31/10/2012 Politics Scotland

Hello and welcome to Politics Scotland. Coming upon the programme,

businesses are concerned they will lose their discount on empty

properties. MSPs are due to vote on it this afternoon. The big debate

over proposals to cut the drink- drive limit. We were here concerns

it could divert police attention from serious offenders.

Here at Westminster, reaction to the report from the former Tory

Cabinet minister Lord Heseltine calling on the UK Government to do

more to boost growth in the economy. Plans to reduce the discount on

business rates which applies to empty properties are likely to be

passed at Holyrood this afternoon. Businesses are opposed to the move,

but ministers say they cannot subsidise empty shops. To discuss

this I am joined by politics and economics commentator, Alf Young.

Let's look at this issue first of all. Businesses are concerned and

we will look at it in more detail in his second. Why are they so

worried? It's about time for commercial

property, you see it in every high street, all over the country in a

lot of places, places up for lease and rent. The government thinks

that if it goes on subsidising, because they get a 50 per cent

reduction in rates on the property while it is empty, if they stopped

doing that, it might persuade more owners of properties to drop the

level of rent they are looking for and get some stimulus back into the

economy. In any case, as you said, they are saying you cannot go on

subsidising this. They are proposing to reduce the subsidy

from 50 per cent to 10 per cent. They are choosing to go to 10 per

cent. More on that in a moment. Another big issue to be debated

tomorrow is the drink-drive limit. The Scottish government wants to

reduce it to an amount which could put people over the limit easily if

they have had just one pint and are rather low body weight. They want

to reduce it from 80 millilitres to 50, which brings it down to where

even a glass of wine or one pint of beer makes it dodgy, where the

would be over or under the limit. Kenny MacAskill is wanting to go

further than that and have more random tests so you don't

necessarily have a suspicion that somebody is drinking and driving to

be able to test them. He also wants more to do with younger drivers,

because we know younger drivers are likely to cause road accidents when

they first start driving. But it is contentious, and I think the

industry and lots of other people will think it is too draconian.

Thank you for that just now. As we briefly discussed, proposals to

reduce business rates will be voted on at Holyrood. Cameron Buttle has

more details. This business park is a couple of

miles outside could Caldy. It was built to take advantage of

development plans for the area, but that was before the financial crash,

and for the past four years, they have been trying to rent the

office-based, but most of it is still empty. At the moment, this

place is running at a loss. Every empty room here costs money,

and it could be about to cost a lot more. This room gets a 50 per cent

rate discount. The Scottish government wants to reduce that to

10 per cent. At the moment it costs us about �160,000 a year just to

open the doors and run the centre at current occupancy levels. We are

current remit -- currently running at a loss of �12,000 a year, so if

you add �30,000 to that, it is quite a worry. The idea is to

encourage business to open up, particularly on the high street.

The Scottish government cannot maintain a position where we are

subsidising people to keep properties closed when we need to

be regenerating communities and tackling the blight on the High

Street. Critics say this is a tax hike imposed on a vital sector at

the worst time. This will hammer businesses with a whopping tax hike

at a time when the economy is struggling and businesses can't

afford it. It will not bring empty properties back onto the market.

The proposed changes would affect industrial factories, charities or

listed buildings. The Bill will be debated in the Scottish Parliament

this afternoon. Let's discuss this issue further

work Amy Dalrymple of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, and Susan

Bree from Aberdeen Business Improvement District. Good

afternoon tea at both. Amy, why do you think the government should

subsidise empty properties? Landlords don't need an incentive

to let properties. That is the bottom line. They are business

people and many are chamber members. They want to get properties let out.

They don't have empty properties sitting there but they are sitting

on because they are collecting a subsidy from the Scottish

government. What will actually happen is that a Scottish

government is proposing to levy an extra tax on landlords, and it will

actually take money out of town centres when we needed their. --

need it there. It is crucial time for town centres. They are a-

changing, the way spaces used is changing. It is very difficult, a

time of change and economic difficulty, and the Scottish

government is just putting more tax on business. Susan Bree, we heard

businesses would suffer, but your broadly supportive of this and you

are in the business of promoting business. How do you square that

circle? I think what Amy is saying is correct in that no landlord or

property of the once a building to stay vacant, and they do try really

hard, but this Bill will give landlords and property and has more

incentive to try harder. There are many vacant premises, and landlords

who were just not available for stake holder engagement, so it

might encourage landlords to come forward and speak to businesses.

Business improvement districts are set up to help alleviate this

problem, and we want to know what we can do, often -- offer mentoring

services, get banks involved, there are all sorts of things we could do.

Amy Dalrymple, it is an encouragement to business. I am

staggered that they is a perception about whether this is in the

business community or the Scottish government, that landlord somehow

to not want to let out their properties and are not doing

everything they can to get these properties let. There is a problem

in our town centres that the Scottish government has recognised.

