I am pleased to open the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. It is a welcome opportunity to highlight the on-going crisis at Mossmorran, which will impact not only the area but the wider Fife economy and Scotland as a whole.

The closure of Mossmorran will mean the loss of as many as 400 jobs, affecting many people from neighbouring communities across the Mid Scotland and Fife region, which I represent. Many of those are highly skilled jobs that are vitally important to Scotland’s manufacturing industry.

As my amendment highlights, Mossmorran’s closure was not only avoidable; it was the direct result of the left-wing consensus across this Parliament and the failure to support Scotland’s oil and gas sector. The Scottish National Party Government has for many years been at the heart of that left-wing consensus. That is clear from its draft energy strategy and its just transition plan, which include a presumption against the extension of oil and gas development. Scots should not be fooled by claims that the SNP is softening its position on oil and gas. If the Government really wanted to support the sector, it could prove that by finalising its energy strategy.

Scottish Conservative members have called countless times for the strategy to be published, but it is still a mystery and we do not have it. The SNP has failed to deliver the just transition plan for Mossmorran that had been promised. Even by November last year, when Exxon confirmed the site’s closure, with more than 400 jobs at risk, we were still waiting for that plan.

However, the UK Government has also played its part in damaging the oil and gas sector, and it has to take some responsibility for its deeds and actions. Exxon has blamed the UK Government’s windfall tax for the decline of Mossmorran and has spoken about

“the challenges of … a policy environment that is accelerating the exit of vital industries, domestic manufacturing, and the high-value jobs they provide.”

Those are all at risk because of the UK Government’s deeds and actions.

Of course, there have been no stronger cheerleaders for the demise of the oil and gas industry than Scottish Green Party members. For years, they were vocal campaigners for the closure of Mossmorran, and they even described it as a “fossil fuel relic” in the community.

Although we cannot disagree with the wording of the motion that the Greens have lodged, it is rather confusing to say the least. Given the widespread hostility towards the industry across this Parliament, however, it is hardly surprising that more than 13,000 jobs in the oil and gas sector have been lost in the space of just a year.

To ask the Scottish Government whether offenders convicted of serious violent offences could be eligible for release after serving around 30 per cent of their custodial sentence under the proposed changes to automatic release points. (S6O-05524)

During last year’s emergency early release scheme, the governor’s veto was the key safety valve, and it was used to prevent 171 prisoners who had been assessed as posing an immediate risk of harm from being released into the community. Now the Government wants to hardwire a 30 per cent automatic release point and dictate where the veto will not apply. Will the cabinet secretary give a guarantee that no prisoner whose early release was previously vetoed on public safety grounds will be let out early as a result of the changes? If that guarantee cannot be given, why is the Government asking victims and the public to carry that risk?

I thank the witnesses for their comments so far. Regulations always have an impact, and it has been obvious from your evidence that the regulations have a potential negative impact on the housing supply. As you have already indicated, landlords have left the sector and more might do so when the regulations are brought in and have that negative impact.

Risks are involved, and you have all been quite articulate about where you see them. What should we do to mitigate those risks and to try to support the housing supply? As you have identified, we might be losing that supply and the landlords because of the risks to the sector and to the industry that those regulations might bring.

We have heard that regulations can have an impact on the sector, which could be positive or negative. We are asking about how that impact happens. The proposed regulations might well have a negative impact. The sector, which is a supplier of housing, has been talking about that, because some landlords might feel that they need to leave the market if they are not able to comply with the regulations. There is a risk to supply in all of this, which could perhaps have even more of an impact on the sector in a rural environment as compared to an urban environment—although it would still have an impact on the latter. If there is a risk, how should we mitigate and manage that risk so that we do not lose the stock and supply in the housing sector that we so badly need?

My next question is about the enforcement of the proposed regulations. It is important that we get that right. At the moment, local authorities are being earmarked for that role. Are they the suitable bodies to deal with enforcement? It would be good to get your views on that. If they are, sufficient resources will be required to ensure that the measures are effective and efficient. Some local authorities may face a bigger challenge, depending on their size, their capacity and their workforce, on their rurality or urban situation and on how many properties they have to manage.

As we heard earlier, property being left void is not where we want to be. If the proposed regulations have an effect in that respect—if that is a knock-on effect of enforcement—it could jeopardise everything that we are trying to achieve in ensuring that we have more properties, and more properties of the right standard. It will be important to enforce the policy effectively. It would be useful to get a view on that from all of you.

Does anyone else want to add anything?

Thank you.

Enforcement will also be an issue in the regulatory process, and it is local authorities that will be given that task. It would be interesting to know whether you think that that is the right place to put that task. Do local authorities have sufficient resources to do that effectively? We have already spoken about the fact that the impacts on rural and urban authorities might be different. It will take time and resources to ensure that properties are at the required standard, and you spoke about the knock-on effect of the time spent waiting for voids to be dealt with.

It would be good to get a flavour of what you all think. Is it right to make local authorities responsible? If that is right, how should they be resourced to ensure that the sector gets the required support to be effective and efficient?

I am pleased to speak on the motion to allow the Parliament to reconsider the European Charter of Local Self-Government (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill.

As the closest level of government to communities, it is right that councils, and elected councillors, are given the powers to act in the best interests of local residents. The Scottish Conservatives will therefore support the motion, so that Parliament can consider which amendments are needed to bring the bill within this Parliament’s legislative competence.

It is regrettable that the Parliament has had to wait so long for progress to be made. It is notable that more than 1,000 days have passed since the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in October 2021. Further, almost exactly a year ago, the Government said that it was working on the bill and that reconsideration would take place as soon as practical. It is only now, with just two months remaining before the end of this session of Parliament, that we have got to this point. However, I am glad that we have done so.

I would like to reflect on how the political debate around local government has developed since the Parliament debated the bill at stage 3, which is nearly five years ago. COSLA has long supported the principles behind the bill, but it has also indicated that local government is facing a “dire financial situation.”

In 2023, the Verity house agreement was published, which aimed to strengthen the Scottish Government’s working relationship with councils. Many of the principles in the agreement can be welcomed, but too much of what is in it has yet to become a reality, and councils are frustrated with the lack of progress so far. It was never intended that the agreement would have any legislative backing, but its principles draw on the European Charter of Local Self-Government. I hope that we can see genuine progress on the relationship between local and central Government, which the Scottish Government has been promising for years.

There is very limited time remaining in the current session of Parliament to reconsider the bill. I hope that the Government can work with Mark Ruskell to progress matters. It is right that the bill progresses to reconsideration stage, but the Government still has much more work to do if it is to regain the trust of local government.

17:23