23/06/2011 Politics Scotland

Hello, welcome to the Scottish Parliament. It has been a busy

morning in the chamber, MSPs have been debating and he sectarian

legislation, which has been rushed through. That could come up at

First Minister's Questions, which is about to start, and so could the

news from Edinburgh City Council that the cost of cancelling the

trams project could reach �750 million.

First Minister's Questions is already under way. Alex Salmond is

on his feet, as well as Iain Gray. We wanted to support legislation

against sectarianism, but I expressed serious concerns about

the timetable. He told me that the football clubs were demanding he

legislate before the season starts. Yesterday, both Rangers and Celtic

said that the legislation was too rushed. The Law Society, the

churches and the convenor of the justice committee all agreed. The

lord advocate said the Bill does not necessarily have to be in

before the football season. Does he now regret not acting for four

years and having to squeeze this With permission, I listened this

morning to the comments that were made across the chamber. I always

listen to the partners that we have in an enterprise to eliminate

sectarianism on display in Scottish football. I except that we need

consensus. On this issue above all, I want consensus, across the

chamber, across the party organisations. I would ask

parliament at 12:30pm if they would agree, and I hope unanimously, or

nearly, the bill at stage one, to allow consideration of the Bill to

continue. I will then propose that business managers, in consultation

with the convenor of the justice committee, discuss a new timetable,

which will allow for further consideration and evidence to be

taken, in advance of for more consideration and amendments at

stage two. Stage Three would then follow in the usual manner for a

public appeal. The intention behind such a timetable for discussion,

for the Bill to be passed by the end of this year. If the parliament

agrees in principle, I will ask for business manager discussions to be

initiated. What we say in this place on this issue has huge

ramifications across society. I hope that we can allow for the

probability, the certainty, that each and every single one of us

wants to eliminate sectarianism and sectarian displays from Scottish

football. That each and every one of us wants to eliminated from

Scottish society. What we do as a parliament and how we avoided the

opportunity to attack each other is a very important part of that

message. I hope that the parliament will accept there is his huge

genuine urgency in this matter, and will also accept that this

government wishes to achieve the consensus within Parliament, and

I welcome the fact that the First Minister has listened to those

concerns around the timetable. It is the intention on decide to

support the principles of this Bill. I made clear that we want to

support the government in legislating against bigotry in

football and anywhere else. But to achieve consensus, we do have to

try and get this right. This week's examination of the bell has not

helped with that. -- the bill. At the Justice Committee, the minister

did struggle to clarify what actions would be caught by this

legislation. The lord advocate had to return to the committee

yesterday in order to provide further clarification. I would ask

the First Minister, in the spirit of achieving consensus, to clarify

now how actions such as singing the national anthem or blessing

yourself could be considered a What I would advise him to do is

look at the words of the minister and the lord advocate, making his

first appearance before the committee. As was explained by the

lord advocate, these things depend on the facts, circumstances and

context. That has always been the case. I am going to avoid the

temptation to say... We have to be prepared to recognise that each

others as a bona fide interest in driving sectarianism out of

football and society. The legislation that has been put

forward is clear in its intent and purpose, and it can be clearly

implemented. The objections that can be raised on not objections

about intent or content, they are objections about whether enough

time is allowed to allow wider society and the interest groups

that we have to carry with us, to have their say on the bell. -- on

the bill. That was one of the points made earlier. What I am

offering to the chamber is exactly the opportunity to do that. Given

that offer and given what people said in the debate and given the

reservoir of goodwill towards a parliament prepared to take action

in this matter, from people across Scottish society, can we not now go

for that on that basis? -- go forward? If he listens, I am saying

that we can go forward on that basis. That does not mean that we

can sidestep the difficult questions about legislation and --

on such a difficult and sensitive area. It does not mean that we can

sidestep questions about the way in which the legislation, which we

want to see in place, will be implemented. There have been

concerns raised not only about the timescale this week but also, for

example, about resourcing the implementation of this legislation.

