Skip to main content

Language: English / Gàidhlig

Loading…

Seòmar agus comataidhean

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Criathragan Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 2 November 2024
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 1138 contributions

|

Meeting of the Parliament

Point of Order

Meeting date: 25 January 2023

Christine Grahame

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?

Meeting of the Parliament

Portfolio Question Time

Meeting date: 25 January 2023

Christine Grahame

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

Meeting of the Parliament

Portfolio Question Time

Meeting date: 25 January 2023

Christine Grahame

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?

Meeting of the Parliament

Housing

Meeting date: 25 January 2023

Christine Grahame

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.

16:57  

Meeting of the Parliament

Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Meeting date: 24 January 2023

Christine Grahame

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].

Meeting of the Parliament

Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Meeting date: 24 January 2023

Christine Grahame

First, I will speak to amendment 13, which replicates an amendment that I lodged at stage 2 as a probing amendment.

The purpose of that amendment was to prevent possible circumvention of the legislation by, for example, the practice of what is known as “clean booting”. That involves having a human run some time ahead of a pack of dogs, with no animal or artificial animal scent with that person, the purpose of which might—and I simply say “might”—very well be to flush out and hunt foxes.

When I lodged that amendment at stage 2, the minister undertook to investigate the matter. I had not realised that that might happen, and I am pleased to see the minister’s amendment. I accept amendment 14 and, in the circumstances, I will not move my amendment 13.

I have to say—I am not sooking up—that the minister’s amendment is much better than mine. It includes the words “may by regulations”. That is important, because the committee did not have the opportunity at stage 1, and certainly not at stage 2, to take evidence on the matter. In my view, it is not a good idea to introduce something mandatory when no evidence has been taken. The minister’s amendment states that Scottish ministers

“may make regulations ... only if they consider that modifying the definition of trail hunting would contribute towards the protection of wild mammals from unlawful hunting using dogs.”

It also states,

“Before laying a draft of a Scottish statutory instrument containing regulations ... the Scottish Ministers must consult such persons as they consider appropriate.”

I think that that is absolutely correct. There is flexibility built in there, and it is open to evidence coming forward. Any change has to be made by affirmative procedure, which would allow committees, and indeed this Parliament, to check out the evidence before it is brought into the bill.

I am pleased, therefore, to recommend and support amendment 14 in the name of the minister and, given that it is so much better than mine, I am not moving amendment 13.

Amendment 13 moved—[Christine Grahame].

Meeting of the Parliament

Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Meeting date: 24 January 2023

Christine Grahame

I have listened carefully to what the minister said about plans to publish data on all NatureScot licences, and I know the GDPR issues. I will be pressing for progress and looking for a timeline, because it is in everyone’s interest, including that of landowners, for the public to be aware of the land to which a licence applies, the conditions, the effective period and so on. However, in the context of other proposed licence registers from NatureScot, I will not move my amendment.

Amendment 4 not moved.

Meeting of the Parliament

Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Meeting date: 24 January 2023

Christine Grahame

In the interests of time, I intend to speak only to my amendments in the group. Amendments 2 and 3 seek to delete from sections 4(4)(a) and 4(5)(a) the phrase “category of persons”. The minister knows that I raised the issue at stage 2 through a probing amendment. My rationale for doing so was that I was unclear about the legal status of “category of persons”, especially in relation to enforcement or breach of a licence. For example, who would be charged if a licence holder breached the terms of the licence?

I note that section 4(1) states:

“A person may apply for a licence permitting the use of more than two dogs”.

It talks about a “person”. There is no addition of “category of persons”. There seems to be, at the very least, a technical inconsistency. Section 4(4)(a) refers to granting a licence to a “person” or “category of persons”. Similarly, section 4(5)(a) refers to a

“person or category of persons”.

As I said, that seems to be inconsistent with section 4(1). I look forward to the minister’s explanation if I have misunderstood the position.

Amendment 4 seeks to make the register of licences public. Again, I raised the issue at stage 2 through a probing amendment, and I will quote the minister’s response. She said:

“I am sympathetic to that; transparency in how licences operate is always desirable. NatureScot already successfully shares a lot of information on wildlife management licences, not least—as has been seen recently—in detailed reporting on the operation of the licences to manage beavers, so there is a precedent. There are also plans to publish data on all of NatureScot’s licences, but we need to work carefully through the general data protection regulation legislation in order to do that in a way that is legally watertight and does not undermine the GDPR.

That being the case, and having listened to the exchanges, I will continue to consider Christine Grahame’s points, and I assure her today that I will commit to going as far as possible within the remit of the GDPR to publish what it is that she is asking for.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, 7 December 2022; c 83-84.]

I have not seen any amendments from the Government, so I ask for an explanation from the minister. I know that, in exceptional circumstances, a licence that is granted can go to the land. However, if the register is not public, I am concerned about how an observer or someone who takes a particular interest in the matter will know whether the terms of that licence have been breached if they do not know what land it covers and who is responsible for the exercise of the licence.

Meeting of the Parliament

Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Meeting date: 24 January 2023

Christine Grahame

I seek clarity on why the bill says that an application will be made by

“the person or category of persons”.

Let us say that three landowners, A, B and C, want a licence to cover their land—I know that a licence will apply to an area. A applies for the licence. Does A advise that they are doing so on behalf of themselves and B and C? I want to know how the approach will work; it does not seem to be consistent across the sections of the bill.

Meeting of the Parliament

Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Meeting date: 24 January 2023

Christine Grahame

Okay. I will do whatever is necessary to move us along, so I am not pressing it and I am not winding up.