24/04/2013 Politics Scotland

Hello and welcome to Politics Scotland. Coming up on the

programme. The alcohol industry stands accused of distorting

evidence to influence the Scottish Government over its minimum pricing

policy. David Cameron defends his welfare

reforms to Scottish MPs as MSPs debate the controversial proposals

again. And the fall-out continues over the

UK Government warnings on currency in an independent Scotland.

The drinks industry has been accused of distorting evidence as

it tried to influence the Scottish Government over alcohol minimum

pricing. An academic report says the industry's submissions to a

public consultation ignored, misrepresented and undermined

scientific evidence. I am joined this afternoon by our political

commentator Hamish Macdonnell. Very interesting that this report

has come out of. How critical of the drinks industry is it? We have

known for a long time that the argument that the drinks industry

was trying to sell was a hard one to get across. They were trying to

argue against minimum pricing, trying to say it would not stop

people drinking more. It appears as if all the weight of scientific

evidence has been on the side of the Scottish government and has

left this drinks industry trying to shoot down that evidence. What has

been that the response from the Scottish government on this? They

will be delighted? Very much so. This plays into the hands of the

Scottish government, particularly as far as the argument is concerned.

This has been an argument on health grounds. They will be delighted

with this report. But the problem is the way the argument is now

really in the courts. No matter how much are they may feel the moral

authority on the back of this report, whether it does anything to

help implement the policy remains to be seen. More on that later.

Just before they came on air, John Swinney, the finance secretary

answered a question on the share of UK get that the Scotland's --

Scottish government might inherit. A single-decker using a population

of historic share would leave Scotland with a lower share of debt

to GDP. Scotland has contributed significantly in excess of its per

capita share of tax of revenues for which it has received and will

return. This should be reflected in these calculations? That is correct

in the substance of the analysis. The balance sheet report published

earlier this month shows that tax receipts per person in Scotland has

been higher than in the UK as a whole. Scotland's share of UK debt

would a result in a Scottish share of 38% of GDP. This is

significantly lower than their UK debt burden.

It interesting to hear that. We have had about six days of argument

over the National currency, what currency Scotland should use if it

becomes independent, what is the strategy behind this? I think this

is an attempt by the finance secretary to try and put the record

straight. Since George Osborne has been appear suggesting that

Scotland may lose the pound, there has been a reaction from the

Scottish government saying, if you do not give us the pound, we will

not take our share of national debt. John Swinney is trying to cool

things down and set things straight saying, we will take our share of

national debt, but we believe that power share of national debt will

be lower than some people in the UK Government believe it. The quote

from John Swinney was that the Chancellor was playing with fire.

Scotland could walk away from its share of the UK's debts if

Westminster did not come into and - - into a rational debate. Yes, the

SNP had been angered by what George Osborne has been St and the

scaremongering. This is an attempt to try to keep things cool. We have

80 Munster to go until we get to the referendum. -- 18 months.

not suppose there will be any agreement before the referendum.

nobody knows what will happen. But everyone wants a rational debate.

They do not want this idea of people being scared, they want to

try and keep it more rational and based on figures and statistics. I

think that is what the finance secretary was trying to do today.

Holyrood has had the latest debate on the UK government welfare

reforms. A Sheffield Hallum University report found the cuts

would take more than �1.5 billion out of the Scottish economy.

Conservatives and Lib Dem MSPs said Scotland was not being hit harder

and said reform was necessary to get the budget under control.

However, a Labour MSP began the debate, recounting evidence heard

in the Welfare Reform Committee. To hear a woman break down in tears,

talking about having to eke out her money back eating toast for a week

because of the money she is going to lose on the bedroom tax, I think

that would leave anyone shedding a tear for that woman. We also heard

from people with learning disabilities. People who have a

steady, supported lifestyles at the moment. Up married couple with

learning disabilities, both of them, fearful of losing their home of.

For anyone not to be moved by what we heard this morning, and not to

want to see changes to the welfare reforms that have been implemented,

I think it would be beyond anyone's measure. I welcomed the report and

the work of the committee in general. It is a very valuable

contribution to what is a growing body of evidence on the dreadful

and heartbreaking impact of the UK Government's welfare reform agenda.

The Independent experts from Sheffield Hallam University have

reached very much the same conclusions as the Scottish

government. Vast sums are being taken out of the local economy

across Scotland as a result of these reforms. The numbers are

alarming. When the reforms take a full effect, they will take more

than �1.6 billion are you out of A does that mean she is opposed to

all of the reforms? If we live then it is a supporter of the UK

Government -- Willie Rennie government, would listen, he would

learn a lot. Over the five years, the total of the impact it will be

�4.5 billion taken out of the pockets of people working hard on

lower incomes, families, people with disabilities, social housing

tenants, people in vulnerable circumstances. We cannot talk about

welfare reform in a vacuum. We cannot just oppose change. In that

this debate so far, as with previous debates, no one has

suggested hope they might do it differently. Unless we are prepared

to talk in those terms, we are making no progress in this debate.

