28/03/2012 Politics Scotland

Welcome to Politics Scotland. Coming up, the Prime Minister is

holding emergency meetings this afternoon ahead of a possible

tanker drivers' strike. New laws are being considered to protect

farm tenants, and the Environment Secretary calls for more openness

from Total, whose platform is at the centre of the North Sea gas

alert. But first, the Scottish government

says it is taking part in meetings of the UK Government's Emergency

Committee, COBRA, to plan for a possible strike by tanker drivers.

Ministers will call into a meeting chaired by the Prime Minister.

the public, I will say that there is no imminent strike. The unions

would have to give seven days' notice of any strike, so there was

no need to queue to buy petrol. But of course people should buy a --

take sensible precautions. Government should not be ramping up

the rhetoric, it should be stepping up the negotiations. The way to

make those negotiations happen is to tell both sides, because there

has been an offer from the arbitration service for both sides

to get around the table. That is what has got to happen. I am joined

by our political commentator, Hamish Macdonell. Good afternoon.

It seems that the UK Government is already getting into difficulties

with this before the strike has even been cold. I cannot help but

think back to Dad's Army and the remark by Corporal Jones, "Don't

panic, Pike." The Government are panicking. They are saying don't

panic but by doing so, they are inducing panic buying. They have

put themselves in an incredible position. If there are queues

anywhere in that country, the Government is responsible. It is

quite tricky for Ed Miliband as well because the Unite Union

sponsors the Labour Party. union is not just the sponsor, a

pretty much put Ed Miliband where he is as the leader. So it is

difficult for him. He wants to appear to be on the side of the

public and yet one of his main sponsors are calling for the strike.

I think he will have to distance himself from the strike at some

stage and he will put themselves at loggerheads with the union. If you

think back to 2000, there was a big tanker strike. This was a big

challenge for the government at that time. We are seeing some

pictures there from the 2008 tanker drivers' strike. It presents a huge

challenge to any government. does, particularly at this time of

year. The Easter holidays is always one of the busiest times on the

nation's roads. It is not what the UK Government wants to have

happened. That is why it is taking the precautions of training RAF

personnel to become tanker drivers, trying to get things in place so

that if there is a strike, they do not suffer the consequences that

Tony Blair dealt with. Legislation to give tenant farmers

greater protection is being considered at Holyrood this

afternoon. It has been proposed that the concession could be

extended to the grandchildren of the tenants, and that the tenant

can recall for review -- can call for a review of the tenancy, not

just the landlord. Achieving our national targets six years early,

gives an illustration of the success in recent years. Our tenant

farmers are an integral part of Scottish agriculture. Prior to 1883,

freedom of contract determined the relationship between farmers and

landlords. Since then, leasing arrangements between landlords and

tenant farmers in Scotland, and the relationships, have been regulated

by Act of Parliament. Before the introduction of the 2003 Act, the

only formal arrangements permitted were either a seasonal let of less

than one year, 364 days, not 365, or a secure tenancy like those in

the 1991 Act that we are familiar wrath. Where the tenant farmer has

a heritable least, it can only be broken by non-payment of rent or a

material breach of the least. There are many factors that influence the

trends in agricultural tenancies. Not just the legislation. Economic

factors, the availability of land and labour, the farming systems,

the health of the marketplace, and changing rural communities. The

soul influences the health of the sector. The purpose of agricultural

holdings legislation is to protect the rights of tenants and the one

board, and to do what we can to enhance the productive mass of our

land in Scotland. It does this by encouraging tenant farmers to

maintain proper husbandry of the land, until the end of the least,

while enabling them to receive the value for the improvements they

have carried out. The aim is to ensure neither party is

disadvantaged by the tenancy agreements. Again, the Bill has

that same name. For some tenant farming provides a first foothold

on the farming ladder. For others, it provides the flexibility to farm

in a way that suits their needs. I am aware that there are a tenant

farmers in Scotland facing extreme hardship, or economic difficulties,

because they're telling me that when I travel Scotland. I know

there are difficult landlords and unscrupulous land agents. We wish

that was not the case. I also know how tenant farmers are dynamic

businessmen, many with contracts with leading retailers. Importantly,

we should recognise that they are also excellent, proactive landlords,

and fair-minded agents. -- there are also. To increase growth and

dynamism in a country with limited amounts of land, is not easy. To

balance the needs of both parties is often challenging. What would be

easy is to sidestep these issues, which need to be addressed. We in

the Government do not wish to take the easy option. The government and

myself are committed to a viable tenant farming sector and this Bill

is one of the many tools were using to achieve this. It marks the final

stage in implementing the package of recommendations made to the

Government by the Scottish tenant farming Forum, with whom we have

worked closely. I was disappointed last year when we could not include

the two main amendments in the spill within the public service

reform Order 2011 but we cannot abuse that power. That is why we

have brought forward his Bill to implement the two final parts of

the packages. -- brought forward this Bill. The first provision

contains parts of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1991 to include