It has set up its own town centre regeneration group and recognises

that there are complex issues underlying this. It is not just

about whether a landlord actually has explored all the avenues, as

was being discussed by Susan there. Susan's body is very welcome in

terms of the support they can provide to landlords, but believe

me, landlords are doing their best. They are business people and what

businesses to survive, which means getting tenancy and property is let

out. Susan, it sets out a difficult situation. Union Street in Aberdeen

has many empty properties and business -- business is going to

the retail parks in the city. How can we encourage people to go into

empty places but charge them even more? The bottom line is that one

size doesn't fit all. They isn't one solution for every city and

every town. You must look at each one individually. Where are the

gaps? What economic impacts need to change in the High Street? You are

right, where and why are they moving and what is missing. That is

when Aberdeen business improvement districts can help landlords search

for tenants moving forward and bring in new businesses. I am not

saying they don't try hard enough but the bottom line is that if this

bid is successful, they will have to try harder. What we need to do

is help them in this search and get them into these premises. Be on

just that, we need to look at the bigger picture. What businesses are

coming, how come we support them? The good news of this Bill is the

fresh Start aspect. We cannot take our eye off it, 50 per cent rates

for 12 months for anyone coming into the premises, this is an

incentive that helps landlords and property owners to Philby's vacant

premises. Amy, just a final quick question on the subject. You think

extra income generated from this should be ring-fenced to help

business and promote businesses on the High Street? If there is going

to be, but the extra income generated should, by the Scottish

government's own projections, decrease over the years. I don't

see that happening. They should be planning for having no income at

all from this, because these landlords will get their properties

let. Our opinion, fed to us by members, is that they are doing

their damnedest at the moment, the owners, to do this, and the last

thing they need is an extra tax imposed by the Scottish government,

because that is what this is, we can't get away from it.

Dalrymple and Susan Bree, thank you both very much for coming in this

afternoon. We will have more coverage on this throughout the

programme, including the debate at Holyrood.

Labour has demanded a judicial inquiry into Alex Salmond's stance

on the independent Scotland's position in the EU, one week after

the Deputy First Minister revealed that taxpayers' cash was spent to

keep the public from knowing that no specific advice had been taken

and the first place. The Labour leader made the call for the

inquiry in a debate yesterday. The only thing that is clear about

this sorry mess is that the people of Scotland cannot expect the First

Minister to be honest with them when it comes to fulfilling his

lifelong dream of breaking up the United Kingdom. This form of

selective hearing exemplify his a hollowness of the nationalist

position, because deep down to them, none of this matters. All of these

consequences, should they come to pass, will be worth it as long as

they have what they view as self determination, and if only we think

it over, the line of the referendum. All else is grist to the mill.

uses the word, definitive. I wonder if she would accept that we are not

in definitive territory here. Because all of these things, would

she accept... A order! Would she accept that all of these things are

subject to negotiation, so that all of this, we are going into

negotiation, and the lawyers cannot give us definite positions. I am

sure when the First Minister has but Relate, he would come to defend

his own position. Because the First Minister didn't say it is all

subject to the lawyer's. He said, we will be in Europe with Stirling,

and none of that has been proven. I am calling for a judicial inquiry

into the First Minister's handling of this affair from the beginning.

An inquiry into the basis upon which the First Minister asserted

that Scotland would automatically be a member of the you, what made

him say that. An inquiry into why he said he had sought advice on the

law when he had not. No amount of bluff and bluster will stopper

seeking the truth. This government has an ambitious vision for

Scotland as a prosperous and successful country reflecting

values of fairness and opportunity, equality and social cohesion.

to achieve that kind of society is what we should be talking about in

a debate entitled Scotland's Feature. The motion for Today's

debate is not really about Scotland's future. It doesn't

address our place in the world as an independent nation and is not

about Labour's vision for our country, if indeed they have won,

something which is increasingly open to doubt, and it fails to

address the very real risk to Scotland that a No vote in 2014

would present, for example, it fails to mention the virtual and

depressing certainty that Trident and successors would be based on

the Clyde for another 50 years if Scotland does not become

independent. But, presiding officer, as Jon Mason rightly said, this is

not simply a legal question but also a matter of policy and

politics, and this is where the arguments of the opposition are

particularly and completely incredible. The notion that oil

rigs, renewable energy rich, fishing which Scotland, would not

be a member of the EU welcomed with open arms is to my mind patently

absurd and it is time for the debate about Scotland's future to

stop dealing in opposition absurdities. Alex Salmond is

referring himself to a man appointed by the First Minister to

be investigated and the terms of reference by -- decided by the

First Minister. The rest of the panel are apparently surplus to

requirements on this one. It is one thing to a point the judge, but to

dismiss the jury and the charges on an issue which is entirely about

trust raises eyebrows in the extreme. And what about the waste

of public money, other government spending taxpayers' money in court

to keep secret advice they now say they never had in the first place?