Let's get some political reaction now at Holyrood from the SNP's

Christine Graham who chairs the Scottish Parliament's Justice

Committee, Lewis Macdonald from Scottish Labour and Mary Scanlon of

the Scottish Conservatives. We have been discussing the

controversial report from the drinks industry, heavily criticised

now. You must be delighted at that? I am not delighted by the fact that

Parliament of a government has been allegedly misled. I am not happy at

all. I have written to the current chair of the health committee

suggesting that he takes evidence from Dr Jim McCambridge who has

criticised at the evidence against unit pricing that the industry has

given. I have also suggested that the people who spoke to that

evidence be brought before the committee to air these matters. It

is still very important as there is a continuing court case at the

Court of Session. It is incumbent on anyone giving evidence to our

Parliament to do so honestly and apparently this has not happened.

If Dr Jim my Cambridge -- Dr Jim McCambridge who carried out the

report did give evidence, would you then recall ever -- representatives

from the drinks industry? There must be balanced. If Dr Jim

McCambridge has serious allegations, it should be appropriate that the

opposite side has the opportunity to rebut of those allegations.

Lewis MacDonald, your party has been through a traumatic time on

this policy, some may say you have box yourself into a corner. I do

not agree with the characterisation of our position. I think the

decisions on this policy depend on what the impact of a change of

policy will be. Academics will always criticise each other's work.

At the end of the day however, it is for Parliament to make a

judgment on the basis of information. Well at this make a

critical difference to the consumption of alcohol? We will

have to await and see. Was your party not relying on evidence

coming from the drinks industry which according to Dr McCambridge

was not reliable? No, I do not think that is correct. Our party

took the view that the evidence should come from a number of

different of directions on these matters. Dr Jim McCambridge has

made his point, and others will want to respond to that. The

question now is what is the combatants of their legislation

that has been passed? You changed your mind on this policy, do you

feel that previously you were misled by the drinks industry?

Perhaps you were relying on evidence available. We did agree to

minimum pricing, but only on the basis that it did with stand the

legal challenge, which of course is now an issue in the European

Parliament. But secondly, we also insisted and we won a concession

that there could be a sun set clause, because there is no doubt

that a minimum price would have a devastating effect on our whisky

exports and I think I can only talk for the Scottish whisky association,

we have got some compelling evidence from them which I think would stand

up in any court. Now, we are hearing that the Portman Group, which

campaigns for the drinks industry and social responsibility, has

disputed the Mac-Cambridge report. What steps should the Parliament

take. Is there a possibility that representatives from the drinks

industry should be recalled to perhaps give more evidence? We can

haul over the coals and this Parliament has got an enor mouts --

enormous agenda and minimum pricing has gone through Parliament and been

voted on by a majority. As I said, with the clauses that we won. I

think it is now to look at -time to look at the whisky industry and

their legal challenge and move on from there. We can look at it all

over again. I am not sure the health committee would wish to do that.

That would be a decision for the chairman of the committee, if nay

feel evidence was spurious, perhaps we should have another vote. I doubt

that would be wise. May I challenge that? I think the issue here is the

quality and the responsibility for evidence that is given to any

committee in the Parliament. This is not just evidence that conflicts

with other evidence, but evidence that has been considered to be

distorted, biassed. If that is the case, and the evidence has been

construed in such a way to come to results that can't be justified,

then it must be tested by this Parliament where it was placed in

the first place. Certainly if that happened on the Justice Committee, I

am clear, I want to recall any witnesses, as I have done before

when I felt evidence was not appropriately given. Well let's move

on to another subject that affects the Justice Committee, the money

saving plans to close ten Sheriff Courts and seven justice of the

peace courts. The Justice Committee will hold anchingry into that --

hold an inquiry into that. You said you opposed the closure of the court

in Galashiels. No, in Peebles. Well in your own area. What stance do you

take on court closures? I have two roles, I chair the Justice Committee

and I'm a constituency MSP. I fought against the closure of Peebles court

under the Labour/Liberal administration and I continue to

fight it. But I have a B plan, as my mother said, don't put all your eggs

in one basket. I am campaigning to have a justice centre in Galashiels.

