Chamber and committees

I congratulate my friend and colleague Jackie Dunbar on securing the debate. She has highlighted the global, Scottish and wider United Kingdom intergenerational work. Intergenerational practice aims to bring people together in purposeful, mutually beneficial activities that promote greater understanding and respect between generations and contribute to building more cohesive communities. It is right that we are marking and supporting global intergenerational week.

Due to changing demographics and greater mobility within families, generations are becoming increasingly isolated from each other. Both younger and older groups can become victims of stereotyping and discrimination. For example, we have all heard blanket statements such as, “Older people can’t do social media.” However, when generations work together, they realise that those generalisations are inaccurate.

Many younger adults do not have the immediate support of their families for everyday discussions, and older people may no longer have easy access to family when they need support as they age. Both groups have commonalities that, often, neither side sees. When children encounter new concepts through interaction with others, those concepts and ideas are incorporated into their understanding. That works between generations, too. For young people, intergenerational working improves academic performance, and older adults can learn about new information and technologies. In general, the breadth and depth of learning improves for everyone. Culture, values and traditions can also be passed on. Hearing Jackie Dunbar describe her grunny’s bacon rolls is one of those examples.

Each generation learns about the other and gains a better understanding of strengths, fears and weaknesses. Each generation has resources that are of value to the other and shared areas of concern; that aids with providing a sense of empowerment.

A study by Professor Duncan Graham of the University of Strathclyde reaffirmed the benefits of intergenerational working. The study found that it recreates the links between generations and makes it possible to promote intergenerational understanding and respect. It can contribute to the development of individual competencies for a more inclusive society, and fostering intergenerational dialogue encourages collaboration. Generations will learn from each other, as has been mentioned already.

Intergenerational exchange significantly fosters solidarity, active citizenship and personal development, and can strengthen teaching quality. The benefits are many and should be built on and supported.

A local example is Loreburn Housing Association, which is doing fantastic work to promote intergenerational working. In Stranraer, at the former Garrick hospital site, eight one-bed and four two-bed extra-care dementia-friendly homes are being built, alongside a youth foyer, which is an employment hub offering supported accommodation for up to 12 young people. Youth foyers, which are recognised as international best practice, provide safe and secure housing, support and training for young people aged 16 to 25. The Stranraer development will be the first for Dumfries and Galloway, and only the second foyer in Scotland. Young people living at the foyer will be in education or training, an apprenticeship or employment, and will have access to volunteering opportunities within the community. It is a promising project and I look forward to it progressing. I invite the minister to come and visit the project when her diary allows.

Another local example is Malory house nursery and day care in Dumfries, led by Kenny Little. The nursery kids have interacted with older people in Cumberland day centre. They started doing that before the pandemic, and I understand that the nursery will restart the programme as soon as the weans and everybody can get back together again. The feedback has been so positive and all have enjoyed and benefited from the intergenerational experience between the children at Malory house nursery and day care and the older people at Cumberland day centre.

Again, I thank Jackie Dunbar for securing the debate. I welcome all the work that is being done globally, locally and across the United Kingdom, and I look forward to following it in the future.

EU funding has supported infrastructure projects and community initiatives across our country since the 1970s. Projects that are crucial to our communities in Scotland have brought significant benefits to many areas.

That includes European LEADER funding, which the minister talked about in his opening speech. In Dumfries and Galloway, the funding has supported projects and businesses such as Dark Art Distillery in Kirkcudbright, which produces gin, Wigwam Holidays in Wigtown, Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere, and 7 Stanes and Glentress in the Scottish Borders.

It is hugely disappointing that future projects with as much potential as those will likely lose out. Supporting such projects is exactly what levelling up means to me; but the levelling up fund should be renamed “the losing out fund”, because Scotland will receive considerably less funding than it received before Brexit.

No, I am sorry—I have taken one already. I do not have time.

The Scottish Government has calculated that a sum of £162 million per year would be needed to replace the European regional development fund and the European social fund, increasing to £183 million per year when LEADER funding and the EU territorial co-operation programmes are added. Those are the facts.

The UK Government has clearly failed to replace the EU funding and it has had five years to sort this. Again, Presiding Officer—“levelling up” means losing out. Scotland will receive considerably less funding than before Brexit. Not only does the shared prosperity fund provide Scotland with less benefit than we received as a member of the EU, but the lack of inclusion of decision making by the Scottish Government in the governance of the fund undermines devolution.

