Well, how did I do? I tried to predict the bills that might feature in the Renewing Scotland: Programme for Government earlier in the week. It would appear I allowed my imagination to run riot. Here was me harking back to a positive, hope-inducing, confidence-building manifesto and picking out the ripest plums. There I was factoring in that with the shackles of minority government off, the Scottish Government might knock itself out with some big beasts of bills. Silly me.
This might well be a government programme for economic growth and there are some excellent initiatives coming down the line, but its legislative activity isn’t exactly going to set the heather alight. But it does tell us a lot about our SNP Government: here is an administration committed to making things happen without reaching for a prescription in the form of three Stages, some amendments and a debate. A few big gigs aside, this is a legislative programme which largely tinkers. And its common theme can be summarised as gradual and incremental shift.
I got five out of sixteen right: minimum alcohol pricing, the rights of children, the budget (but that’s hardly an achievement), police and fire reform, freedom of information amendment. Mea culpa then and remiss of me to forget that the self-directed support bill didn’t make it through the last Parliament.
This does have a lot of meat on its bones and expect the unions and COSLA to get worked up about the shift in power and control away from agencies and professionals and into the hands of those who use care services. It is long overdue and as long as it does not focus overly on direct payments as the main method of giving people a say and a budget for their care, but factors in all the other more imaginative, less bureaucratic ways of empowering those who care and those who require care and support, then it will be a fine piece of legislation, that marks a real shift away from the traditional public service model.
And how could I have forgotten about the anti-sectarianism bill, or to give it its Sunday title, Offensive Behaviour at Football bill. Which in itself is a bit of a misnomer, for it will sweep up other equality strands and behaviour outwith football and even in parallel universes (the internet to you and me) in its wake. Given that dark forces are rising, as one, to oppose its necessity, this isn’t a sure bet to make it on to the statute books. Am I the only person bemused by this bill’s ability to unite the Old Firm in perfect harmony?
Another interesting bill is Criminal Cases (Punishment & Review). It looks technical – and probably is – but it will mark a bit of a power shift away from the courts towards the Criminal Cases Review Commission in terms of appeals. However, if I was Lord Carloway, who has beavered away at his review since early summer, I’d be a wee bit miffed, for this bill steals a march on some of the issues he was tasked with addressing.
The changes to criminal legal aid are overdue, as are the ones to create a single council to review civil law. Previously, the practice has been to set up commissions who report at length and are often ignored. A little rhyme, reason and regularity in monitoring and modernising our civil legal system is to be applauded.  And it’s always seemed a little inequitable that not very well off folk have to contribute to their justice in civil matters, yet all criminal representation has been supported by the public purse. Though there is a big difference between someone wanting to prevent the use of a right of way and someone defending their innocence against serious charges that might result in the loss of their liberty. Expect some impassioned debate on this one, not least from the vociferous criminal lawyer brigade.
More justice stuff, with land registration and long leases. I won’t pretend to understand what the former is about but the latter seems another equitable measure, albeit a small scale attempt to shift – see? – land and property ownership out of the few and into the hands of the many.  And of course there’s the freedom of information amendment – now this bill will see a bit of a bunfight, I think, with many from outside the Parliament pushing for more far-reaching reforms.
Agricultural holdings will attempt to create more farmers and prevent exorbitant rent rises by landlords. The Aquaculture and Fisheries bill will no doubt give the Green lobby something to get their teeth into and expect the forces of the establishment and probably our third estate to gnash and wail over the Council tax bill, as it will seek deny absentee landlords and overstretched developers, as well as the rich, their right to clutter up our streets with decaying and desolate properties. Again, there is a shift here of power and control but this bill could have been – still might end up being – a whole lot more radical.
The bill for the National Library of Scotland involves tweaking and while the Water bill might be pumped up as a big geyser, it is likely to prove a little dry for commentators to get worked up about.
Where will the bunfights occur? Anywhere a lobby can get organised, but expect some ding dong over police and fire reform, with the unions as prime agitators, and minimum pricing, with the big drinks companies and supermarkets ganging up against MSPs. If nothing else, it will all generate a lot of headlines and chip papers.
Finally – be still my beating heart – there is the bill to enshrine in law rights for children. At last, some generational justice. And while it has been touted as largely uncontroversial, I’m not so sure. There are plenty out there who would seek to deny children the same rights as others, particularly when this bill is the precursor to a huge shake-up of children’s services.
So, not a lot on the face of it to get excited about, though plenty to work the Justice committee into a lather, this legislative programme might be somewhat lacking in ambition and big flagships, but it demonstrates quintessentially what this Government is all about. A gradual shifting of the tectonic plates of where power lies in Scotland, and where the SNP wants to lead the country to.
#1 by Nikostratos on September 10, 2011 - 11:16 am
If you imagine it will only be the producers of Alcohol fighting against minimum pricing you (and the snp ) are in for a big surprise.
Although informed legal opinion is that this will be swept aside by the E.U (which the snp wholeheartedly support)courts
Mind i spose the snp already knows this and steamrollering it into scots law which is then overuled means the snp can
(1) say they kept a manifesto commitment
(2) avoid the vote losing consequences of an unpopular law
#2 by The Burd on September 10, 2011 - 11:45 am
I’m sure others will oppose it and actually I think the SNP is determined to put this policy through because it is the right thing to do, and they support it. I agree with them.
#3 by IanH on September 10, 2011 - 3:53 pm
During the last session of parliament the labour party response to most SNP proposals was:
1- Outrage, even if it was labour policy
2- it’s a reserved matter
3- The EU won’t allow it
I didn’t realise that anyone actually believed that the E.U would intervene in a member state to enforce a cheap supply of gut-rot alcohol to teenagers
#4 by Ezio on September 10, 2011 - 1:17 pm
When can gay couples expect marriage equality? I hoped to see this feature this year.
#5 by The Burd on September 10, 2011 - 3:16 pm
It’s out to consultation and there may be a bill later this year. Or they might wait until the second year of administration.
#6 by Barbarian on September 10, 2011 - 2:00 pm
Reform of Childrens Services is the most important one. I’m not sure if this example comes under the umbrella, but this is a genuine issue that is ongoing:
A disabled child, while at primary school, does not get the same level of support as a child at secondary or a disable adult, even if the disability is identical.
I know that is absolute fact, because I know someone in that very situation. It is a disgrace and something that needs rectified quickly.
Minimum pricing will got through, but unless there are supportive policies to reduce alcohol problems, it will not work on its own.
A single police force makes sense, however someone on Newsnet has raised a valid point – who investigates allegations of corruption within the force?
The key thing is that now there is a majority party in power, for once we have have a smoother session than the previous ones.
#7 by The Burd on September 10, 2011 - 3:19 pm
Oh I don’t know, I quite like a bumpy parliamentary ride. The thing is with a majority the Government does not need to listen to anyone trying to improve their bills. I’m sure they will, but they don’t have to. We’ll just have to wait and see how they react to folk trying to add new provisions to any legislation.
Agree re minimum pricing – it’s isn’t a silver bullet, other stuff needed. And also with a single police force. There is a risk of a force set up by government and an independent inspector set up by the government actually breaching human rights act, vis a vis temporary sheriffs and councillor JPs.
Re your anecdote about the disabled child you know – not alone sadly, not alone. And this is one area where services must be improved. I could tell you some tales about what is done and said to families that would make your hair stand on end.