23/04/2014 Politics Scotland

Hello and welcome to Politics Scotland. Coming up on the

programme: On England's National Day, the feast of Saint George, Alex

Salmond and David Cameron appeal to Scottish voters ahead of the

independence referendum. We've been to the home of the Bard,

William Shakespeare, to gauge reaction from English voters to the

debate on Scotland's future. And our live debate in the chamber

today - Labour call for more action to help thousands of families hit by

fuel poverty and what they call the cost of living crisis.

More on all those stories coming up and we'll have analysis from our

political commentator for the afternoon, George Kerevan. First

though, it's St George's Day. The patron saint of England isn't around

to give his view on Scottish independence, but others aren't

missing the opportunity. The Prime Minister, David Cameron, has

appealed for Scotland to remain united with England in what he's

called the "world's greatest family of nations".

In just five months, the people of Scotland will go to the polls and

they will decide whether they want to remain a part of this global

success story. So let's prove we can be proud of our individual nations

and be committed to our union of nations because no matter how great

we are alone, we will always be greater together.

Well, the First Minister, Alex Salmond is in England today. He's

crossing the border to Carlisle to give a speech in which he'll say

that after a "Yes" vote, an enduring friendship would still remain

between Scotland and England. People should be proud of their

patron saint of England and that applies to Carlisle as much as it

does to London. I will detail a range of initiatives that we can

take in an independent Scotland, in particular, to strengthen the bonds

between Scotland and England and allow our communities to grow

together. Let's get more on this from our

political correspondent, Lucy Adams. She's at Holyrood and joins me now.

Hello. We had a bit of David Cameron there. What else did he say?

He is using his patron saints day to urge his countrymen to support the

union and is support Scotland. He wants to make this a bit more about

the referendum and he is focusing on the exports and ancestry of England

itself. He is talking about Newcastle Brown ale, Cornish pasties

and Darrington Abbey. His message to Scots is that no matter how great

separate components of the UK are, the UK will always be better

together. Downing Street put out his message

on the Internet on you Tube. He is involving himself in the

independence debate again. He doesn't seem to be able to stay

away, does he? He is keen to be engaged but he is

also a step apart. Earlier in the year, we heard from him saying that

David Bowie can say things about the referendum that he can't. He knows

that in certain quarters of Scotland he lacks popularity so we don't see

him on the front line for the campaign. What we do have is his

message coming up from London and earlier this year we had the cabinet

sitting in Aberdeen to give a strong message about the broad shoulders of

the UK and how important it was too stayed together for the future of

oil. So, yes, he is engaged but a step apart, I think.

Meanwhile, Alex Salmond has ventured south to Carlisle and is reaching

out to people he refers to as Scotland's best pals.

Absolutely. It is all about friendship and the French --

friendship and ties between the North of England and Scotland. I

spoke to him earlier today about what he will speak about in Carlisle

this evening. He is keen to emphasise the strength of the

relationship and talk as well about future investment and

infrastructure. He will make announcements about a feasibility

study for the West Coast main line to try and strengthen that, I guess

to bring commuters from one side of the border to the other. He will

also talk about having a dedicated minister to look at investment

between the North of England and Scotland. He is saying it is only

possible in the event of Scotland voting for independence.

In the last half an hour or so, we have heard that the Scottish

Government has delayed a build on corroboration, a controversial

bill. Kenny MacAskill, in response to a

question, has just made a statement in the chamber saying that the

criminal Justice Bill will effectively be delayed until next

year. Stage two of the bill was due to go before the committee next

week. He is saying that it won't be until next spring that the bill is

actually evaluated again. The reason for this is because it has been very

controversial. A key element of the bill is about the abolition of the

centuries-old use of cooperation in the courts. What MacAskill has said

is that there will be a review which is due to report back next April.

Until that comes back, there will be no movement on this bill. The other

elements on the bill are effectively delayed as well. The opposition

welcomed this. There was much warmth around the chamber about the fact

the change has taken place. Mr MacAskill has said he still supports

the bill and the removal of corroboration in the courts, but

this gives the review group time to see how it should go forward in the

future. In the widest context, a sign really

that the path is clear, that the Scottish Government is not going to

allow awkward areas of domestic legislation to get in the road of a

bigger battle over independence? That is certainly the sense of it.