Les Gray of the Police Federation has said that he supports the

legislation, but that it will not work without resources, and that

the financial memorandum attached to the Bill is not enough. We all

must prove that we are serious about legislating properly, and

also about making sure the legislation works, so will he

provide any commitment to the additional resources which will be

required in order to implement this legislation and make it work?

resources will be in place to make sure the legislation can be

implemented effectively. I know that he would be the first to

acknowledge that the evidence from the responsible police officers on

the front line, in their strong welcome for the legislation and

their confidence in their ability to implement it, is one of the

factors that I am sure carries weight with people across this

chamber in wishing to support it. One of the statements made by the

Minister, which I welcomed, in talking about this, was that this

was not the beginning and end of legislation or other action in

order to address the issue of sectarianism and bigotry. The First

Minister knows that, for some years, we have argued that at a community

level, through measures such as education, this is an aspect of our

society which we must work to root out. Can I ask the First Minister

what other measures he envisages, following on from the consideration

of this legislation, beyond football, into wider society, and

beyond legislation? I am glad he gives me the opportunity to state

that the legislative arm of the actions of the group was only one

of six were extremes. The others will be reporting to the government

within the next few weeks. One useful aspect of that timetable

will enable people to see that this is only one part of the initiatives

being taken in the game of football. Football is only one part of the

initiatives to be taken across society. I listened to debate this

morning. -- I listened to the debate. This has been greater in

the last few years than ever before. In financial terms, up over the

last four years, it budget of �224,000 has become a budget of

�525,000. One person came across a group that wished to show bigotry

the red card. The funding stream for that work is �120,000. With

that organisation is coming to attention, it is because it is one

of the many groups being funded by the Government at the present

moment. The community initiatives and the educational initiatives and

the organisational initiatives will be supported in a co-ordinated

fashion, but I am grateful to Iain Gray for giving me the opportunity

to point out that the legislative arm is only one part of the

Football initiatives and how we drive this evil out of the game of

football. I listen to every aspect of the debate. I spoke to many of

the stakeholders, whose agency in this matter is absolute in terms of

their determination, and I hope and believe and I take people at their

word that, by making this timetable available for fuller consideration,

we will be able to counter this parliament unanimously and together

exercise and drive this blight on the game of football and from our

country. The First Minister has offered to extend the timetable for

passing of this Bill to the end of this year, amid the concerns that

the legislation was being too We all agree that we must deal with

sectarianism, it is vile, odious and unacceptable, and the

imperative of this Government is to get the Bill Wright, so I welcome

the commonsense which has broken out, and the recognition to the

Scottish government for a longer timetable. I am not often given to

praising the First Minister, but he has shown majority in accepting his

government have not got this right, and I say, well done for accepting

that and putting this on to a more realistic footing. It does seem

that come up under the Bill as currently drafted, there are

circumstances when making the sign of the cross or singing the

national anthem could constitute a crime. Within the Bill, criteria

range widely from behaviour that was threatening or offensive to

behaviour that was likely to incite public disorder. Can the First

Minister confirm, with the new timetable, the Scottish government

will look at whether the criteria in this Bill is consistent with

previous legislation? Now we have a more extensive consultation process

possible, will the Scottish government consider if the criteria

are adequate? I believe the criteria are adequate. The Lord

Advocate explained these points before the committee yesterday. If

you saw that, if you would be satisfied that the nature of the

Bill is well within the tradition of Scottish law. It depends on

facts, circumstances and context. Some of the stories that have been

running have no basis in reality in that sense. The Lord Advocate gave

excellent examples to explain that. Even non-lawyers like myself would

manage to do that. I thought that evidence put that to rest. Bearing

that in mind, denature of this legislation, which has two parts,

offensive behaviour causing public disorder at or around football

matches, and threats inciting of religious harm or hatred, it is the

type of legislation required. With the extra time and availability of

