Skip to main content
Loading…

Seòmar agus comataidhean

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Criathragan Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 4 May 2021
  6. Current session: 13 May 2021 to 16 February 2026
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 3572 contributions

|

Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]

Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 4 February 2026

John Mason

Amendments 146 and 147 seem to give a pretty clear definition. It could be tidied up a bit, but I am inclined to support one of those amendments. I do not see what the member’s problem is with amendments 146 and 147 and why he feels that we do not have a definition.

Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]

Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 4 February 2026

John Mason

I have some sympathy for the idea of having general principles in a bill. However, Sue Webber mentioned prevention, and subsection (2)(e) in her amendment 87 refers to “preventative measures”, which seems to me quite a vague term. Does she not think that it is a bit vague to put that in the bill?

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 3 February 2026

John Mason

No. I am saying that you would be selling the units in the fund, not the asset.

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 3 February 2026

John Mason

I was interested in what the convener was saying. Looking at the impact assessments, when we first discussed the bill, the situation was thought to be more difficult for island communities because they do not have the same choice about where they get aggregates.

We are told that

“No new impacts have been identified for Island Communities”,

but perhaps there were existing impacts that could be dealt with. Has it been suggested that we could consider different rates for the islands?

09:15

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 3 February 2026

John Mason

If the convener and I were to set up a fund and buy some land, and then we both sold to Mr Harvie and Ms Smith, no tax would be payable because the fund would still be in place. Is that correct?

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 3 February 2026

John Mason

I will make a note to watch the proceedings online.

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 3 February 2026

John Mason

The fund is still there, but it could be owned by completely different people and there would be no tax. Is that right?

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 3 February 2026

John Mason

Okay. I will not pursue that any further.

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 3 February 2026

John Mason

I understand the logic that we should keep things steady this year, but it would be worth looking at varying the rate for the islands in the future. We know from the evidence that we took that it is very expensive to move aggregates around, so it is unlikely that people would take aggregates on a ferry to or from the islands. I will not be here next year, but perhaps someone in my place will ask that question.

Under “Impact Assessments”, there are two separate paragraphs on sustainable development. One of them is very brief. It says:

“The instrument will have no impact on sustainable development.”

The other one is a bit longer. It ends by saying:

“the instrument will have no impact on sustainable development, and no adverse effects on the environment.”

This follows on from the convener’s question and, again, it is perhaps more of a question for next year. If there was a higher rate, that might have an impact on the environment, because people would use more recycled and less new material.

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 3 February 2026

John Mason

I wonder whether there could be a loophole here for people to avoid tax. If the land was owned by A and B and, separately, A sold to C, and B sold to D, there would be a complete change of ownership but no tax would be payable.