Official Report 308KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20934, in the name of Mark Ruskell, on the European Charter of Local Self-Government (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill at reconsideration stage. I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak button now and I call Mark Ruskell, the member in charge of the bill, to speak to and move the motion. You have around six minutes, Mr Ruskell.
16:17
The European Charter of Local Self-Government (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill is about strengthening local democracy and, as such, I am pleased to be able to play my part in bringing the bill into law.
As the member in charge of the bill, it is incumbent on me to move the motion to enable the reconsideration stage to progress. Although the reconsideration stage is rarely used by the Parliament, I believe that it is a valuable process to ensure that legislation that the Parliament has decided to pass can be fixed and implemented. I will therefore be happy to move the motion in my name.
I thank the cabinet secretary and her officials for progressing the amendments. I also thank key stakeholders, such as the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, for maintaining pressure throughout most of this parliamentary session so that progress was made. As we are getting very close to the end of the session, I am pleased that time is being made available so that we do not lose the opportunity to complete the process.
I thank Roz Thomson and the entire team of legal advisers with the non-Government bills unit who have done a phenomenal job in this session of helping members to bring forward what has been a kaleidoscope of legislative proposals.
I also thank Andy Wightman, who was the original member in charge of the bill in the previous session and the driving force behind making the policy law. This is a somewhat unique situation, in that it is, I believe, the first reconsideration stage involving a member’s bill at Holyrood. Given that Mr Wightman was not returned in session 6, it fell on me, as the additional member in charge, to bring the bill back.
I would have liked to have moved to this point earlier in the session. The Supreme Court ruling was made in 2021 and it has taken until now for there to be something approaching agreement between the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments on the scope of amendments and for reconsideration to be scheduled. My approach all along has been to hold open a space for the bill to be fixed and, although I could have moved to reconsideration earlier in this session of Parliament, the issue has, at its core, been one for Governments to resolve by mutual agreement and I am pleased that they have now reached that point.
It might be helpful in informing this final debate on the bill if I briefly highlight some of the contributions to the consultation held by the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee.
The Law Society of Scotland observed that
“the draft amendments are complicated and illustrate the way in which provisions must be drafted to address the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the effect of section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998”
and acknowledged that
“the effect of the amendments is to narrow the scope of the Bill and accordingly limit its practical impact.”
COSLA focused on what the remaining policy in the bill could mean, arguing that
“The passing of the Bill to incorporate the European Charter of Self Government into law is a huge opportunity for national and Local Government to work together to improve lives across the country, and give Scotland’s communities rights that are already commonplace internationally.”
It went on to say that
“Council Leaders from across Scotland have already unanimously supported the passage of the bill and are supportive of the proposed amendments to address the Supreme Court ruling.”
With all those proposed amendments now debated and agreed to, the bill is, in my view, ready to be approved and to go forward for royal assent.
Finally, Professor Chris Himsworth summed up the overall situation well in my view, stating in his consultation response that he was
“very pleased to see that, in the light of all that has happened since the final passing of the Bill, it has been revived and is now once again on track to reach the statute book”
and that
“although the Bill offers no silver bullet, it has the capacity to contribute to better central-local relationships”.
I hope that that is something that we can all agree on, and I look forward to members’ contributions to the debate.
That the Parliament agrees that the European Charter of Local Self-Government (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill be approved.
16:22
I begin by thanking COSLA, Mark Ruskell and officials for their continued commitment and support ahead of today’s reconsideration debate, and Andy Wightman for his work before that. I thank the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee and the stakeholders who engaged with it on my reconsideration amendments, and I also thank my officials, who have worked hard and supported me to reach this point.
Following the referral of this member’s bill to the Supreme Court, the Scottish Government confirmed that we would do all that we could to support Mark Ruskell to progress the bill to reconsideration as soon as practicable. That commitment was reaffirmed in the Verity house agreement.
On 1 October 2024, I confirmed in writing that the Scottish Government would lodge and speak to the necessary amendments, drawing on our experience with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill. That is what we have done. The amendments agreed to today address the issues identified by the Supreme Court and I am confident that they will bring the bill within the legislative competence of this Parliament.
