Jim Eadie MSP

Welcome to Jim Eadie MSP's biography pages

Parliamentary Activities

Search for other Speeches made by Jim Eadie

Meeting of the Parliament 30 October 2014 : Thursday, October 30, 2014
4. Jim Eadie (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)

To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to reduce road accidents and casualties. (S4F-02345)



Meeting of the Parliament 30 October 2014 : Thursday, October 30, 2014
Jim Eadie

Although the proposal to reduce the drink-driving limit has been widely welcomed, does the First Minister agree that Scotland now has the opportunity to lead the way across the United Kingdom not just in reducing the drink-driving limit but through additional measures, such as lower limits for newly qualified and professional drivers, and that in order for that to happen the Parliament must have the further powers that are necessary so that we can save even more lives and prevent even more injuries in Scotland?



Meeting of the Parliament 28 October 2014 : Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Jim Eadie (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)

Will the member give way?



Meeting of the Parliament 28 October 2014 : Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Jim Eadie (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)

As we reflect on recent days’ events, there is surely a delicious irony in former First Ministers who spent so much of their time in office looking over their shoulders now asserting the Scottish body politic’s independence against interference from the Westminster political establishment. I mention that not through any desire to intrude on the very public grief of the Labour Party in Scotland but simply to observe that that is part of the backdrop to the debate about which further powers should come to this Parliament.

The other important context is the proximity to the referendum. The invigorating, energising and transformative democratic process that we have all lived through and participated in is one that we can all be proud of. We need to harness the energy of the campaign, as Christina McKelvie and Jamie Hepburn said, and to ensure that the outcome of the Smith commission reflects wider civic society’s views. I agree with the Electoral Reform Society’s suggestion that we should devolve responsibility for electoral administration and the franchise to the Scottish Parliament, to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to continue to vote in Scottish elections—my colleague Kevin Stewart made that point.

The referendum result demands not only that we respect the result but that we move the debate on to the next stage of Scotland’s home rule journey. We do not have to agree that the result is, as Drew Smith suggested, the settled will of the Scottish people for all time to accept that it settles the issue of independence for now.

If we can agree that independence will not be achieved through the Smith commission process, we can also agree that there is a pressing imperative to deliver substantial further powers to the Parliament—as members have said, they are powers for a purpose, which will improve the lives of the people of Scotland. The Smith commission’s establishment means that the extensive further powers that the three UK party leaders promised must come to the Parliament if the vow that they made in the closing days of the referendum campaign is to be fulfilled and the expectations of the people of Scotland are to be met.

In the very different context of the struggle for civil rights in the United States, Martin Luther King said:

“Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy.”

His words are relevant to our debate. It is surely up to the UK parties to make real their promises now. We cannot and must not return to business as usual.

The debate is not about unionism versus nationalism. It should not be about manoeuvring to achieve short-term party advantage. It cannot be about rerunning the arguments of the referendum. Instead, it must be about achieving maximum unity on the powers that the Parliament needs if it is to improve the lives of the people of Scotland—substantial powers that are consistent with the promises that have been made.



Meeting of the Parliament 28 October 2014 : Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Jim Eadie

That was an interesting intervention, but it did not reflect the views that I have expressed. When the member has had a chance to read my speech, he might realise that he is commenting on contributions from other members.

I am absolutely of the view that we should seek the maximum unity on the powers that should come to the Parliament. That is the Smith commission’s purpose, and the party that I represent is constructively engaged in the process.

Malcolm Chisholm took issue with the demand for devo max, but the same Malcolm Chisholm said on the Labour Hame blog on 18 October 2011:

“Scottish Labour must respond by developing a devo max position”.

In fairness to him, I should say that he went on to highlight the merits of the devo plus proposal from Reform Scotland, which Duncan McNeil has supported in the past.

I am not fixated—nor are the Scottish people, I suspect—on the language that is used to describe the powers that we seek, whether we talk about devo max, quasi-federalism, home rule or a powerhouse Parliament. The important point is to bring about the transfer of, as the motion puts it,

“substantial further powers for the Parliament”,

through a coherent package of powers that will endure and allow us to make a fundamental difference to people’s lives. I am confident that progress can be made. The Deputy First Minister set out the need for the Parliament to have control over the range of personal and business taxes, over key economic levers such as employment policy and over welfare and the minimum wage.

