Chamber and committees

Will the member give way?

No, thank you.

As our committee report mentions, it is disappointing—to put it mildly—that the committee’s deliberations were in the papers before they were even finalised. All that needs to change. The bigger picture—I appreciate that the question is separate from, but related to, the specific case—is that the Parliament has to have better systems in place for the future. As our report indicates, the committee has an appetite for helping to review some of those issues, going forward.

In the first century AD, the Roman satirist Juvenal famously asked:

“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”

or,

“Who will guard the guards?”

In other words, whose job is it to police those whose job it is to police the rules? That has never proved to be an easy question for anyone to answer.

What can be said is that the answer that we have come up with to that question in Holyrood is open to improvement. In fact, it is ripe for reform. Other legislatures do not ask a room full of politicians to reach a non-political view about an allegation against another politician. They certainly do not ask them to do so in the run-up to a national election—yet, our Parliament likes to do exactly that, as Patrick Harvie has rightly said. Nor do a number of other parliaments ask such committees to impose penalties without reference to any clearly understood scale of severity, under rules that are not always clear and do not include a right to repeal, or ask parliamentary staff in such investigations to be put in the unfair position of writing binding reports in which their colleagues are mentioned.

To anyone who is looking in on the debate, I frankly admit that there has been a lot more political heat than procedural light in the chamber. I will conclude by simply saying this: I believe that it is now time for a proper review of how the Parliament deals with allegations against its members. The public have a right to know that such decisions will be reached according to the highest and most objective of standards.

We should learn from the example of other legislatures, where the investigation is handed over to a person from outside both the political sphere and the parliamentary staff, with that person’s recommendations being put to Parliament or its committees for a recommended sanction that is based on some kind of logical scheme. I think that that would be a good place to start, and it would be an approach that the public would expect of us in the future.

Will the member give way?

I extend my thanks to Jamie Halcro Johnston for securing the debate. I also declare an interest, of sorts, as someone who cuts peats for my own use.

There is no doubt about the importance of stoves in those areas of the country that are off the gas grid, and in housing types where there are few workable alternatives to choose from as heating sources. Those are, of course, the same areas of the country, and the same housing types, which currently endure some of the worst fuel poverty.

First, however, it is vital, in the interests of accuracy, to recognise that there is not, and never has been, a proposal to ban stoves in any existing house, nor—despite some efforts to sow confusion on this point—is there any proposal for an effective ban on peat cutting.

Nonetheless, all that said, very many reasonable questions have been asked, by me and many others, about what the new regulations on new-build houses actually mean in practice. Currently, the proposed guidance would allow people to install a stove as an “emergency” heat source in a new house, provided that

“the size, complexity or heat demand ... makes portable solutions”

unsuitable. As I understand it, it would be down to local authorities to decide whether a potential property meets those criteria.

While I remain confident that rural local authorities would understand the unique requirements of rural heating solutions, I was very pleased to hear the minister indicate in the chamber in recent days that the Scottish Government will be reviewing and reassessing those criteria in order to make them more readily workable, in particular in rural and island areas. I thank the minister for her correspondence with me on these issues in recent weeks; I know that many of my constituents are also grateful for her engagement on the matter.

I think that most members in the chamber accept that decarbonising our homes is an essential part of ensuring a greener future. However, the importance of ensuring the suitability of these policies for rural and island communities is paramount in order to ensure that they are workable and do not have the unintended consequence of increasing already high rates of fuel poverty. Many of the houses in my island constituency differ radically from urban homes in their type and construction. Land ownership types vary, as does the prevailing local climate, and the energy infrastructure also varies widely from that in other parts of the country.

Only 22 per cent of Western Isles homes—all of them in one town—are connected to gas, with the rest currently relying on heating oil, solid fuel, air-source heat pumps and electric heating. Unpredictable power cuts are part of island life and, in many parts of my constituency, solid-fuel options are often essential, at the very least as a back-up.

While I understand that most people will use the stoves to burn wood, peat remains one of the most common fuel sources in the Western Isles. Peat cutting remains a culturally significant aspect of island life, as well as being an affordable option for many.

All of that said, nobody—including me—is suggesting that either peat or wood should be the only or even primary means of heating new homes in the future; the point is merely that there should be provision for the use of solid fuels where that is appropriate, and the guidance should accommodate that and do so more simply.

The perfect can be the enemy of the good in writing guidance, and I welcome the fact that the Government is willing to recognise that.

As a recently conscripted member of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, I will not take the bait of some of what the Tories have said in their motion. However, I will make two or three separate and—I dare to hope—useful points.

I stand by the view that I expressed in the public session of the committee last week. The committee did not—and I do not—dispute the need for a sanction in this case. However, I still struggle to see the logical basis for the figure of a 27-day ban on sitting in Parliament—the sanction that three of the five committee members eventually supported—and how it was arrived at. Whatever members’ views about the case, it is factual to say that the sanction is exceptionally high, compared with any comparable incident on which the Parliament has imposed a penalty in the past.

No, thank you.

Although there is a need for a penalty in many cases, including this one, there has to be some logical basis for the sanctions that we impose.