grandchildren in the definition of "New relative." Currently the

definition includes a spouse or an adopted child. This will widen the

class of people entitled to a degree of protection when securing

a tenancy. It should also make it easier for grandchildren to

inherent farms. Section two of the Bill contains a second provision

for upward-only rent reviews. This immense section 9 of the original

Bill, to nullified lease terms in duration tenancies that provide for

only landlord reviewed rent reviews. Currently, on that the two dozen of

three Act, the tenant and landlord enjoy the freedom of the contract

under not restricted in any way. It is therefore possible for parties

to agree to a upward-only rent reviews or a provision -- a

provision were by the landlord only can instigate a review of the rent.

-- whereby. We are instituting help for landlords to avoid a

economically high rents. The effect of the proposal is to ensure that

with these clauses -- causes appear in the future, any such leases

should be struck out. We are not proposing to meet that respectively,

so was not to interfere with the contractual position of parties

already involved in leases containing such provisions.

Agreements between landlord and tenant farmers already in place

will be unaffected by this provision.

Section 3 contains a third provision amending the 1991 Act

relating to VAT and rent reviews. Rent reviews take place on a three-

year cycle and any variation of rent will prevent parties having a

rent review for three years. This clarifies that if the rate of VAT

changes or if the landlord chooses to change the rent, this will not

qualify as a variation. The amendment avoid a situation where a

landlord and tenant are unable to go to court for a rent review. That

has been agreed by the T F F. -- the Tenant Farmers' Association.

Again, it provides an agreed and negotiated set of proposals, which

is all that the mainstay core voters wanted. I know there are

many challenges facing the sector. I know from speaking to tenant

farmers and others that they wish their legislators to stress quite

carefully, given the complexity we are dealing with, and they have

said to me that they wish to avoid embarking on a further ground of

rush changes in legislation, which may be well-intentioned but have

not been fully thought through. I, for one, wish to heed their advice.

That is why following my consideration of the information

and evidence, I will only be bringing forward one of the

amendments proposed by the committee, the stage two

government-led amendment to the provision, so that changes in the

definition of the new relative will apply in cases where a tenant has

died. And when notification has not been given to a landlord under the

relevant sections of the Act. I have also consider the recent

decision of the court in the rent review case and has indicated to

the committee, iron of bringing forward a stage two amendment

related to the Act. -- I am not bringing forward. Some have

highlighted deficiencies in the formula for undertaking rent

reviews. However, all stakeholder groups agree that the rent review

system is a complex topic and any legislative change should be

carefully considered to allow consideration of the potential

impact. We need detailed consultation on that with the

industry. We have met with the Tenant Farmers' Association to

discuss a way forward. I will be having a summit meeting with them

to discuss these issues in Inverness. I recognise we need a

system for determining rents that is fit for purpose. My forthcoming

meeting will consider how an independent panel should be set up

to assist this process, enabling progress to be made in a shorter

timescale than might otherwise be the case. Members will also be

aware of the recent decision that is before the courts. I am limited

in what I can say other than we are considering all our options

including the option of Appeal. I am very aware that there are other

important tenant farming issues which need to be in -- need to be

addressed and actioned. At the summit, we will discuss many of

these issues covering rent reviews, brought a succession issues, and

issues around fixed equipment. I do not want to pre-empt the tenant

farmers Forum were planned, but I would like a strict timetable. We

will have a full review of all legislation and then we will take

any action that requires to be taken in this Parliament to find --

provided the opportunity arises. Given the issues before us, I

believe what we're doing is the right course of action. This

government believes that it is important that this Bill gets the

support of Parliament and I urge you all to deliver that. Professor

Phil Thomas of the tenant farming 4:00am joined Spain. -- tenant

farming Forum joins me. Can you encapsulate some of the big changes

proposed in this Bill? The Bill is essentially a technical Bill

covering some quite important topics. The topics are really quite

key. Succession in particular. That is very important people. -- very

important to people. Why is it important to have that enshrined in

legislation? Historically, we have had a situation where the

succession to the tenancy could go to a new relative which was defined

in relation to the spouse and children. But we are in a situation

now where in many cases tenancies tend to take... Tend to take a

generation or jump. Very often the son or daughter they will leave the

farm to work in another context, but their children would wish to

come back into farming. This provision in a Bill opens up the

How would you judge this Bill? Would it - does it give more rights

to tenants and takes rights away from the landlords, as it were?

don't see it in those terms either way. One of the successes of the

TFF has been that we have been able to get topics discussed from both

sides and by and large, reached situations where there is a

consensus about the benefit to everybody. I think it's important,

both for landlords and tenants, that they have and they see they

have a fair system in land tenancy. When it comes to the timetable for

this, Richard Lochhead was laying it out there, how do you think it

can be achieved? I think Richard Lochhead laid out a number of

issues, issues on the agenda for the TFF, certainly from my

standpoint I would like to see us move forward as quickly as possible

with these. There is a need for a full consideration of some of the

issues. The patent has changed a little bit, again as the Minister

indicated through two recent legal cases. That needs to be taken into

account. So you can't move in a way without thinking very carefully

about the changes. But there is a degree of urgency about this. There

are a number of leftover issues, if I can put it that way, that have

arisen out of the 2003 legislation and they need to be addressed as

soon as possible. The Environment Secretary paid tribute to tenant

farmers there, how important are they in the sector in terms of the

produce they offer to the market and so on? Well, they are important.

