Chamber and committees

Will this not put employers at risk, cabinet secretary? What support will the Scottish Government provide to employers? I think that it opens up a load of arguments for everyone, and it is totally unnecessary. The matter needs to be clarified.

For the record, cabinet secretary, what is your interpretation of the 2010 act?

I thank Christine Grahame for bringing this important issue to the chamber for debate. Her motion mentions the scenic and beautiful area of Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale but Brexit poses challenges in Midlothian North, across Lothian and across Scotland. There is much to agree with in the motion that we are discussing but it will not surprise Christine Grahame that I cannot support its conclusion.

Last week, in the debate on the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee’s report, my colleague Sarah Boyack said:

“Many of us did not want to be here, ... dealing with the consequences of the UK’s departure from the EU.”—[Official Report, 17 November 2022; c 67.]

She is right: Brexit and the levels of inflation that we face today lie squarely at the door of the Tories.

The EU referendum was a political choice by David Cameron to try to unite his party. The Brexit deal was first negotiated by Theresa May and was voted against by Boris Johnson, only for him to renegotiate parts of the deal. The former Prime Minister described it as an “oven-ready” deal, only for him and his two Tory successors to seek to unilaterally change that very deal through the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill.

The Tory party is now very keen to point out that there are inflationary pressures everywhere. That is true to an extent, but the UK finds itself in a far worse position than many comparable countries because of two factors: the recent political instability and the fact that the Tory party is held hostage by an internal faction that will accept only the most extreme form of Brexit.

I think that many people across the United Kingdom are tired of government by internal Tory drama. We need a Labour Government in Westminster to provide solid leadership and move the UK forward.

I cannot accept the conclusion of the motion that independence is the answer to those problems. Mark Blyth, who is one of the economists appointed to the First Minister’s own panel of advisers—[Interruption.] I will just go ahead. As Mark Blyth has said, independence would be “Brexit times ten”.

The answer to the disruption caused by separation from our biggest trading partner is not to repeat the process. The answer is a change of direction in Westminster, with a new, constructive attitude to our friends on the continent and a commitment to revitalising our economy. That is the only way that will deliver an economy that works for everyone across the UK. That better future is possible, and I want to see it for Christine Grahame’s constituency just as much as I do for the Lothian region and the rest of Scotland.

Good morning, panel. I will be brief and will ask Rachel Cackett a question. What kind of cost might be created for third sector organisations by the provision on monitoring and information sharing?

Given that homelessness services are not included in the functions that can be transferred to the national care service, are they at risk of falling through the cracks?

Thank you, minister. I have no other questions, convener.

The committee has heard—as, I am sure, many individual MSPs have heard—that there are pressing issues for care right now and that we cannot wait for the national care service. Is all reform of the sector on hold while the bill is being considered?

How will the third sector be integrated into the long-term delivery of the national care service? I know that the minister has given a lot of examples, but I am not clear on how it will be integrated in that regard.

It is a pleasure to close the debate for Scottish Labour. I thank the committee and staff for the work that has gone into the report, which is on a complex subject. I also thank the people who gave evidence to the committee to allow the report to be produced for the Parliament’s benefit; their contributions are much appreciated.

We have heard from my colleague Sarah Boyack about how the Sewel convention has come under threat in recent years and is in urgent need of further clarity, particularly when it comes to secondary legislation.

The committee report is clear that Brexit has been a significant shock to the relationship between Westminster and the devolved nations. The witnesses who were heard by the committee painted a picture that showed how the initial cases of breaking the Sewel convention for reasons of urgency have, in effect, made it easier for the convention to be broken down. However, as the report also makes clear, the convention was built on unstable ground to begin with.

The phrase “not normally” was perhaps always destined to end up as the subject of contention. However, it is Brexit and its associated legislation that have provided the pressure that has shaken the convention. Alasdair Allan made that point very well.

If our devolved nations are to function together again after the strained recent years, a renormalising of relationships is required. Sarah Boyack has already highlighted some of the ways in which Scottish Labour believes that that could happen. As she noted, there needs to be greater transparency in how intergovernmental relations happen; otherwise, we are just substituting devolved Parliaments for devolved executive supremacy.

As the committee has highlighted in this and other recent reports, the common frameworks between the devolved nations need to be reinforced but, crucially, they also need to be answerable to the devolved Parliaments. That will be particularly important as the nations diverge. I recognise Willie Rennie’s optimism about the lack of divergence. However, my colleague Katy Clark highlighted how it could happen in relation to procurement.

As a current example, the First Minister attended the inaugural Prime Minister and heads of devolved Governments council on 10 November. What has been said about that in this Parliament? What was said at that meeting by the Scottish Government, on behalf of the Scottish people? Do they not deserve to know? Do we not deserve to know? I have said before that the Parliament cannot operate in the dark, but we are again being asked to do so. Although that is not an inevitable consequence of Brexit, Brexit has fostered the development of that culture of executive secrecy.

As Martin Whitfield and Jenni Minto have suggested, we as parliamentarians should have a form of solidarity with our colleagues in the other devolved Parliaments and in the Westminster Parliament. I am grateful to Jenni Minto for highlighting recent engagement through the interparliamentary forum.

It is in all our interests that such meetings and discussions do not take place behind a veil of secrecy. We are elected to represent our constituents’ interests, and it is in our constituents’ interests not only that the common frameworks operate effectively but that the discussions that affect them are transparent and open. The public will be able to have faith in the devolved settlement only if they can see how it functions.

I sincerely hope that both the UK and Scottish Governments will take that to heart in the coming years, as we try to find the best way to navigate through our new international context.

Edinburgh has recently seen evidence of the damage that the reckless use of fireworks can do in conjunction with antisocial behaviour. Now that there is a legislative framework for a licensing scheme, can the minister give assurances that Police Scotland has the necessary resources to enforce the law as it was passed by the Parliament?