Chamber and committees

I thank Jackie Dunbar for lodging her motion and for securing the debate. I am delighted to share in the welcome for global intergenerational week and the appreciation of the work of those behind it. It is essential for both individual and community wellbeing that we develop and celebrate relationships between generations and that, together, we work to combat loneliness; create inclusive spaces and shared stories; and build solidarity and overcome barriers to its expression. Intergenerational practice, care and learning are indispensable parts of that important work.

However, we need to acknowledge that some of the barriers between generations are structural and have been constructed by decades of deliberate policy and shameful inaction. For the first three quarters of the 20th century, there was an assumption that each generation of children would have better life experiences than their parents: they would be better housed, fed and educated; they would have higher-paid and more rewarding jobs; and they would live longer, healthier and happier lives.

That is no longer the case. Young people—not only the very young—are disproportionately burdened by massive levels of student debt and other debt; by precarious work, including zero-hour contracts; by career pathways being blocked, except to the highly privileged; by insecure, unhealthy and exploitative private sector tenancies; and by overburdened and inaccessible healthcare, especially in relation to mental health.

Just this week, LGBT Youth Scotland launched a new report that showed a huge drop in the percentage of young people who believe that Scotland is a good place in which to be LGBTI, from 81 per cent 15 years ago to only 65 per cent now. That statistic is shocking and sobering, as are the findings that 69 per cent of young people identify transphobia as

“a big problem in Scotland”

and that 81 per cent say that media representation of LGBTI people “is not accurate”. Those are scandals for which their generation is not to blame.

I am proud that, as Scottish Greens, we have recognised that deep and broad intergenerational injustice and are addressing those issues head on. I urge others at all levels—the Government, Parliament and councils—to do the same. Much more must be done, especially by the generations that have benefited from the 20th century welfare state, to repair that legacy for those who follow.

Meanwhile, our younger generations, including the tiniest children, bear yet more, and even heavier, burdens in the form of the climate and biodiversity crises. The simplest and most fundamental foundations of our everyday lives—predictable seasons, rainfall, harvests, healthy soil, pollination and peace itself—are all diminishing as we watch and debate, are distracted and procrastinate. The righteous and accurate anger of Greta Thunberg, Elizabeth Wanjiru Wathuti and Carlos Manuel is—if it is noticed at all—met with condescension and contempt or with useless sentimentality.

Those two ways of responding to the voices of the young are, in reality, mirror images of each other. We either ignore what they are telling us, dismissing their experience and their analysis with cheap jibes and patronising pats on the head, or we sanctify them, taking their evidence and argument out of the realm of political action altogether. We might say, “These young people are so clever. They’ll fix it in the future.” It is not their job to fix things, and the time to act is not in the future.

I again welcome the initiative, and I whole-heartedly support the development and celebration of intergenerational relationships. However, those relationships must take place in political, institutional and structural contexts, not just in personal and social contexts. We need to develop a truly participatory politics that is shaped as much by the young as by older people and that has the honesty to name injustices and the courage to act on them.

Good morning to the panel, and thank you for joining us. I have a couple of questions, but I will first follow up on Jamie Halcro Johnston’s questions. All the witnesses have talked about the need to diversify and not just focus on certain individual elements of retail, and the expectation that that will happen. We have talked about hospitality and entertainment, and culture and leisure can also pull people into town centres and keep them there.

I want to ask Martin Newman about the barriers to diversifying. What are the blockages—the things that are preventing people from using the bricks that they have in a range of different ways?

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you—that was very helpful.

I will bring in Paul Gerrard on the same question.

That is helpful—thank you.

I will stay with you, Paul, but change tack a little. As part of our work in this area, we have heard from witnesses about the tension that exists between the pressure on margins and profitability, and improving standards of fair work. There are horror stories about how hospitality workers and other workers have been treated. Can you give us any suggestions about how public agencies and public bodies can support people in our town centres to support fair work and decent pay and conditions?

Thank you, Bryan. Joanne, could you respond to the question?

Following on from Colin Beattie’s line of questioning on support for trade unions and their work, I note that I was pleased to be able to spend a little bit of time at the Scottish Trades Union Congress conference in Aberdeen yesterday, when one of the debates was on improving workers’ conditions, employment rights and recognition of and support for trade unions.

