Seòmar agus comataidhean

Will the member give way?

I am struggling with technology again—hang on a second. I beg your pardon.

I was there on 13 May 1999, at the inaugural sitting of the recalled Scottish Parliament, and I can quote the Presiding Officer, which I think will entertain you. He said:

“One of the worst habits of the House of Commons in the past decade has been the bogus use of points of order. I propose to be very strict; points of argument are not points of order. Points of order are for the occupant of the chair; if we degenerate into the habit of using them as points of argument, we shall develop some of the worst habits of a place that some of us have been glad to leave.”—[Official Report, 13 May 1999; c 16.]

I understand that Mr Kerr, who was as entertaining as usual, has just such plans to use the bad habits that he brought here with him.

I thought I would pop that quote into the debate to remind members, most of whom were not here in 1999, that bad habits can develop to epidemic proportions. We also thought then—naively—that, at the very least, devolution was secure, if not “a process”. In my 24 years’ experience here, I have never known a time when devolution and this Parliament’s democratic powers were under such overt attack.

In those early days, the Lib-Lab coalition proceeded hand-in-hand with Labour at Westminster. That was before the UK banking collapse of 2008, so there was ease of policy collaboration and funding between Westminster and the then Executive.

Indeed, while I support the constructive amendment referred to by Labour, I suspect that that would always be on Westminster’s terms—a kind of “take it or leave it” deal.

It was apparent in 1999 that Labour, in particular, but the unionists in general thought that it would always be the case that they would be in charge and that, even if the SNP did well, it would never be in power. The 2007 election changed all of that, and there has been a story ever since of tensions between devolved and reserved, with Westminster holding the purse strings. Of course, power devolved is power retained—a statement that is attributed to the late Tory MP Enoch Powell. That is a truism, and we are now learning that bitter lesson daily.

By the way, I ask Willie Rennie why, if the Liberals and, indeed, Labour are so opposed to the House of Lords, so many failed Labour and Liberal MPs and MSPs are happily sitting there.

Devolution statutes have increased our powers. The devolution of planning under the Scotland Act 1998 was, of course, a mega-oversight on the part of Westminster. The SNP Government can block—for the time being—the erection of nuclear power stations, although not the licensing of oil and gas developments at sea.

However, the Conservatives have never been happy with any of that. If they cannot exercise power through the ballot box, they have to find alternatives, so we have no section 30 order, thank you very much, even if an overall majority of MSPs stand on and for an independence referendum.

Once again, I turn to the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020—the orphaned child of the European Union and its internal markets act. It has proved an excellent unionist tool for prising open devolution. It has blocked the deposit return scheme and it can block the banning of the sale of glue traps, snares and shock collars. In fact, its blocking powers are wide ranging. If someone sells goods or provides services across the UK, the UK internal market act ensures that they can continue to do so. The leave of the UK is required if we wish to vary something. Would minimum unit pricing of alcohol have passed here if we had had the internal market act? I doubt it.

However, I am getting ahead of myself. Scotland voted 62 per cent remain in the 2016 EU referendum, yet the referendum’s consequences go beyond the all-invasive, indeed pernicious, internal markets act. Money that flowed from the EU to the Scottish Government for devolved projects is now filtered through the Westminster Conservative Government, which determines its destination. Under cover of “levelling up”, devolution is bypassed and areas that are favoured by the Tories, such as Dumfries, strangely find themselves being recipients, with projects being union badged and so on. You see, if you can’t beat them at the ballot box, try buying votes or, as Donald Cameron would say, investing directly—

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to some members of the judiciary expressing opposition to juryless rape trials. (S6F-02405)

I, too, have read the submission from the senators, both those in favour and those against. I am not quoting, but I will paraphrase it. The evidential difficulty that most alleged victims and the accused were in a relationship, sometimes even after the alleged crime, may be an influence on the low conviction rate, no matter what we do. The right to a fair trial under the European convention on human rights, as far as that may affect the accused, is embedded in the Scotland Act 1998.