I have been clear that my amendments reduce the reach of the charter provisions in Scots law. The Scottish Government had hoped to preserve more of the bill as originally passed, including our hope to avoid restrictions to section 2, which the Supreme Court did not specifically adjudicate on. However, despite extensive engagement with the UK Government, we were unable to rule out the possibility of a further referral of the bill to the Supreme Court unless a more cautious approach was adopted. Given the limited time left in this session of Parliament, we therefore agreed with Mr Ruskell and COSLA that the priority must be to complete reconsideration swiftly while minimising the possibility of a further referral. I welcome Opposition members’ acknowledgment of that in the debate on 4 February.
I emphasise that, even as amended, the bill remains an important step forward. It embeds charter principles in Scots law, providing legal protection for local government that is not available elsewhere in the UK, and signals this Parliament’s commitment to respecting local democracy and fostering the cultural change that that requires.
My amendments broadly align with the approach taken during reconsideration of the UNCRC bill, ensuring coherence across the legislative framework. Key provisions of real value remain intact, including the duty on ministers to promote local government and the requirement for charter compatibility statements for every new bill. COSLA, as the principal stakeholder, has been clear that enacting the bill, even in its amended form, remains far preferable to having no legislation at all, and that the bill will still play a significant role in strengthening the position of local government in Scotland’s constitutional landscape.
I am aware that a number of stakeholders who wrote to the committee in response to its call for views have suggested that, in future, the bill’s scope could be expanded by, for example, re-enacting relevant UK act provisions as acts of the Scottish Parliament. As I mentioned earlier, the University of Glasgow’s centre for public policy recently published a major report that examines devolved lawmaking following the Supreme Court’s section 28(7) rulings. That report highlights that, although the Scottish Parliament may amend or repeal UK laws in devolved areas and create new laws, it may not condition the meaning or effect of UK legislation, nor may it make UK Parliament rules dependent on decisions by Scottish ministers or the courts.
Although the report acknowledges that potential workarounds exist, the authors are of the view that an overall solution is required to the issues that have affected the UNCRC act and the bill that we are discussing. As the children’s rights scheme that was laid before Parliament in November 2025 records, the Scottish Government is committed to progressing engagement with the UK Government in that regard. However, the report concludes that the Scottish Government cannot resolve those challenges alone. We will consider the next steps, including engaging with this Parliament, the UK Government and others on the authors’ expert analysis.
As I outlined during the earlier debate, reconsideration of the bill was the logical next step to enshrine existing good practice in law following the signing of the Verity house agreement. I am confident that the amended bill addresses the Supreme Court judgment, brings the bill within legislative competence and minimises the possibility of a further referral to the Supreme Court.
16:27
I am pleased to open on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. The amended European Charter of Local Self-Government (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill represents a step in the right direction for Scottish local government. The aim of the European Charter of Local Self-Government is to protect and strengthen the powers of local authorities. It is already recognised in the legal system, and successful incorporation of the charter into Scots law will send a clear message about the important role that this level of government can play in people’s lives. That was the case five years ago, when we debated the bill at stage 3, and it is still the case today.
COSLA has highlighted that the current relationship between local and central Government depends on good will and the assessment of the Scottish Government. However, we have seen in recent years that that good will can sometimes not be respected.
This is only the second bill that this Parliament has had to reconsider. Although it is welcome that the Parliament is able to vote on the final version of the bill today, this debate has been a long time coming. More than 1,000 days have passed since the Supreme Court made its judgment back in October 2021, and the Law Society of Scotland has made it quite clear that it has taken far too long for the bill to reach the current stage. It stated:
“Future Bills which are determined by the UK Supreme Court to be outside the competence of the Scottish Parliament should not have reconsideration delayed beyond two years from the date of the decision.”
We support that.
The introduction of the Verity house agreement two and a half years ago set a new vision for councils and the Government to work together more effectively, but many councils have been frustrated by the lack of progress since that agreement was introduced. There is significant overlap between the principles that are set out in the charter and those in the Verity house agreement. Legislative backing for those principles is therefore an important step in improving outcomes for Scottish local government, and I note that COSLA called for that in its evidence to the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee. That needs to be combined with an end to the erosion of local government funding and the re-establishment of services that have been cut. Without improvements to the local government funding settlement, councils will still be trying to do their job with one hand tied behind their backs.