It was an unexpected move. Concessions have already been made

and the review group was set up by Mr MacAskill. The fact it is now

delayed until after the referendum gives people an indication that they

do not want a difficult domestic matter getting in the way in between

now and September. Many thanks for that. Well, the

political commentator George Kerevan is with me in the studio. Is that

your take on this decision, George? The co-operation Bill has been a

thorn in the side of the Scottish Government in recent months --

corroboration. And now it is kicked into the long grass. Denis Healey

had that famous phrase that if you are in a hole, stop digging. Kenny

MacAskill has decided to do that. All he has done is more or less tied

the loose ends on what he said last February when the first stage of the

bill sneaked through Hollywood. Fiona Hyslop was brought back from a

files -- foreign visit to get it through. His real problem is that

while everyone broadly... The review said there should be corroboration

between cases but the women's movement once it removed because of

the problems in getting rape convictions and all serious stuff.

McAskill rusted through without putting anything in its place and it

is a major plank in Scottish law. It demarcates Scottish law from most

other legal systems. That... I don't think we have seen the end of a bill

to remove corroboration. After the referendum, we will come back to it

and by that time it will be tied up so we know what the alternatives

are. Let us talk about David Cameron's speech today. It has gone

out on you Tube. It is a mixed message. On the one hand, appealing

to Scottish voters and on the other, celebrating England and

Englishness. How easy is it to combine those? I think he may be

digging his own hole. It is very unusual for the senior politician

from the major London parties to get involved in celebrating Englishness.

Somehow, you and I and everyone in Scotland regardless of where we

stand on the referendum are happy to be Scots and ditto Wales and

Northern Ireland. There is a slight unease I have always found in major

politicians in England about celebrating Englishness. I don't

know why. I think Englishness should be celebrated as it is a great

liberal -- liberal tradition and they ended slavery in the world. But

Cameron has been shy of celebrating Englishness. If, as a by-product of

doing this today and the rest of the species -- speech, the media down

South Wilts report the celebration of Englishness, if it plays to

UKIP's agenda than they may have made a big mistake. He obviously has

that challenge from UKIP in the back of his mind with European elections

this time next month of course. He has also talked about Christianity.

Again, another issue that has been off the table traditionally for a

British Prime Minister. He is going into areas which others have not

touched. As I say, he is dealing with a short-term agenda, as he is

worried about UKIP winning or overtaking the Tory party in next

month 's Euro elections which sell certainly don't -- do if the polls

hold but I worry that he is undermining his pace -- case in the

longer term. People will want to know why they are not debating

face-to-face. His venture over the border today is tweaking that rope.

Before we go to the chamber to hear the debate, Alex Salmond has gone to

Carlisle and is speaking to English voters, or rather an English

audience, but he is looking back to a Scottish electorate. He is saying

that English people will remain Scotland's closest friends. He must

be appealing to a degree of concern here in Scotland that that might not

be the case in the event of Scotland going independent?

He plays well south of the border. David Cameron's negative poll

ratings are quite bad. There is no great problem for him to go across

the border, Alex Salmond. He is trying to make the general point

that post independence, if it comes, there will be the social

union. He just has to say that and smile and he makes the point. The

London media and David Cameron will come back at him, but his presence,

beaming and Bonner me in Carlisle says it all. -- bon Ami --

friendliness. Let's cross live now to the chamber

for the live debate on fuel poverty and the cost of living. Here's

Labour's spokeswoman Jackie Baillie. It fails to take into account the

inflation busting increases in energy bills. Energy action

Scotland, using the governments own basis of calculation, believes the

number is nearer 900,000 fuel poor households in Scotland. In their

recently published fuel poverty monitor, the estimate the figure

could be just over 1 million households. That is staggering when

you consider that there are 2,400,000 households in Scotland.

