Chamber and committees

Will the member take an intervention?

Our approach to migration and refugees should have dignity, fairness and respect at its core, as opposed to the United Kingdom Government’s hostile environment approach, which we currently have to endure.

Yesterday, the UK Government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda was ruled to be illegal by the Supreme Court. Can the First Minister provide information on any assessment of those plans by the Scottish Government? Will he confirm that more than £140 million of taxpayers’ money, including Scottish taxpayers’ money, has been squandered on that illegal scheme? Has he heard a single word of criticism from any Tory MSP of the huge waste of taxpayers’ money on that unworkable, scandalous and illegal scheme?

I am a member of the committee but, unlike the previous speakers, I was not there during consideration of the report that we are discussing today, so I cannot speak with the same authority as them. However, I am absolutely on board with the place-based approach. In a culture debate a few weeks ago, I gave a number of examples of organisations in my constituency that take that approach, as well as stating the obvious, which is that we all want to see culture in Scotland thriving, and not just for economic reasons, which are very important, but because of the difference that it can make to people’s lives.

However, we need to be clear that, as was mentioned in the previous speech, the biggest obstacle in the way of the implementation of many of the recommendations in the report is the extremely limiting financial situation that we are in as a country, which the report rightly mentions. In my view, the current financial restraints that Scotland faces are perhaps the starkest that we have seen since this Parliament was established. We need to be really explicit with the people of Scotland. Bodies can all shout about sustainable multiyear funding, but if that is not what the Parliament is getting, how will we provide it? We must be serious about the challenges that we face.

The devolution settlements created a situation in which the UK Government still has control over the vast majority of Scotland’s finances. If the UK Government chooses to implement real-terms cuts, as it very often does, the Scottish Government must make difficult decisions to implement those cuts, either by cutting somewhere in the Scottish Government’s budget or by raising one of the few taxes for which the Scottish Government is responsible. Both those options are virtually always met with universal criticism from Opposition members.

On the point about local government, it is obviously constrained, but much less so in Scotland than it is in England or Wales. In England, there have been 40 per cent cuts to council budgets, and a number of councils have gone to the wall financially. We have not seen that in Scotland, although there is a difficult situation. We should acknowledge that and the impact that it has on a place-based approach to culture.

However, the Scottish Government has done, and it continues to do, what it can within the devolution settlement to support a place-based approach to culture in communities. I am also sure that the commitment to double funding for culture and the arts by £100 million over the next five years will play a part in furthering that approach.

The theme of the debate is challenges and opportunities. Although I have highlighted the challenges, I would also like to highlight the opportunities. Oddly, one of the side effects of austerity over the past 14 years has been the increase in community ownership of cultural assets, which we have seen across Scotland and which the report rightly highlights. During the summer, I visited Wimpy Park community garden in Alloa, which was recently taken over by Wimpy Park community group—a group of residents who had a vision and worked immensely hard to bring the garden to life. For members of the committee or anyone else who wants to visit it, I say that it is a real example of cultural empowerment in our communities—indeed, in one of our most deprived communities. That is absolutely to be commended.

The community garden is just one of a few examples in my Clackmannanshire and Dunblane constituency. Thanks, usually, to the work of immensely dedicated volunteers and community ownership, many formerly publicly owned spaces have taken on new roles in the community. Among many other such examples in my constituency, Tullibody Community Development Trust operates the civic centre in the town, the Dollar Community Development Trust operates the Hive in Dollar, the Dunblane Development Trust manages the Braeport Centre and—perhaps best of all—the Sauchie community group operates the Sauchie resource centre. All those facilities are used by their communities as spaces for culture, which is another important aspect of a place-based approach to culture, as is highlighted in the report.

I welcome the report. I will add that one of the most crucial aspects in delivering a place-based approach to culture in our communities is that we give the people in those places a significant role in developing and delivering services. However, as a Parliament, we need to be aware of the root causes of the significant financial challenges that face implementation of the recommendations in the report. We do not serve the people if we try to ignore the source of those financial constraints.