On Tuesday, the deputy First Minister said she would update this

Parliament on how much was spent after the �3,000 figure she quoted

turned out to be incomplete. When can we expect that update? When can

we be told who in the Civil Service sax and the use of this cash and

when the fight to keep secret non- existent advice, and indeed, when

legal sources close to the First Minister were telling the national

press that Scotland's law officers consistently told Alex Salmond's

government that an independent Scotland's future inside the EU was

not automatic and would require detailed negotiations. We need to

know whether that is true. Of course, the person who could clear

this up is the lord advocate himself, Frank Mulholland, who

wrote to me today to say that he has no intention of appearing

before this Parliament to answer legitimate questions and clarify

this issue. We cannot turn back if we go to an independent Scotland.

This is too important. We need to know now, otherwise you expect

Scots to take a step into the dark and vote without the knowledge of

what that dark means. The First Minister and Deputy First Minister

cannot both be right. Their complicated explanations have a

short and reassured no one. The public know they have been caught

out and be to come clean on that. Secondly, there is significant

doubt about what the SNP tell us, so there for the level of proof

they require is significantly higher now. This means they have to

show us the legal basics of joining the EU, the terms of joining the EU,

and they need to show that all members of the EU, all the

countries, or 27, agree with them. Without that, people have doubt

Over the surprise news last week they hadn't received legal advice

on Scotland going into Europe, post independence. Well, I am not sure

that they are going to get their judicial review. I think it has to

go down the road that has been announced. I think it is still

inflicted some significant damage, on the Government, in particularly

on the First Minister. In terms of what he had led us all to believe,

over many months, about what the situation as regards Europe was,

and transpires that no advice had been sought, so, what he is saying

about Scotland in Europe, in an independence environment, is an

assertion, just as others can assert in different ways that it

might be different from that, because the views coming out of

Europe, coming from members of the commission, coming from some of the

other member states, suggest that there is a question mark of some

sort, so I mean the debate will go on, and I suppose the unanswered

question for everyone is whether the imnact it has had on the

Government's reputation for trust in the first few theys, is one that

the other parties -- day, is one that the other parties can sustain

in the months going forward. That is a guess for everyone, as to how

that will play out. And before we move on, I am interested to hear

your thoughts on the debate we had from Scottish Chamber of Commerce

and Aberdeen BID on the discount on empty properties. It was a heated

debate. It was fiesty. It is not often you hear different bits of

the business community having a debate like that over a particular

proposition. But I mean, the money involved is actually quite small,

it is not small but it is �150 million a year, taking away that

bit of the subsidy. It is not going to regenerate all the town centres

in Scotland at �150 million. Equally, I am not sure, you know,

that every landlord sitting on an empty property is desperate to rent

it, unlu less they can rent it at the kind of level that would, you

know give them the income they were used to. -- unless., So you know,

the change has some impact. But there are more radical things that

cold come into this debate. I think the Government is consulting at the

moment, or has a committee looking at it at the moment, on whether

there should be a community right to buy in town centre, the same way

there is in land in rural Scotland, so that would be another

interesting bit of the dynamic, so I think this is a story that maybe

has some way to go. Back with you later. Thank you for that. Now MSPs

and Holyrood's economy committee have been quizzing the bosses of

some big public bodies. Lean ya Williams faced questions about

inward investment while Dr Mike Cantalay was asked about sterling

council's decision to cancel the plan to clan gathering in 2000 14

which was due to be part of the year of the home coming. How would

you address the doubters, who would look back at the experience of

silicon glen and are concerned that such efforts to bring foreign based

companies to touchdown in Scotland might not yield the kind of high

quality stable and sustained employment we need if we are to

achieve a long-term strategy. pred date Kateed on Scotland's

capability, talented people and business infrastructure and supply

chain, so that minimises the chance of any investor coming in to take

chance of a low cost location and leaf again. Any incentives are

highly, you know predicated on what is the word I am looking for? They

have to pay it back if they leave early o and that is, you know, the

very strong conditions on that, so, there hasn't been much upping and

leaving of companies that have om in in the last five years because

it is more anchored in the country. The final thinking is that 80% of

all of the foreign investment Scotland gets is reinvestment from

companies who are happy in Scotland, and I think that is the highest

form of flatry that we can have. I take two examples of the area I

represent. Am stkwhon have had help to come in, in the main, my

experience, people are employed through agencies and there is a

concern about the security employment and the nature of the

employment they V the other example. The Fife energy pack, you have a

company, a good employer, and in some senses but they do have a lot

of people who could only be described ASBO Gus self employed

who are not directly employed by the company and sthements up as

businesses working there and financial support has went into

Scottish enterprise to support the infrastructure round there. I am

not convinced that it is good use of public money. You pensioned two

example there's, there are many more foreign investors than the two

you mentioned and both are in my ways excellent company, it is

essential to Scotland's ongoing renewables industry, Amazon has,