40% of all households are affected by fuel poverty. That is the highest

figure I have ever known and it is truly a national scandal that so

many are forced to choose between heating and eating. Scottish Labour

believes that a warm, dry home is a basic human right at that fuel

poverty has no place in a civilised country and I am sure it is a view

shared across the chamber. It is that believe that motivated us to

bring forward legislation in the 2001 housing Scotland act. Our

commitment was to end fuel poverty by 2016. Ambitious but it was

supported by all parties and provided a sharp focus on what

mattered and posed a challenge to all of us to deliver. We face levels

of fuel poverty estimated to affect 700,000 households then and through

our effort it dropped to 200,000 households by the end of 2002. It

has since been on the rise, but most sharply in 2000 and now -- 2009. Now

it is at the highest level ever. The problem is so acute and yet there is

more that we can and should do. With the greatest respect to the

Minister, it demands more than a government amendment which is

breathtakingly complacent and focuses again on independence. I

suppose there is no surprise there. Indeed, the press release blames the

Tory UK Government, but where is the ambition in the amendment and the

recognition they have a responsibility to help people now?

Where is the action? It should give us all pause for thought when people

return food to food banks because they can't afford to turn on their

cooker due to the cost of fuel. I would understand the SNP blaming

others if they were straining every sinew to tackle the problem. But

that is not the case, frankly. It is the case that the SNP have

underspent their budget, apparently to use on the road. It is the case

that they have delayed in delivering money to local authorities but,

thankfully, you have allowed them to carry forward the money.

Meanwhile people are going to the wall. The Scottish government has

committed ?60 million to local authorities. What figure would the

Labour government commit? We would match that and look to go further.

We set out a range of measures that we would take. It is not just about

doing one thing but making sure you get the money out of the door. The

Minister is about the size of the budget in her amendment but it is

around 79 million pounds per year rolled up over three years to look

like a big figure. We need to spend four times that amount to have any

hope of meeting the 2016 target. And in any case this government does

seem to have a problem of getting money out of the door at the time

when no one can deny the scale of the need. We'll leave that debate on

fuel poverty for now. But let's get more from the Parliament. Our

correspondent Glenn Campbell is there and we can join him now. We

will talk more about fuel poverty and the living wage, these teams

that Labour are pursuing here this afternoon. But first of all the

breaking news in the last hour that the Justice Secretary Kenny

MacAskill has decided to put back the legislation which would end the

need for Corporation for sources of evidence from more than one source

of evidence in criminal cases in Scotland. He confirmed that in the

chamber short time ago. Our panel of politicians are here. James Kelly

first of all. I think it is a sensible announcement. There was

huge disquiet about the way these proposals were being pursued by Mr

McAskill and the SNP and there was widespread criticism over the way is

to McAskill responded to the recent parliamentary debate on the issue.

So it makes sense to take more time to consider them. Do you think that

Labour will be able to come in now behind the government and fulfil its

manifesto pledge to get rid of the general requirement for

corroboration. I think the timespan of one year to examine the issues

will allow all parties to look at what is behind the proposals. There

was widespread discontent about the way Mr McAskill brought forward his

original proposals and we would need to see more evidence to change our

position. Jim Pugh of the Liberal Democrats, your party has been

critical of the Scottish government on this. Might you change your mind

once you see what the former High Court judge has to say. Well our

justice spokesperson has been very clear about this that we would not

want to get rid of corroboration. The justice secretary himself said

there should be no delay in going forward with this. We have now seen

a U-turn and it's being put onto the back burner. I do not think it is a

U-turn. There is disquiet and there has been lots of representations for

a different outcome. But there are groups and organisations out there

who need this piece of legislation to be dealt with as well. Especially

those facing domestic violence or sexual abuse. I think it is right to

take the time to examine the issues and to get this right. Do you think

it would have been a mistake to use a majority to force this through

Parliament, ask them to back abolition before they saw what the

report would suggest might be put in place to ensure that there are

sufficient safeguards against wrongful conviction? I think it is

credible but the Cabinet Secretary has taken the time to wait and see

if we can get this right. Cameron procurement -- Cameron Buchanan from

the Conservatives this year. The Cabinet Secretary is clear that he

remained committed to abolition. What difference does one year makes.

I think he has listened to everyone and gone into reverse gear and we

are pleased that he has. It is is a chance to reflect on what might

happen. It is a chance for a pause for thought. We can go back to the

debates in Parliament. We heard Jackie Baillie talking about fuel

poverty. One of the things that she has been pursuing Miss debate is the

idea of an energy price freeze. -- in this debate. This is something

that Labour has proposed if it wins the next general election. But the

proposal has been widely condemned not least by the energy companies.

