Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am delighted to open on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives.

The motion rightly speaks about the importance of the arts and culture sector and the numerous challenges that it faces, which have only been exacerbated by what the SNP Government has been doing. As such, the Conservatives will be happy to support Labour’s motion.

In his recent party conference, the First Minister said a number of warm words about the Scottish culture sector. He spoke about Scotland being rich in culture and the arts, and about how it is important to look far beyond the economic impact. Such words would have been very welcome if only they matched the Scottish Government’s record on the issue, which has been one of continually leaving the sector short of the funding that it is crying out for.

The additional arts and culture funding announcement by the First Minister in his speech is welcome, but let us not forget that it has been only a few weeks since the SNP U-turned on its own U-turn and reimposed a nearly £7 million budget cut. To say that the sector has been left struggling to trust the Government would be a major understatement. Speaking about the issue, the chief executive officer of Creative Scotland said that there was an erosion of faith and trust. People are exhausted trying to keep the show on the road—literally.

There is also a complete lack of clarity about where and when the newly announced funding will be distributed. On that issue, the sector has been left with more questions than answers. The Campaign for the Arts has warned that funding needs to be put in place quickly in order to ensure that jobs will not be lost in the sector.

Given the potential job losses, my amendment speaks about the need for the Government to take a more proactive approach to protecting the arts, music and culture sector in Scotland. As my amendment suggests, 2,000 jobs and 26,000 art opportunities will be at risk if the Scottish Government does not implement such an approach. That could be achieved by the introduction of an arts bill, which would introduce a more sustainable and long-term financial planning model. Scotland’s creative industries contribute £5 billion to the Scottish economy every year, so it is important that the sector can properly plan the finances for its future. The recent fiasco around Creative Scotland’s funding has demonstrated the need for multiyear certainty on budgets. That would give clarity to the organisations and greater security for the employees, for which they are crying out.

If one thing should be taken from today’s debate, it is that the Government’s record on the issue is not one of empowerment; rather, it is one of a non-committal approach and uncertainty. That non-committal approach and uncertainty continue. Sector organisations the length and breadth of the country are struggling to come to terms with what the Government says on the one hand and then what it does on the other. The Government is not supporting the sector; it is leaving the sector to look after itself. If it were not for the Creative Scotland reserves, there would be massive cuts and job losses.

The Scottish Conservatives are committed to listening to the Scottish sector and to ensuring and safeguarding its contribution to society and our economy. It is high time that the Government put the warm words into action and took the same approach. If it did that, we would see something happening in the sector and it would not continue to wither on the vine.

I move amendment 10917.1, to insert at end:

“; notes warnings that, if the £6.6 million cut is not restored next year, 2,000 jobs and 26,000 artist opportunities could be at risk, and calls on the Scottish Government to implement a more proactive approach to protecting the arts, music and culture sector in Scotland through, for example, the introduction of an Arts Bill, which would introduce a more sustainable long-term funding model to provide multi-year certainty around existing budgets.”

The facility cost more than £80 million. It was designed with a trauma-informed approach, but it would appear that the design is significantly flawed and not fit for purpose, given that residents’ lives are being disrupted on a daily basis. I ask the cabinet secretary to confirm what support is being provided to protect the inmates and support the local residents from this “living hell”, as they call it.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this members’ business debate, and I commend Edward Mountain for his courage in bringing the debate to the chamber.

I apologise to you, Presiding Officer, and to Edward Mountain and other members, because I have to leave after my speech. I will not be able to attend Mr Mountain’s event, because I am hosting another event in the building myself, but my thoughts are with him.

I echo the motion for debate, and I put on record my own sincere thanks and my commendations to all the dedicated professionals who are involved in the care of those living with stoma. It really is a big life change for individuals, and they have to be congratulated on how they manage that process with courage. They are supported by a network of individuals, including nurses, who are worth their weight in gold and who, by their very actions, give much-needed support, comfort and reassurance to people every day

As we have already heard, some people have to deal with the trauma of leaks from their bag, and have to think about how they can manage that and where they can change the bag. All that can present a major issue, day to day, for some individuals. However, the teams of stoma nurses providing support can offer reassurance. In my region, we have such teams based in the Forth Valley royal hospital and Perth royal infirmary, and I know about the work that they do to support individuals in communities the length and breadth of those areas.

However, care has become expensive, which is an issue. We cannot look away from the processes that are taking place, and some of those processes need to be streamlined to enable us to look at where we are going.

Back in 2020, Nursing Times reported that,

“Senior nurses are seeking to establish a ‘Once for Scotland’ national approach to stoma care, to end variations in practice and bring down ... costs”.