The Scottish Government has tried to engage constructively with the UK Government to ensure that funding is delivered in a meaningful way, consistent with the Scotland Acts and aligned with our fair work and equal opportunity aims. Unsurprisingly, the UK Government has undermined devolution by failing to give the Scottish Government a decision-making role and failing to meet the needs of Scottish communities, including third sector organisations.

The UK Government continues to develop and implement the levelling up fund without the consent, agreement, or engagement of this Parliament or the Scottish ministers. The Scottish Government has been excluded from meaningful or formal involvement in the process. Had Scotland remained in the EU, we would have had full involvement with the development of plans for this new programming period.

UK Government ministers are dictating where and how spending is allocated and bypassing our democratically elected Scottish Government, which previously set priorities for EU funding on behalf of Scottish people. One of those UK ministers, as my colleague Christine Grahame has mentioned already, is Westminster’s man in Scotland—the Scottish Secretary, Alister Jack. In February, he said:

“It wasn’t so long ago that the UK was sending huge sums of money to Brussels then receiving some of it back in the form of regional aid”

and that the shared prosperity fund

“is far more effective than relying on the whim of ... bureaucrats ... the way of the past.”

That simply flies in the face of actual facts, as has been shown during the debate.

Through the shared prosperity fund, Scotland will receive reduced funds compared to what would have been received with EU membership. I have written to the Secretary of State asking him to show us how the UK shared prosperity fund will benefit Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders. However, as with my 12 other letters to him, on other issues, I have received zero responses—zero, nil, none.

The UK Government must fully devolve control of the fund tae oor Parliament. It is the Scottish Government that should decide how the policy and the funding are delivered in Scotland, in line with the agreed devolved settlement, not by out-of-touch ministers in London, fower hunner mile away.

It is not only the SNP saying that, as my colleague Fiona Hyslop mentioned in an intervention. It is supported by the House of Lords, the Scottish Affairs Committee, and the Institute for Government, all of which have said that devolved Governments should control funding in their own areas.

I support the steps that the Scottish Government is taking to stand up for this place, for the people of Scotland, and for devolution. Again, this losing out fund leaves Scotland worse off than we would have been with EU membership.

I am coming on to funding. The member talks about an area outside Dumfries and Galloway, which is the region that I was referring to.

No, I will not take another intervention.

This whole thing sticks in my thrapple. The UK Government’s shared prosperity fund is a failed attempt to replace the European social and regional development funds by cutting the funding given by the EU to communities the length and breadth of Scotland. Here are some of the facts: Scotland will receive £212 million, which is £337 million short of the £549 million that is estimated to be an appropriate replacement for EU structural funds. The overall Scottish allocation for the UK shared prosperity fund, which was earmarked to succeed the European funds, is only £212 million over three years. Even the third year of funding delivers less than Scotland received before our forced exit from the EU.

I will take an intervention from Liz Smith if she can explain how the funding will be equivalent to EU funding, after this boorach.

To ask the Scottish Government what financial resources it has allocated to help those across Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders who are most impacted by the reported cost of living crisis. (S6O-00970)

The cost of living crisis has been a decade in the making, with rising costs compounded by damaging Westminster austerity. Does the minister agree that the UK Government should reverse the regressive national insurance tax hike and the £20-a-week cut to universal credit, that it should match the Scottish child payment UK wide and that it should introduce a real living wage of £9.90 per hour? Can he outline what representations have been made to the UK Government on those matters?

We have talked about prevention. The Government has provided financial support for deep-end practices—for example, in Govan in Glasgow—to monitor engagement. Part of that financial support was for link workers, anti-poverty work and giving people welfare advice. We have that data now to show engagement work and support by deep-end practices. We can look at that data and see the value of investing in that project. Is that something that we can audit right now?

I am interested in the issues relating to inhalers. It is not just about one measurement of hydrofluorocarbons as the delivery mechanism for salbutamol, for example; it is about the whole measurement of the bunch of plastic in a dry-powder inhaler that cannae be recycled as easily as some of the components can be. We need to be careful about saying that we will not give people certain inhalers and will give them only dry-powder inhalers, because the issue is much wider than just looking at propellants for those inhalers.