They're important, both from the productivity of agriculture, and

from the standpoint of sharing some of the risk with landowners,

because it's one of the mechanisms that landowners use to spread the

risk of farming, if I can put it that way. It's also more generally

important, because landownership is in all countries of the world, it's

a big social issue. If I can sort of take the extreme examples, if

you had a situation one person owned all the land that would be

seen as totally unacceptable. At the other extreme, if you had a

situation where land was divided absolutely equally between every

member of the population, we would probably think that would rather

unworkable. Somewhere in the middle you have the kind of situation that

we have in Scotland, where you have a mixture of landownership and

tenancy working side by side in a way that satisfies both the

objectives in terms of land management, and those wider

societyal aims. Professor Thomas of the Tenant Farming Forum thank you

for joining us. The Scotland Bill is continuing and concluding its

report stage in the House of Lords today. It's receiving more line by

line scrutiny from members. I am joined from Westminster by our

correspondent Mark Darcy. Thank you for joining me. What's going on in

the Lords this afternoon then? you say, it's the report stage, the

very detailed scrutiny of the Bill. They look closely as you say, line

by line, what we have had today is a couple of micro concessions from

the Government. The Scottish parliament will now have control of

the speed limit for HGVs on motorways in Scotland, which it

didn't have before and control the speed limit for them everywhere

else, but not on motorways and peers thought that was illlogical.

There's been haggling about the precise title of the Crown of

estates commissioner for Scotland, that's the sort of level they've

been dealing with today. A little later on they're going to be

looking at the Barnet Formula, amendments down from Lord Barnet

himself, the inventor of the famous formula for funding Government

activities in Scotland. He thinks it should be replaced with an

updated needs-based system. That's coming up rather later this

afternoon. They're nowhere near it at the moment and that may produce

something slightly more lifely than we have had today. Then the Bill

goes off for a third reading debate when the Lords return from their

Easter break, Wednesday 28th should see the last rights read over this

Bill in the Lords. Also an amendment from Lord Forsyth as well,

what's he saying this time? Well, Lord Forsyth, the artist formerly

known as Michael Forsythe, has had a load of amendments down. One he

was moving this morning was essentially to get a much fuller

report to the Scottish voters about the implications Government

department by Government department of Scottish independence. So it

would look at everything from what happened to defence bases, all that

kind of thing spelt out in vast detail. A lot of peers quite like

the idea of a better informed debate but for example the former

former Liberal leader Lord Steel said that would delay the

referendum. And Lord Forsyth didn't push that amendment to a vote, he

wanted the discussion. Like a lot of these things it's about finding

out what Ministers think about something and noting it down maybe

to use in evidence against them later on. Let's move on to

something that's hitting the headlines more today, the possible

tanker drivers' strike. The UK Government getting into a little

bit of difficulty about the panic buying. Well, there is a worry.

There doesn't seem to be much sign of panic buying yet, Ministers are

saying, people are perhaps being more prudent and making sure tanks

are full. There would have to be notice of a strike, a strike date

hasn't been announced so they're stressing it's a bit previous for

people to really panic-buy. There are some suggestions doing the

rounds people might like to store a bit of petrol and that's being met

with counterpoints about, hang on a minute, there are safety

regulations that suggest it's not a good idea for people to get stocks

of petrol lying around in the garage in case they become a fire

hazard. COBRA that meets in the Cabinet Office, is going to meet

later this afternoon and the Energy Secretary, the newest member of the

cabinet, is going to emerge later on in the afternoon to brief the

waiting world about what their thoughts are. I think the Scottish

Government are going to call in to that meeting. It's a tricky issue

for Ed Miliband as well, isn't it? Indeed. It puts Ed Miliband in an

awkward position, because the union behind this Unison is one of the

biggest contributors to the Labour Party. On the other hand, a petrol

strike is a huge political game changer, if people think back to

2000 and most of the people in the Commons can remember that far back

politically, they remember how destablising that was for for Tony

Blair's Government. They don't know what would catch the blame for a

strike this time and don't know what the implications would be. It

may be the unions are blamed, but no Government becomes popular if

the petrol stops flowing and the population can't move around.

you very much. Let's head back into the chamber

and hear some more of that agricultural holdings debate. Clare

Baker is on her feet just now. It has highlighted the wider

debates over tenancy arrangements in Scotland and the need to improve

the system for current farmers and future generations. This Bill Bill

recognises a move in the right direction and although no one is

denying there is more to do be done it is fair we use this focus Bill

to brining these measures into law as quickly as possible and Labour

will be supporting the Bill at stage one. At the heart of the

debate around tenant farm something how we secure a sustainable future.