Crucially, the Government is, I understand, to assess the efficacy of the pilot. For me, that trespasses on the principle of the separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary, which is an extremely serious issue. Will the First Minister confirm that there will be robust scrutiny of the proposal and that his Government has an open mind and is reflecting on those concerns, which are indeed my concerns?

I was not going to speak in the debate, but I am here, so I will. I say to Brian Whittle that my understanding is that the rural visa pilot scheme is tailored—it addresses community, employer and third sector needs—because one size does not fit all across Scotland.

I agree with Ariane Burgess that there is exploitation of some migrant workers. Without spilling the beans, I will say that I am working on something in my constituency, where I know that people are crowded in a place where their employer is charging them at least rent, if not for their board, so they are really trapped. They might not think that they are but, from our perspective, they are.

With the Deputy Presiding Officer’s leave, I will move beyond the seasonal to the all-year-round impact of Brexit in my constituency on three sectors—the care sector, hospitality and commercial driving by people such as bus drivers and lorry drivers.

There is no doubt that Brexit has had a substantial impact on the care sector in the Borders. People have left, never to return. In rural areas—I am speaking generally; I cannot say that this applies all the time—people are welcomed and become part of the community. In hospitality, that is even more the case. Hotels that I know well have cut their services because they do not have enough people to work there. The people who left were skilled, but their roles are not on the shortage-of-skills list.

The same thing happened with bus services across the Borders. Firms did not have enough drivers, so people lost services and timetables went all askew. [Interruption.] Does Mr Whittle want to intervene? I can tell that he is an athlete, because it is almost as if he is at the starting blocks—he has half raised himself.

It is so good to hear a Conservative wanting to give people decent pay. I wish that the Conservatives would devolve employment law to Scotland so that we could work together.

There is a bit of both, but there is no doubt that some people left and could not return. Covid exacerbated that. People from Poland who used to work in hospitality in the Parliament have left and not come back. Brexit has had a big impact on people who were skilled in hospitality.

I go back to the big impact on commercial drivers. That is easing off a little, but not enough.

I will make my final point on immigration. One of my sons has gone the other way—he has just migrated to Canada. He is welcome there, but we have lost a family. The good thing about migrants coming here is that they are generally young—they are not my age—and, when they come here, they have a family. I do not think that we have to rely on that, but they help the demographics as well as contributing to the economy.

Migration is a two-way thing. We do not just receive—we lose at the same time. Brexit has had a substantial impact on the mobility of employment in this country, and it has in particular hit the sectors that I referred to. That has not yet been sorted.

I thank the Deputy Presiding Officer for her tolerance and I thank Mr Whittle for his interesting intervention.

It is almost inexplicable that there are still global warming deniers. Who better to quote, perhaps, than the Donald Trumps of the world? “The Donald” claimed:

“I listen to people talk about global warming that the ocean will rise in the next 300 years by 1/8th of an inch—and they talk about this is our problem ... The environmentalists talk about all this nonsense”.

Talking in another podcast interview about the figure of one eighth of an inch over 300 years, he said:

“When I see those people talking about global warming, I see that the ocean will rise by 1/100 of an inch over the next 350 years”.

He is not even consistent in his idiocy. Of course, he represents the Mad Maxes in society. The reality is that the federal National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has said that the global sea level is currently rising by about one eighth of an inch per year. In other words, the sea-level rise that Trump claimed will happen over 300 years is actually happening annually. I refer to John Swinney’s contribution in that regard.

We do not even need NOAA pronouncements. From the raging global fires, droughts and floods across the world, to the disappearing arctic ice, to the very weird seasons in my own tiny garden, global warming is here. It is accelerating and it is very scary. If it is not scary to people, it should be. It is time to put the foot on the metaphorical accelerator, not on the brakes.

Each nation, Government and community, and every one of us, has to do our bit. Governments must not backslide—least of all for short-term electoral gain—so, although others have addressed the matter, it makes me despair that global commitments can be cast aside so cheaply by Labour and the Tories.