you know, is supporting many families in Scotland, through wage,

whether they be contractor or full- time employed. Obviously, I would

like to see as a citizen of Scotland in full term job, I think

we have to accept that the nature of contracts isn't always going to

afford that possibility to everybody. You are asking what can

Scottish enterprise do? The vast majority of foreign investors are

talking about permanent job, with lots of training, sustainable. And

where that is not the case, we have to accept that there will be peaks

and trough, as there is in Amazon for example. That is a business

model. They are not managing peaks and troughs. They do, because, they

do in the build up to Christmas, there is a huge hump, of employment.

In the non- Is how they operate their business. Is no job

preferable to a full-time permanent job? I would argue that in our

current climate, you know, well paid work for a decent employer is

what we want to get with as many people as possible. We want to get

as many as permanent as possible, but that might not always be the

case. Were you surprised by the announcement from Stirling council,

and secondly, what plans are there to make Sheikh Mansour the home

coming is a success, not withstanding this event which was I

assume to be the anchor event of that year of activities, is not now

to take place? Sterling council bought the right for the gathering

and intend initially I believe to host a gathering about mid July in

2014, subsequent to that in conversation with partners, they

have decided, the council have decided it would be better to

support the National Trust's plans to celebrate the battle of

Bannockburn at the end of June, which is also in the city. And my

understanding there will be a clan event, at that time, at that event,

so that will include features like clan convention, and clan perrad o

parade. Plans to reduce the drink- drive limit in Scotland will be

debated at Holyrood tomorrow. The proposal to cut it from 80 mg to 50

mg per one hundredml has been out to consultation. Although rejected

by the UK Government campaigners have been keen to see the threshold

changed. We are joined by Neil Greg. Obviously road safety campaigners

want to see this changed. You have a couple of key concern, what are

they? We have to state this will be a popular measure f you ask any

Scottish driver what they want to see they would say reduce the

drink-drive limit. We have two long-term concerns and the main one

is it might dilute the police evident to catch those. If they are

out catching people at the lowerly there might not be enough police to

go round. There is a consense I was reading an article you had written

that people who maybe had half a glass of wine over their limit,

Cowell could be caught out in this. Currently all the surveys suggest

everybody supports this move. They are happy with the strong penalties,

but our concern is over the year, if we start to see more people 12

month ban, seven years of high insurance. Loss of job, perhaps

seizure of your car ultimately, for one glass of wine there might be a

possibility of losing public support. It is important the police

have that public support. Should people maybe not accept as many

European countries that the you are going to drive your car you can't

drink. You shouldn't be mixing alcohol and driving. People have

got used to one glass of wine, maybe this morning after effect. If

we start to get a lot of people feeling hard done by, I don't have

much sympathy for them, but it could lose to a loss of support for

the police and the police will say they get a lot of information

through Crimestoppers, there is a lot of support for cracking down on

drink-driving, we don't want to jeopardise that. Alf Young, why

politically are they wanting to have that different limit from

south of the border? There is a recognition in the Government and

probably in all the parties at Holyrood that alcohol is a major

issue in Scotland, not just on the road but in all sorts of other ways

as well. I think the Government is keen to be seen to be doing

something about it. When we get to, you know changing limits in that

marginal way I just wonder, Neil, whether it is better to actually

have the clean thing that Andrew was suggesting, a moment ago, and

say if you are driving you are not drinking. Then there is no question

of whether you will hit the limit or whether the police will put

resources into catching the marginal offender rather than the

serious offender. I think a steer row limit is attractive but it has

practical issue, there are issues you can have natural alcohol,

people have this idea of people cleaning musical instrument, most

are urban myths but I think the broad support out there is for a

lower limit. I think there are, you have to link it to the risk, and

when you have alcohol in your system you cannot be a 100% safe

driver. The current limit is set very high and no-one can argue with

that. As you get lower down you get into the idea are we catching

people who are above the limit who aren't causing any accidents?

Thank you very much for coming to to -- coming in to speak to us. Let

us go to the lobby at Holyrood and pick up some of the keyish sthuefs

day. -- issues of the day. Good afternoon to you all very much for

joining me. I want to pick up with you Mark, on this cut on the

discount in business rates, we are hearing in the programme from

Scottish Chamber of Commerce, very concerned about this extra cost for

business during these tough economic times. Well, I think the

key thing here is that the moment what we are doing is we are

subsidising empty properties through public funding, that is a

position which I don't think we can sustain going forward at the

current rate. The Government has listened to concerns that have been

raised, the reliefs which are being proposed in Scotland will be more

generous south of the border. If you look at the Portas review, she

was talking about disincentivising empty property, that is what we are

talking about here. We will be introducing a relief package for

properties brought back in to use to ensure that when propertys are

brought back in to use, there is an incentive there as well. Elaine

Murray, the statement has come out from your shadow local Government

and planning secretary. She is saying last chance saloon for SNP

and non- domestic rates. She is calling for a proper assessment.