I will talk about areas in which substantial further powers for the Parliament could bring benefits. If we all agree that we want greater investment in social housing, can we agree to remove the barriers to investment that arise from the current Treasury rules, to bring about an appropriate financial framework for supporting additional investment? If all the parties in the Parliament agree that the UK’s post-study visa regime is significantly more restrictive than the regimes of a range of competitor countries, can we agree that the Parliament should be able to devise its own solution, to suit Scottish circumstances and allow overseas students to work in this country and contribute to the growth of our economy?

If we agree that the roll-out of personal independence payments and universal credit is an attack on the most vulnerable members of our society, can we unite to insist on the transfer of welfare policy to the Parliament? If we agree that addressing low pay is a national priority, can we unite to demand control over the minimum wage, so that the Parliament can increase it annually in line with inflation and improve the lives of thousands of people in Scotland?

In 1997, Donald Dewar, Alex Salmond and Jim Wallace put aside their differences so that Scotland could move forward. This is a similar moment, when all parties must work together. Let the vital work of the Smith commission continue, and let us achieve the powers for a purpose, so that we can shape and change Scotland for the better.

16:49  

Meeting of the Parliament 09 October 2014 : Thursday, October 09, 2014
Jim Eadie (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)

In reaching the conclusion that the introduction of a register of judicial interests would not be appropriate at this time, did the Scottish Government consider and evaluate the Council of Europe group of states against corruption—GRECO—report that looked specifically at that matter? Did that help to inform the Scottish Government’s thinking?



Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee 08 October 2014 : Wednesday, October 08, 2014
Jim Eadie (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)

I will ask about welfare. We have received evidence from witnesses on the impact of welfare reform on housing options. We have heard that the bedroom tax has meant that more homeless people want to wait for an offer of accommodation that is appropriate to their household size, and that the shared accommodation rate for housing benefit claimants in the private rented sector has been extended from those aged 25 and under to those aged 35 and under. Last week, we heard about the high cost of temporary accommodation and changes to the way in which that accommodation will be funded under universal credit, and concern has been raised about the affordability of temporary accommodation in the future.

What has the Scottish Government been able to do, and what will it continue to do, to help local authorities and registered social landlords mitigate the impact of welfare reform on housing options and homelessness prevention work? Has welfare reform made meeting the 2012 target more challenging?



Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee 08 October 2014 : Wednesday, October 08, 2014
Jim Eadie

I put on record my appreciation of the minister’s action and leadership in responding to the concerns that I raised on behalf of Shelter Scotland in relation to making temporary accommodation wind and watertight and the legislation that will be introduced to address that.

I want to ask about the mitigation of the effect of the bedroom tax. At the time of the budget, the Scottish Government, with the support of the parties in the Parliament, was able to commit funding to fully mitigate the impact of the bedroom tax, but that was only because we managed to persuade the UK Government to raise the cap on discretionary housing payments. Will the Scottish Government be in a position to fully fund the mitigation of the impact of the bedroom tax in the financial year 2015-16?



Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee 08 October 2014 : Wednesday, October 08, 2014
Jim Eadie

You mentioned the situation that faces 18 to 21-year-olds, given the proposals from other parties that may or may not be in government after the next election. Has the Scottish Government assessed the impact on homelessness levels of removing housing benefit from 18 to 21-year-olds? I am old enough to remember that a previous UK Government removed 16 and 17-year-olds’ entitlement to social security benefits, which led to 16 and 17-year-olds sleeping rough on the streets. Have you done an impact assessment of the likely consequences of removing housing benefit from 18 to 21-year-olds?



Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee 08 October 2014 : Wednesday, October 08, 2014
Jim Eadie

During our inquiry, some smaller housing associations have highlighted issues with their ability to find the resources that are required to undertake the housing options approach. The concern has been expressed that the additional resources that are required are not as easy for smaller housing associations to access as they are for other registered social landlords. Are you aware of that problem?