Austerity has been one of the biggest problems, but I will mention another that was brought home to me today during the committee session with touring musicians. It is in a different category, but it involves a very similar challenge. Brexit, largely, has caused a huge meltdown in their sector—we all heard the evidence. I asked the witnesses about the two scenarios that we were given about Brexit—one involved sunny uplands full of opportunity and no regulation; the other involved enormous economic and cultural self-harm. I can tell members that the latter characterises the experience of those touring musicians since Brexit. They also said that most of the factors that were causing them to suffer were predicted at the time of Brexit. We heard about the decimation of the Scottish culture sector in their area, and we heard about some Scottish artists having continued, but only if they could get an Irish passport. Those people are appearing at Irish events in Germany and elsewhere—not as Scottish artists but as Irish artists. That is the only way that they can continue.

It is as if a theatre curtain has come down on a vital part of our cultural heritage. Some people have lost their jobs and others have walked away from the sector, which is a loss to Scotland. An absolute crime is going on. The musicians laid the blame fairly and squarely at the door of Brexit, although, as we would expect them to do, they made requests of the Scottish Government about the support that it can provide. That is the reality of what our cultural sector is going through.

The news of the additional £100 million from the Government is very welcome, and I would endorse the request by some of the people whom we heard from today that some of that money finds its way to touring musicians, because that is so important for the international reputation of Scotland. It is how the rest of the world views us.

They also made the point, very fairly, that, grim as the situation is, Scotland is overendowed with talent and with artists who can enhance Scotland’s reputation. Therefore, my main appeal is that supporting that talent through the place-based approach that we are talking about today is done at the same time as we support culture and try to reverse the damage of Brexit, which has decimated our cultural sector.

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the potential impact of United Kingdom Government migration policy on Scotland’s economy and workforce. (S6O-02742)

I thank the minister for her statement and commend her on the intention to make a direct award. If she manages to achieve that, she will be the first transport minister to do so, as no previous Government has been able to do that—I speak as the person who let the last contract.

The contract is a very important step in the future of ferry provision on the west coast. While the details and the process are being decided on, there are, of course, still ferry services that island communities rely on. I am encouraged by the minister saying that she intends that those improvements should start now. Can she say anything further than what she has already said on the steps that the Government will take to ensure improvements in service and the resilience of the fleet in advance of the contract being let?

The cabinet secretary may know that, at a recent meeting of the Parliament’s Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, Professor Pacquin of the national school of public administration in Quebec confirmed that arrangements in Canada allow the National Assembly of Quebec to make decisions about economic immigration that meet Quebec’s specific needs, and that that has produced substantial economic benefits for Quebec and for Canada.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that if the Scottish Parliament had similar powers, that would allow us to address the issues that we face under current UK Government policy, such as the declining population and skills shortages that the cabinet secretary mentioned, and that, in the absence of reform of the immigration system, only independence offers us the opportunity to fully implement our own distinct system tailored to the needs of the people of Scotland?

It is very interesting to hear your comments. I spent a year in Canada at the University of Prince Edward Island and I worked for quite a time on the Committee of the Regions, which is mentioned in our papers.

I am particularly interested in Professor Cornago’s comments about progress and regress in relation to how this thing works. We have a quote from President Biden, which says that the foreign policy of Canada in peacetime is to be at war with Quebec. It feels a bit like that in the UK just now, in my view. We have an increasingly insecure and paranoid UK Government that is now saying that, when a Scottish minister tries to be active internationally, they first have to speak to the UK ambassador or ambassadorial staff. Also, like other parts of the UK, Scotland was completely cut out of the discussions on Brexit and the trade discussions afterwards. It feels a bit like a curtain is coming down.

Professor Cornago, I think that you said that the progress and regress often depends on the political imperatives. For example, if the Basque representatives could provide the balance in the Spanish Parliament, that would empower them. I wonder whether, in either of your experiences, there is any pragmatic way to get a basis on which the Governments might be better able to work together, other than a sort of political force majeure.

On trade and industry, our position is pretty much the same as Quebec’s. We have Scottish Development International, which is the most successful body of its type in any part of the UK, apart from the south-east of England, at getting foreign direct investment. Generally, however, outwith trade and investment, how best could the two interests—the UK Government and the Scottish Government, in what is obviously a very centralised unitary state, unlike the confederation that you have in Canada—rub along to get to a more productive relationship, outwith the political ins and outs of representation in the UK Parliament, if that makes sense?