discussion and debate, that I welcome the indication that the

Conservative Party will be supporting the legislation. Port

and in this out, even if, over the longer timetable, we address some

of the ambiguities and uncertainties and even the

limitations of the bill, even if we do that, in certain parts of the

West of Scotland, we have entrenched sectarian attitudes. The

Bill is only part of resolving the problem. What is the strategy to

deal with this repugnant culture, which sadly runs more broadly than

Do not underrate the importance of not tolerating sectarian displays

in the national game. There is a consequence that has happened for

generations in Scottish society. Sometimes societies come to the

point where there is a balance of opinion and it is decided that

enough is enough and something has to be done, something acceptable or

seen to be tolerated a generation ago is no longer welcome in a

civilised society. The two are linked because of the potency of

what football is to pull a ball -- people and the power of good. This

point has to be made by Church leaders. The work in driving

sectarianism out of football is one part of a wider approach within

community and educational initiatives. I am glad to see it

supported. Do not underrate the extent of which the two are

connected. Just an observation, I have followed closely and was

rather unfortunate last week to have seen his sacking of Paul

McBride QC. I have been following what he has had to say about this

legislation. He is an advocate with huge experience in Scots law. His

support for the legislation has been in the traditions of Scots law

and has been a powerful voice arguing for action as quickly as

possible. To ask the First Minister, in light

of new information regarding the cost of the Edinburgh tramped

project, but the time has come to institute a full public inquiry. --

Edinburgh tram project. I am a supporter of a public

inquiry into the trams project. Betting we should let a number

Council continue its deliberations. -- I think we should let Edinburgh

council. I want to say as gently as possible to remember, if it comes

to a public inquiry, some people in political parties will have more to

worry about than others. To ask the First Minister what

issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. Issues

of importance to the people of Scotland. When politicians change

their mind, we must welcome that reflection and consideration rather

than complain and criticise. Can I offer my fax to the First Minister

for listening in the sectarian built. -- offer my thanks.

welcome that indication from the Liberal Democrats and it gives me

great hope that as we go through this process as a Parliament, we

can set an example to a wider society as Scotland would expect.

One of the issues with the Alcohol Etc (Scotland) Act 2010 was we

believe that power was already existed in the main. -- bill. We

believe using existing laws first and Community measures is better.

Can I ask for the publication of an assessment of the use of existing

laws and to prepare and agree a renewed, comprehensive anti

sectarian strategy to read this out from Scottish society. I do not

wish to break the consensus that I am trying to establish. I am sure

Willie Rennie did not try to do that. He should look at the Lord

Advocate's evidence to the justice committee yesterday were in precise

terms, he led out the difficulties that breach of the piece as a

general offence has been running into. One of the examples he gave

was what would seem to most people be a clear racial masher was ruled

not to be a breach of the piece because of the interpretation of

that general offence in the court. To argue that the existing frame of

the lot is not borne out. -- frame of the law. These are indictable

offences that carry a maximum penalty of five years would

indicate how it seriously we consider sectarianism. If something

becomes an indictable offence it is because this Parliament and society

decides no more or is this going to be tolerated in our country. In

terms of the general point about the strategy across society, I

agree about that. That is part and parcel of the approach that has to

be made. Do not underrate the importance of legislation, as

indicated from this Parliament, that some things will no longer be

tolerated in Scotland. I won't ask the First Minister what

the Scottish Government's response is to the concerns of the Scottish

Chamber of Commerce that benefit to Scotland from the Olympic Games

will be minimal. We share some of these concerns and continue to work

with partners to attempt, -- to see that Scotland get as much benefit

as possible from London 2012. The entire UK should benefit. I found a

First Minister for the answer. Is it not the case that with a number

of tickets were Scottish duo children, the number of tourists

coming to Scotland, support for a skirt -- sport, there is no

discernible benefit to and that we are also seen the Olympic

continuing to attack the integrity of the Scottish football team. With

�1.7 billion being spent to regenerate east London, Scotland

should receive Barnack consequences of this figure to make a legacy for

the 2015 Commonwealth Games. -- Ornette consequences. -- Barnet.