I share the astonishment that has been expressed by a number of members that it is possible for anyone who is sitting on a committee of that kind to tweet extensively their views about the individual whom they are about to investigate, before they have heard the evidence about him or her. The real world has been mentioned a fair bit in the debate, but that would never be allowed to happen in any industrial tribunal and, if it happened in a jury, it would land someone in serious trouble. I therefore sympathise with the sentiments on that point in the Green amendment.

Both Jackie Dunbar and I recognise the need for a financial penalty in this case. In an effort to reach consensus within the committee, we support the figure agreed, although we take the view that it is certainly at the high end of the range of available sanctions.

Likewise, on the issue of suspension from the chamber, we recognise the need for a penalty of that kind but we voted against the figure of 27 days, given that it was, in our view, extremely high compared with any sanctions in previous cases.

To ask the Scottish Government what representations it can make to Loganair to ensure that constituents in Na h-Eileanan an Iar are not disadvantaged as a result of recent changes to flight timetables. (S6O-03472)

From time to time, it is as well to lift our eyes from the Scottish political fray to recall that Scotland is still a European country and that events in Europe still matter to us. I am therefore grateful that we have the opportunity to reflect on all that in this debate.

Almost three quarters of a century ago, the Schuman declaration marked the beginning of post-world war two Franco-German co-operation. That was a hugely significant turning point in Europe’s pursuit of long-term sustainable peace. It came after a continuous period of more than 80 years during which Germany and France had largely been either at war or on the verge of war with each other. In the following year—1951—the alliance was opened to other European countries, and the treaty of Paris was also signed by the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy and Luxembourg. That created the European Coal and Steel Community, which paved the way for the European Economic Community and, subsequently, of course, the European Union.

Europe day is celebrated on 9 May each year, on the anniversary of the signing of the Schuman declaration. Unfortunately, the anniversary fell, and falls, at a time of war in Europe. I therefore take the opportunity—as I am sure others would—to reiterate the Parliament’s categorical condemnation of Putin’s unprovoked aggression, which has destroyed the lives of so many Ukrainians since the illegal invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The Russian Government’s reckless actions during that invasion have also directly resulted in the deaths of many members of its own forces.

The European Union was established to promote peace and co-operation between Europe’s independent nations. I, of course, very much hope that, one day soon, Scotland can count herself among those independent European nations. However, for the moment, Europe day represents an opportunity for us to reflect on the European Union’s core aspirations, as well as on the challenges that it faces in today’s landscape.

Peace and co-operation are values that we must pursue and prioritise, particularly in a period of political polarisation when misinformation and, therefore, mistrust can be rife. Unless those are checked, they can, ultimately, pose a threat to democracy itself. The shared European

“values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, and respect for human rights”,

are ones that I hope every individual in the chamber shares, no matter their position on Scotland’s future or, indeed, on the European Union.

However, I cannot resist saying that those who continue to argue against even rejoining the single market or re-establishing freedom of movement of people are taking an extreme stance—one that I do not claim to be able to comprehend. It is a stance that I would counsel all parties not to humour much further.

Just a few weeks ago, yet more new, expensive and complicated import controls came into force as a direct consequence of Brexit, and are causing further damage to Scotland’s businesses and our economic interests. More EU businesses are ceasing their trade with the United Kingdom altogether because of the additional expense and bureaucratic headache that the trading relationship now involves. The UK has already suffered the largest five-year decline in goods trade since comparable records began in 1997, with the volume of UK goods imports and exports being 7.4 per cent smaller than it was in 2018.

Exports from my constituency, particularly of fresh seafood, have at times suffered significantly due to the complex, time-consuming and expensive checks that are now required for every box on every journey to mainland Europe. Any small error can result in thousands of pounds of produce being held up and, sometimes, ultimately discarded.

I am conscious that the bulk of the roads in my constituency that are wide enough to drive two cars past each other without stopping are largely the product of EU structural and investment funds. The UK Government committed to matching EU structural funding after Brexit in a programme that it insisted would be

“better tailored to our economy”.

However, we have found ourselves being overlooked and short-changed.

Meanwhile, the UK Government—and, as far as I can see, the main UK Opposition—refuse to move an inch from their opposition to EU membership. I am afraid that, even with the potential for a new Government in Westminster, the tunnel vision on anything related to the EU or the single market looks to be firmly set to continue.

Last month, both Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak rejected the European Commission’s proposals for a post-Brexit youth mobility deal, for instance, which would have allowed those aged between 18 and 30 to live, study or work in one EU country for up to four years, with young EU citizens able to come to the UK on the same basis.

Brexit was unquestionably an act of cultural and economic vandalism. Scotland remains a steadfastly European nation, bound to our neighbours by a long history of cultural, social and economic ties. Although external powers have forced us to leave the political European community, I am proud to say that Scotland’s esprit européen is something that no external power can take away.

I am referring to the fact that two thirds of the country that I represent in this Parliament, and in which I have the honour to live, voted to remain in the European Union.

I fear that, as well as annoying Mr Kerr, I may have annoyed one of the Presiding Officer’s predecessors when I and others spoke up in the chamber some time ago to make the case for the European flag continuing to be flown outside our national Parliament. I have no regrets about that, and I am pleased to see that it is still flying. For me, it is a symbol of hope that, in the not-too-distant future, Scotland will be able to rejoin the EU family as a member state. More immediately, it is a clear sign that we want to celebrate Europe day and all the ideas that that represents.