So they’re back. The Holyrood faithful are returning from the recess, fighting fit and raring to go. All the newbies have had the summer to practise writing MSP after their name, some of them might even have managed to work out why there are different lifts for different floors in the Parliament and the Cabinet has discovered parts of Scotland it never knew existed during its summer tour.
First up, the business and legislative programme and expect a very different approach from the last SNP Government. No longer cowed by the lack of a parliamentary majority and having learned that you can ask the public sector nicely to do stuff but without the weight of law behind it, they can stick two fingers up at you, this second SNP Government will be embarrassing us with legislative riches. What might we expect to see in the First Minister’s announcement on Wednesday?
Top billing goes to the minimum alcohol pricing bill. No messing this time, the bill will be short and to the point and the Government will hope to create a landmark with its first piece of legislation of its second term in office. The Lib Dems will support it this time round, the Tories will still oppose and who knows what Labour will do. Hopefully they will. And soon.
Children are going straight to the top of the agenda. Music to the burdz ears. The SNP manifesto promised an early years bill and the Scottish Government has already said that it will be published in the New Year. But this week, it also announced intentions to embed children’s rights in legislation as part of a wider children’s services bill. This latter one is due later in the parliament. Work has already begun to shape a national parenting strategy and the needs of children should – I hope – feature in new frameworks to support victims and witnesses. Indeed, we will also get a Victim Rights’ bill this year… I promise never to complain again about no one bothering about children’s needs. Well, not for a while anyway.
There will also have to be some kind of public services reform bill (though it might not be called that) to give effect to the proposals to do away with multiple police forces and fire services. There will be a budget bill of course, and that too will progress at breakneck speed, though not until after the Spending Review is announced later this month. And while it is unlikely to be legislated for, there will be a souped-up Concordat (flagged up before the election) between local and national government, that gives rewards for compliance and fiscal consequences for failure to deliver. Expect too, for preventative spending to furrow members’ brows at regular intervals during the year, and indeed every year, until they reach another election and can leave a legacy for the next lot that urges them to work out how to implement this most common sense approach to public expenditure without having got around to doing it themselves.
Same-sex marriage may feature but is more likely to proceed at a leisurely consultative pace, with a draft bill appearing perhaps at the end of this parliamentary term, unless of course an MSP loses patience and slaps down a member’s bill. A review of the law on damages will commence this autumn – how knotty, complex and controversial the proposals are will determine if we get a bill this year or next. Measures tightening up procedure and process in rape cases has also been promised – if it does not require further consultation, this might well feature in Wednesday’s announcement. Of course, a bill promising to amend the existing Freedom of Information Act “to add clarity and strength to the legislation” instantly makes us all suspicious that the aim is to dilute and to weaken it.
Anyone looking for a big education bill is likely to be disappointed: there will be amending legislation covering rural schools’ closures but everything else will be delivered through guidelines, frameworks, toolkits and strategies. Expect the outcome of the McCormac review to dominate parliamentary proceedings and media headlines for a considerable period. There will, however, be legislation on higher education to increase access from poorer communities and a review of college provision which may result in legislation at some point in the future.
The Scottish Government promised to introduce a living wage for government employees, which may or may not require legislation – if it does, Ministers might settle for allowing John Park MSP to do all the hard work and preparation, then assume his bill as their own. It worked for Jack McConnell and the smoking ban…. It may be too early in the parliamentary term for the proposed Community Empowerment and Renewal bill which will enable communities to assume ownership of under-used assets. It sounds simple but working out how to give it legislative effect might prove more complex.
Finally, the piece de resistance, the icing on the Scottish Government’s dense legislative cake – a bill to tackle high hedges‘ disputes. I seem to recall this issue pre-occupying then Justice Minister, Jim Wallace MSP, without a legislative solution ever being put forward. Roseanna Cunningham MSP may succeed where mere men have tried and failed.
And if this little lot doesn’t keep our MSPs out of mischief this parliamentary year and next, I’m not sure what will. Oh yes, some local government elections next May and of course, constituents, surgeries, local issues and events….
#1 by Scott on September 6, 2011 - 9:24 am
Ah, let us genuflect in front of the vision for a new Scotland: high hedge legislation.
#2 by Gavin Hamilton on September 6, 2011 - 10:31 am
Interesting stuff.
But what do you think is the big picture? What is the core vision for Scotland or the two or three big objectives that will focus the government.
I am presuming that is further reform of the constitutional situation.
#3 by The Burd on September 6, 2011 - 10:38 am
the big picture is independence, and preparation for the referendum. It’s the only show in town…
#4 by Gavin Hamilton on September 6, 2011 - 11:38 am
Absolutely.
Hence questions like what exactly do we mean by independence and what are the various options open to Scotland and the pros and cons of each are so important.
And you’ve answered my first thought when I read your post – its not much of a bag of goodies. Independence is the issue – and dealing with the consequences of dealing with the deficit which will come a year down the line. Anything Holyrood can do to develop trade and industry would also be fantastic.