Our councils are the closest level of government to communities and it is only right that they are empowered to act in the best interests of those whom they represent. All too often, however, councils are made to act as though they are an extension of the Scottish Government rather than the true form of local government that they are. We will, therefore, support the amended bill at decision time. The onus will rest on the Scottish Government to address the outstanding issues within local government, to ensure that it is able to deliver in the way that local communities rightly expect.
Mark Griffin joins us remotely.
16:30
The bill has always had a simple and widely supported purpose: to incorporate the European Charter of Local Self-Government into Scots law, giving local authorities clear legal rights to require ministers to act compatibly with the charter, and to ensure that Scotland meets the democratic standards that are expected across Europe. It strengthens local autonomy, improves transparency and provides councils with a meaningful safeguard if their role is undermined.
The bill was universally supported when it was originally passed, in February 2021. Getting it on to the statute book should have been the easy part. However, we are here five years later because the Scottish Government failed to act with any degree of urgency after the Supreme Court ruling in October 2021. In May 2022, the then Deputy First Minister promised to work “at pace” to bring forward amendments. However, for years, there was no timetable, no amendments and no visible progress.
COSLA highlighted the lack of apparent movement in early 2023. It is also important to say that the Law Society of Scotland highlighted that the delay
“is not in the interest of good law making”,
urging that any future bills that are dealt with by reconsideration following a Supreme Court decision should be dealt with within two years of that decision, to uphold that principle of good law making.
While all that has been going on—or has not been going on—the issues that local government faces and that make the bill an essential component of our democratic system have worsened. Over the past decade, councils have faced more than £7 billion in cumulative cuts. They have been asked to deliver more with less, absorb rising demand and inflationary pressure, and carry an unsustainable financial burden. They have somehow become administrators of Government policy rather than the autonomous decision-making bodies that they are. The Government needs to ask itself how it reconciles the language of local self-government with the lived reality of increasing centralisation, directed or ring-fenced funds for central policy decisions, and financial constraints.
Rights on paper should surely be matched by respect in practice. Scottish Labour continues to support the legal rights and standards that are enshrined in the bill, but it is incumbent on the Government to get it right—to not just correct what the court identified but ensure that the additional changes that are now proposed genuinely avoid the risk of yet more delay. Local authorities cannot afford another constitutional detour. They need certainty, stability and, above all, a Government that treats them as partners, not administrators of centrally determined priorities.
The bill should not have taken the best part of six years, and it should not have required pressure from COSLA and others to reach this point, right at the end of the session. However, that is where we are. I ask the Parliament to finally approve a competent bill that embeds in Scots law the principles of subsidiarity, local democracy and mutual respect.
16:33
Addressing our conference on the 25th anniversary of devolution, the dear departed Jim Wallace said:
“The Constitutional Convention, whose final report is peppered with references to the European Charter of Local Self Government, concluded that in any future review of local government, ‘the aim of the Parliament should be, firstly, to safeguard and where possible increase the area of discretion available at the level of the local authority.’
The story of the Scottish Parliament under SNP administrations, however, has been one of increasing centralisation. Local taxation again is dictated by central government. Police and fire services have been centralised in a way which hasn’t exactly covered the idea in glory. Local courts have been closed. Local government funding has been squeezed further than overall Holyrood expenditure, thus limiting the scope for local initiative. As someone who believes in decentralised decision-making, this is very troubling.”
That is why I am pleased to confirm that the Scottish Liberal Democrats will support the bill at the final vote on its reconsideration. I was proud to be a signatory to Andy Wightman’s bill in the previous session of Parliament. At its heart, the legislation is grounded in a straightforward principle that was encapsulated in the words of Jim Wallace that we just heard: namely, that decisions that affect communities should be taken as close to those communities as possible.