But I haven't given up the fight for Peebles. And I understand the

position of other MSPs in areas where the local court is under

threat. I put in a submission to the Court Service opposing the closure

of Peebles Sheriff Court. The Justice Committee will take two days

of evidence, some from professionals, some from users of

the court before we have the cabinet Secretary and Lord Gill, because

there are other issues coming up, before we have them before us for

evidence. Is it awkward as you press Kenny MacAskill to stave off his

closure but you have to toe the SNP line? I am not known for that. This

will be news to me. My B plan is to ensure that justice in the borders

remains in the borders, I don't want it transferred to Edinburgh. If I

can't keep Peebles, I want a Gala justice centre. Lewis Macdonald,

this plan has been put in place to save money and there are mrachlt Bs

to -- plan Bs to move justice from the old spots, but keep it local.

What we have heard from Christine dpram is -- Christine Grahame is

encouraging. Not only is there today's debate, but also secondly as

convenor of the Justice Committee she will have before her the

statutory instruments without which the closures cannot happen. I hope

we will see SNP members on the Justice Committee unite with other

parties to vote down the proposal and force the Government to think

again about how to secure the local delivery of justice across Scotland.

Not just in the Borders, but in the Highlands and the north-east.

will depend on the evidence. I am glad to hear that, but opt evidence

-- on the evidence we have seen there is strong opposition to a

range of court closures. I hope we see Parliament reject them. So some

of these out of date courts, you think they should be kept open. It

will save the Court Service one. Three annually. There are tiny

savings to be realised at the cost of enormous inconvenience to local

communities, county towns from Dingwall to Haddington, Peebles to

Stonehaven, which will lose access to their local courts and where the

neighbouring city courts like Aberdeen and Edinburgh will be faced

with a vast quantity of business. want to hear from Mary Scanlon.

Taken justice from people, or an essential money-saving measure.

have to think about the victims and the witnesses. If there is any way

this measure is going to affect people in the Highlands, many have

to take a ferry and travel hundreds of miles to get to danger wall.

There is huge opposition in the Highlands. We are already told that

Inverness is overwhelmed, hugely busy and there is already a delay in

accessing justice. We need to know what the will be the difference in

the delay and access to justice will be very difficult with court

closures and the hundreds of miles that people have to travel already

and I hope that Christine's committee will visit the Highland

and she will listen to the concerns that have come my way. Thank you.

Hamish McDonnell joins me again. A fiery debate there on court

closures. An essential measure, or do you think it is important that

justice is kept locally? I think this is a very good example of the

difficulty that governments have when they're trying to implement

cuts which affect local areas. It is all very well if there are cuts in a

department and they are made centrally. But in this one, there is

a specific number of local courts which are being targeted and will be

closed, because the Scottish Government needs to make cuts, or

departments need to make cuts. So it is is putting the government on the

one side against local MSPs on the other, all of whom appear determined

to save their courts. So it is a good example of government against

MSPs and a lot of SNP MSPs having to make a choice between local

interests and party government interests. So this will run and run.

Awkward for a lot of people like Christine Grahame, who is

campaigning to keep her court open, but is looking at a plan B. I think

that any MSP will be looking to some kind of a compromise. I think Kenny

MacAskill will find he is being lobbied from MSPs, each one

determined if not to save those Sheriff Courts then to get something

else to keep that justice local. So I think that Kenny MacAskill has a

tough time. But I think that government has to take these

decisions. This is what cuts are about and this is the environment in

which we live. Thank you. Now our weekly live coverage of the chamber

and today it is a ministerial statement on making the most of

Scotland's canals. The Transport Minister is taking questions in the

chamber. Let's join that now. thank the minister for sight of his

statement and congratulate him on having achieved a change in the

structure of the body that looks after Scotland's canals, through a

process of evolution, rather than revolution and seems to have arrived

at the satisfaction of most of those involved. And by ensuring that

Scottish canals will continue to receive government funding, but

encouraging them to have earned income schemes he has succeeded in

the partial privatisation of the industry. Having dealt with the

issues of funding, I'm concerned that the prospect of economic sus

stainability will require capital investment, as has been the case.

Can the minister say if the structure he has achieved will be

appropriate in order to attract adequate levels of capital

investment in the long-term, or whether the Government itself plans

to continue to be the main source of capital for the canal structures in

Scotland. Can I thank Alex for his congratulations on achieving the

independent status of Scottish canals. It is not true to say there

is any element of privatisation. Local authorities have certained --

earned sources of incomes. And that is what we are asking them to do. In

relation to the sustainable of -- sustainability of capital funding,

that is an important point. We have encouraged and will continue to

encourage Scottish cams to work in -- canals to work with other

agencies. The projects in Glasgow have been done working with private

sector agencies and local authorities. The more we can can do

that, there are substantial gains for canals and users and those who

may want to invest to bring funding in. The more we can do that, the

more benefit we see. And the less the Government has to commit to

that, that allows us to invest resources elsewhere. We won't allow

the canals to return to the situation they were. We will make

sure that progress is continue and bring on other sources of funding.

