Chamber and committees

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

I wish to speak about the Non-Domestic Rates (Levying and Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2026.

I refer members to the letter that was sent to the convener on 18 February by Scottish Land & Estates. The letter asks the committee to

“suspend voting on an upcoming SSI on the withdrawal of the Small Business Bonus Scheme … relief from most sporting rates liabilities, as announced in the Scottish Budget for 2026–27.”

Scottish Land & Estates further sets out that

“Our primary concern is not with the policy, but with how it has been developed”,

and that it does not feel that there has been sufficient

“consultation with the rural sector on the withdrawal of SBBS relief for sporting rates.”

There are also concerns about the impact that the proposal could have on the rural sector, with a potential impact on food production, deer management capacity, tax liability without sporting activities, and environmental land management, while biodiversity-positive practices could be put under pressure.

09:30

I believe that, in the light of the evidence that SLE has raised with the committee and other policies that have been introduced elsewhere, such as the family farm tax, the introduction of the SSI could have unintended consequences. We do not want any more policies that could harm the sector. Scottish Land & Estates has been clear that it wishes evidence to be taken on the SSI, which I think is wise, given the complexity of the issue. I seek the committee’s permission to invite the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity to the committee so that we can take evidence on the issue and ensure that the instrument will have no unintended consequences for our rural sector.

I declare an interest: I sit on the advisory board of Pregnant Then Screwed.

I come to this debate not as a member of the Parliament but as a parent. Last year, my daughter began her 1,140 hours of funded childcare. Like many parents, I was grateful for that support. If it works, it makes a difference. It can ease the burden, and it may allow families to breathe a little bit easier when it comes to their finances.

However, I have also experienced the first-hand reality behind the policy headline, which comes down to the fact that, every month, parents face the dreaded calculation about whether they can afford to have children and be in employment at the same time. I have done my own sums for my daughter. If she happened to be at nursery full time, the costs would be just short of £1,000 per month. That is nearly £12,000 a year for just one child. That is not a small household bill; it is the equivalent of a second mortgage payment every month.

Even once the 1,140 hours are available, the challenge for parents does not disappear, because, on its own, the availability of funded hours does not guarantee flexibility or choice, as my colleague Roz McCall rightly highlighted. Like many parents, my husband and I have sat round the kitchen table researching nurseries and childminders and asking the same questions. Does it open early enough? Does it cover school holidays? What happens if our work meetings run late? What happens if we do not finish work until after 6 o’clock at night? Can we juggle more than one care setting? Who will fill in for the drop-offs and the pick-ups?

That is the practical reality of modern life for working parents. Across Scotland, parents are juggling shift patterns, commuting times and the part-time roles that have been stitched together just to make ends meet. They are also making complex spreadsheets to work out whether, financially, they can stay in employment. That is why we are seeing many parents reducing their hours—it is not because they want to; it is because childcare structures leave them with no alternative.

The work of Pregnant Then Screwed has consistently shown that childcare costs are pushing parents, particularly women, out of the labour market. Some are delaying having children, and others are deciding against growing their family entirely because the numbers simply do not stack up. There is too much month left at the end of the money.

I remember that, during the gender recognition reform debate, I broke my maternity leave because it was important to me to vote on the issue. I had Charlotte in one arm and I was trying to vote with the other hand. It can work, but not in all circumstances, although I take Christine Grahame’s point.

Pregnant Then Screwed has announced its latest state-of-the-nation report, which is important to what comes next in terms of our childcare settings. It says that 66.1 per cent of childcare costs are the same or more than the parents’ income, and 34.5 per cent of those who responded found themselves agreeing with the statement “I often find myself choosing between paying for childcare and household essentials”. That shows that something is broken in the system.

We need to reflect on the policies that we have spoken about in this chamber. In 2023, the Scottish National Party made a commitment to expand funded childcare from nine months onwards. That never materialised and we do not know what happened to the pilot programmes. That lack of ambition has prevented us from pushing forward.

We need to be honest about delivery. My experience shows that choice and flexibility matter for parents. That is why we need to look at the private, voluntary and independent sector and at what is not working right now.

Presiding Officer, I know that I need to finish, but this is not a niche policy area for me. Parents sit at the kitchen table, working out affordability, every single week. They tour nurseries, asking about hours and flexibility. They worry about job stability and providing for their children. We owe it to them to do better than broken promises, better than half-hearted ambition and better than a system in which going to work leaves families barely breaking even.

Childcare will be an election priority for parents in May—

To clarify, my point was not about the funding that the Government has put in. In 2023, the Government promised to expand childcare from the age of nine months, but nothing has materialised. That is the half-hearted ambition.

::To clarify, my point was not about the funding that the Government has put in. In 2023, the Government promised to expand childcare from the age of nine months, but nothing has materialised. That is the half-hearted ambition.