Why should we the taxpayer subsidise empty properties? Wa what

we found in terms of the principle of bringing them back in to use,

nobody would disagree with that. However, the evidence that we took

at the finance committee, and indeed was taken by other

committees and the evidence which has come from England, through

legislation ironically brought in by the Labour Government, is that

it doesn't work, and that in the UK, the evidence seems to suggest that

rather than make things bet -- better, it has made things worse.

What we cannot understand is why the Scottish Government has refused

to do a impact assessment despite having been asked, by the business

community, we don't understand why that hat not been done. You are

concerned about this as well Jackson, we heard from abdien BID,

and they were welcoming it and saying it will give an incentive to

get empty properties back in to use, and places like Union Street..

gave a hollow laugh. This Government had something of a

business stripe in the last Parliament but it has turned on

business with this action. This is the wrong time. Clearly this is not

a case of trying to isn't vice bys to take up properties which are

unoccupied but to support businesses through a very difficult

period in the economy, so that when the economy recovers there are

properties that people can occupy and what many business people are

saying, they may have to demolish the properties rather than end up

I want to pick up with another issue making headlines, as Labour

put it, telling silence from SNP on student payment delays, this is the

agency not paying out to 7000 applications. Is it something to be

worried about or is it because these are late applications? What

they have said today is that they had met the payments for everyone

who applied in advance of the cut off on June 30th. Anyone not

receiving payments is a concern. I know the Scottish Govermnent are

currently working to ensure the backlog is being dealt with. The

indications I saw earlier suggested that they are clearing well over

100 applications, if not hundreds, daily, and obviously they want that

backlog cleared as soon as possible to ensure students get the support

they are entitled to. Ailey marry, they are dealing with applications

after that crucial deadline, and having to process applications from

September and even October. First of all, this is not the first times

that -- first time this has happened. There have been problems

in the past so the Scottish Govermnent should not be surprised.

You can have a multitude of different situations under which

people take up places at university, and not every student is in a

position to make an application by the deadline. What is concerning

this year is that so many students are in that position. They have to

live and pay for accommodation and food and at the moment they do so

without support, some borrowing from credit cards and bank, running

up debt while they try to do so. Very tough on those students may be

facing a difficult time, but if they applied late, whose fault is

it, there's all the agency? I have sons at university or have friends

in this situation. As she said, what we're have been in this

situation before. Fiona Hyslop replaced Mike Russell because he

was going to clear the backlog, and now Mike Russell is clearing up the

backlog he created. It will soon be time to replace him with someone

who can get a grip. One final thought, Mark MacDonald, Labour

keeping up the pressure, calling for a judicial inquiry on this

European affair. It has been pretty damaging for the First Minister.

think calling for a judicial enquiry on this demonstrates that

the Labour Party have lost all sense of perspective. You use

judicial inquiries for things like the war in Iraq. These issues that

Labour are calling for a judicial inquiry on do not merit such a

severe approach, that it justifies that the Labour Party have lost

focus and credibility. Visitors are they approach, have lost focus?

First Minister has lost credibility and the reason we made the score is

that nobody has confidence in his ministerial code, when he has

appointed the judge and jury and the terms, so nobody has any

confidence in the inquiry into the ministerial code he has referred

himself to, given his fingerprints are all over it. Finally, is this a

fair running on a bit too long, do you think, or as your former

Conservative colleague pointed out, he is worried about the parameters

of the inquiry set out to look at the ministerial code. I think the

First Minister last week had a chance to say he had watched the

programme, it was a confusion, he had a bit too late and the

government had contributed to conjugate -- confusion over the

last period and he regrets it. Instead they denied confusion and

wrongdoing. That has left an impression in the public's mind

that this is not a government you can trust, frankly, because they

saw their interview and made their own mind up. Thanksmacro all for

joining us. -- thank you for joining us.

At Westminster, the Scottish repairs Committee are meeting this

afternoon to discuss the Edinburgh agreement on the independence

referendum. The Scottish Secretary is giving evidence. There is no SNP

on the -- MP on the committee after Eilidh Whiteford withdrew following

a spat with the Labour chairman. Let's listening to Michael Moore,

the Scottish Secretary. It is very hard to argue that the

Scottish Parliament should have to have a higher standard of this than

we would accept ourselves. The role of the Electoral Commission is

carefully spelt out in the agreement, and I believe that based

on its credibility, its experience and everything else, it provides a

very strong track records which shows it is neutral and above the

fray. I think there for people in Scotland will expect the Scottish

Govermnent to follow its recommendations. We have as a

coalition, and the previous Labour government, have never disregarded

the advice on finance. We are happy to give the committee further

evidence on this about changes that have been made in the past

following election commission advice. What we believe is that the

Scottish Govermnent should follow that track record. That doesn't

quite answer the question. In the same way that the UK Government

could disregard the electoral commission's position on other

questions, so could the Scottish Govermnent, but I think he used an

important phrase there, at their peril. We have seen in the last

week that the risks you take a with public trust, a few acts in a way

people don't believe is right. There is a big donors on the

Scottish Govermnent to follow expected besieges, and it should.