Terms such as “net zero” and “zero emissions” are sometimes not understood. They become overworked and, therefore, undervalued, and familiarity can be guilty of breeding contempt. Folk hear about the need for all new cars to be electric within a timescale, and about the need for heat pumps, but when they look at the cost of the weekly shop and the cost of heating by conventional means, they understandably feel that the urgency for those is not as great for them as their immediate financial urgencies. We must work with that, but we must also take the lead.

Let us start where differences can be made now. Let those differences be seen, while we work on the medium and longer terms, and let us take people with us.

I will focus first on planning law, the role of local authorities and their opportunities—which some have taken and some have missed. I will illustrate that with some examples. I was happy to attend a briefing on a new-build private scheme in Lauder. The homes will be energy efficient, but the heating systems will be gas boilers. Those homes are still to be built.

Across Midlothian, there is an eruption of new builds in the private and social sectors, but compliance with reducing carbon emissions is a mixed bag. In Penicuik, for example, the Scottish Government has supported a new-build development with over £3.9 million. That has enabled the Wheatley Group, working with Cala Homes, to deliver 57 high-quality energy-efficient affordable homes there. Of course, high-quality affordable housing helps to eradicate fuel poverty and homelessness, and ensures that everyone has access to green space and essential services, as well as contributing to a reduction in emissions. All those properties in Penicuik are energy efficient, having achieved a minimum EPC rating B, as well as having electrical vehicle charging points.

New builds in other private developments, such as one in Gorebridge, have solar panels, but others do not. None of them, to the best of my knowledge, have heat pumps. Some have electric charge points for vehicles and some do not. Those are relatively new builds.

Some of those planning consents with conditions will be years old, but why are planning departments not now including in consents mandatory carbon reduction, together with clean energy efficiency? If planning law needs to be amended to make those mandatory, let us examine that.

I will stay with housing. Aside from local government’s role, is there a role for mortgage companies and banks, as lenders? For example, there could be more favourable borrowing terms. If the house that is being purchased meets specific energy efficiency levels and reduces carbon emissions, that will help with not just the property’s current value, but its resale value.

I agree with Patrick Harvie. I appreciate that the financial sector is a reserved matter, but I put that suggestion up for debate, because we must look at all agents in the system to see whether we can join the dots.

Transport is also key, as other members have mentioned. Some time ago, I had a to-and-fro with a developer because they had built houses without including simple things—for example, there was no bus shelter, so people were standing in the pouring rain in order to access the bus. The developers eventually included a shelter, but why was a simple thing like a bus shelter not part of the original development?

There is also the business of council developers liaising with bus companies about providing services. In Auchendinny in my constituency, where hundreds of houses are to be built, there is an opportunity to provide more than the current threadbare bus service. There is no point in people having concessionary bus passes if there is not a bus, but as I travel to my constituency I see many developments where the presumption, in building the estates, is for car travel, not bus travel.

I acknowledge that there are developments that are people friendly, in which there is no through road—no rat run—but there are safe roads for bicycling, instead. Let us see more building of cycle/walk paths in developments.

In the Borders—I congratulate the local councillors for this—cycle paths run along the Tweed from Peebles to Innerleithen, linking up with the Eddleston cycle footpath. That takes people away from a dangerous main road, especially at commuting times. We will have people using these routes if they are safe. They are good for local people, for tourists and for the environment. As another member said, it is not rocket science—more folks will get on their bikes.

Those are small incremental steps, but we need bigger steps. Unfortunately, however, Scotland, and this devolved Parliament and this Government, are caught up in the electoral vagaries of the Tories and Labour, as Rishi Sunak panders to the right in order to compensate for Sir Keir Starmer moving, in the footsteps of Tony Blair, into what was previously Tory electoral territory. Until we are independent, big steps are not ours to take.

I very much welcome the licensing of Airbnbs. In my neck of the woods, there are many. No doubt, some are excellent, but there is one in particular that drives me to distraction. Like clockwork, as night fell on every summer midweek night, the temporary inhabitants set up their drinks table, barbecue and, later, a gazebo in their garden—I had prayed for rain to drive them indoors and not under a gazebo. As the night and drinking progressed, so did the noise levels. Finally, on one night, very late—indeed, in the early morning—I had had enough. I opened the bedroom window and proclaimed that I was a neurosurgeon and needed my sleep and that they should all go to bed. Silence fell, then there were whispers and peace reigned. The gazebo was abandoned. It is better to have legislation than for neighbours to have to resort to such subterfuge. I add that this is not only an urban problem, having had issues with a so-called party house in West Linton—something that was referenced earlier.