Thank you for your answers. Unlike in the Canadian example that was given, there are cases where the UK Government is obliged to consult the Scottish Parliament, but it has become increasingly normalised for it to ignore what is said. It is able to do that. In fact, the UK Government describes it as a self-denying ordinance as to whether it will take any notice of what is said.

To what extent do the international activities of Quebec reflect and build on any discretion that it has on immigration? I understand that you have a slightly decentralised immigration system. In Scotland we are suffering depopulation, so the extent to which we should have freedom of action on immigration is a matter of interest. We used to have that under something called the fresh talent initiative. To what extent does Quebec make use of such discretion?

I thank Siobhian Brown—who is no relation—for bringing the motion to the chamber for debate. I commend the work of cashback for communities, which uses money collected from the proceeds of crime to fund projects to support young people. The motion rightly recognises the positive work of the organisation, as have many of the speeches in the debate, but I will address the underlying rationale behind the creation of cashback for communities. It is one of a raft of Scottish Government measures that take a preventative approach to crime by seeking to address its root causes—in this case, issues such as social isolation, loneliness and peer pressure among young people.

That point is particularly pertinent given the scenes of irresponsible firework use that we saw across Scotland over the past week. I urge all members, when we address such incidents, to think about not only the rules and regulations on the sale of fireworks—many of which lie with Westminster—but the underlying social factors that cause such behaviour in the first place. I do not disagree with some of the points that Maggie Chapman made, but the greater harms that she talked about have to be addressed in the context of the austerity years that we are going through.

Cashback for communities has spent £130 million supporting around 1.3 million young people across Scotland since its creation, 15 years ago—not least in my constituency, where the funding has supported organisations such as Play Alloa and Lornshill academy’s school of football. It has also worked closely with local groups such as Connect Alloa and Ochil Youths Community Improvement to deliver homelessness awareness projects, art sessions, sessions on alcohol and drugs awareness and anti-vandalism projects over that 15-year period. Last year, I opened one of cashback for communities’ outreach events at Hawkhill Community Association in Alloa, which was an opportunity to celebrate what the programme offers our young people: an opportunity to come together and learn from each other in a young person-led environment.

Of course, as the chief officer of Clackmannanshire Third Sector Interface, Anthea Coulter, often states, Clackmannanshire could always benefit from further support from the programme to address local challenges that arise, as could Dunblane and Bridge of Allan. I know that she would welcome the opportunity to meet the minister along with me to discuss our local context. I will write to the minister about that.

It would be wrong to highlight the success that cashback for communities has had in achieving its dual goals of financial investment in our communities and preventing crime before it happens without highlighting the significant challenges that both of those goals face. I refer again to the 14 years of Westminster austerity, which has changed our communities beyond all recognition. I suggest that that austerity has been a significant contributor to the loneliness, isolation and peer pressure among young people, despite the immense work of the organisations that cashback for communities supports, which work hard to support our charities, social enterprises and voluntary groups as they support our young people. Although cashback for communities has made a significant difference to our society—not least in my constituency—much of that hard work, from the viewpoint of financial investment and of addressing the root causes of crime, is under threat by the unwanted Westminster austerity that is being forced on Scotland.

I am grateful to Katy Clark for agreeing to write to the UK Government with me on this point. The scope of cashback for communities could be substantially expanded, as could its effect on families and communities in Scotland if Westminster were to follow the same approach by bringing back some of the proceeds of crime to help communities, including those in Scotland that are affected by, for example, the drug trade coming through road and rail routes from England and the rest of the UK to Scotland.

Notwithstanding that point, I agree that there should be a review and that people should satisfy themselves that the right criteria are being used for the awards. I am well aware that there is limited scope for ministers to direct the awards, but there is no harm in having a review.

I support the motion in the name of Siobhian Brown.

Given what Sharon Dowey has said about trying to increase the amount of money that is taken in from the proceeds of crime, would she be willing to write, along with me and Katy Clark, to the UK Government to say that, for crimes that are perpetrated down south but have an impact in Scotland, it could usefully introduce the same cashback for communities initiative? That would raise money for communities in Scotland. Would she support such a letter?