This is something which is shared absolutely by the administration of

Wales and Northern Ireland. We have put in a joint submission arguing

exactly this point. It is this, there has been a six financial --

substantial expenditure in London, which is acceptable. That is what

is happening when a major international games comes. A great

deal of the expenditure has been on transport and regeneration in

London, specifically on these matters and not on the games

themselves. If that argument is accepted that expenditure should

have been within Barnet, according to the try injury -- Treasury

funding formula. There was a question over whether that was

necessary for the Games. Sebastian Coe, the chief executive of the

organising committee, has said recently that this, the Olympics,

is not it �9.3 billion sporting project. 75p in the pound will be

spent in to going into the generation of London. Wales,

Northern Ireland and Scotland believe that regeneration spending

in London is a good thing but it is also right and proper about

expenditure, under the current funding rules, should be in Barnet

and an appropriate share given to the three other nations given to

this -- on this island. There was a warning about the loss

to Scottish community sport that would occur because of the Olympic

Games. I heartily backed his efforts to claw back some of the

money. Can I also ask him to take account of the legacy there will be

for Scottish sport if they have their way as regards the football

team. Can he had his support to the Scottish Football Association in

advising young footballers that it would not be a clever move for them

to play in a British team? I give my total support to the Scottish

Football Association in this matter. The Scottish Football Association

has to look at the interests in the game of football in Scotland and

its presence in national and international arenas in the long

term. I have to look beyond one particular tournament. I have to

look at the best interests of the Scottish game. I believe they are

doing that and not just this government but this Parliament

should give the Scottish Football Association their total support in

the views expressed by the Olympic Committee.

To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government will

take to provide confidence to investors in light of the report by

the Ernst and young Scottish wing that continuing constitutional

change could put Scotland at economic his advantage. I know that

Eliane Marie would recognise the report, which would identify

Scotland as the prime location for direct inward investment. I am sure

she would be the first to welcome the report and I hope that she

acknowledges that the Government and its policies might have had

part of that -- a part in that success.

This report is extremely interesting. It points out that the

public sector cuts jobs before constraints were interest --

introduced. It is very interesting but if we can get back to meet

economic... Please go for a question. This again defies

business growth. When he act to reduce uncertainty. Ashwell he act.

A promise delivered early is not a promise. I have got the exact quote

from the report which I have read. It is not as she has been

representing. What it says his supporters of the status quo will

point to be damaged and uncertainty over mobile investment. Those in

favour of change will offer better stewardship of Scottish affairs and

act as a stimulus to confidence and growth. Elaine is a supporter of

the status quo and she has that in common with English MPs. At

Scottish MPs this same point was made. Many of us are in favour of

the second argument, that it will act as a stimulus to confidence and

growth. What is the Scottish Government's

view on the report's outlook for employees in the manufacturing

sector? There were key indications in the

report. They projected what they regarded as a contraction of public

sector employment. One of their things they pointed to was that

private sector employment had outgrown the fall in public sector

employment. There is no complacency on the part of this government,

which has made its views clear as recently as last week, to the

Treasury ministers, about the wisdom or otherwise of their

policies. There is no question that the 40,000 additional jobs in the

private sector in Scotland over the last year, the 10% rise in

construction, the 6% rise in financial and business services is

a substantial hope for the vibrancy of the Scottish economy, that it

will be able to withstand, at least in part, a harsh budget cutbacks

from Westminster. Some quite extraordinary news from

First Ministers Questions today, that there is going to be a new

time scale for the anti victory legislation. Mr Salmond said he had

listened to concerned and there would be a new timetable and he

would hopefully pass legislation by the end of the year. Extraordinary