Was it following on directly from this? The difference is, none of

the main parties in the UK parliament have ever publicly said

they would consider going against the electoral commission's advice

in a referendum. I appreciate way you are coming from. Before we move

on, following the earlier question about the Scottish Govermnent

accepting that they didn't have the legal powers to hold a binding

referendum, and certainly none of the rhetoric I have heard from the

Scottish Govermnent before the order was made would indicate that,

I wanted to know if in your meetings with them, did they ever

mention pursuing legal advice on their ability to have a legally

binding referendum without the order? I have had countless

meetings on this over the last 18 months. We have debated lots of

things to and fro. I am not in a position to recall precisely one

way or the other. Suffice to say they maintained in public a very

strong position on what they believed the settlement for the

parliament allowed. I think the proof of the pudding is that when

it came to the crunch, they accepted that they needed to ensure

this was beyond legal challenge. What we are trying to get to the

bottom of is what caused the change of heart to the Scottish Govermnent,

and I have asked the first Magners did this but three months on he has

not responded, which is why you are getting asked -- I asked the First

Minister this. I respect that. I celebrate the fact that from our

starting point we have now reached an agreement where we are

committed... STUDIO: The Scottish Secretary giving effect -- giving

evidence to be Scottish Affairs Committee. As we have just been

hearing, the SNP are not sitting on that committee, but I am pleased to

be joined by one of the SNP MP is here at Westminster. Mike Weir,

first of all, we know there was a spat last year about the Scottish

Affairs Committee. Would it not be politically advantageous for your

party perhaps to return to that committee so you can put your ideas

and views in the chamber rather than having to react to what they

say? It is very well known, there was a very good reason by it -- but

why are represented is not on that committee. If they care to

apologise we will reconsider our position, but until that happens we

will not attend the committee. That is a clearly principled stance.

the subject of their investigation looking at the consequences of

independence, or as they put it, separation, how useful an inquiry

is that if rain in the wider debate on the independence question?

very nature of the inquiry, the name tells you all you need to do

it -- to know. They are coming from its -- at it from a definite and

goal which is trying to perpetrates something in particular. We need a

proper debate, not a biased report from a Labour dominated or Unionist

dominated committee. We will leave it there for the moment, please

stay there, because Andrew app -- Wednesday is Prime Minister's

Questions. We had Prime Minister's Questions taking place against the

backdrop of newspaper reports this morning saying the coalition

government was divided on the subject of wind farms. A report

from the former Tory Cabinet minister Lord Heseltine, calling

for more to boost the economy, and also the question of Europe,

something Conservative MPs get very exercised about. So no shortage of

topics and questions for David Cameron at midday today. Here is a

flavour of how things transpired. Will the Prime Minister confirm

that if he can't get a good deal for Britain in the EU budget

negotiations, he will use the veto, and reject any advice on this

matter from those who gave our rebates away. I can absolutely give

my honourable friend that assurance. This government is taking the

toughest line in these budget negotiations of any government

since we joined the EU. At best, we would like it cut, at worst, frozen,

and am quite prepared to use the veto if we did get a deal that is

good for Britain. But let's be clear, it is in our interest to try

to get a deal because a seven-year freeze would keep our bills down

compared to annual budgets. Labour's position is one of

complete opportunism. They gave away half the rebate and sent the

budgets through the roof, and now they want to posture rather than

get a good deal for Britain. Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister has

an opportunity today to get a mandate from this house for a real-

terms reduction in the EU budgets which he says he wants, over their

next seven years, which he could take to the negotiations in Europe.