Vote DetailMSP VoteResult

S4M-11332.2 Jenny Marra: Supported Business—As an amendment to motion S4M-11332 in the name of Fergu
>> Show more
NoDefeated

S4M-11332.1 Gavin Brown: Supported Business—As an amendment to motion S4M-11332 in the name of Fergu
>> Show more
NoDefeated

S4M-11332 Fergus Ewing: Supported Business—That the Parliament recognises the economic and social va
>> Show more
YesCarried

S4M-11304.3 Michael Russell: Addressing the Attainment Gap in Scottish Schools—As an amendment to mo
>> Show more
YesCarried

S4M-11304 Liz Smith: Addressing the Attainment Gap in Scottish Schools—That the Parliament believes
>> Show more
YesCarried

S4M-11123 Joe FitzPatrick on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau: Business Motion—That the Parliament
>> Show more
YesCarried

S4M-11114.2 Kenny MacAskill: Policing—As an amendment to motion S4M-11114 in the name of Graeme Pear
>> Show more
YesCarried

S4M-11114 Graeme Pearson: Policing—That the Parliament acknowledges that policing in Scotland contin
>> Show more
YesCarried

S4M-11116.1.1 Patrick Harvie: Scotland’s Future—As an amendment to amendment S4M-11116.1 in the name
>> Show more
YesCarried

S4M-11116.1 Nicola Sturgeon: Scotland’s Future—As an amendment to motion S4M-11116 in the name of Jo
>> Show more
YesCarried

Search for other Motions lodged by Jim Eadie
EventIdTypeSub TypeMSP NameParty NameConstituencyRegionTitleItemTextFormattedAnswer DateAnswerStatusIdExpectedAnswerDateAnsweredByMspApprovedDateSubmissionDateMeetingDateProductionStatusIdRecordStatusIdStatus DateOnBehalfOfConsideredForMembersBusinessCrossPartySupportRegisteredInterestSupportCountSupportDateIsEventLinkCurrentMinister
Motion S4M-11308: Jim Eadie, Edinburgh Southern, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 27/10/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-11272: Jim Eadie, Edinburgh Southern, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 22/10/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-10820: Jim Eadie, Edinburgh Southern, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 15/08/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-10759: Jim Eadie, Edinburgh Southern, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 08/08/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-10595: Jim Eadie, Edinburgh Southern, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 11/07/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-10258: Jim Eadie, Edinburgh Southern, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 09/06/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-10239: Jim Eadie, Edinburgh Southern, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 05/06/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-09464: Jim Eadie, Edinburgh Southern, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 24/03/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-09342: Jim Eadie, Edinburgh Southern, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 13/03/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-09237: Jim Eadie, Edinburgh Southern, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 04/03/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Search for other Questions asked by Jim Eadie
EventIdTypeSub TypeMSP NameParty NameConstituencyRegionTitleItemTextFormattedAnswer DateAnswerStatusIdExpectedAnswerDateAnsweredByMspApprovedDateSubmissionDateMeetingDateProductionStatusIdRecordStatusIdStatus DateOnBehalfOfConsideredForMembersBusinessCrossPartySupportRegisteredInterestSupportCountSupportDateIsEventLinkCurrentMinister
Question S4F-02345: Jim Eadie, Edinburgh Southern, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 27/10/2014 Show Full Question >>
Question S4F-02305: Jim Eadie, Edinburgh Southern, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 29/09/2014 Show Full Question >>
Question S4O-03562: Jim Eadie, Edinburgh Southern, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 22/09/2014 Show Full Question >>
Question S4W-22467: Jim Eadie, Edinburgh Southern, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 22/08/2014 Show Full Question >>
Question S4F-02272: Jim Eadie, Edinburgh Southern, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 18/08/2014 Show Full Question >>
Question S4O-03483: Jim Eadie, Edinburgh Southern, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 11/08/2014 Show Full Question >>
Question S4F-02195: Jim Eadie, Edinburgh Southern, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 16/06/2014 Show Full Question >>
Question S4O-03373: Jim Eadie, Edinburgh Southern, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 09/06/2014 Show Full Question >>
Question S4W-21374: Jim Eadie, Edinburgh Southern, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 28/05/2014 Show Full Question >>
Question S4W-21378: Jim Eadie, Edinburgh Southern, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 28/05/2014 Show Full Question >>

Further information

Email our Public Information Service for more information.