We must question why we have seen a fall in total number of holdings

with tenancy agreements but at the same time appear to be seeing a

rise in contract farming. The landmark land reform programme

brought forward agricultural holdings Act in 2003, and among

other measures introduced limited duration tenancies and short. And

we have seen an increase in both of these. However, the number of 1991

Act tenancy and limited partnerships have declined and

overall as Rob Gibson pointed out we have seen a reduction of 10% in

the number of tenancy agreements. In contrast, England's tenancy

sector has developed differently with a decline in rented land

halted and even reversed. However, it is a complex comparison to draw

and in England they have little security of tenure and little

evidence that any increase is due to new entrants. In Scotland we

need a tenancy sector that encourages long-term investment

from both ten apt and landlord, both feeling confident their

investment will be recognised and rewarded as well as a sector which

supports new entrants, not just in terms of availability of land, but

also in terms of investment and support. The answer to all this is

not simple. We should recognise as the cabinet Secretary pointed out,

that there is a lot of good practice and good relations in the

sector. But there is also an ageing population in farming and we must

make new opportunities easier to find. The better the evidence, the

easier it is to provide the correct policy response and as the

committee identify in their report, there are concerns over the lack of

reliable data. We can assume that the number of 1991 tenancies are

historic. But as the Government identified, we don't really know

what happens when a 1991 tenancy comes to an end. And this gap is

contributing to falling numbers. The Scottish Government must now

take measures to improve the data collection. In terms of the Bill it

does look to expand the options at the end of a 1991 tenancy, by

extending the meaning of near relative where a success ror to

include grandchildren. In principle we very much agree with extending

who qualifies as near relative but I expect this is an area we will be

returning to at stage two. The Scottish tenant farmers association

and NFUS both question the difference between interpretation

of near relatives. SFT in particular would like to include

nephews and nieces. However, others express concerns about getting the

right balance between landlords and tenants. I agree with the committee

that the Scottish Government needs to look at this again. Consensus is

a good thing and it is moving events along, albeit slowly, but at

the same time we have to continue - we have to continue - we are

continuing to see tenant farming decreasing. If further extension

would play a part in addressing this decline we should consider it.

In relation to transitional provisions I am pleased that the

Scottish Government has responded to the committee and and has

indicated they will bring forward an amendment at stage two. This is

a sensible move which will capture those people in the middle of the

process at the time of the Bill's passing. Section two of the Bill

Bill, rent reviews and limited duration tenancy, I welcome the

widespread support for this, and it is a sensible measure I believe

will be a positive move forward forward future future contracts.

The committee considered wider issues of tenancy. We can recognise

a progress that has been made through devolution but we can make

make further improvements. The Government have an opportunity in

this parliament to make progress on tenant farming through legislation

if necessary, but also through policy direction. We can improve

conditions for new entrants and and while starters units and new

entrants register, mentoring will all be positive moves, the cap

subsidy system does not support new entrants and the needs of new

entrants be central to these discussions. I would like to see a

more level playing field for new entrants when it comes to accessing

subsidy support. The RSPB proposal for conservation tenancies is worth

further consideration with RSPB arguing it could solve the current

limitations they and other NGOs face in letting land. Let's go back

to our main story, the possible fuel tanker drivers' strike. Hamish

McDowell is still with me. That COBRA emergency committee meeting

at the cabinet will just be getting under way in the next couple of

minutes. The Scottish Government calling in to that. There'll be

keen to hear what the UK Government are saying. Yes, I think there is a

lot of politics involved in this as well. I think Alex Salmond will be

delighted to take part in this kind of discussion. If you think about

where this puts him, this puts him on the same level as a UK cabinet

Minister, just below the Prime Minister, that's exactly the sort

of level he wants to be seen at. While he will love that and enjoy

that position, the UK Government I feel will not take it the same way

and they will perhaps be irritated about having to call in and get the

views of the Scottish Government where they may feel this is

something they're in charge of. It's a well worn path. The Scottish

Government have been called in to these meetings before, haven't

they? They have, one notable example of the terrorist attack on

Glasgow airport, at that stage Alex Salmond was very much leading the

issue in the initiative because it took place in Scotland. This is

very much a UK issue which Alex Salmond is playing a part. I think

as far as his approach is concerned he will want to be be concilliatory,

statesman-like but want to be a little bit standoffish, he won't

want to associate himself with the remarks from the UK Government

which have led to panic buying. are hearing tanker drivers may be

helped to train to drive these tankers. If you look at what might

happen, just say we are in the Easter holidays and there is a

tanker drivers' strike, just say Mr Cameron has gone off sunning

himself somewhere on holiday, while constituents of his and potential

voters are stuck in traffic jams running out of petrol that image

won't look good and he knows that, that's why these sort of

contingency plans are put in place now, just so that if they do get

the situation of having a strike they have some way of trying to

break it. We mentioned earlier it can be extremely difficult for

Government to cope with this as we saw in 2000 with Tony Blair and the

petrol protests then. Do you think Mr Cameron is in a different

Yes, he will have to rely on union votes as a Labour Prime Minister.