The minister will know that the Cal conian -- Caledonian canal is

important to my constituency. you pull your microphone around?

minister will know the Caledonian canal is important to my

constituency in relation to commerce and tourism. I will be attending the

canal reception tonight in the Parliament. Could I commend the

Scottish Government and Scottish canals on the investment on the Cal

done yab -- Caledonian canal. But these improvements must continue to

reap the real benefits. Can the minister tell news more detail what

he is going to do to encourage further growth in the number of

vessels navigating our canals and particularly the Caledonian canal.

Can I thank him for his question. The policy that has been set out

does demonstrate the wish to see further growth in boats on the

canals. It does try to encourage canals and other parties to work

together to exploit the opportunities achieve this. Two

example which may be applicable in different forms are those which are

happening at the Forth and Clyde Canal. We have the issue of access,

making sure it is as easy as possible and swroefr o' come --

overcome the issue of narrow tidal access. That offers an opportunity

to encourage more Tran sits across the canals. In relation to the

Caledonian canal, we want to make sure that access is made as easy as

possible for people and we are looking at opportunities for people

living by the canal, there is a great interest in this and to see an

increase in these opportunities. canal network was of course built to

help to support the economy in our country and it is satisfactory to

note in constituencies like mine the creative and sporting industries are

being sparked off by the canal. I note in the minister's statement

that he indicated that the Scottish canals would continue to receive

government grant, but be encouraged to develop earned income streams.

Could he say more about what those streams might be and also whether

the Scottish Government has a view as to the balance between grant

funding from the Scottish Government and money as a result of those

particular income streams? I don't think there is a fixed view. We want

to maximise other income streams. They can be revenue and capital. I

have mentioned housing. If we can develop housing opportunities,

perhaps with others contributing to that investment through other arms

of government and through social or private providers, we can see

increased income coming in t the canals. But we are seeing not least

in the member's own constituency and she will know the uses which people

are looking at in terms of canals, water-based and shore-based

activities. People, whether it is canoes or boating, there is a great

interest and if we maximise that interest and that will mean there is

a revenue and that will increase the Now to Westminster and to Prime

Minister's Questions. The Labour leader Ed Miliband focused on the

state of the health service in England claiming it's in crisis.

David Cameron had to deal with a succession of Labour MPs attacking

his welfare reforms and he hit back saying, I thought it was the Labour

party not the welfare party. The Prime Minister also faced a

question from the SNP on the controversial Taylor donation to

Better Together. He needs to explain why this crisis is

happening on his watch. Let me give him the figures. For the whole of

last year, we met the targets. If you take the number of occasions on

which it was breached, 15 times in the last year, that was lower than

the 23 times when he was in power. Those are the facts. There is one

of part of the country where Labour have been in charge of the N H as

for the last three years, that is Wales, where they have not had a

target since 2009. -- NHS. Let me give him the figures. In 2009,

340,000 people waited longer than four hours in accident and

emergency. Last year, it was 888,000 people. This government it

left office with a highest a patient satisfaction levels in the

NHS. Part of the problem is that his replacement for the NHS Direct

service is a total chaos -- is in total chaos. He has a patchwork,

fragmented service were over Easter, 40% of calls were not answered and

therefore abandoned. If anybody wants to see Labour's record it on

and the NHS, they only have to look at their incidence in at Stafford

hospital so. He mentions people waiting a long time for operations,

that number has come down since this government came to office.

Sense of this government came to office, there are more people

having impatient treatment and waiting times are stable or down,

waiting lists are down, the NHS is performing better under this

government that it did under Labour. The Government is right to

prioritise the combating of sexual violence in conflicts, but the

prime minister would have more credibility on the subject if he

did not accept hundreds of thousands of pounds and private

dinners at Downing Street From Mr Ian Taylor, whose company has

dealings with Serbian warlords. Will the Prime Minister stop

hosting Mr Taylor at Downing Street and give the money back? First of

all, let me thank the Honourable Gentleman for his comments. The

government is putting a huge impetus on this, but it is

regrettable that he is trying to play a political card. 600 hard

working people have lost their jobs. The Tories closed the minds during

the 1980s. Will he stand behind the opencast industry today? Are I am

very happy to look at what she says. They want to support all of our

industries in Britain, including the coal industry were ever it is.