Not at all, I think there is a lot of support for the proposal across

Scotland because many families are struggling and cannot comprehend why

the energy companies are putting huge price hikes on their bills.

Some people are responding to the Labour proposal for a price freeze

throughout Scotland and it is sure to be a big feature of the

forthcoming general election campaign. Your colleagues in the

Coalition at Westminster should have done more to keep in check the cost

of fuel? I think you can look at Labour a little critically. It was

under their watch that many people came into fuel poverty in the UK.

But the Lib Dem and Tory Coalition have actually done is to put half ?1

billion into energy efficiency measures, targeting hard to treat

homes and people on lower incomes. And also raising the tax threshold

throughout Scotland. A quarter of a million people pay no tax at all and

2 million people paying less tax. It is about targeting rather than a

general freeze so that even the wealthy benefit. Labour said that

this price freeze policy will be popular. Why can the SNP not

supported? It might be popular but it is disingenuous. Labour created

the monopoly that the big six have got now. Labour cannot tell private

companies to freeze their prices. Why not? They would need legislation

to nationalise the companies to enforce a price freeze and they're

not going to do that. The SNP said they would cut prices. The SNP

proposal is to take away the green levies, for those not to be put on

the customer. The other thing to look at is subsidies that get paid

to energy producers. 35 million pounds in subsidies for Hinkley

Point. That could be better spent. There is nothing to stop Labour

putting up prices beforehand and then raising them afterwards. If

there is a price freeze you put them up beforehand and the price would go

up. A brief word on the living wage from each of you. Labour using its

debating time to argue that it should be requirement of Scottish

government procurement that those who win the contract pay their

employers and those associated with those contracts the living wage. I

do not think it is a good idea to enforce it. I think it will happen

if the economy recovers but otherwise it could cause

unemployment. It should not be compulsory. Given that the SNP has

pursued living wage policies, why not go further and put it into

legislation for procurement. Well the Labour Party have not done that.

I will speak in the debate this afternoon. I do not know how the

Labour Party would incorporate this into document. Because Glasgow City

Council today said they cannot do that. I think this is an excellent

opportunity. There are ?10 billion of public contracts covered by the

procurement bill and this is a great opportunity to extend the living

wage to many of the 400,000 people, including 256,000 women workers not

covered by the living wage. I think the legal arguments of the SNP are

diminishing by the minute. Professor Christopher McCrudden showed it can

be tied to contracts and included in procurement. Labour council said

they could not do it. We have just seen Vince Cable announced the

minimum wage is to go up 3%. On top of that a quarter of a million

people are taken out of tax. And regarding the living wage, we do

support that where it is affordable. Thank you very much indeed.

And we will botch the debate in the chamber at this afternoon with great

interest. -- watch the debate. Let's go back to the chamber now and

more on the debate on fuel poverty and the cost of living.

I'm listening to what Jackie Baillie is saying there. We have got our

money out. There was a delay at the start of last year in funding

because the UK government did not publish their guidelines and also

the local authorities had to procure. But this year the funding

is out. Local authorities were told of the money they were getting in

March and they have contracted to spend all the money that they are

given. My understanding from local authorities is that you expended --

extended the deadline and given them longer. You have underspent your

budget for the past two years. It is being spent in energy efficiency

measures in homes, we are delivering more energy efficiency measures in

Scotland head of population than the rest of the UK and will continue to

do that and that is because of the funding that the Scottish government

has contributed. It is not just me saying that but the energy

companies. They are all telling us that we are delivering more energy

efficiency measures per head of population than in the rest of the

UK. We are consistently doing that and spending more money in fuel

poverty than the previous Labour administration. We have also

committed in our white paper that we will remove that obligation from the

companies and put it on public expenses to ensure that energy

efficiency measures continue and there will be a year on year

reduction to consumers in Scotland. Not simply a temporary measure as

the Labour Party are proposing. Thank you very much. I take the

opportunity at the outset to move the amendment that stands in my

name. Fuel poverty is something that impacts on every household in

Scotland to some extent. We heard figures suggesting up to 40% of

Scottish owned are now technically defined as being in fuel poverty.