There might be some feelings among the Conservative Party that Mr

Cameron needs to slay dragons. Unions are not a bad dragon for a

Conservative Prime Minister to take on. Think back to Margaret Thatcher

taking on the unions during her first year. Some might see this as

a chance for David Cameron to put his authority down, break the

strike, keep the fuel flowing and enhance his reputation. The trouble

is, if there are pockets at the gates and the police cannot move

people on and hospitals are closing, it becomes extremely difficult.

does. There is a riskier that things can go badly. -- there is a

risk here. It comes back to the question, who takes the blame? As

the Government, there is no way that David Cameron will be able to

avoid taking a decent sized share of that claim. Back with you in a

moment. Scotland's Environment Secretary,

Richard Lochhead is calling for more openness and transparency from

Total, the operators of a North Sea platform which is looking flammable

gas. Let us go to Holyrood when I will be joined by Maureen Watt from

the SNP. Murdo Fraser from the Scottish Conservatives and their

representative from the Scottish Greens. Thank you for joining me.

First of all, Maureen Watt from the SNP, this is very interesting what

Richard Lochhead has been saying, calling for more transparency from

Total. Does the Scottish Government have concerns about this operator?

Clearly the Scottish Government is responsible for the environment.

This is an environmental issue. It is important that the Government

and the public are kept in the loop about every stage of this

development, and that is why Richard Lochhead is calling for

more openness and transparency. There has been concern about Total

keeping information, particularly about the flame up of the platform

going, no one knew that was happening. -- the flame up of. What

representations will Richard Lochhead be making to the company?

I am sure he is in constant contact with the company. Total are to be

commended for the speed at which they got the personnel off the

platform. That was the major concern, making sure that all

personnel were safe and they are to be commended for that. And indeed

the other companies who have stood down personnel on you by

installations. -- installations. We have concerns about the environment.

I am sure that Total are working hard to find out exactly how they

can deal with the problem, but we're hoping that they will keep us

informed at every stage of that development. Alison Johnson from

the Scottish Greens, you must be very concerned about this. The

think that Total have been free and open with the information here?

Absolutely not. That is why Richard Lochhead and the RSPB are calling

for a Total transparency. We need to understand what is going on. One

minute we're being told it is stable and next we are told it

could run for another six months. The environmental consequences

could be very damaging. Total transparency is required and at the

moment, I believe that Total's website is not available. The fee

of that the companies have a -- petrol companies have a lot of

control over these things? The coastguard, for example, does not

give information. You have to phone the operator themselves. The think

the Government should ensure that there is more openness? Absolutely.

-- do you think. I'm pleased to hear that the Government are taking

this seriously now. Why should commercial confidentiality or other

excuses stop the public understanding what is going on?

Murdo Fraser from the Scottish Conservatives, the UK Government

Energy Minister has been dealing with this. Do you feel that he has

been getting enough information from the oil company? I think there

remain concerns about that. We should not lose sight of the fact

that the oil and gas sector has an excellent safety record overall in

the North Sea. It is very rigorously regulated and the Health

and Safety Executive and other agencies do that. There are

legitimate concerns about what is happening with the platform. The

flare has been burning for so long and information has not been

provided. Charles Henry and his team are in constant contact with

Total, but everybody with an interest in the sector, whether it

is an economic interest or an environmental interest, will want

to make sure we're getting all the information that we need. First of

all, we need to get the information -- situation under control and we

need to learn the lessons to make sure there are no repercussions.

