TRACKER


A complete round up of all forthcoming parliamentary business


Telephone 0131 272 2114 editor@holyrood.com


jobs, services, tax and a living wage, and he said the Scottish Government is “committed to securing jobs, investment and economic growth.” Unemployment fell for the seventh consecutive time in Scotland last week, he said – a decline of 10,000 during the three months to April 2011, which he said is to be welcomed. “However, none of us in any party


is complacent about the challenges that we face of the misery of anyone who faces a P45, redundancy and the impact of expenditure reductions.” The Government’s aim is to protect public jobs and services, and so has acted to constrain pay by producing the one-year policy of no compulsory redundancies for staff. It has also sought to target resources to protect the family incomes of the lowest paid by introducing a living wage of £7.15 an hour, he said, which he said is the “right” policy. The Scottish Government will do “its


very best” to avoid wasting taxpayers’ money, he said.


“Every pound that we waste and, indeed, every £1m that is wasted by the [UK] Government, means that there is less to use for the real priorities in this country. That is why it is so important that we work together to protect, as far as we can, those who elected us to the place, through the provision of services in health, education and all other areas. That is what the Scottish Government will do.”


Sectarianism and anti-Irish racism


15 June 2011 By George Thomson The following motion in the name


of Bob Doris (SNP) was debated by members: ‘That the Parliament expresses its concern at reports of racist and sectarian intimidation and high-profi le related incidents in Scottish football; believes that these incidents must be investigated thoroughly; would welcome a partnership approach to tackle racism and sectarianism, and pledges to develop a long-term consistent strategy for tackling sectarian-motivated behaviour that


68 Holyrood 27 June 2011


will endure long after the latest set of media headlines have faded from memory, both in football stadiums and across Glasgow and Scottish society.’ Doris called for members across


the spectrum to “state clearly and categorically that we will provide active and vocal support in Scotland’s fi ght to tackle sectarianism and anti- Irish racism”, adding that to stay silent “plays into the hands of the bigots and the racists”.


Doris added that there are no mitigating circumstances that explain sectarian or anti-Irish abuse, nobody brought such treatment upon themselves. As a remedy, he called for an extension of partnership working to reach beyond the “usual suspects” to wider civic Scotland. He continued: This is society’s problem, not football’s problem. That is not to say that football does not have to put its house in order: it does, and I am confi dent that it will. Football is a key part of the solution because that sport unites us more than it divides us. That is why the Show Racism the Red Card charity has been vital in challenging racism throughout Europe and working with football effectively to do so. I hope that its sister organisation, Show Bigotry the Red Card, will be able to do likewise.” John Lamont (Con) said the problem


of sectarianism had blighted Scotland for centuries. “It is right that the Scottish Government should look to strengthen laws on hatred in our football grounds and on the internet,” he added. However, “the priority must be to get the new laws right, not merely rushed. We, like others, have expressed concerns about the lack of time that the Government is leaving for proper scrutiny and debate.” Labour’s Johann Lamont said that


the issue that needed to be confronted was that “blaming the victim for bringing something on themselves by how they dressed or spoke” was deemed by some to be acceptable in relation to sectarianism, whereas it would not be in other matters. She also raised the speed of the legislative process, adding: “I understand that the Government has said that the new legislation needs to be in place in time for the new football season, but I express the concern that if the legislation is introduced at the beginning of the season and


is not effective—and is seen to be ineffective—we might end up making things worse and giving succour to those who wish to continue to express sectarian views.” She continued: “As with controversial legislation in the past, the


parliamentary process offers a means to build support for what is being attempted. It is possible to get people to see the need for it and to sign up for it. That is particularly important in this context. The issue will be about not just the new legislation at a punitive level; it will also be about getting people to challenge attitudes and behaviours where they see them and where they realise that the measures are ineffective.” John Finnie (SNP) highlighted areas in which he felt religious intolerance was not being adequately challenged. He cited BBC football-themed comedy programmes which made light of bigotry. “I also remain deeply uncomfortable about the separation of our young folk on religious grounds for schooling, and about the undemocratic involvement of clergy in our local authority education committees,” he added.


Members Business: North Sea Oil Taxation


16 June 2011 By George Thomson The following motion in the name of


Mark McDonald (SNP) was debated by members: ‘That the Parliament notes the decision of the UK Government to increase supplementary tax on North Sea oil production from 20 per cent to 32 per cent; notes that this decision was made without consultation with the industry and has led to uncertainty in the oil and gas sector; notes the decision by Statoil, immediately after the budget, to put on hold a $10 billion plan to develop the Mariner and Bressay fi elds and that other companies also have said that they are likely to reduce investment; further notes the report from Professor Alex Kemp of the University of Aberdeen,


which shows that the tax rise could reduce UK oil and gas expenditure by up to £50 billion, investment by up to £30 billion and production by up to a quarter over the next three decades and the report from Oil and Gas UK that there has been a dramatic drop in confi dence throughout the UK upstream oil and gas industry in the fi rst quarter of 2011 in marked contrast to the highly positive business outlook recorded in the fourth quarter of 2010; believes that if the tax rise is fully implemented it will have a severe impact for future jobs and the economic prosperity of Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland, and welcomes the clear commitment by the First Minister to raise this matter with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.’ McDonald opened the debate by


asserting that the decision to increase the supplementary charge from 20 to 32 per cent had come as “something of a bolt from the blue” with no prior consultation or any indication that it was going to happen. He said the decision had two impacts; “a direct impact on the companies that are being taxed, and an impact through disincentivising investment.” He said the tax was clumsy because it did not discriminate between companies that had been operating a fi eld for some time and those that were beginning exploration; nor was it pegged to profi ts. While a lack of public sympathy for major oil companies could be understood, it was important to remember the knock-on effect of the tax rise would hurt smaller, local companies in the supply chain. Consistency in the tax regime was needed. McDonald praised the Scottish


Government for its response: “There has been no foghorn diplomacy: a constructive approach has been taken, which is to be welcomed. The approach has been to offer alternatives to the Treasury with regard to how it could tax the offshore sector differently while increasing the confi dence of the sector.” Kevin Stewart (SNP) followed by quoting fi gures provided by Oil and Gas UK that said 25 projects, £12 billion of capital investment, the production of 1.04 billion barrels of oil and gas equivalent, and 30 per cent of investment in projects that were previously considered likely to proceed in


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80