We know that some of those costs have mushroomed over the past few years: with a 65 per cent increase over the past five years, the costs have now reached £31 million, although there has been only a 10 per cent increase in the number of patients. How that is managed needs to be looked at, as the average cost for dealing with these patients should be roughly between £700 and £2,000 a year, but in some areas it now exceeds £5,000 or £6,000.

Back in 2018, the NHS Scotland executive nurse director group commissioned the national stoma quality improvement short-life working group to look into the matter. The working group made many recommendations—because of Covid, that process took some time—and highlighted that a review is required. I look forward to hearing from the minister, in her summing up—although I will not be here, so I look forward to reading it later—about how we can manage some of that, because it is vitally important that we give those individuals the support that they need.

The review flagged up issues around general practitioners, including an “over reliance” on GPs, who were “often stretched” with regard to their capacity to manage and support individuals. The groups of healthcare professionals highlighted in the review have a common denominator: they are all looking to provide support and do as much as they can for people across Scotland.

In conclusion, on a personal level, I am aware of the benefits and challenges that arise with stoma, because my mother has had one for a number of years. I look forward to the minister telling us in her summing up how the Scottish Government can ensure that the streamlining of stoma care and its costs results in resilient care. We must empower stoma care nurses as practitioners. They do a phenomenal job, but they are sometimes the unsung heroes, and we need to commend them for, and congratulate them on, what they do to support individuals, day in and day out.

I am happy to do so.

I thank my colleague Stephen Kerr for that intervention. This afternoon, it very much appears that the Labour Party wishes to repeal the internal market act without having anything to replace it.

We have already heard much about the Sewel convention this afternoon, but I think that Jackson Carlaw put it best when he said that the convention is just that—it is nothing more than a convention.

Of course, the SNP’s objections come despite the fact that the UK Government’s ability to make investment in devolved areas is very much part of the devolution settlement. Similarly, we have heard familiar complaints about the UK Government’s use of a section 35 order, despite the fact that such a power is written into the devolution settlement.

However, certain things are absent from today’s motion. For example, there is no mention of the Supreme Court’s damning verdict in 2021 on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill, which talked about the SNP deliberately exceeding the powers of the Scottish Parliament when drawing up the bill.

—its justice and education systems and the environment to enhance our country, rather than squandering those powers.

As I have already said, we have had no surprises from the Government. The grievance-filled arguments that have been brought to the chamber previously continue to be made. Those attempts to convince the Scottish public that the Parliament’s powers are under threat are just as empty and without substance as they always have been.

I thank the member for her lengthy intervention, but none of us is tone deaf to the issue. The United Kingdom as a whole made the decision to leave the European Union. At the end of the day, the SNP has never come to terms with that. Yes, SNP members have made the point that Scotland did not like it, but the United Kingdom did and the United Kingdom is still the United Kingdom at the moment.

The motion also does not mention the fact that, despite the Supreme Court judgment having been made two years ago, it is only this week that we have learned the timetable for the reconsideration stage of the bill. When a party deliberately exceeds the power of this Parliament and then fails to use the powers of this Parliament to fix things as quickly as possible, it really lacks credibility.

I will talk about some of the points that have been made by other members. As I said, Labour members talked about repealing the 2020 act, and we look forward to seeing how that progresses in the future.

My colleague Donald Cameron said that this debate is more about deflecting from where we are, and he said that people across the country want the United Kingdom Government and the Holyrood Government to work together. They want to see a stronger relationship and trade taking place. Those points are very valid. He also said that, although, in the past, funding came from the EU, there is no suggestion that the funding that now comes from the UK is any different. The UK has provided £2.4 billion to Scotland over the past few years.

Willie Rennie made some very valid points about respecting the authority of this Parliament. He gave a very good example relating to freedom of information that exposed the SNP as following rules only when it suits it. We have debates that do nothing more than cause controversy and that do not show respect to the Parliament.

My colleague Stephen Kerr made a powerful speech. He talked about the scrutiny that is not taking place, and he said that there should be milestones and better governance.

My colleague Jackson Carlaw talked about being fair minded. It was quite hard for him to find evidence of fair mindedness in the chamber—he might well be fair minded, but we have not had much fair mindedness today.

Labour members then made comments about how Labour would manage or repeal the 2020 act—we look forward to seeing where that takes us in future.

I will do so in a few moments, as I wish to make some more progress.

This afternoon, we have heard from the Government about prioritising the powers of the Scottish Parliament. However, for the SNP, protecting the Parliament’s powers means objecting to UK Government investment in Scotland just because the money is being spent in devolved areas.

I am happy to give way to the minister.