I broadly support and appreciate the health and safety requirements. However, I am surprised at the reach of the legislation, and I have case studies that illustrate issues that some constituents have raised. I will put those on the record, as it may be that, in summing up, some of them can be addressed by the minister.

I appreciate that Midlothian Council and Scottish Borders Council have issued policy guidance that introduces some limited flexibility, including temporary exemptions to accommodate a large influx of visitors over a short period to support specific events such as local festivals and sports events such as the Melrose Sevens. Those exemptions require to go before the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and the police, but there is also the opportunity for temporary licences, such as when the property concerned is subject to sale. Those temporary licences have been referred to as “light touch”.

As I mentioned, I will put on record some constituents’ concerns. They are abridged quotes, but they are constituents’ words, not mine. It is part of my job to bring them to the chamber.

“I thought I’d get in touch with you to explain why the short term licensing is terrible and in desperate need of adjusting to allow flexibility. I am going through a very expensive divorce and am desperately trying to sell my family home and my one bed flat in Edinburgh. My flat lies empty because I cannot rent it out as a holiday let which I’ve ... done without complaint for 15 years.”

My constituent asks why they would apply for a licence when the property is on the market. I have already referred to the fact that people can get temporary licences from Scottish Borders Council and Midlothian Council. I do not know whether that is the case in Edinburgh.

A second constituent wrote:

“I have operated our family flat in Causewayside as a short term let unit since 2006, once our children no longer needed accommodation for their university years. There are some party flats in Edinburgh which should be easy to identify because of the number of guests and number of rooms. Could this be a straightforward solution? ... I have applied for a Certificate of Lawfulness and am in the process of applying for a Licence to enable me to continue with my work. This has all taken many hours, and is likely to cost me my entire profit for this year. I just have to hope it is worth it.”

A third constituent wrote:

“I am writing to you as a host of self-catering Cabins based in Peebles and in the hope this will assist in the calls to the Scottish Government to pause the implementation of the shortterm let legislation deadline. The application process is cumbersome, bureaucratic, expensive and unnecessary with time quickly running out as the 1st October deadline approaches.”

In the fourth case study, my constituent wrote:

“We have a purpose built one bed conversion specifically designed for short term lets and not suitable for long term occupancy because of lack of storage. We market through Country Cottages which insist on all the safety checks in the current legislation without the additional costs and hoops of the new registration.”

The final case study relates to home swapping. My constituent wrote:

“We have been members of Homelink for approximately 4 years during which we have undertaken 10 home exchanges. This involves staying in each other’s home in order to have a holiday, usually on a simultaneous basis, occasionally non simultaneous. The exchanges are undertaken on a trust basis between partners. No money changes hands nor ... is any payment in kind made. These are NOT commercial arrangements, but part of the circular, or sharing economy.

They say that, on average, they

”will probably do 3 exchanges a year”,

although some people do two exchanges. They go on to say:

“We must emphasise these exchanges happen in our ... private home without charge. Our home complies with all safety standards required by legislation and as it is where we permanently live we maintain it to a high safety standard.”

Those are quotes from constituents, and I put them out there for consideration.

I am just concluding—sorry.

I share the concerns of Willie Rennie, although I do not know whether he is happy that I share his concerns. There is insufficient flexibility in the regulations, which tightly define which properties fall within the remit. I think that we are all agreed that we need regulations, but if we go through the list set out in the regulations, there is no flexibility for councils. The definitions are very tight, and I do not think that they are always suitable for local communities. I know that, whatever their political hue, councils have their areas at heart.

As the regulatory framework is applied, I therefore trust that the Scottish Government will, if necessary—if what some of us are saying comes to pass—undertake a review and allow councils more flexibility around which properties are affected.