For too long, power in Scotland has become increasingly centralised. Local government has too often been treated less as a democratic partner and more as a delivery arm for the will of this national Government. That imbalance has not served our communities well. The bill seeks to strengthen that relationship. Parliament originally passed the legislation with strong cross-party support, of which we have heard something this afternoon. Following the Supreme Court judgment, we have had to revisit certain provisions to ensure that the bill sits clearly within our competence.
The amendments that have been agreed to during reconsideration respond directly and proportionately to that judgment. Although the scope is narrower than first envisaged, the legislation that is now before us is legally robust and capable of moving forward without further delay. That matters, because another referral would only prolong uncertainty for our local government partners and for the communities that they serve.
Crucially, the bill still represents meaningful progress, as it embeds the principles of the European Charter of Local Self-Government into Scots law and strengthens the expectations of that partnership and of mutual respect and shared responsibility between national and local government. Good relationships cannot rely on good will alone. Clear statutory principles help to shape culture, clarify responsibilities and reinforce accountability.
Later in his words to our conference, Jim Wallace said:
“A new balance between the Scottish Parliament and local government and local communities needs to be struck. Parliament, in partnership with local government, should have the confidence and vision to ensure that the spirit of local government and local determination is revitalised. The extent to which Parliament can rise to the challenge of reforming local government finance and revitalising local democracy should be a measure of its success in the next quarter century, if not earlier.”
In the lines and pages of the bill that we will pass this afternoon, we are, in some way, reaching for the challenge that Jim Wallace described. That is why the Liberal Democrats will support the bill.
16:37
I am pleased to speak in the debate on the European Charter of Local Self-Government (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill. Like others, I pay tribute to Mark Ruskell for his work in getting it to this stage.
As we have heard, the Scottish Government is firmly committed to the bill and to the principles that underpin the European Charter of Local Self-Government. At its core, the legislation is about strengthening local democracy in Scotland and placing our partnership with local government on a clear and durable statutory foundation. It is a significant and forward-looking measure.
By incorporating the charter into domestic law, Scotland will become the first nation in the United Kingdom to do so, which is an important step. It reinforces our shared belief that decisions are often best taken closest to the communities that they affect, and that councils should have the standing and stability required to serve those communities effectively.
The charter sets out core principles that are designed to safeguard the political, administrative and financial independence of local authorities. It affirms the role of councils composed of members who are freely elected by secret ballot on the basis of direct, equal and universal suffrage. Across Europe, those principles have contributed to vibrant local democracies and strong systems of self-government. Through the bill, we bring those principles directly into Scots law.
The bill places duties on the Scottish ministers to act compatibly with the charter articles and to promote local self-government. That is entirely appropriate. By embedding those duties in statute, we help to ensure that local self-government is respected, advanced and sustained over time. Working collaboratively with local government is, and will continue to be, a priority for this Government. The Government is committed to a vibrant and inclusive democracy. We support local self-determination. The bill reinforces the autonomy of the powers of councils and strengthens their status and standing within Scotland’s system of governance. It provides an opportunity to enshrine in Scots law a culture of partnership and participation that benefits communities across the country.
As we have heard, the Supreme Court concluded in 2021 that specific provisions were outside legislative competence.
Since then, constructive work has taken place to enable the bill to proceed in a way that secures competence and delivers its core objectives, and we have arrived here today.
As we have heard already, the Scottish Government said that it would support the bill, subject to the amendments that have now been agreed to, which will ensure that the bill rests securely within the powers of this Parliament. Although we remain of the view that section 2 is within competence, amendments to limit its effect, alongside changes to sections 4 and 5, will help the bill to progress smoothly and are likely to avoid a further reference to the Supreme Court, as has been outlined by the cabinet secretary. Our approach is guided by a clear aim: to deliver the strongest possible legislation with clarity and certainty.
The bill also sits alongside the Verity house agreement, which already commits ministers to act consistently with many of the charter’s principles, including a presumption in favour of local flexibility. Through that agreement, we have strengthened the relationship between national and local government and set out how we will work together to improve outcomes for the people of Scotland. Incorporation of the charter complements that shared endeavour and provides it with an enhanced legal foundation.