But yet for many more fuel bills are becoming a larger monthly expense

and having a bigger impact on the way in which household budget have

to be managed. There are many people out there who we should be concerned

about. Yet when we talk in the debate about fuel poverty I think it

is irresponsible of us to allow any particular political party to

attempt to claim the high ground. It has become a priority for us to deal

with this and what people expect, those currently suffering fuel

poverty, is to see politicians work more closely together to achieve

these object tiffs. I will try to work more closely with others in

this chamber but unfortunately there is the prep this lemming other

people for the mistakes that got us where we are today. The great irony

is that the Labour Party itself whilst in government did a great

deal to achieve the things that they today are complaining about. We have

heard a great deal about the problems... Let me continue. We have

heard a great deal today about the big six energy suppliers and the

fact that that monopoly position they almost achieved allows them to

manipulate the market somehow. Yet it was under the watch of Labour

that the number of major suppliers shrank from 15 in the year 2000 to a

mere six by 2010. In that time gas bills more than doubled. And we have

also seen Labour opposing the competition enquiry which would do

something to fight against the monopoly position achieved by energy

suppliers today. The fact is much of what Labour and Ed Miliband himself

up a post in the past would have meant energy supply or energy costs

would have been very much higher today than they would otherwise be.

Ed Miliband planned to add ?193 per year to fuel bills and now he wants

a target for clean electricity for 2030 that would add 125 pounds per

year to build a price as of today. I am committed to working with

everyone in this chamber to tackle fuel poverty. When Ed Miliband was

energy Secretary Bill is felt by ?100. Under David Cameron, bills

have risen by ?300. This is a useful point to make full a different

reason to the SNP. During 2008, energy prices peaked with oil at a

value of 140 dollars a barrel and in nine months dropped $100 a barrel.

