in which we can see

businesses start, grow and invest in them in the appropriate way. We

have set out tough targets indeed for lending to businesses across

the UK. I wonder if the Secretary of State

would agree but it is essential for business growth that businesses

have access to faster broadband? Does he share my concern that many

Scottish constituencies, like mine, do not have access to this and can

he say what discussions he has had it is that government regarding

this? Well, a week or so ago when I met

the honorable lady to discuss the situation with the economy and air

shire, I know this is one of the key issues she she wanted to raise.

-- Ayrshire. It is vital we sit-in the borders and all the parts of

the country. I'm happy to work with the Scottish Government and others

to ensure we achieve it. As the Secretary of State have an

opportunity to read the government expenditure and revenue study

published this morning, which actually shows that the Scottish

economy is outperforming the UK economy and carrying a lower

deficit? Will he take this opportunity to congratulate the

Scottish Government on its efforts to promote stability by promoting

economic growth and recovery? That is a typically interesting

interpretation of the figures in the report this morning, which show

that on every measure, Scotland is running at the deficit. It

highlights the volatility and difficulties that are associated

with the different measures. Can I say to her, it is vital that we get

the Scottish economy back on the right footing. That is why as a

government, we are putting call corporation tax, keeping interest

rates low and reducing the burden on national insurance. I'm happy to

work with the Scottish Government to have fantastic economic powers

at their disposal. It must be a partnership.

This is a question about the Greenock coastguard station.

I want to pay tribute to David Cairns, who has been campaigning to

save the Clyde coastguard station before his tragic early death. The

Scottish islands and peninsula's present a unique challenge to

seafarers. Of the Clyde coastguard station is closed, all the valuable

local knowledge of his area held by workers will be lost. Will the

Minister please draw this to the attention of the transport

secretary and edging to keep his transport secretary open.

It is appropriate there is mention of David Cairns at his first

Scottish questions senses tragic death, having served so

distinguished lay as a Scotland office minister. -- inside a

distinguished man. I assure him the points will have been heard. The

Department of Transport will not make any announcement on the future

of could go stations until the Select Committee has reported.

Our very own David Porter was watching the Scottish questions and

we join him now. Thank you. As we said, the first

Scottish questions today since the Holyrood elections and last night,

the third reading at committee stage of the Scotland Bill, which

will of course give far more powers to the Holyrood Parliament. As we

heard, as that of questions it was overshadowed by a row caused by Ian

Davidson, going so far as to liken You have call today for Ian

Davidson to resign today of the Commons Scottish Affairs Select

Committee. Why? I think it is important in democratic politics

that we use certain terms judiciously and there are some

words in democratic discourse batter just beyond the pale and are

not acceptable. Between democratic political parties, we are all

mainstream political parties. We all support human rights. We are

against discrimination. But very senior member of the Labour Party

who is the chairman of the Select Committee responsible for her

overseeing issues for Scotland's, it is unacceptable and serious. It

is so serious that he cannot remain in that position. I am sorry that

is has fallen on Tom to even comment on this. Ian Davidson

should be here. He should be apologising. He should be with

trying his statement. He cannot remain chairman as the Commons

Scottish Affairs Select Committee as -- after such a slur.

understand he is travelling to Scotland. I will not ask you to

speak on they have of Ian Davidson. But there is no way that you or the

Liberal Party can condone the Commons that he made? We have made

clear the term he used was an appropriate. I would anticipate

that he would apologise. Do you think you should stand down? It is

not up to me to determine the future of the Select Committee. It

is independent of political parties. Members of the Select Committee are

elected by different parties. It is not a matter for me to interfere in

that. I regret that he used that term been trying to make 40 in an

important issue. Angus Robertson, the bill as it stands does not give

you what you want. From your point of view, you think it is a better a

bill now than we had two mac was a goal. The Scotland bill is about

income -- incremental change. It does not include measures that we

think would make a difference. The business community make a

difference. Given that there are further stages, given that the

Conservative Party, the Liberal Democrats and their allies in the

Labour Party, say they are prepared to listen to suggestions from the

Scottish Government, that is good. It is really important that in a

democracy we protect the culture of political debate. I think it is

incumbent on people like Tom or me, people in leadership positions,

that we set the record straight. Not only are things unacceptable,

that there are consequences. This is more serious than just

withdrawing are just saying I am sorry. Someone who chairs a Select

Committee is responsible for that committee being able to work any

non prejudicial way. You cannot get a more prejudiced statement then we

heard from Ian Davidson last night, which is why I expect him to resign

by the end of today. And I expect the Labour Party to ensure that

happens. I am going to give the final word in this discussion to

you. Going back to the bill, are you now convinced that this is the

best bill possible, it is in the best shape possible and it will

deliver what Scotland needs in the new political landscape?

process has been a long one, starting with the Scottish

Parliament setting up the coal... What I regret is that it has

overshadowed the important point that Stewart Hosie was asked five

times to give some details on these proposals on corporation tax and

five times he failed to do so. I think it is difficult to think some

of the alternatives the SNP, with one there is no detail. We are not

quite at the end of it. We have quite a stage to go with it. I

think the Government and the principal opposition party, the

Labour Party, have worked closely to come up with the set of

arrangements which give more power to the Scottish Parliament. It

gives a better position for Scotland. We have got to live but

there. Thank you both very much. -- we have got to leave it there.

Whatever the language is being used today, there is still a lot of

discussion to go on around the Scotland bill and the future of

politics north of the border. Let's get some closing thoughts in

the company of Lorraine Davidson of the times. We're hearing Angus

Robertson saying there have to be consequence for Ian Davidson's new

fashion statement. You think he will end up resigning? I do not

think he is the resigning type. I do not think he would apologise.

The events of last night, Labour should have been in a position

today of being able to say, it was our idea to have the commission.

The... He came out with these ill- judged remarks. It has allowed that

to become the story. The really need to get out of this. The way to

do that is to find some form of words, even if it is to say, if you

are offended, I am sorry. To get out of this. Otherwise this is just

going to run for the next two 3 -- or three days. It takes away from

what Labour is trying to stay on the constitution. Let's turn to the

Scotland bill. They pass through the house of Lords yesterday. Angus

Robertson saying, incremental and anaemic change. He was not fully

endorsing it. The SNP must be disappointed that none of Mr

Salmond's powers were included in the Bill. The apples to the Calman

Commission when it was set up. -- the opposed. It was only because

the SNP won in 2007 that the Calman commission was set up. We have now

had further powers. They have got to say this is disappointing and

pathetic. But behind the scenes, they are thinking that is another

piece of the jigsaw in place, now we move it on. That is the Crown

Estates staff and the corporation tax. It is now up to them to set

out how they would make those proposals work. Thank you very much

for your company this afternoon. That is all we have got time for