By the end of this parliamentary session—which is fast approaching, as we all know—we will have taken significant steps to advance fiscal empowerment and flexibility for local government, including baselining over £2 billion of the general revenue grant, jointly publishing a fiscal framework with COSLA, and progressing work towards a power of general competence. These actions demonstrate that commitment to local self-government is practical as well as principled.
By incorporating the European Charter of Local Self-Government into Scots law, there is affirmation that local self-government is an essential part of Scotland’s constitutional landscape. It provides greater certainty for councils and strengthens democratic accountability at every level. With it, we take a confident step towards aligning Scotland with the best traditions of local democracy across Europe. I urge members to support the bill at decision time.
We move to closing speeches.
16:41
I thank members for their contributions to this reconsideration debate, because local democracy is not just an abstract principle but the foundation of how essential public services are delivered in every community in Scotland. Scottish Labour will support the bill, as we did when it was first passed. We support incorporating the European Charter of Local Self-Government into Scots law. The principle has always commanded consensus across the chamber, but we cannot ignore how we arrived here. The Supreme Court did not reject the purpose of the bill; it identified flaws in the drafting that meant that the bill strayed into reserved matters. That was constitutional theatre and it was entirely avoidable. Instead, an entire parliamentary session passed before reconsideration was initiated.
Meanwhile, councils’ autonomy and financial certainty have been steadily eroded by this Government. Partnership has to mean more than just words on a paper agreement. Over the past decade, councils have absorbed increasing demands while navigating shrinking budgets. Decisions have been made about them, not with them, by an SNP Government that is obsessed with keeping power as close as possible to itself.
Embedding rights in law is a basic premise of government. As we know, this Government systematically fails to get the basics right. Local government in Scotland has every right to demand enshrined fiscal sustainability and a genuine respect for local decision making. This reconsideration should not have taken six years. It should not even have been necessary in the first place and could and should have been avoided with more competent drafting and more timely action. However, we will not extend that delay any further today. We will finally approve a competent bill, avoid any further referral to the Supreme Court and deliver the legal clarity that local government was promised.
We must ensure that the principles of local self-government are not just in legislation but, from now on, are reflected in how our Scottish Government works with, respects and funds Scottish local authorities.
16:44
The Scottish Conservatives will be supporting the bill at decision time because it protects the political, administrative and financial independence of local government. Of course, as many have mentioned, Parliament unanimously agreed to the general principles of the bill and passed the bill at stage 3 back in March 2021.
However, it is important to touch on the question of why we are back in the chamber today, reconsidering certain elements of the bill. It is because the UK Government referred the bill, under the Scotland Act 1998, to the UK Supreme Court. We should note, too, that the court did not reject the principle of strengthening local government. In fact, throughout the debate, members have referred to the importance of taking the bill forward and the desire from local councils the length and breadth of the country to have the legislation in place. The issue was that the court found that parts of the bill went beyond the Scottish Parliament’s competence regarding what it is legally allowed to do.
Alexander Stewart referred to the length of time that it has taken for the bill to be brought back to the chamber and the commentary from the Law Society of Scotland that such delays do not make for good law. I agree with that, and I also agree with the Law Society’s comment that reconsideration of the bill should have taken place within a two-year period. This is perhaps an opportunity for the Scottish Government to reflect on those points, given the number of bills that we are rushing through towards the end of the current session of Parliament. If we had had more time to look at this bill earlier in the session, we would not be here today, rushing it through in the last few remaining weeks.
To touch on what Mark Ruskell said, it has been good that COSLA has kept up the pressure and that it wanted the bill to come back to Parliament as soon as possible, because it is a huge opportunity for national and local Governments to work together and to ensure that rights for councils, which are commonplace internationally, can be put in place in Scotland, too. The cabinet secretary also mentioned that the amendments that have been passed today will now be legally competent, which is good to hear. It will be good for councils, and for the former member who originally introduced the bill in the previous session of Parliament.
A lot has been said today about centralisation, and that is a huge point that should perhaps have been raised previously in relation to other matters, not just this bill, in the current session of Parliament. Local government has borne the brunt of quite a lot of the decisions that have been taken in the chamber, and councils have not had the political, administrative and financial independence to decide whether a particular decision is best for their area or whether they face financial or resource constraints on their ability to implement legislation that is passed in the chamber. That needs to be reflected on.
