Seòmar agus comataidhean

Despite what the Scottish National Party Government would have us believe—that the £6.6 million in the recent Scottish budget is increased funding—it is actually reinstatement of the 10 per cent cut to Creative Scotland that was revealed a year ago, dropped in the spring, then reinstated in September. That is now being disguised as an increase in investment.

Following the announcement of £25 million for 2025-26, can the cabinet secretary say how much of that funding is genuinely additional and will actually be delivered?

No, not at the moment.

The report also sets out a possible vision for tackling some of those challenges. It received input from the UK Government and the Scottish Government, and numerous stakeholders participated. I hope that ministers will be able to consider all the issues that were raised with great interest and in good faith.

Whatever devolution looks like in the future, it must allow disputes to be properly resolved. The continued success of devolution depends on that. Despite the number of disagreements between different levels of Government in previous years, the current formula for dispute resolution provides a new way of addressing them. In practice, the good and right thing to do when tackling such disputes has been to consider them at the lowest level possible. The UK minister talked about that.

Our committee also heard evidence that simply referring each disagreement to a formal process would provide good initiative for civil servants to work closely together. The introduction of a statutory footing in various aspects of intergovernmental relations needs to be raised, as disagreements between Governments have become more frequent since Brexit. We know that. Indeed, the possibility of some form of statutory dispute resolution process was first talked about long ago. However, placing those intergovernmental structures into statute could limit some of the dialogue between the different levels of Government. Any future devolution statement must have flexibility. Such flexibility could give us a real chance to move forward.

The convener mentioned our event at the University of Strathclyde yesterday. I commend and congratulate all those who attended it, because it brought a focus from not only academics but legal practitioners and politicians to talking about what we are doing and how we will go forward. Many of them came up with ideas and opportunities for how that might take place.

I want to make a little progress, but I will come back to the member.

Philip Rycroft told the committee that

“you have to see Brexit as a break point in all sorts of ways ... it will require a reconfiguration ... of how ... relations are managed.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 9 March 2023; c 14.]

That is why I welcome today’s debate, which provides the Parliament with the chance to clearly set out a vision for how devolution should work post-Brexit and how we should manage that.

As a member of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, I welcome the publication of the committee’s report, which has shown how the devolution settlement is changing post EU.

I am delighted to open the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. At the outset, I state that the Scottish Conservatives are clear about the importance of devolution. The principle of devolution and the location of decision making are of great importance to the health of any functioning democracy.

Moreover, devolution has become an important part of Scotland’s political history over the past two decades. During that time, we have seen Governments of different colours in the Scottish and UK Parliaments, and Scotland has taken an increasing number of devolved responsibilities. Intergovernmental working between ministers and civil servants from different Governments has become the norm in Scottish politics.

However, since the UK’s decision to leave the EU, the previously well-understood devolution process has become less certain. There has been an increase in conflict between the UK Government and devolved Administrations. To some extent, that was to be potentially expected. Leaving the European Union was the biggest constitutional change that we have seen since the Scottish Parliament was re-established, and it was always going to test the devolution settlement in ways that it had not been tested before.

That is a good question to ask, because, as I said, there has been conflict and it continues. That period is still on-going, and we need to look at what we can achieve in the fullness of time. I hope that we can bridge some of the gaps. That is my aspiration, but there is still some friction in the process, which needs to be ironed out.

The report provides an important perspective on the challenges facing the devolution framework.

I am delighted to contribute to the debate, and I congratulate my colleague Jeremy Balfour on having raised this crucial subject.

As a former member of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, I remember well the petition that was lodged by Sarah Heward on behalf of the Tyndrum Infrastructure Group, whose primary aim was to build a changing places toilet in the community. I share Sarah Heward’s and the group’s collective frustration with the slow progress that has been made, and I echo the sentiment of the petition that

“There is currently a black hole the size of Wales in the North West of Scotland where no CPT toilet facilities exist.”

Indeed, as the petition states, the situation

“does not seem representative of the kind of inclusive and accessible community that Scotland aspires to be.”

About three years ago, I was liaising with a constituent about the potential installation of a changing places toilet in Stirling station. At the time, ScotRail responded by saying that the station was an A-listed building, and that it would look at the proposal and investigate it thoroughly. However, it came back to say that insufficient resources were available because of the economic environment, so things did not progress.

I was also aware that Dundee railway station was experiencing slow progress, as was highlighted in The Courier. The Courier reported that legislation was going through Holyrood that could help to prevent the type of obstruction that was being faced by PAMIS—Promoting a More Inclusive Society—which was campaigning for the installation. Kevin Stewart, the then Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning, said:

“The Scottish Government remains committed to requiring changing places toilets in certain new developments and I was happy to support the amendment to the Planning (Scotland) Bill which would do that.”

He also said that the Government was reviewing planning and building standards legislation to ensure that identification of places that need such facilities would be required. That was back in 2019; we can see how far we have come by what Jeremy Balfour said in his opening remarks.

Changing places facilities are not a luxury—they are a necessity for the individuals who require them. The Government often trumpets its commitment to our disabled population, so it beggars belief to see that it has taken its eye off the ball on this issue—not only in the past five years, but through its complete neglect of its party’s manifesto promise.

I therefore echo the sentiments of the petition that was lodged and the comments that we have heard today—that the Scottish Government must ensure that the pledged £10 million is available. I urge it to do all that it can to ensure that there is no further delay, because individuals need, and aspire to have, such facilities. Scotland should not be in the position of not having facilities for individuals who wish to travel or go about.

The decisions that we take are vitally important. The minister has an opportunity to talk about what will take place and to ensure that individuals and organisations are given the respect that they deserve, and that the commitment that was given is fulfilled. Not only are the facilities needed now, but they are, apparently, needed across the whole country, in order to ensure that people have the dignity that they wish for, and that they are given respect.