That is why energy prices dropped under Labour. It had nothing to

do... In fact, it was in spite of the efforts of the great Ed Miliband

himself. Since that conservatives have been in government, we have

seen the errors of the ways of previous governments and we have

taken the opportunity to move quickly to simplify tariffs and

enable faster switching for those who want to take advantage of the

opportunities in the marketplace. In the most recent budget, we

introduced green Lebanese -- levies and introduced other mothers --

measures to promote energy efficiency. We will go ahead and

make sure that we have a truly competitive system of energy supply

which will result in more prices for consumers and there will be

sanctions and penalties to make sure these are properly enforced. At the

same time, we have taken measures to protect winter fuel payments for

millions of pensioners across the UK. We have reinforced cold-weather

payments and make energy companies support the most vulnerable. New

funding for energy-saving improvements in homes will benefit

those all over the country, including Scotland. Reducing our

dependence on expensive imported energy sources will also have the

effect on cutting energy costs. Tax breaks for companies exploring for

shale gas can begin the process of taking us into a position similar to

that we enjoy a where energy prices are falling and are falling both for

industry and domestic consumers. There is so much we could achieve by

working together. Come on, let's work together for the benefit of

those who need our help. Let us speak again to Josh. I wonder

about the timing of this debate, Labour debate. The focus is fuel

poverty and yet it is 15 Celsius out there. Have they miss timed this

challenge? That was quite a sparky debate. This is about the

Westminster election next year and the general election. As James said

in the garden lobby. The one policy that Labour has that has popular

resonance in the last year is Ed Miliband's promised to freeze energy

prices for a year. He needs to keep pumping that up. The debate is

partly about publicising that commitment because labour is not

doing that well in the polls. It is ahead of the Tories but the Tories

are coming up. If you go into polls on which party has the better

economic policies, the Tories are 20 points ahead of Labour. Labour has

to do something if it is to win next year. I think they feel that energy

issues and fuel poverty may be the thing to get them over the line. But

is it possible for them to make a credible case? We heard from the

MSP's that there is not just doubt about whether it is possible and how

long it can last and everything else? Everybody blames everybody in

government. The problem is what do you then do about it? The price

freeze is a sticking plaster. One have to worry that when we get to

this winter, the winter before the general election, all the energy

companies have to do is ramp up their prices so that when the price

freeze comes in they are not affected. We need to sort the energy

market. It is fundamentally flawed. Something serious has to be done and

none of the parties are serious. They have to split up the energy

companies. They generate electricity and they then distribute it and in

between that, they fiddle the prices. They will have to be split

up so there are separate producers and distributors and until that is

done the market will be flawed. There is an appetite within the

Labour Party to take radical action, but if real wages start to

rise above the rate of inflation and we are pretty close now to that

point, will voters in six months' time, if that is what is happened,

say the crisis is over and things are getting better? Leave that

issue. That is the other thing for Labour. They have gone strongly of

the cost -- on the cost of living issue. This is the first time since

the 1930s that we have had a recession over an extended period of

time where living standards have fallen sharply. We had rampant

inflation and that it into real spending power. The Conservative

government has been lucky this last six months. The pound has gone

shooting up and when it goes up in value it drops down the rate of

inflation. But it is not anything internal in the economy. With the

combination of falling inflation and more jobs about, people might feel

more comfortable. The feel-good factor might return and if Cameron

can marshal that, it gives him a chance to win a general election

next year. We'll talk again in a moment.

As we've been hearing, it's St George's Day and David Cameron and

Alex Salmond have been making their rival pitches to Scots voters. But

what, you may ask, do people in England make of the prospect of

Scotland leaving the Union? Our referendum correspondent, Laura

Bicker, is in Stratford-upon-Avon, the birthplace of William

Shakespeare, to find out. Oh, Scotland, Scotland, wrote the

Swan of a bond. But in the town of Shakespeare's birth, this issue is

largely passing them by. They are focused on celebrating the English

bard's birth. But when pushed, those at this community arts project were

aware of the debate. Is there a vote coming up? I know that Scotland

might want to leave the UK. I fully understand why they would want

independence, so it has a good and bad point. This sociologist believes

the level of English engagement with the Scottish referendum depends on

which part of the country you live and how much of the campaign you

have listened to. Too often, the debate seems to have descended into

whether Scotland will be better off. As if it is in England's gift. As a

result, the Better Together campaign has missed an opportunity. In a town

where the union flag is used to your tourists into shops, this is an

argument many do not understand -- to entice tourists. Politicians have

upset Scots so it is difficult. Can you see why they might want

independence? They have a better deal, with free prescriptions. The

English are detached and we think it will not affect tough whereas it

will impact our lives. will not affect tough whereas it

vaulting ambitions... Of course, people here will have no part to

play when it comes to the vote in September. Some may watch from the

wings and others may want a front row seat. As for the Scottish play?

It's yours, it's yours. But we'll do it here if that's OK. The flag is

taken down to mark England's national day. There are now five

months until the finale in Scotland, until we know whether this

could be, or not to be, the shape of things to come.

Let us head a little further south to Westminster. Parliament is still

in resets. Just as well, perhaps, because MPs are out campaigning hard

ahead of next month 's European elections. Letters get more from

David Porter. David, -- let us get more. No rest for MPs with the

elections looming. It seems a big test for the main parties. What is

the mood there? Euro elections have traditionally been elections where

Euro -- MPs go, we'll get around to that when we can. But they are

important through -- for the three main parties. UKIP could push the

Tories into third place and may even poll as many votes as labour in the

Euro elections so it is a key test for the three parties. How will they

manage their campaigns and see off the threat from UKIP? A particular

challenge for the Conservatives. It would seem David Cameron is honing

his message very much to deal with that. We hear him talk in the last

few days about Englishness, we've heard him talk about Britain as a

Christian countries. They are unusual campaigning themes? All Tory

leaders have to walk a tightrope over Europe and David Cameron is no

exception. He has some on the right of his party who say they want him

to toughen up his stance on Europe. He has promised that if there is a

conservative government after the last election he will renegotiate

Britain's heart within the EU and would promised a referendum. UKIP

says that does not go far enough and they want a referendum straightaway.