In it Scotland, since the election, the number of people in work has

gone up. I am happy to look at the particular example she gives.

Let's cross to Westminster now and speak to our correspondent Tim Reid.

The Home Secretary made it a hot statement about Abu Qatada. -- made

a statement. Yes, Theresa May is under pressure

over the deportation of Abu Qatada. She and successive home secretaries

have failed to deport the radical preacher back to Jordan. It seemed

yesterday as if it was the last throw of the dice. The Court of

Appeal has a refused leave to the government it to go to the Supreme

Court on this and challenge it. Two things are being done by Theresa

May. They will appeal a directly to the Supreme Court is self. That

will have to be on a matter of legal practice, some think in law

which the Court of Appeal has not found in the government's favour.

She has signed, the UK Government has signed a treaty with Jordan

which, in her words, will make it possible to deport Abu Qatada or

because it has guarantees in that the Jordan will not torture him --

guarantees that Jordan will not torture him. That paves the way for

him to be deported according to Theresa May. But it may have to go

I think Tory MPs have been drilled to stick up for the government on

government policies, particularly on welfare reform. There was a

challenge from one Labour MP who has suggested that the fitness for

work tests are not fit for purpose in terms of welfare reform. She

suggested that one of her constituentss had been declared fit

and was actually dead. His point is they have opposed at every stage

some of the welfare reforms that he is trying to introduce and defended

his government's proposals and determination to get people back

into work and off benefits. Thank you very much.

A decision on whether to back proposals for a Royal charter to

support a new press regulation system will be made by Scotland's

political parties tomorrow. The Scottish Government wants to make a

number of amendments including appropriate respect for those who

have died. Margaret Watson has complained about the press

treatment of her murdered daughter in the Herald newspaper. Yesterday,

the Culture Committee heard from her and the paper's editor.

The article was inaccurate, insensitive and should not have

been published. It was an opinion piece. I would defend anyone's

right to say that. He was writing about the treatment of a young girl

in the judicial system. He made that point badly, it was lazy

journalism. After the article was written, the paper should have

apologised to the family and they should have made sure the offensive

comments were deleted. But unfortunately they were repeated.

What they went through was dreadful. My immediate predecessor has

apologised. But trying to introduce some form of law of defamation for

the dead or bringing in some kind of regulatory approach to it is

fundamentally wrong. The deceased's good game should not be dragged

through the mud without any good reason. There has to be some sort

of provision put him to give some protection to families who have

lost someone. I hope this Parliament will take it seriously.

I have no doubt that defamation of the deceased will not be introduced.

I am quite aware of that. But police put some provision end.

Please allow this to prevent our evidence before some sort of

tribunal. It does not have to be before a court. But as long as it

is an independent. Put an end to the family's distress. They are

under enough pressure without having to deal with the media at

the same time. The Scottish government's position is that there

should be independent self regulation. Membership is voluntary

but encouraged by incentives and triggered by the regulator. Lord

Justice Leveson envisaged that the mechanism for recognising the body

would be statute. Under the agreement reached by the three

largest parties at Westminster, that new regulatory body would

achieve recognition by a body established by a Royal Charter. The

content is what more the this and envisaged. It is important to

acknowledge that the campaign has acknowledged this. While at the

Scottish government wants to take account of the committee's findings,

we do think that Scottish participation in a charter would be

a way to implement Leveson in Scotland. Let's get some final

thoughts from our political commentator Hamish Macdonnell.

What will they agree tomorrow? think they will try to keep

Scotland in the UK framework. Regulation is devolved to Scotland.

After that, there are some problems. Major problems will have to be are

and I have to try to get Scots law and English law to meet on this one

issue. What are those big issues that need to be ironed out? One of

the big ones is over this question of exemplary damages. Under the

system proposed by David Cameron's, to persuade newspapers to come

under their arm of the regulatory body, exemplary damages allowed for

under English law. There is no provision under Scots law for this

principle. There are some lawyers who say they just cannot be. That

is one concrete issue what Scots issue and English law or apart and

at trying to fit them both under the same umbrella of press

regulation, the lawyers will have to work at this. I think that was

the same committee Fiona Hyslop was talking about? The Scottish

government set up this commission to look into the issue of press

regulation and a Lord McCluskey. Most people find it went far too

far. It has got to the stage for the minister is distancing herself

under government as well. Three years in power for David Miliband

and David Cameron? Yes, it has been a tough three years for David

Cameron. He would wish the economy wasn't a better shape? Yes,

everything for this government is being judged on the economy. That

was set out at the start. They have struggled to hit any of the targets.

That will dominate for the next two years. Thank you very much for that.