#5 by William Brown on September 6, 2011 - 12:48 pm
Minimum Pricing. If Tories/Labour use the same old argument about the higher prices lining the pockets of the big supermarkets, why not reinstate the “Tesco tax” and use the proceeds to help smaller businesses?
Oh wait a minute–the CBI (Scottish Branch) wouldn’t like it! But the FSB would.
#6 by The Burd on September 6, 2011 - 3:07 pm
See comment above – be good to see tesco tax back. Labour and the Tories have within their gift at Westminster to grant alcohol tax powers to Holyrood to allow us to keep the money raised. So if they don’t agree to that request, who is it that is keeping money in supermarkets’ coffers? There is a method in the madness definitely!
Also the social responsibility levy last time would allow some of that profit to be diverted back into public use.
#7 by An Duine Gruamach on September 6, 2011 - 2:52 pm
Are there any plans to reinstate the Tesco Tax?
What about the Saltire Scheme?
#8 by The Burd on September 6, 2011 - 3:05 pm
The Saltire Scheme? You’ll have to enlighten me I’m afraid. I checked the SNP manifesto for pointers on legislation (obviously) and while Tesco tax mentioned as one way in whcih they were scuppered by other parties last time round, couldn’t see a reference to bringing it back. But could’ve missed it…. Would be disappointed if not actually, as think it was a great measure and a way of bringing more income in from those that can afford to pay. Redistributive wealth measures, yay!
#9 by Doug Daniel on September 6, 2011 - 4:48 pm
Was the Saltire Scheme not the £10 million prize awarded to renewable energy research? Or is that just something else entirely? If so, I was under the impression it had never ended.
#10 by An Duine Gruamach on September 6, 2011 - 4:54 pm
I think that is/ was “The Saltire Prize”. The think I’m thinking of was a proposal by somebody, possibly Christine Grahame, that food produced in Scotland should carry a wee label to notify buyers of this fact, and that there would be some sort of discount scheme for supporting Scottish produce. I believe it was to modelled on a similar scheme in Ireland.
#11 by Nikostratos on September 6, 2011 - 5:57 pm
Just what have ‘YOU’ got against the ordinary person having a drink eh???
There are lots of bad things going on yet the majority are not experted to be punished for the wayward ways of a minority which will never ever change its ways by the use of pricing.
its a bit like fining everyone who owns a car just because a few break the speed limit …..
#12 by The Burd on September 6, 2011 - 9:19 pm
Actually that’s not a bad idea…
#13 by Craig Gallagher on September 7, 2011 - 3:24 am
First of all, the minimum pricing legislation is not a fine. It is not even a tax increase. It simply creates a minimum price-per-unit of alcohol that drinks can be sold at. The reason the Scottish Government is pursuing this policy is precisely to AVOID taxing responsible drinkers. The price of most wines, all whiskies and spirits and the majority of beers will not change. It is the bargain-basement stuff that will be affected, your Special Brews and Buckfast and the like. The aim is to restrict access to alcohol for a pittance, the availability of which studies have consistently shown to be a major cause of alcohol abuse in Scotland.
Second of all, if you think it’s just a minority of Scots that are wayward drinkers, you clearly don’t live there.
#14 by An Duine Gruamach on September 7, 2011 - 9:55 am
You really have got a bee in your bonnet about minimum pricing, haven’t you? Look – the SNP clearly had it in their manifesto that they’d put this legislation forward again if they won the election. They won the election.
Is it worth telling you that this isn’t going to stop ordinary people having a drink? It’s not a liquor ban, you know.
#15 by Barbarian on September 6, 2011 - 7:43 pm
The nasty one in there has to be the Living Wage for Government Employees.
One problem with independence is the high proportion of people resident in Scotland who work for the public sector. And that includes quangos.
Some of these quangos are funded either by Westminster or a combination of all devolved/Westmister governments (where there is a UK-wide remit).
Quangos provide a service (usually) which would be required if they were disbanded, either by government or the private sector.
Applying a Living Wage policy can make things awkward, as it could increase cost to the Government, and might force people on higher salaries to have reduced or no increases to compensate. When the economy picks up, that could result in a loss of experienced staff.
#16 by setindarkness on September 6, 2011 - 7:44 pm
It’s about time they tackled hedge funds …. whatdoyamean actual hedges?
#17 by Ross on September 6, 2011 - 9:38 pm
I’m going to bet that if the same-sex marriage bill crawls forward without an end close to hand, it will be Patrick Harvie who loses patience first.
#18 by Indy on September 7, 2011 - 7:28 am
I don’t think they will delay it. They brought the consultation forward and I think they’ll do the same with the bill. If there’s going to be another Section 28 palaver about it they’ll probably think it’s best to get that over with quickly. After all once Section 28 was actually repealed the whole controversy died a death in pretty short order didn’t it? I think the same will happen with equal marriage.
#19 by James on September 7, 2011 - 10:32 am
I do hope you’re right.
Pingback: Big on growth, short on ambition « Better Nation