What we are seeing from the campaigning from the three main

parties is that it is being put the UKIP filter, if you like, in that

they are putting their arguments and finessing their arguments according

to the threat the sea from UKIP. At the same time, David Cameron can't

present himself as a little England because he has the threat from the

SNP to deal with as well? Yes, he has the minor point of the Scottish

referendum on the 18th of September which is why today in his St

George's Day address he was making such play on this. The UK is better

together and stronger together and that Scotland is an integral part of

that, he is said to an audience in England and to an audience in

Scotland. He says that is exactly how he would like to keep it. They

have been rather drowned out in the debate so far on a UK level, but

what have the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats been making the

focus of their campaigns? It is an astute judgement in that there is

some frustration in the Labour Party and the Lib Dems that this is being

seen as an Eichmann between UKIP and the Conservatives. The Lib Dems will

launch their Euro campaign tomorrow. If you like, they are the most

Europhile of parties and they are very much making a pitch that the

European Union is good for Britain and they will put positive cases for

that. We have seen head-to-head debates between Nigel Farage and

Nick Clegg on that very issue in the past couple of weeks. As for Labour,

they will want to put the argument to some extent as far as they see it

that these elections are a dry run for the 2015 general election and

they want to make sure their campaigning machine is in order

because they know that, as well as the Euro elections and the Scottish

referendum in a year's time, there will be a general election

throughout the UK. Do all the main political parties at Westminster

take the view that they would take a kicking from UKIP whatever happens

next month? Throughout different parts of the UK, there is a feeling

that UKIP could be the ones to beat. As far as the Conservatives are

concerned, they know many of their natural supporters could be tempted

to support for UKIP, particularly as a protest vote. Traditional Labour

voters in the North of England... We had the launch of the UKIP campaign

in Sheffield yesterday so they are going from Labour vote -- for Labour

voters as well. Thank you. Well, let's pick up again on that

debate in Parliament. MSP 's are now in open debate. We would move the

spending on to having the cheaper renewable energy which subsequent

generations will miss certainly benefit from. It is a fact as Terry

McAllister said that it is unsustainable to keep loading the

cost onto consumers directly through energy bills as this hits the lowest

paid and most needy. But the taxpayer paid for nuclear, coal and

oil power stations in the past. He went on to save the taxpayer is the

obvious candidate to foot more the bill but this requires governments

to be more open about spending priorities. He was talking about the

UK government. The Scottish government is tackling the problem

with the powers that we have. As colleagues will be aware fuel

poverty is very high in my own constituency. Estimates suggest they

could be up around 68% as opposed to the national average of around half

that. So I welcome the debate will be at three. I do not see their

necessary being a meeting of minds being taken from this. I accept that

the Labour price policy freeze has been successful in putting the SNP

government in a spin. Had three different responses across three

days from three different ministers. But I do think it runs the risk of

increasing bills and producing competition. And hurting small

suppliers and so reinforcing the domination of the big six. The Tory

amendment points this out but then runs at the customary rant about

onshore wind. Then we have the Minister's press release from this

morning suggesting it is all the fault of Westminster and that

independence is somehow some magic bullet. That is utter nonsense. Not

just in relation to the potential impact on renewables are

implications for customer bills. Seems to betray a complete

misunderstanding also of how eco-works. It is only one area that

has been subject to reductions. ?450 million has been spent to improve

energy efficiency in the private rented sector. So not an attack on

the fuel poor as portrayed by the Minister but quite the contrary. A

packet of measures that has enabled ?50 to be taken off average

household bills. There are concerns about the operation of the energy

market and so it is welcome but Ofgem have referred the market to

the competition markets authority. Tough action based on a detailed and

independent assessment of the state of competition in the UK market will

take place. There are other measures, cold weather payments for

example, winter fuel payments to over 1 million households. He energy

bills simpler and clearer and encouraging collective switching

schemes. 21,000 households having benefited by an average of ?131 so

far today. Certainly not enough but far from the picture painted by the

Minister and some of her backbench colleagues and a more robust and

sustainable response to justify public concerns about fuel costs

than a counter-productive price freeze. Successive governments north

and south of the border of all political persuasions I believe have

prioritised the fight against fuel poverty but in spite of that the

number of households affect it has never been higher, not least in my

own constituency. That is not acceptable but neither will it be

addressed by either scapegoating. I would urge Parliament in spite of

the impending entertainment of September to gather together in the

common cause to address the problems that we all accept is out of

control. We now move to three minute speeches.