Perhaps I can come to Bryan Simpson first with this question. One of the challenges that we have is that employment law is not completely devolved. We have voluntary schemes such as the campaign for the real living wage and the Scottish business pledge, but are they delivering for workers? If not, what more should we look at doing, within the constraints of devolved powers, to ensure that all employers take workers’ pay and conditions seriously, particularly those of the hospitality workers whom you have talked about this morning?

Eight weeks ago, when we last debated the UK shared prosperity fund in this chamber, I highlighted three issues that the UK Government’s approach to it tells us about its priorities: it does not care about meeting its own manifesto commitment to match, as a minimum, the funding that our communities, organisations and services would lose as a result of Brexit; it does not care about existing devolved decision-making processes or enhancing community participation and engagement in decision making; and it does not care that the funding, if allocated differently with a coherent strategic approach, could have played a significant role in developing the infrastructure and supporting the organisations and services that our communities will need in the future, as we try to reorient our economy towards wellbeing and the just transition. Leaving aside the broken promises for now—although it comes as no surprise that the UK Government breaks its promises to Scotland—let us unpick what that means for communities and organisations across Scotland.

The UK Government says that it is operating the equivalent of a no-detriment policy for the amount of funding that Scotland is to receive compared with what it would have received if we were still in the European Union. However, as we have already heard, the £212 million over three years represents a 60 per cent cut to the money that Scotland would have received. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest that continuing but declining EU money can be counted into the fund to make up the difference. That is not replacement.

Even if we take that statement of equal replacement at face value, it is clear that, regionally, there is definite detriment: some parts of Scotland will be worse off as a result of the UK Government’s approach. How can, for example, the Highlands and Islands be put in the same priority category as the City of London? Some in this chamber might want to reflect that such an approach will do little to tackle the widening gaps between the financial centre of the south-east of England and parts of Scotland that benefited significantly from EU support.

As Michelle Thompson noted earlier, when Michael Gove was asked about that disparity at a recent meeting of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, he said:

“The conclusion about whether funding has been distributed equitably will come at the end of the process.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 24 February 2022; c 24.]

The end of the process will be too late for many communities. What will we say to areas that have not had equitable funding? Do we just shrug our shoulders and say, “Oh well, you missed out. It wasn’t equitable, but that’s just tough luck; there’s nothing we can do now”? It is not good enough to say that the UK Government will address inequities in the allocation process once the process is finished—it will be too late by then; the money will have been allocated. There must be a way to continually assess and review, with proper community participation and engagement, to ensure that inequities are tackled before the process is finished.

We have heard from many speakers this afternoon about how the UK Government’s approach represents an attack on devolution. Organising funding allocations around Westminster constituencies indicates a level of either ignorance of or contempt for local and Scottish Government organising structures, never mind the lack of specifics around community participation or the requirement for Westminster constituency MPs to support bids.

The approach also means that strategic planning that cuts across regional boundaries will be impaired. Rather than enabling people to use the money to organise investment in the infrastructure of the future, including the infrastructure that is needed if we are to deliver the just transition, the approach seems to be focused on priorities that do not match those that the Scottish Government and many of our communities have identified for themselves. There is no clear prioritisation for delivering on net zero ambitions, tackling poverty and inequalities or reorienting our economy towards care and wellbeing.

For me, perhaps the core of the fund’s failure is that organisations and services that have been supporting our communities for years, if not decades, will suffer. The fund represents a real cut to communities and the services on which they rely. The whole levelling up agenda is supposed to alleviate poverty and inequality, but how that is supposed to happen is not identified in the plans. The allocation approach is regressive in comparison with the European regional development fund and the European social fund’s distributive methods. As Citizens Advice Scotland said, the proposals for the fund mean that it will be difficult for national voluntary organisations to access funding, which will mean missed opportunities for many people.

Therefore, the shared prosperity fund does anything but share prosperity. It will not help us to deliver the infrastructure that we need for Scotland’s future; it will not help organisations and communities to deliver the services and support structures that are needed to tackle poverty and inequalities; and it will not help us to invest in the fabric on which our society relies.

This UK Tory Government insists, yet again, on impoverishing us, now and in the future, following decades of failure to future-proof our economy and develop and sustain an industrial strategy that supports our society.

What we need instead is long-term planning—[Interruption.] I cannot take an intervention; I am just about to close and have no time.

We need genuine community regeneration that recognises local variations and specificities, by having governance and engagement structures that centre local voices. What the UK Government has developed is not that.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its engagement with the Campaign for North East Rail. (S6O-01005)