it is a complicated situation because safety is reserved at

Westminster. But the environment is devolved. Do you think the Scottish

Government is communicating enough about this situation? To my

knowledge, there is a very good working relationship between the UK

Government and the Scottish Government on this. I know that on

energy policy, Charles Henry works closely with these -- his Scottish

counterpart, and because there is no divergence of interest, both

parties will work together. Regardless of where your

allegiances lie, everybody wants to see the situation brought under

control and lessons learned. Last week, we heard that the UK

Government had given permission to BP to drill in the deep water well

west of Shetland. BP have got that contract. After that Deepwater

Horizon, are you concerned by BP's safety record? I am not concerned

at all. There are real opportunities for further

development of oil and gas west of Shetland. Given the knowledge

dentistry that has built up in the sector, over many decades, I think

our oil companies are well placed to exploit resources. I think it

would be foolhardy on the basis of one episode to suddenly completely

rethink our policy. Fraser was Malcolm -- Murdo Fraser was

mentioning the good safety record but we see these occasions

occasionally in the North Sea. Perhaps it shows the instability of

the product we are dealing with when it comes to the independence

referendum. So much of your argument is predicated on oil and

gas revenue. Do you have concerns that it comes from such an unstable

source? Having worked in the industry, I am the first to know

how dangerous working offshore is, having been there several times. We

should not forget about the health and safety regime. It is much

different from that that the Deepwater Horizon was under. I am

confident that the oil companies but health and safety at the top of

their agenda. -- put a health and safety. We're sure that Total are

dealing with this as best they can. The platform has been abandoned so

there is no one in the vicinity that can know exactly what has

happened. I am sure that Total are doing everything they can to deal

with this problem as swiftly as possible if it can be dealt with

swiftly. Also, perhaps, long term: Of the relief -- relief well.

Moving on to a related situation, Alison Johnson, it is the possible

tanker drivers' strike. We hear the UK Government is telling us to

perhaps prepare for a strike. What is your reaction to that?

sooner the Scottish Government and UK government realised that our

future is in renewable energy and in sustainable forms of transport,

the better. Maureen Watt, the Scottish Government is taking part

in the COBRA emergency meeting. What do you think Alex Salmond and

his representatives will be saying to the UK Government? I think it is

in every one's interest that the parties get around the table to try

the best they can to avoid a strike happening. And Murdo Fraser, is

this an opportunity for a Conservative Prime Minister to try

to put down the unions? I think the important thing is that a strike

must be avoided at all costs. I do not think conference --

confrontation held that on either side of the debate. We must be very

wary of the media stoking this issue, where we end up seeing

people panic buying petrol and creating shortages were they should

not occur. We need a calm and rational approach. Murdo Fraser,

Maureen Watt and Alison Johnson, thank you very much.

Still to come: Are fed up of pavement Parker has? We will hear

from one MSP who is trying to put a stop to it. -- pavement Parkers.

At Holyrood this morning, MSPs were continuing their inquiry into the

renewable energy targets. The aim is for 100% of Scotland's energy to

be generated by renewables by 2020, an ambitious target. The question

is focused on a green workforce. We need us -- we need skilled people

to work in these new projects. are to stage just now where it is a

chicken and egg scenario. Employers are debating whether it is the

right time to invest. If you feel you could say something about

challenges there, what could be done to help that, and do you

believe that the industry is on course to get the skills that we

need to meet these targets? What concerns Carnegie is that many of

the players we are dealing with a looking for multi-skilled,

employable people, employable at the point they want to be asked for

it. We're talking about four or five years of apprenticeships. When

you look at the targets, that is worrying. There is this idea that

there are a group of people just waiting to be employed and it is

not the case. We're not seeing them coming from oil and gas. All we are

starting a new transition in December to try and get adults

geared up towards the sector. But it is worrying. There is an idea

that it is going to take four or five years to take these modern

apprentices through. We are a after try to the youngsters coming in

from school. -- we have to attract the youngsters. But I think we have

to make sure that what we produce and the qualifications we deliver

are fit for purpose and endorsed by the industry. It is a piece of work

to take that forward and redesign some of the programmes. Also,

looking at the graduates and ensuring that they are ready for

work. There has been criticism about on prepared graduates. -- on

prepared. We are investigating how to take that forward. With regard

to the support, I think it will be a partnership and combined funding

but it needs to be flexible in order to be able to adapt to some

of the employer's' demands. Some of this will need rapid response.

We're seeing examples of where this is happening, but we need to learn

from that and take it forward. Looking at the implications of

funding, if someone has achieved a modern -- Modern apprenticeship,

that excludes them from being funded again. If we are taking

people from one discipline to another, there are issues of

funding and that can impact upon that. It is the funding agencies

and government employers, it has to be done in partnership with them.

That is the key message I am picking up from industry. I was

speaking to one of the big groups last week and they said they were

unhappy with the funding directly, attributing that directly to the

apprenticeships. I know there is money that can be applied through

the colleges but that does not always happen. For them, the level

of funding is more attractive in England. It is very complicated

chemical works, but in Scotland we have to apply partnership and

college funding to make its comparable. The impact of college

cuts is going to potentially have a negative effect on that. That would

be a concern I would have moving forward, and I would need

assurances that the engineering training would be protected. Hamish

MacDonald, let's chat about a few more points. There were stories

today about red faces over Labour's tax blunder. This was a surprise

late-night vote that the SNP and Plaid Cymru managed to force over

the new imprint -- income tax rate. What was going on their key mack

this is a very rare and revealing glimpse into what goes on in

Westminster. -- what was going on there? This is over the decision to

lower the 50p tax rate which Labour has opposed since George Osborne

announced it in the Budget last week. The SNP and Plaid Cymru seek

a vote in on this issue which Labour were not expecting. As a

result, almost none of their MPs were around. So the SNP and Plaid

Cymru opposed it. This said that Labour were not around but they

were not around to vote against it. On the back of that, one Labour MP,

Willie Bain, in an e-mail week, said that it was the long-standing

convention in the Labour Party that "We do not support SNP motions."