I think it is a scandal that we are having to discuss fuel poverty in

energy rich Scotland. That in itself quite clearly shows the failure is

of the current system presided over by the Westminster government past

and present. Reading Jackie Baillie's motion today I was filled

with some dread because it mentions reform of the energy market. Why

does that fill me with dread a well as has been pointed out previously,

in the year 2000 there were three generating companies and 14 energy

suppliers in the UK. After the last set of labour reforms we were left

with the big six which we have all been moaning about to one degree or

another today. The big six, which has on their boards many former

Labour parliamentarians. Someone did all right out of the last set of

reforms. However, the public did not benefit from Ed Miliband's reforms.

I seem to recall a distinct number of SNP either former or current

employees of some of the big six. Does he denied that? I'm talking

about members of the board. The folk with the real influence who have

moved from Parliament at the boards of the big six after Labour's last

set of reforms. Let us take a look at some of the issues we face.

Incomes have been cut right across this country. Particularly of the

very poor and very vulnerable in our society. Well we have to leave that

animated debate for now. MSPs have been paying tribute to the Lothians

MSP Margo MacDonald who died earlier this month. During a debate on a

motion of condolence, the First Minister Alex Salmond described her

as the finest parliamentarian Holyrood had ever seen.

It is hard to overstate what the force of political nature she was in

the 1970s. I first met some 37 years ago and she spoke at a meeting in St

Andrews. We gave her a lift back home and I was relishing the

opportunity to give further benefit of my student analysis of Scottish

independence. No sooner had we left St Andrews then she fell asleep and

slept the whole way! It was the only time in almost 40 years I ever got a

word in edgeways. And in the past 15 years she has simply been the finest

parliamentarian this chamber has ever seen. It is hard to imagine

anyone else in Scotland would have had the profile, the talent and the

sheer presence to be elected three times as an independent candidate to

this Parliament. As an MSP she pursued a wide range of courses

regardless of their popularity. She was one of the first to call for an

enquiry into the cost of this Parliament building and spoke up for

the health and well-being of Edinburgh's sex workers. Recently

she was a staunch advocate for the right of the terminally ill to

choose the manner of their death. And almost as important was the way

she fought for those causes, with immense personal warmth. She put

people before party or ideology. She was able to understand and empathise

with those who opposed to abuse. And there'll be a special programme

looking back on the life of Margo MacDonald tomorrow night on BBC One

Scotland, at 10:35pm. George is still with us. Just before

we left that they, it was starting to pick up and to move from fuel

poverty to a wider debate about income, about the squeezed middle.

We have heard a lot about that. Labour, are they right to make that

a central theme of their campaigning? They have been trying

to do that now for two years. There is an issue about whether in the

period between now and the general election next year, that living

standards start to rise at least appreciably enough for people to get

a grip on things and the feel-good factor starts to click in. I'm not

so sure. At the moment although there are more people in jobs where

does not seem to be any significant rise in retail spending, which tends

to suggest that most people are still counting their pennies. Still

slightly cautious about how they live their lives and secure their

jobs. Nothing but politicians say is going to change that. People have

had five years of reduced living standards and it will take a long

time to recover. For the Labour Party there are central theme is

that something odd is happening across Europe and also in America

and the wealth of the nation is now not linked in the way it used to be

to the affluence of ordinary families. That is the theory at

least. If there is some truth in that? It is nice but the Labour

Party and caught up on that. Wages as a share of national income has

been flat for several decades. The reason that we had a boom during the

last decade is that people were able to take equity from their houses

when prices rose. So the last boom was not due to a proper rise in

living standards. That does suggest that something is seriously wrong

with the whole Western capitalist model. And unless we get back to

some situation where productivity starts to rise and that feeds

through to the wages, then we will be back to where we where with the

boom and bust. Labour have picked up on this, one former adviser to

Barack Obama has been hammering away with this message. They want to

campaign this year and next on this theme. Will it be the same here, you

expect the same? I'm sceptical of the fact that all three of the major

Westminster parties have been hiring so-called campaign experts from

north America. It does suggest to me that there is a lack of collective

imagination in UK politics. American politics are very different and much

more polarised than they are here. So I do not think that that is going

to produce a great rejuvenation of British politics. And there we must

leave it. Many thanks. That is all we have time for this week. We're

back next week at the same time and you can keep up-to-date with the

debate in the Scottish Parliament on the BBC's democracy live website

with full analysis on BBC online. From all of us here thank you for

your company this afternoon and have a very good afternoon.

The multi-award winning The Artist...