I whole-heartedly support the motion in Jeremy Balfour’s name.

The convener partly answered Mr Swinney’s question about how that would happen. There has been and continues to be a need for the UK Government to understand and accept what happens in the devolution process and the way in which that is managed, but I fundamentally believe that we can find a way forward. There must be a way forward to ensure that we can work collaboratively and take a holistic approach to making things work.

The committee’s report makes recommendations. It talks about the need for a new memorandum of understanding to be developed. That would be a good way of trying to manage the situation going forward. For that recommendation to be successful, it needs a positive approach. That option would keep some of the advantages of the current system, which need to be considered.

We have already discussed the internal market, which I have no doubt will continue to be discussed in many speeches in the debate. The committee heard numerous opinions on the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and how it relates to the devolution settlement. The Scottish Government stated in evidence that the act is a

“wide-ranging constraint on devolved competence”,

and we have heard that from the cabinet secretary today. However, we have to acknowledge that the act will have an effect on the economy, and we must understand that.

The committee heard evidence that significant divergence can

“be expensive for businesses, disrupt supply chains and, ultimately, reduce choice for consumers.”

We also heard about the important issue of

“what divergence would mean for the effective delivery of business on both sides of the border.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 9 March 2023; c 6-7, 8.]

We have to understand that exports to the rest of the UK continue to increase, and now make up 61 per cent of Scottish exports, and that about two thirds of imports come from the rest of the UK. That is vitally important, as we talk about jobs and trade in the United Kingdom.

The possibility of regulatory divergence between different parts of the United Kingdom that responds to the different needs and circumstances is an important principle. However, the principle must not come at the expense of preventing the UK internal market from operating effectively. The operation of the internal market is therefore vitally important to the success of the economy in Scotland.

When we look at how devolution will work in the future, we find that there may be significant changes compared with where we have been. Devolution has been a success in the past, and Brexit cannot be seen as a complete failure. Some people believe that, and I have no doubt that we will hear that today, but I automatically think that there is potential in where we want to take that. We need to think about the principles of the devolution settlement that we will create under Brexit.

The committee talked about a “shared space” between the UK and Scottish Governments after Brexit, which is vital. Along with other members of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, I will continue to push for that approach at all levels of Government, to continue the success. By working together, we can achieve things in a much better way.

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the housing minister has had with ministerial colleagues regarding any impact on the availability of housing through the private rented sector of its energy efficiency reforms. (S6O-02917)

Landlords now face having to renovate their properties to reach a minimum energy efficiency standard by 2028. Letting agencies have warned that the proposals, combined with the Scottish National Party-Green rent cap, could result in landlords having to leave the private rented sector, thus creating a shortage of housing stock. What analysis has the Scottish Government conducted of the impact of its reforms on the private rented sector?

I am pleased to be able to speak in the debate, and I thank my fellow Mid Scotland and Fife MSP, Alex Rowley, for bringing it to the chamber.

The debate provides a welcome opportunity for us to acknowledge the important work that is done by the Coalfields Regeneration Trust across the United Kingdom. It is also an opportunity to acknowledge the distinct character of former coalfield communities, several of which are located in central and southern Fife, and across Clackmannanshire, in my region.

The motion mentions the all-party parliamentary group on coalfield communities and its report on “Next Steps in Levelling Up the Former Coalfields”. As the report states,

“the loss of coalmining jobs still casts a long shadow”

in those communities. It highlights that, with a total

“population of 5.7 million”

across the United Kingdom, those communities

“are too big to be ignored.”

The report also highlights the problems of social isolation and loneliness in those communities, which often have a large population of older people. However, there are still issues for young people, as opportunities for work and training are difficult to find in those areas. It is clear, therefore, that these communities have particular needs and require particular types of support.

The founding mission of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust is to provide those communities with the support that they need. That includes initiatives such as the coalfield worx project, and I acknowledge and commend the work that it does. That project provides important support to people who have become separated from the labour market, and it provides work and mentoring. It has already helped a number of candidates to secure permanent full-time work at Fife Council and the University of Stirling. The success of coalfield worx means that it brings the real opportunities that those communities across Scotland need, and that is much to be welcomed. As I said, it gives young people an opportunity to move forward.

Other projects that are supported by the trust’s funding include Grow West Fife, which supports low-income families across West Fife by providing them with home-grown produce. Funding from the Coalfields Regeneration Trust will help to invest in that project’s future and enable it to continue to grow.

Alex Rowley and other members have mentioned the cut of £100,000 from the Coalfields Regeneration Trust’s budget, which amounts to a 13 per cent cut. It was right that previous cuts that were talked about back in 2011 were reversed. More than a decade later, the trust is doing so much important work. It cannot lose that funding, because—as we have heard from other members—that will have a massive impact. The Scottish Government has said that it would like to see the trust move towards a new funding model and explore new ways of funding the grant programme. It is important that, if that happens, we ensure that the money goes where it should, and that is what the Coalfields Regeneration Trust wants to see. I hope that the Minister for Local Government Empowerment and Planning will reflect on that and provide assurances to the trust in summing up the debate.

Scotland’s former coalfield communities have a distinctive character, but they also have distinctive needs. The work of initiatives across the United Kingdom, such as the levelling up fund, have a real role to play in addressing those needs, and local government also has a role to play in those communities.

However, organisations such as the Coalfields Regeneration Trust are at the heart of supporting those communities. I thank the trust for the important work that it does, which it continues to carry out in the region that I represent and across Scotland. I hope that it will be able to continue to support communities for many years to come, because that is what is required.