This is incredible. These two parties are closer in policy terms

than any other and Westminster and yet it will not support each other

on a motion because one will SNP were delighted that it seemed

to reveal something that always suspected about Labour, which is

that Labour will oppose things, just because they are promoted by

the SNP and for no other reason. Great embarrassment for Labour and

also delight for the Conservatives, for them it shows that the

opposition is completely split. The opposition can't even get their act

together when it comes to opposing something as central as the

dropping of the 50p rate, they'll be delighted. But of course Labour

were saying this was sheer desperation from the SNP and

they're playing parliamentary procedure games. They have a little

bit of a point. Oel parliamentary hands like you and me are aware of

what guess on behind the scenes and there always tends to be tactics

each party will use in these sort of situations. What would usually

happen is both Labour and the SNP would put down their own amendments,

each would back their own amendments and they'll be able to

keep their own positions. The question is being asked is this a

mess-up, tribalism? I am afraid it's both. There was one so-called

leaked e-mail on a website, a Labour spin doctor apparently had

said that - admitted to, I quote, a screw-up after the vote, so it's

been widely read on Twitter and so on, hasn't it? But is this an

edifying spat between the parties? Not at all, usually these things

are conducted behind the scenes by the whips, party managers, they

sort out who is going to put what amendment in and support them so

they can both emerge and save face at the end. That was not done in

this circumstance. As a result, this this has bubbled out into the

open and the people at large can see what goes on and what sort of

deals are made and what happens when they fall down in the

Westminster village. Away from the Westminster village, how do you

think this story reverberates to normal folk out there? If they've

noticed it I think they'll think it's ridiculous of Labour and a bit

ridiculous of the SNP as well, I would say. Thank you very much.

A Scotland-wide ban on irresponsible parking is being

proposed. The SNP MSP Joe Fitzpatrick says bad parking is a

major safety issue and can prevent fire engines reaching an emergency.

The private member's bill has been welcomed by wheelchair users like

Jean Cashley in Dundee who says drivers who park on dropped kerbs

are making her life a misery. there's no one around I could get

stuck and I could fall out. As well as that, when you come out from

behind the car you don't know if you are coming out into traffic and

it's a busy road so you could be coming out in front of cars that

are going up and down the street. It's quite frightening.

Joe Fitzpatrick joins me now from Holyrood. Good afternoon. Thank you

very much for joining me. The Lib Dem MSP Ross Finney did try to

introduce this before, but why have you decided to pick up the baton to

succeed with this? I supported Ross in his efforts and taking this

further because I think it's really important we tackle these problems.

These are problems across Scotland which are affecting lots of people,

parking on the pavement, across dropped kerbs and double parking.

We are hearing in that clip there from Jean Cashley. My old English

teacher actually. It sounds like it can make life pretty difficult for

people like her. It certainly can. I was with Jean yesterday and we

really experienced the problem, even having somebody able to push

the chair it was really difficult not not being able to cross the

road at the appropriate dropped kerb and to have to bump the

wheelchair down. How significant is this a problem in Scotland do you

think? It's a real problem for a number of people. It's not just

people in wheelchairs, we also have people with guide dogs, people with

prams. So there's lots of people often forced into the middle of the

road because cars are inappropriately parked. It's not

that I think people are deliberately being irresponsible, I

think it's they don't realise the impact of their parking. Why is

this having to be taken to the Scottish parliament? Can local

authorities or the police not try to deal with this using current

regulations? The legislation is just not working for people. That's

why, if you look in England they recently brought in tighter

regulations there, but the example I am wanting to follow is the

example in London where it's clear unless there's something that says

you can, you can't park on the pavement and that's been working in

London since the 1970s. If that is introduced, how successful do you

think it will be? Well, I think it will - the most important thing is

it will make it clear to drivers where they can and can't park and

also make it clear to pedestrians that paths are for pedestrians and

they've the right to access services and facilities in their

neighbourhood. We are hearing from Jean there, have you been contacted

by other people now you have raised the issue, what support is it

getting? I have certainly had hundreds of e-mails today from

people supporting the Bill and telling me how important it is that

this legislation is passed. I am tphourpbling people to --

encouraging people to bake part in the consult -- take part in the

consultation so we can get the best possible legislation. So you are

thinking of introducing this legislation. What happens now and

what kind of timetable do we have after that? The consultation is

launched today. I already have over 20MSPs who in principle, support

the Bill. The thing now is for ordinary members of the public and

organisations to take part in the consultation. It's available on my

website. If people get hold of the consultation and fill it in, that's

the next stage forward. We will see what happens with that, thank you.