Mark Griffin was right to touch on the need for safeguards to ensure that local authorities can make decisions that best fit their own communities, and to avoid a repeat of what we have seen in previous years under the SNP Government, whereby councils have not been taken into account when decisions have been made.
I will leave my remarks there. The Scottish Conservatives will support the bill at decision time, and I look forward to its being passed.
16:48
I thank members for their contributions to this short debate, and I will touch on a couple of issues that have been raised. The first is timing, which was raised by Alexander Stewart, Mark Griffin and a couple of others. First, it is important to say that the timing was not wholly within the gift of the Scottish Government, given the substantial engagement that was required with the UK Government. It was a two-way process that—far from being about parliamentary theatre, as Mark Griffin suggested—involved the hard yards of trying to get agreement with two successive UK Governments. To those who have never held ministerial office, I can only say that it is not an easy task to get agreement with another Government on the detail of issues such as competence. We required the Advocate General to give us comfort that there would not be the risk of a further referral to the Supreme Court, and we did not get that.
We could talk all day about why it took so long, but I say to members candidly that it is difficult to negotiate these matters, in particular where matters are not clear cut. They were complex, and we therefore had to work through all the detail and find a compromise that was acceptable in particular to COSLA, as the main stakeholder. Those were the hard yards that we worked through to get to this point.
On the point about funding, there is a real-terms increase in funding for local government in the budget that was passed last week, without the support of Alexander Stewart or Mark Griffin, who did not vote for that additional funding for local government. Actions always speak louder than words.
I refer to the point that Alex Cole-Hamilton made about the tension between centralisation and localism when it comes to accountability. For as long as I can remember, ministers have always and regularly been held accountable for the delivery of responsibilities, whether those responsibilities sit within this Parliament, including the ministerial responsibilities of the Scottish Government, or with local government.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
Of course.
I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way. This is often the excuse that her Government leans into when it is rightly challenged about problems that have occurred because of the centralisation that it has undertaken, whether that is with Police Scotland or the centralisation around other emergency services. It is a very convenient excuse, but we will always stand up for devolving power closer to the people whom it serves.
Given Police Scotland’s record on solving crimes of a very serious nature, and the current record low levels of crime, I am a major advocate for having Police Scotland instead of the legacy forces, through which, sexual crimes, for example, were not investigated and prosecuted in the way that they are now.
The point that I was trying to make was not overtly party political. It was more about where responsibility lies and where accountability for delivery lies. If 32 local authorities deliver on their responsibilities with varying levels of success—or otherwise—where does accountability for that lie?
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
Go on.
We have 32 local authorities, because we have reached a settled will that that is a fitting number to serve the communities of Scotland.
I point to the national care service. Nothing about the national care service would have made the delivery of care easier in places such as Strathpeffer or Aboyne. It would have asset stripped those communities of the ability to deliver social care in their areas.
Cabinet secretary, I can give you the time back.
That was not my point. My point was about responsibility and accountability for delivery. There will always be tensions around where responsibility should lie for the delivery of a particular outcome that is important to people. To be honest, people are not that bothered about where responsibility lies. They want delivery and accountability when things are not delivered as they should be.
Without doubt, these issues will continue to be debated in the next parliamentary session—
Alex Cole-Hamilton rose—
No, I want to finish.
They will continue to be debated in the next parliamentary session, of which I will not be a part. There are tensions that will always be there. We have to be honest, not just on the Government benches but on the Opposition benches, about the questions of Government and whom Opposition members want to hold accountable for delivery of services.
Presiding Officer, I can see you looking at me with raised eyebrows.
There is a bit of time in hand.
I will finish on this point. I hope that members across the chamber, despite some of the challenges that we have just alluded to, come together today to support the amended version of the bill and agree to Mark Ruskell’s motion to enable Scotland to become the first part of the UK to incorporate the European Charter of Local Self-Government into domestic law.
Mark Ruskell, the member in charge of the bill, will wind up the debate.