Why is he resisting that opportunity? I think, Mr Speaker,

the whole country will see through what is rank opportunism. People

haven't forgotten the fact that they gave away half our rebate in

one negotiation. That they agreed at a massive increase to the EU

budget under their government, and now today, they haven't even put

down their own resolution on this issue. The nation will absolutely

see straight through it. He is playing politics but not serving

the country. Mr Speaker, when it comes to

consistency, he seems to have forgotten what he has said as

leader of the opposition -- what he said, just four months before the

last general election. This is what he said. I would have thought they

were interested in what the Prime Minister said as leader of the

opposition, Mr Speaker. This is what he said. "at a time when

budgets are being cut in the UK, does the Prime Minister agree, in

reviewing the EU budget, the main purpose should be to push for a

real terms cut?" That's what he said in opposition. So when it

comes to opportunism, this Prime Minister is a gold medallist. At a

time when he is cutting the education budget by 11 per cent,

the transport budget by 15 per cent and the police budget by 20 per

cent, how can even be giving up on a cut in the EU budget before

negotiations have begun? We have to make cuts in budgets because we are

dealing with record debt and deficits. But if he wants to talk

about consistency, perhaps he can explain why his own members of the

European Parliament voted against the budget freeze we achieved last

year. Perhaps he can explain why the Socialist group in the European

Parliament, which she is such a proud member of, are calling not

from increase in the Budget or a freeze, but at 200 billion euros

increase in the budgets, and while there are at it, they want to get

rid of the rebate, is that his policy? He is certainly getting

very angry, Mr Speaker, perhaps it's because he's worried about

losing them at this afternoon. And the reality is, our MEPs voted the

same way as his on the motion before the European Parliament 10

days ago. The reality is that he can't convince anyone on Europe.

Last year, he flounced out of the December negotiations with a veto

and the agreement went ahead anyway. He has thrown in at how all even

before negotiations has begun. He can't convince European leaders or

even his own backbenchers. He is weak abroad and at home. It is John

That was a boisterous affair dom Taited by the issue of Europe and

what will happen to Britain's correction to funding the European

Union. Still with me is Mike Weir and we have been joined by two

other MPs. First of all, I presume the javersnoon you will be working

hard to get your MPs and other coalition MPs to defeat this motion,

to reduce the actual amount of money that we pay to the EU, why?

We certainly will. It is clear there is a broad consensus across

Europe, constructed between the UK Government, France and Germany,

that a freeze in real terms is what is appropriate, that is achievable.

Frankly, while doubtless the opportunism you will see from the

Labour Party and the SNP is popular and populist, it is not something

that is actually going to advance Britain's interests in Europe. That

is what responsible politics ought to be about. I can't believe for

one second, that the likes of David Mill band who have a proper owning

of where Britain's interest lie in Europe are in any way shape or form

happy about being in the lobby, along with people like Bill Cash

and Peter Bone, the swivel eyed Euro-sceptics in the Tory party:

There you go it is opportunism, Alistair took the opportunity to

praise some of his coalition colleagues. It is absurd to say

when Alistair is saying every part of Government should tighten its

beltings we should not do so with the EU budget. What we are doing

today is calling for radical reform of what the EU spends I money on.

We have 25 million people unployed in the European Union yet we are

producing subsidies in agriculture we should spend more on science and

investment and innovation, that is what our votes and motion are going

to do today. If it is a tight vote, the voefts the SNP could be

important in this one, which way will you vote tonight? With will

look at the issue, we have to be careful about every penny we spend,

in Europe as much as the UK. Budgets have been squeezed

everywhere. Agricultural is an important industry in Scotland so

we have to look at it in the balance and make decision on that.

If everyone says we have to bear down on costs, why can't we have

austerity Europe? There is a lot of work that can be done. Colleagues

are leading that work, the talk that Willie has about money

generating growth. A lot of the money goes into the same sort of

projects he is talking about. I tell you this, having voted for the

cuts today, if they were to achieve them, when that money then started

coming out of Scotland's economy, from the EU budget, they would be

the first people to complain about it. As for Mike Weir what a

ridiculous position that is! Here is the biggest single important

issue in Britain and three hours before we are going to vote on this

they haven't made their mind up, when a lot of their nationalist

friend in the European Parliament like Plaid Cymru and the Greens

vote in favour of an increase of 6. 5%. There is mischief making going

on. You know what a tixic issue this was for the Tories in the '90s,

how the late John Smit played this from a Labour Party point of view.