With me once again is Hamish. Are you surprised that an issue like

this almost has to be taken to parliament and can't be done using

local regulations? No, I am not actually. I think that this is the

kind of issue that the Scottish parliament oddly enough was also

set up to do. If you think back a couple of parliaments ago you had a

Conservative MSP who introduced a Bill about dog fouling, now he was

ribbed at the time about what a small issue it was but an extremely

important issue for many people. It's the small issues which really

affect people's livelihoods which are not to do with big finance or

local Government or anything like that which are big important local

issues which the Scottish parliament has time to deal with

which it never did when Westminster was in charge. This is another

example, an issue of parking and it's important for people who are

disabled, with prams, guide dogs and they have no way of doing

anything about it apart from going to parliament. With Joe Fitzpatrick

it looks like lie it will succeed and become a new law? I would think

so, this is a sort of Bill which is uncontroversial, it's non-party

political. I would expect him to get pretty much broad support right

across the chamber. I can't see any MSP who would oppose this. Standing

up for bad motorists who park in the wrong places. The political

week started on Sunday with a bang, the cash for Cameron access, the

Sunday Times had that story. Damaging for the Prime Minister,

wasn't it? Very much so. I think what what is not surprising is the

fact donors and big business donors give money to the Conservative

Party and would like some kind of influence in return, that's kind of

a given. What was really damaging about this was the suggestion that

came out that there was some kind of influence on Government policy

as a result. Let's join Glen Campbell now. We are talking about

the cash for Cameron access there. A few of the papers today there's

Alex Salmond and his Tea Party story, what's going on with that?

Well, Alex Salmond met the lottery winners, Colin and Chris Weir for

tea at his official residence here, a few days before they donated

between them �1 million to the SNP and its campaign for independence.

The Government, though, says that those two events are not related.

That his meeting with them was not a donor event, that the House is

not used for fundraising activities, that that instead this was Alex

Salmond catching up with old friends, people who apparently

believed in the SNP and independence for longer than Alex

Salmond himself and that at no point during those discussions was

the donation raised, as an issue. Others have looked at this and

wonder if the two are connected. you think that defence has managed

to asaupblg Mr Salmond's critics? Well, I think one big difference

between this and the events at Westminster is it's hard to imagine

what influence on Government policy the Weirs might have sought. They

support the SNP and they support independence and donated this money

to support the nationalists in their campaign in the run-up to the

referendum. It's hard to see beyond that what influence they might have

sought on Government policy and indeed the Government itself says,

to suggest that they were seeking that kind of influence is nonsense.

And at 4.00pm we have other big business at Holyrood, a debate on

the Budget. That's right, a debate on the UK Budget. The Scottish

Government will use that to criticise George Osborne's Budget.

They'll say that it's a missed opportunity to promote growth,

partly because George Osborne didn't pick up a number of the

suggestions that the Finance Secretary John Swinney made, he was

looking for several hundred million pounds more to spend on what he

calls shovel-ready capital projects in Scotland but it's also an

opportunity for the Conservatives and for the Liberal Democrats to

talk up what they see as the big pluses from that Budget statement,

including the decision to raise further the threshold at which

people will start to pay income tax which will take many thousands of

Scots out of income tax altogether. And one other big story we have

been covering today is the gas leak from the Elgin platform. The

Environment Secretary calling for Tote to -- Total to be more open

and transparent, you were speaking to him, weren't you? That was his

main message, because we have had mixed messages from Total. They

told the BBC at one point that they had shut down any capacity for

ignition at the plant and then we learned later that the gas flame is

still burning and could continue to burn for quite sometime. So,

Richard Lochhead is, I think it's fair to say, concerned about the

statements that have come out so far and he is asking the company

and the UK Government which regulates activities in the North

Sea to publish as much as they possibly can, both about what's

happened there and about how they've reached concern con--

certain conclusions about the safety of the site and the impact

that it may have on the environment or the fact that the company

believes there is unlikely to be any significant impact on the

environment. Thank you very much. Time for one final thought from our

commentator Hamish. We had the Conservative conference at the

weekend. Ruth Davidson making her maiden conference speech. Is there

going to be much of an umbrella group for the unionist parties?

the moment no, each party seems determined to set up their own

review, their own policy organisation, their own umbrella

group. Each one separate looking at the union and looking to defend the

union. They're not getting together on policy terms, not getting

together on organisational terms, on leadership terms. They are as

disparate now as they were at the start of the conference season. No,

I think at the moment things stand as before. The SNP have a healthy

lead in this debate. Briefly, Ruth Davidson, how did she do? It was

solid, competent. I don't think it set the Heather alight. They had

David Cameron there and having the Prime Minister at the party

conference is always great for the Conservatives and they did well

with that. Thank you very much. That's it from us. The Scottish