Seòmar agus comataidhean

Of course, because I believe in spontaneous debate.

Had I known that, I would not have let him in. He has taken 45 seconds of my day.

Whatever happened to democracy? With only six Tories at Westminster, Alister Jack being one of them, we are having Tory policies and Tory funding directed against the democratic wishes of the Scottish people.

There is a lesson for all who defend democracy in this Parliament. The charge that is being led and laid at the feet of the Tories is that they will use every device they can to undermine what you, the Scottish people, have voted for, and they will use your money to do it. What an insult. It is beyond democratic and it reveals the vulnerability of devolution. Only independence guarantees that you will get the Governments, the policies and the priorities that you vote for. That might even—heaven forfend—be a Tory Government, but if you had voted for it, you would have to live with it. That is democracy for Scotland.

I beg your pardon. I was going to ask the member to be spontaneous and take some interventions so that we could have a lively debate, rather than having him just heckle us and rant at us.

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.

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.

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.

Yesterday’s debate highlighted the contribution of our farming sector to our economy. Given that many farmers are not as young as they used to be, what support is being given to encourage young people into the sector?