Chamber and committees

I want to ask about meeting the 30 by 30 target, which is the big overreaching international target. In the strategy, is there enough clarity on the pathway to meeting that target?

It has been reflected in some of your answers, to summarise what I have been hearing, that the non-governmental organisations on the panel feel that there is not enough detail in the strategy. We have a high-level strategy and a high-level delivery plan, but detail is lacking. Sarah Cowie’s organisation’s members feel that we cannot be too prescriptive, at this point. What is needed for delivery of the 30 by 30 target, and is there enough in the delivery plan to give certainty?

Do Bruce Wilson, Caroline Brown or Ailsa Raeburn want to come in on that?

Sorry, but is that in national parks?

I thank colleagues and the clerks for producing an absolutely critical report.

In the first debate of 2024, I wish for a return to a normal, functional relationship between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations across these islands. It is quite clear that, when we were in the EU, EU membership worked for the whole of the UK. It delivered the certainty that business needed, and it kept us in a single market with clear rules while protecting and enhancing our rights as citizens. Instead of adopting a steadily growing consensual body of European law, we now increasingly face political turmoil and uncertainty in the UK. As Professor McEwen told the inquiry, issues that are discussed at the technical level under common frameworks can easily become political.

We have already heard an example of that from John Swinney. As he has just outlined, the devolution settlement that the vast majority of Scots voted for in 1997 and again in 2014 no longer exists. There has been a fundamental shift of power to the UK Government. Ironically, although the mantra of Brexit was about taking back control, the devolved Administrations now have far less latitude for divergence than we had under the UK’s EU membership.

That in itself is a huge loss, because one of the strengths of devolution has been that it has been a big laboratory of ideas and has given us the opportunity to innovate on policy and to test and develop new policies such as the smoking ban at devolved level. I am concerned that we are now entering a period in which there will be a chilling effect on any new policies that are brought forward at the devolved level.

With the growing powers that came following the Calman and the Smith commissions, the landscape of devolution had started to become increasingly complex even before Brexit crash-landed. Powers over social security and tax, for example, have been critical in allowing the democratic will of this Parliament to deliver the fairer society that people voted for, but there has inevitably been strain when the two Governments have clearly been moving in different directions.

Intergovernmental relations have yet to be fully opened up for scrutiny by any Parliament in the UK, which is regrettable because, without that transparency, we as parliamentarians cannot hold any intergovernmental process or Administration to account. I will give an example of that. Out of the 32 common frameworks that are needed now, post-Brexit, 27 have yet to be published. We have not seen them, and that clearly makes the work of Parliaments very challenging, if not impossible.

I return to the issue of the deposit return schemes that John Swinney raised and the role of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. The Scottish DRS is rightly being scrutinised by our Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee at the moment, but the refusal of any UK Government minister to engage with that committee makes it almost impossible to understand where the scheme can go next in Scotland. In theory, deposit return schemes in Scotland and Wales can proceed without glass; an exemption has been granted for that under the 2020 act. However, the requirement for devolved schemes to match the rules of an English DRS that does not even exist has put an indefinite block on any Scottish scheme.

The refusal of UK ministers to provide any clarity about their decision, let alone their own vision for how DRS should work across the UK, has left businesses as much in the dark as MSPs. Meanwhile, empty facilities sit in supermarket car parks across Scotland, waiting for that decision, clarity and certainty. That calls into question whether the 2020 act is fit for purpose. I will quote Philip Rycroft, who many will remember as the civil servant who was responsible for delivering Brexit. In his evidence to the committee, he said:

“We had a mechanism, through the common frameworks, to deal with domains where there were cross-border issues and where divergent regimes might have caused problems either side of borders. I have yet to see any evidence that suggests that the common frameworks would not have been adequate to deal with those issues. In that context, the 2020 act was a step too far.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 9 March 2023; c 7.]

Absolutely—I agree with Philip Rycroft on that issue. The internal market act was a step too far.

As Alasdair Allan has pointed out, we have an asymmetric devolution settlement in the UK, with the UK Government acting both as the Government of England and as the rule maker of a UK internal market. That is a clear conflict. Professor Gallagher spoke to the inquiry about the role that the UK Government has in micromanaging policy for 85 per cent of the population and how that creates a cultural barrier to working with devolved Administrations, which, of course, deliver for the 15 per cent. He went on to say:

“change in the governance of England is an essential precondition for effective IGR”—

intergovernmental relations—

“for the rest of the UK.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 9 March 2023; c 24.]

It is clear that a reset is needed. Conventions that held up over the early devolution years were already under strain before Brexit. The Sewel convention should be the basic foundation for courtesy and respect between Administrations, but it has absolutely withered away. Professor McHarg said:

“strengthening the Sewel convention is fundamental, because, unless there is some protection for the devolved institutions against the unilateral exercise of Westminster sovereignty, there are no guarantees of anything.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 23 March 2023; c 2.]

When the Sewel convention does not even apply to far-reaching statutory instruments that can amend primary devolved legislation, we are in the territory of a dangerous power grab. We are seeing the exertion of not just parliamentary sovereignty but parliamentary supremacy by the UK Government, which will continue to erode the very union that that Government has pledged to protect.

I hope that this year brings reform and a much-needed reset in UK relations but, ultimately, the logic of rejoining a Europe that is based on solidarity and consensus gets stronger every day. It is the will of people in Scotland. They must be able to decide on their future once again.

That budget commitment to climate and nature is also a commitment to people. Record funding for active travel creates safer neighbourhoods. Investment in nature means more rural jobs. Funding for warm homes lifts people out of fuel poverty.

Will the First Minister outline how the Government will ensure that the economic benefits of the Government’s record investment in climate will reach the very people who need it the most?

I thank the cabinet secretary for that welcome update. The waiting times at Forth Valley royal hospital accident and emergency department have been a long-running concern, and they have highlighted the strain that our dedicated national health service staff are under, particularly in winter. What assurance is there that staff across health boards, including in NHS Forth Valley, will be properly supported through the winter, particularly so that we can get safe staffing levels with proper breaks and hot meals being provided to all staff?

The cabinet secretary rightly highlighted safety on the A9 as the overriding priority. The Green group is behind the appropriate action that is needed to cut casualties and tragedies on the road. However, given that the A9 programme will not be completed until the mid-2030s, what other options have been reviewed to improve safety on the A9 while staying on track to meet our legally binding climate targets?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the work of its NHS Forth Valley assurance board. (S6O-02904)

On the same theme, I will ask Kat Feldinger about the priorities of the European Union. On a number of recent committee visits, I have picked up that there is an increasing focus from the European Union on the accession states in the east. I want to get your thoughts on responding to the EU’s agenda and on integrating and working with the EU. Where do you think the frontier of deeper engagement is, and how could a Warsaw office feed into that?

In that instance, Stirling Council has done great work in a complex and sensitive situation. Is it your impression that councils are able to support people right now, or are there particular areas where there is a difficulty and councils are struggling? You mentioned Edinburgh. There might be other areas where there are housing pressures.