16:54
I thank the cabinet secretary for her kind words and I thank members across the chamber for their speeches. I have my fingers crossed that I might be heading for an unusual record of getting two member’s bills agreed to at Holyrood within a fortnight, but we will see what happens next Thursday. At this point, I should also pay tribute to Andy Wightman, who had the foresight to introduce the bill in the previous parliamentary session.
We in the Scottish Greens undoubtedly have a deep-seated commitment to localism and the need to empower communities. Of course, we do not have a monopoly on localism. Alexander Stewart spoke well about his commitment to the bill, drawing on his experience over many years as a councillor and his commitment five years ago to getting the bill into law. Mark Griffin also spoke about the need for councils to be seen as partners, not administrators, which is an important point.
I was pleased that Alex Cole-Hamilton spoke about the quiet work of Jim Wallace in the Scottish Constitutional Convention. It was part of the blueprint of this Parliament that the European charter would be embedded into our working. That shows how long overdue the bill is and that it should form part of what we do in the Parliament.
I reflect on Jim Wallace’s view that we need to strike a “new balance” between the Parliament, local government and communities. There will always be a debate about the will of Government to achieve national objectives and the local accountability that is needed. I am sure that that debate will continue well into the next session of the Scottish Parliament.
I am grateful to Mark Ruskell for his kind words about Jim Wallace. Does he recognise that, as Donald Dewar said about devolution being a process, not an event, so too is the devolution of power to our communities away from the Parliament?
Absolutely. The bill raises questions about where we are now regarding our levels of Government and responsibility. Those questions can be opened up if there is a cross-party consensus in future sessions of the Parliament.
Given that Scotland—and the UK—is one of the most centralised democracies in Europe, it will take time for the bill to empower communities. However, going forward, I hope that the bill will provide a strong basis to do so. If we approve the bill tonight, Scotland will be the first country in the UK to be in compliance with the charter. Being a normal European country that respects communities would feel like progress.
Several members talked about the Verity house agreement. Alexander Stewart referred to some of the frustration that council leaders have at the moment with the agreement’s implementation, and Mark Griffin talked about on-going financial challenges. We will not talk about where those financial challenges originate from, which is Westminster. Fulton MacGregor highlighted some of the progress that has been made.
I hope that we can agree that there is a need to ratchet up the reforms. The bill will not give courts the power to declare whether the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, for example, is compatible with the charter. That is regrettable. However, if the 1973 act were to be repealed and re-enacted by the Parliament in the future, it would need to be in line with the charter and the important principle of local government empowerment. The window is open for further reform and the bill provides the foundation on which future ambition can be built, if there are the political will and consensus to do that.
I welcome that the cabinet secretary wrote to me ahead of the reconsideration stage. She said:
“In time, it may also be possible to bring more of Ministers’ functions within the scope of the section 2 compatibility duty, for example, if UK Act provisions in devolved areas are re-enacted in Acts of the Scottish Parliament or a mutually acceptable solution can be found to the issues around s.28(7) of the Scotland Act.”
It is now for the next Scottish Government to take those opportunities.
The Supreme Court took a view of section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998 that surprised many people. As Professor Chris Himsworth said:
“It was, for most commentators, I believe, wholly unexpected and constitutionally shocking. At the very least, it has given rise to great uncertainty.”
That perhaps speaks to some of the reasons why it has taken so long to bring the bill back to the Parliament for reconsideration.
There is clearly work to do, and reform of the Scotland Act 1998 should be on the table. The cabinet secretary has referred to some of the academic thinking about that, which needs to be taken seriously.
I will leave the last words to COSLA, which has campaigned for this bill for years. It said:
“We believe that there are … key reasons why Scotland should incorporate the Charter … It would improve the outcomes that national and local government can deliver … It would give Scottish communities rights that are already commonplace internationally … It would build partnership working into Scotland’s governance for the first time … It would ensure that Scotland fully complies with international treaty obligations”,
and it would
“Help give Local Government the powers it needs to deliver lasting, meaningful change for our communities.”
It is time to hit the reset button and finally get the European Charter of Local Self-Government (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill into law.
That concludes the debate on the European Charter of Local Self-Government (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill at reconsideration stage.