::I remember that, during the gender recognition reform debate, I broke my maternity leave because it was important to me to vote on the issue. I had Charlotte in one arm and I was trying to vote with the other hand. It can work, but not in all circumstances, although I take Christine Grahame’s point.

Pregnant Then Screwed has announced its latest state-of-the-nation report, which is important to what comes next in terms of our childcare settings. It says that 66.1 per cent of childcare costs are the same or more than the parents’ income, and 34.5 per cent of those who responded found themselves agreeing with the statement “I often find myself choosing between paying for childcare and household essentials”. That shows that something is broken in the system.

We need to reflect on the policies that we have spoken about in this chamber. In 2023, the Scottish National Party made a commitment to expand funded childcare from nine months onwards. That never materialised and we do not know what happened to the pilot programmes. That lack of ambition has prevented us from pushing forward.

We need to be honest about delivery. My experience shows that choice and flexibility matter for parents. That is why we need to look at the private, voluntary and independent sector and at what is not working right now.

Presiding Officer, I know that I need to finish, but this is not a niche policy area for me. Parents sit at the kitchen table, working out affordability, every single week. They tour nurseries, asking about hours and flexibility. They worry about job stability and providing for their children. We owe it to them to do better than broken promises, better than half-hearted ambition and better than a system in which going to work leaves families barely breaking even.

Childcare will be an election priority for parents in May—

::I declare an interest: I sit on the advisory board of Pregnant Then Screwed.

I come to this debate not as a member of the Parliament but as a parent. Last year, my daughter began her 1,140 hours of funded childcare. Like many parents, I was grateful for that support. If it works, it makes a difference. It can ease the burden, and it may allow families to breathe a little bit easier when it comes to their finances.

However, I have also experienced the first-hand reality behind the policy headline, which comes down to the fact that, every month, parents face the dreaded calculation about whether they can afford to have children and be in employment at the same time. I have done my own sums for my daughter. If she happened to be at nursery full time, the costs would be just short of £1,000 per month. That is nearly £12,000 a year for just one child. That is not a small household bill; it is the equivalent of a second mortgage payment every month.

Even once the 1,140 hours are available, the challenge for parents does not disappear, because, on its own, the availability of funded hours does not guarantee flexibility or choice, as my colleague Roz McCall rightly highlighted. Like many parents, my husband and I have sat round the kitchen table researching nurseries and childminders and asking the same questions. Does it open early enough? Does it cover school holidays? What happens if our work meetings run late? What happens if we do not finish work until after 6 o’clock at night? Can we juggle more than one care setting? Who will fill in for the drop-offs and the pick-ups?

That is the practical reality of modern life for working parents. Across Scotland, parents are juggling shift patterns, commuting times and the part-time roles that have been stitched together just to make ends meet. They are also making complex spreadsheets to work out whether, financially, they can stay in employment. That is why we are seeing many parents reducing their hours—it is not because they want to; it is because childcare structures leave them with no alternative.

The work of Pregnant Then Screwed has consistently shown that childcare costs are pushing parents, particularly women, out of the labour market. Some are delaying having children, and others are deciding against growing their family entirely because the numbers simply do not stack up. There is too much month left at the end of the money.

::I declare an interest: I sit on the advisory board of Pregnant Then Screwed.

I come to this debate not as a member of the Parliament but as a parent. Last year, my daughter began her 1,140 hours of funded childcare. Like many parents, I was grateful for that support. If it works, it makes a difference. It can ease the burden, and it may allow families to breathe a little bit easier when it comes to their finances.

However, I have also experienced the first-hand reality behind the policy headline, which comes down to the fact that, every month, parents face the dreaded calculation about whether they can afford to have children and be in employment at the same time. I have done my own sums for my daughter. If she happened to be at nursery full time, the costs would be just short of £1,000 per month. That is nearly £12,000 a year for just one child. That is not a small household bill; it is the equivalent of a second mortgage payment every month.

Even once the 1,140 hours are available, the challenge for parents does not disappear, because, on its own, the availability of funded hours does not guarantee flexibility or choice, as my colleague Roz McCall rightly highlighted. Like many parents, my husband and I have sat round the kitchen table researching nurseries and childminders and asking the same questions. Does it open early enough? Does it cover school holidays? What happens if our work meetings run late? What happens if we do not finish work until after 6 o’clock at night? Can we juggle more than one care setting? Who will fill in for the drop-offs and the pick-ups?

That is the practical reality of modern life for working parents. Across Scotland, parents are juggling shift patterns, commuting times and the part-time roles that have been stitched together just to make ends meet. They are also making complex spreadsheets to work out whether, financially, they can stay in employment. That is why we are seeing many parents reducing their hours—it is not because they want to; it is because childcare structures leave them with no alternative.

The work of Pregnant Then Screwed has consistently shown that childcare costs are pushing parents, particularly women, out of the labour market. Some are delaying having children, and others are deciding against growing their family entirely because the numbers simply do not stack up. There is too much month left at the end of the money.