Isn't Ed Miliband doing the same thing?. We have been consistent. In

July we voted for a real terms cut and we will vote for a real terms

cut today, because we believe, you know, we have reached the end of

the line where we can go on with Europe as it stand. We need to have

a reform to the budget. A radical reform that cease more money spent

on generating growth and less on agricultural sud dis. The Prime

Minister that Alistair receives, said in opposition, cutting in real

terms the EU budget was would be a priority of the Government. If it

was doable then, why it is not now. The party has been consistent N the

90s when the Macdistrict treaty was going through, they were

opportunistic then. They had been opportunistic today. You should

judge them on what they did in 13 years in Government. In 13 years in

Government. The only change they made to a contribution to the EU

was to give away a big chunk rebate. It seems strange three or four

hours before the vote, you don't yet seem to know how you are going

to vote. Are you saying this is your party, you will listen to the

strength of the speeches and tar guements that are made in the

chamber. Then you will decide. are coming in from a trench

position. There is a balance to be struck. There is important money

comes, there is the concern about the EU budget t fact all budgets

are being squeezed and we have look at every penny spent. We are facing

austerity from this Government in werges and across Europe. We can't

cart blanch say we will give an increase or leave it. We must look

eat it. It is a principle positions, not just a knee-jerk reaction like

these two. We will have to leave it there. That debate is due to begin

shortly. Thank you very much for joining us. I think somehow, that

as they say, this is going to be a lively debate. We should get the

result about seven clock. I will let these gentlemen go away because

it is about to start raining and this isn't the place to be when it

is wet. Finishes just in time. Now, let us cross to Holyrood and watch

some of the discussion over the plan to cut the discount, on rates

for empty rots. Our commentator is Niall o Gallagher P Thank you. What

to do about empty business property tons Scottish high street. That is

the discussion held today. We have already had votes, ruling out

amendments which would have maintained higher subsidys for a

period of seven years and then to allow people, a period of grace if

they were trying to sell their properties. At the moment, the

Derek mechanic Kai is arguing for the Government in favour of a

proposal that would reduce subsidy from 50% to 10%. -- McKay.. Neither

the minister or Mr Harvey have convinced me I should withdraw my

amendment. I will be supporting the amendment which come plements me

own. We need a proper assessment of the business and regulatory impact

of this bill. Not just a consultation before the bill,

followed by the ministers promise of further consultation before

regulations are issued. Without that Parliamentary consideration of

proposals for regulation, based on a proper assessment of their impact,

there is a significant danger this part of the bill will do more harm

than good, and that is not a risk we should take. Are you pressing

your amendment? Pressing. question is amendment 3B be agreed

to are we all agreed. We are not agreed. There will be a one Minardi

vi, please vote now. So members now getting to vote on a series of

amendments which concern the scrutiny of this measure, just to

recap, the Scottish Government thinks that empty properties are

too highly subsidised in Scotland. We are talking here about shops and

office, non-domestic properties. There is an argument here from the

opposition party, that actually it is not that the subsidies are

keeping the properties unoccupied, but it is the economy that is

keeping the properties unoccupied and to reduce the subsidy at this

time would be nothing more than a tax on business, that is certainly

the view of the Conservative, who have been speaking thon issue.

Labour think it's the wrong time to do it during a recession, but the

Scottish Government has Coraled in the likes of Mary Portas saying

this is what needs to be done in order to encourage businesses, not

to hold on to empty properties, at the tax payers' expense. Now

members are voting on the regulation on whether the say

Parliament should have, if ministers want to adjust the rates,

in the future, and also, we have heard arguments just in the lead up

to this particular vote on the amount of consultation beforehand.

The amendment is therefore not agreed. The The am mndment is not

agreed. We move on to the next stage of the debate. The move or

not move. Move amendment. question is 4B agreed, are we all

agreed. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Please vote now.

We will get a vote on another one of the amendment. We expect that to

go in the same way. Once again the SNPs a thinner majority in ensuring

they will win the vote today, the question as to whether they have

won the argument of course is one for another day, and with that I

think we are safe to hand back to Andrew. Thank you for that. I am

joined once again for our final time by Alf Young. A very

procedural Parliament, not much debate going on. Let us pick up on

a couple of issues we were seeing at Westminster. The issue of the

veto, and we saw Alistair car Mike frl the Liberal Democrats accusing

Labour of political opportunism. The problem for Alistair Carmichael

as part of the coalition, and for David Cameron, who was doing Prime

Minister's Questions, is that it is Tory backbenchers, who are going to

make this proposition tonight, that rather than just go for a freeze on

our contribution to Europe, that there should be a real terms

reduction, so maybe about 40 Tories are going to vote on that amendment,

and Labour, in lining themselves up with them, are clearly, it is a

opportunistic move in they are coat tailing someone else's proposition.

But given the arithmetic it is probably tight, and there is a

possibility that that could go the wrong way. Another good spat has

been merging from Westminster today. David Cameron said there is no

change in windfarm policy after the Tory Energy Minister John Hayes

said he, the UK was perpd with windfarms, and enough is enough.

Though comments putting him on a collision course with the climate

and energy change secretary Ed Davey. There is no doubt in the

backbencher -- backbenches of the Conservative Party, at Westminster,

there are a number of people who are fed up with the idea of more

and more windfarm, there is a rural lobby against it. Mr Hayes, from a

ministerial position is articulating that. He is saying

something that Owen Paterson, the new Environment Secretary said a

few week ago, so there is quite high levels on the Tory side, some

questions about whether the current poll soin wind is sustainable,

south of the border, -- policy on. I heard someone from the renewables

industry on the radio today saying we need certainty on this. If we

are going to do this, we will have the commitment to the manufacturing

base to provide the turbine, and the columns that support them, then

we need to have that now, and you know, it is just another example of

confusion. In Westminster. Thank you. Than you for your