Chamber and committees

Does the minister support the creation of a new national whistleblowing officer for the national health service and the social care sector who will deliver in such circumstances? Does he honestly believe that the families who have come forward with such harrowing experiences have been treated fairly by the systems that were designed to protect them?

I thank the minister for advance sight of his statement and, more importantly, for the way in which he has approached the issue—not only meeting me but meeting families—because it is a real and serious issue.

I first raised the issue of Skye house in the chamber almost a year ago. Although I welcome the steps that are now being taken to listen to families and improve services, systemic issues remain. When I raised the issue of the BBC documentary, I revealed that the Government was aware as far back as June 2023 of the abuse that young people were experiencing. I believe that that is yet to be investigated as part of the wider concerns.

I continue to work with affected families because their concerns have not been properly addressed. One family has exhausted every avenue in trying to hold the system accountable for the trauma that their daughter has endured.

An independent review of their case was commissioned, but, when the report was finally published, it was the parents, rather than the professionals who were involved, who were portrayed as the problem. Too often, when families speak up, they are dismissed, ignored or made to feel as though they are the obstacle to change.

My experience in supporting that family points to a culture of closed ranks in parts of our health and social care system. When systems close in on themselves, instead of protecting the most vulnerable, public trust is inevitably eroded.

How did the Government arrive at the conclusions that it arrived at on the regulations? Why did you not consult rural businesses on the impact of this Scottish statutory instrument?

You have said that you have not consulted the rural sector, but hundreds of small rural businesses have warned that losing the small business bonus scheme relief will increase their fixed costs to the extent that they are considering making redundancies. The regulations will also have other impacts, including loss of revenue and productivity, and they could act as a deterrent to future investment in the rural sector. What is your response to the businesses that are going to lose out on the scheme?

On that point specifically, you will be aware that a broad range of activities take place on shootings and in deer forests. In many cases, they do not include sports—that does not feature in the activities that take place. How do you reconcile that with what has been proposed and what I understand to be the policy intention? Those are the businesses that will not qualify for the scheme.

Finally, shootings and deer forests cannot be separated from the land that they refer to. Can the minister clarify what is meant by regulations 3(5)(d)(i) and 4(5)(d)(i), which refer to

“shootings which are crofts, agricultural landholdings or small landholdings”?

Do you share the view of others that further clarification of definitions and what is required needs to be fully looked into?

I am sure that small businesses will welcome that opportunity, because I believe that there will be unintended consequences.

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

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

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