Chamber and committees

The charter relates more to the responsibilities of social landlords than to those of the local authorities, unless we are talking about council housing. The separate function with regard to the provision of, for example, welfare rights advice or housing advice is separate and does not necessarily come within the charter’s ambit. That said, the approach that we are taking in trying to achieve tenure-neutral outcomes and to introduce regulation in the PRS that, although perhaps not identical to that for the social rented sector, integrates with it to get a more coherent approach to achieving the human right to adequate housing for everybody, regardless of tenure, will go a long way towards addressing situations such as you are describing.

Some of the responses from individuals might have been about the service that they were getting from their social landlord, rather than about the contents of the charter. That is probably the main reason for that statistical difference between organisations and individuals in their overall level of positivity .

In that context, it is always legitimate for people to raise whatever issues they have. If they have an issue with a social landlord, it is perfectly fine for that to be heard. That individual difficult case or circumstance needs to be dealt with by their social landlord or, in extremis, by the regulator, rather than necessarily being reflected in the charter itself.

However, the overall view from organisations and from individuals was pretty supportive on the contents of the charter. There were really not many major proposals for change. That is why the changes that we are proposing are relatively modest.

I do not think that I have any registered interests that I am required to declare, but I draw members’ attention to the voluntary section of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which says that I am an associate member of the National Union of Journalists. Since joining this committee, I have asked for an addition to the voluntary section to show that I am a vice-president of the European Movement in Scotland.

I congratulate the convener and Donald Cameron on their appointments.

The committee covers an interesting mix of topics. As you said, convener, on some issues within our remit we will clearly be partisan, which might result in slightly more polarised debates. However, I like to think that there are more aspects of our remit on which we will find that we are on the same page.

On the constitutional side, there is, obviously, a possibility—some would think that it is a likelihood—that a referendum bill will be referred to us. However, given that the framework legislation for referendums has already been passed, such a bill is likely to be fairly simple and technical. The debate on constitutional issues is much deeper and more complex. We might give some thought to how we might separate a debate on what might be a fairly straightforward bill, in legislative terms, from the much richer debate on constitutional questions.

I very much agree with Donald Cameron’s comment about interparliamentary working. Even aside from the constitutional debates in recent years, there has always been much more of an opportunity to do interparliamentary work—not just with the UK Parliament but with other Parliaments—than has ever been realised. There is also the issue of scrutiny and challenge of the intergovernmental machinery. Even many people at the UK level recognise that that machinery is pretty dysfunctional at the moment and that it needs to be examined.

Some constitutional issues will be cross-committee ones as well. Issues such as the fiscal framework will involve constitutional views as well as matters for the Finance and Public Administration Committee to consider. There are immigration, housing and health issues. For example, there were proposals in several party manifestos for the Holyrood election that related to the regulation of health professions, and there are devolved and reserved aspects of that. There may be a number of issues that are slightly lower down the list of priorities for the committee, but a bit of interaction—[Inaudible.]

On Europe, as members have said, there is the impact of Brexit and the issues of common frameworks and parliamentary accountability, especially in relation to common frameworks. How are Governments held to account in the Scottish Parliament or the UK Parliament for decisions that are signed off between them? That is a really big, unanswered question about our current constitutional status.

A point has been made about relationships within the UK and between the different parts of the UK, and the same point should be made about Europe. Without the role that the former Europe committees had in engaging with the European legislative process when we were a member of the European Union, we now have the responsibility to maintain strong and active relationships at the European level. That will be important for Scotland in the long term.

I am really glad that everybody who has spoken has talked about the importance of not losing sight of culture. I think that I am right in saying that culture has moved between committee portfolios in every session of the Scottish Parliament. It has been shuffled around between different committee remits in every new session, which is regrettable. I am keen that we do not see culture issues fall off our radar.

Donald Cameron mentioned the impact of Covid and the potential for looking at recovery from Covid in a way that benefits the cultural scene. We have a tradition of talking about the creative industries, which is relevant and important, but creativity and opportunities for people to access and be involved in creativity and culture go beyond the formal creative industries. That relates to arts funding, which people have talked about, and to much more than that.

The Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee did some work on the screen sector that will be really important. That sector used to be significant in Scotland. It has been in a long-term decline, but it has a real opportunity to rebuild and become much more significant. The convener is aware that I have flagged up the issue of BBC Studios in Glasgow and potential changes that are being proposed there by the BBC at the UK level. It is unclear whether BBC Scotland will be in a position to make a decision for itself on that subject. There is a suggestion that a decision might even be made next month, which would not allow the committee an opportunity to scrutinise the question. I have suggested that, in the first instance, we write to BBC Scotland and copy in the director general at the UK level, asking that the matter be considered, that some caution be exercised and that we have an opportunity to take evidence before a decision is reached. That was a bit of an overview, but I hope that committee members will be happy to support our writing a letter along those lines.

I do not believe that I have any interests that are relevant to the committee that need to be declared.