Seòmar agus comataidhean

I welcome that exchange and, further to that, I welcome the Government’s support for my welfare of dogs bill, which will shortly be introduced. If passed, the bill will require prospective dog owners to consider rigorously and fully all aspects of the welfare of the puppy, including the breeding, before buying.

Does the First Minister therefore agree that if that leads to educated demand, the supply of cruelly-bred puppies will reduce, which will cut off the vast profits—already referred to—that go to criminals who care nothing for the welfare of the puppies, seeing them only as fashionable, marketable commodities?

As we know, the role of the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland is an important one in the ethical standards framework. The commissioner is responsible for investigating complaints about the conduct of MSPs, councillors and members of public bodies, as well as non-compliance with the lobbying regime. In addition to complaints work, the commissioner regulates how people are appointed to the boards of public bodies in Scotland.

I turn to our nominee. Ian Bruce has been the acting ethical standards commissioner since April 2021, when the then commissioner was on extended leave. Ian has an honours degree in mental philosophy from the University of Aberdeen, where he majored in ethics. He has held a number of roles in the public, private and voluntary sectors, including as chief executive of Abbeyfield Scotland. From 2005 to 2021, he was the public appointments manager at the office of the ethical standards commissioner.

The panel believes that Ian will bring to the post fairness, integrity and professionalism, and I am sure that the Parliament will want to wish him every success. [Applause.]

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the appointment of Ian Bruce as the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland.

It is a basic human right to have a place to call home. It provides shelter, comfort, a sanctuary and identity. You have your own address: “This is where I live.” Now, however, there are increased pressures on people keeping what home they have by meeting the mortgage payment when interest rates, along with energy and food bills, are soaring.

It is true that we need more social affordable homes, but a number of factors are impacting on the cost of constructing houses, one of which is inflation. The level of inflation—10 per cent—stems directly from the economic failures of the UK Government. That has reduced the actual value of the Scottish Government’s budget, which was set when inflation was at 3 per cent, by some £1.4 billion. That means that, as the cabinet secretary said, the housing budget buys even less in the market.

Another factor is Brexit. After the nigh stagnation of construction in the two years of Covid, demand for construction materials is extremely high, but there is a supply chain issue. One reason for the shortage of construction materials is the fact that lorry drivers are in short supply, which means that it has become more expensive to deliver construction materials to different parts of the UK, and it is therefore more expensive to build. A large number of lorry drivers in the UK were from other EU countries, and many of them cannot come back here.

According to the Construction Leadership Council, 60 per cent of imported materials used in construction are from the European Union. The supply of timber has been particularly affected by Brexit, as 80 to 90 per cent of softwood is imported from European countries. Scarcity adds to construction costs.

Another factor is the skills shortage. It is estimated that close to a million construction workers are set to retire in the next 10 years, which will also significantly impact the industry. Before Brexit, about 40 per cent of all construction workers in the UK came from other EU countries. Now, such workers are unlikely to get visas to work here, as the UK has introduced a points-based immigration system. The impact of the skills shortage in the UK is that employers will have to increase wages, as competition will be stiff among construction companies, and that will put up construction costs.

Then there is VAT. I quote Rishi Sunak, for the first and possibly last time:

“Green belt land is extremely precious in the UK. We’ve seen too many examples of local councils circumventing the views of residents by taking land out of the green belt for development, but I will put a stop to it.”

Yet VAT for construction on brownfield sites remains at 17.5 or 20 per cent, depending on the circumstances, whereas it is zero per cent on greenfield sites. Perhaps Mr Sunak’s attention is occupied on other taxing matters because nothing has happened on VAT equity to date.

All of those—inflation, Brexit and VAT—add to the costs of construction of homes, especially in the social rented sector, where councils are already under pressure because inflation is attacking their budgets on all fronts. None of that is in the control of the Scottish Government. It is all reserved, so let us have some refreshing honesty from the Tory benches, starting perhaps with agreeing that VAT for construction on brownfield sites should be levied at zero per cent.

To ask the Scottish Government when it last spoke to NHS Lothian and NHS Borders. (S6O-01815)

The cabinet secretary will be aware that, in November last year, NHS Borders launched a single-point-of-contact cancer hub for people who are referred to Borders general hospital with a suspected cancer diagnosis, to provide support and information and to relieve stress. That is being phased in now, and everybody who requires it should have access to that service by spring 2023. Does the cabinet secretary, like me, welcome the initiative, and would he like to comment on it?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The events over the past week have been unprecedented. The United Kingdom Government’s decision to invoke a section 35 order in response to the Scottish Parliament overwhelmingly passing the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill in December raises serious questions about devolution that should be of huge concern to every member serving the Scottish people in this institution.

Furthermore, concerns about the matter have been amplified in recent days, given that UK Government ministers—namely, Alister Jack and Kemi Badenoch—have refused three invitations to appear before Scottish Parliament committees to explain their extraordinary use of a section 35 order to block a bill that is defined clearly within the powers and responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament.

In the light of that, under rule 12.4 of standing orders, which refers to section 23 of the Scotland Act 1998, what can be done to ensure that the UK Government respects the Scottish Parliament, its devolved powers and the legislation that we pass, and that this Parliament holds the UK Government accountable for blocking the passing of a devolved law that, as I said, was overwhelmingly supported by parties across the chamber?

Actually, I did not move it, Presiding Officer.

Obviously, I share the concerns, but Ariane Burgess must consider that the approach by the Parliament must be evidence based and tested by it. I do not want any of that to happen, and I very much agree with the minister that we require, for the sake of all parties, to have evidence. When there is evidence, flexibility is built into the primary legislation. It does not need to be amended.

Having tested to exhaustion the term “category of persons”, I am satisfied with the minister’s response.

Amendment 2 not moved.

Amendment 40 moved—[Ariane Burgess].

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I was unable to vote. I would have voted no.