Chamber and committees

At no point did Craig Hoy on behalf of the Tories bring to me a proposal for a local bridge maintenance fund as part of the budget negotiations. If Tim Eagle believes that that is important, perhaps he should have had a word with his front-bench colleagues to make it a condition of support for the budget. That is how things get done in the Parliament—not by the posturing of Tim Eagle and others.

Local authorities have a duty under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 to manage and maintain local roads and associated infrastructure in their areas and duties under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to secure the convenient and safe movement of traffic.

The vast majority of funding available to councils is provided by means of a block grant from the Scottish Government. It is then the responsibility of individual local authorities to manage their own budgets and to allocate the total financial resources that are available to them, including on maintenance of local roads and bridges, on the basis of local needs and priorities, having first fulfilled their statutory obligations and the jointly agreed set of national and local priorities.

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.

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?

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.

Go on.

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.

Of course.

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

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—