Seòmar agus comataidhean

A vital part of safeguarding cultural wealth and heritage is ensuring that we can effectively promote Scotland’s creative talent and showcase it to the rest of the world. Can the cabinet secretary say more about how the Scottish Government is supporting Creative Scotland and the culture sector through increased funding in the 2025-26 Scottish budget?

One of the challenges in the Highlands and Islands is that many people who drive on single-track roads are not used to doing so. Frustration builds when there is a mix of people who are travelling too slowly and driving too fast. As we head towards another busy summer season, what advice would the cabinet secretary offer drivers in the Highlands and Islands and elsewhere in rural Scotland?

The decision seems premature and inconsistent with the Supreme Court ruling. The consultation that Christine Grahame mentioned should have happened before any decision was made. How will the SPCB ensure the dignity of trans and non-binary staff who are working in the Parliament? Does it recognise that this unexpected and surprising policy change has put them in an impossible situation and, potentially, a hostile working environment?

Will the cabinet secretary outline what improvements to transport infrastructure and provision have been brought about since the Scottish National Party took office, what has been achieved as a result and what engagement the Government has had with Highland Council since the announcement that it was to receive £28 million for the Corran ferry?

I want to get a couple of things out of the way before I start. First, I reassure Jackson Carlaw that nobody had to bully me to take part in the debate. You can check with my whips—I was well up for it.

Secondly, I know that many committees have done excellent work in the Parliament, and I hope that their members, their conveners and anybody who has given evidence will understand that any criticisms that I make of the structures are absolutely no criticism of the work that they have done. Indeed, it makes any successes that much more impressive.

I have sat on four committees, acted as a substitute member on two and appeared before two others as a minister, so I know that they are busy and often overloaded. The inquiries that are carried out often give much-needed air to issues that really matter to constituents and are important and worthy of time, but that are perhaps not quite as flashy when it comes to discussing them in the chamber—perhaps much like this debate. Committees do not have enough power or, I am afraid, enough respect.

My experience has taught me that the convener and their approach make a huge difference to the effectiveness of a committee and the experience of members and witnesses. A convener who does not allow members to pursue non-SPICe lines of questioning, overloads witness panels or does not show an interest in detail or in approaching difficult subjects can create a dispiriting environment. A convener who creates a culture of interest, curiosity and participation—or who brings bacon rolls to meetings—can really make a difference.

Respect from the Government and media for committees and the issues that they raise is incredibly important. I wish that I could think of an effective way to prevent party whipping in committees.

One particular example of good work was undertaken by the Social Justice and Social Security Committee under the convenership of Elena Whitham. At the end of an inquiry, we published the report, “Robbing Peter to pay Paul: low income and the debt trap”. It was hailed by third sector campaigners, those whom we took evidence from and MSPs across parties. It felt as though we had achieved something, along with the support of clerks and SPICe, in pulling together everything that we had considered into recommendations. However, the response from the Government was a huge disappointment to me, as a fairly new MSP.

One witness to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee inquiry pointed out that it is hard to measure effectiveness. There is no key performance indicator on committee impact factor—yet. Is effectiveness measured by how many amendments the committee makes to a bill or how many reports it publishes? What about recommendations that are initially ignored by the Government but which make it in to the next budget or manifesto that is drawn up—without any credit given to the committee, with its report already forgotten?

That is an interesting question, which can only really be answered if we do more post-legislative scrutiny and follow-up work. I know from my experience that committees often do not feel that they have time to do those things, but, if we want to be more effective, they are critical.

The convener of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee mentioned the issue of the time that committees have. We need to ask ourselves some serious questions about whether the value that we place on committees is reflected in the parliamentary timetable. There are a lot of solutions out there, from giving over some afternoons of chamber business to having separate bill committees. However, the solutions always seem to lead to a very difficult question for MSPs, including for those like me who sit on three committees: even if we have smaller committees, are there enough of us to meaningfully improve scrutiny?

I have a lot of sympathy for the issues raised about remuneration, which I believe is critical to strengthening the whole system. I have worked under many excellent conveners and I have seen the work that they are expected to do. It is a whole other job on top of being a back bencher—it is much like being a deputy presiding officer or a junior minister. If we want MSPs, particularly those who are in one of the parties of Government, to take their convenership seriously in its own right and not just to see it as a stepping stone, it must be remunerated in a way that recognises and encourages the level of work that is needed.

Committees should, and can, be incredibly effective. Issues should be spotted and fixed in committees, not in the press or with another bill in the next session. Ministers should be terrified to appear in front of us. I hope that the inquiry results in some change in structure to facilitate that.

It is vital that we continue to press forward with action to tackle homelessness and ensure that everyone has a safe and secure place to call home. Can the cabinet secretary provide an update on the steps that the Scottish Government is taking to support local authorities and front-line services to prevent homelessness, and what difference the upstream homelessness prevention fund is expected to make for people who are at risk?

The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation has described the deal as a

“horror show ... far worse than Boris Johnson’s botched Brexit agreement”

that shows the

“total indifference of the British political establishment to the interests of our fishing sector”.

Labour’s latest betrayal will be raw for many in our fishing and coastal communities and sends them the message that they do not matter. What is the SNP’s message for them?

I note that the programme for government outlined plans to introduce the children and young people (care) (Scotland) bill. Will the minister outline how the bill will make changes to several key areas in the children’s care system, particularly in taking on board recommendations from recent consultations?

It is disgraceful that the UK Government is yet again completely ignoring the devolved nations on something as fundamental as engaging with the EU. I am not surprised that Stephen Kerr is getting tired of listening to the Scottish Government object to this country and its elected representatives being overlooked, overridden and obstructed by the UK Government, because we are all tired of that happening. It happens all the time, and it happened just as much when his party was in charge. It is no surprise that the Tory amendment boils down to “Wheesht and know your place, Scotland.”

However, it is very sad that Labour’s amendment launches into a full welcoming of the UK speaking to the EU without bothering to acknowledge that the same UK Government is not speaking to Scotland. I found the tone incredible, so I counted, and the amendment contains the word “welcomes” six times. Labour MSPs are still MSPs, and it is frankly embarrassing how content they are with their own party treating this place with no respect or consideration. It must be a great comfort to Keir Starmer that, in the midst of so many different groups being utterly furious and gutted by his performance so far as Prime Minister, no matter how blatantly or publicly he disrespects Scotland, his MSPs will be there to warmly welcome it.

I welcome yesterday’s announcement at the All-Energy conference that Orkney will be the site of the UK’s largest wave energy project, demonstrating Scotland’s massive potential in wave and tidal stream generation. Will the First Minister provide more details on that initiative, and does he agree that we must continue to build momentum to ensure that Scotland can become a world leader in renewables?