Chamber and committees

Has the Scottish Government had any discussions with the UK Government about the proscription of Palestine Action? Have ministers received any security briefings or made any representations, given the arrests at protests in Scotland?

I welcome the fact that the Scottish Greens have brought this timely debate to the chamber. For life on this planet to be tolerable, we have to address the climate challenge and we must move away from our reliance on oil and gas. We cannot overestimate the challenge that we face. In 2024, the highest concentration—in human history—of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere was recorded. The rise in global temperatures has meant that the past decade was the warmest on record. The International Energy Agency has said that, if we are to achieve the target of limiting the global temperature rise to within 1.5°C, there can be no new oil and gas developments internationally.

Scottish Government policy is in favour of a just transition. However, we have to be honest: the transition has started and it is not just. In the chamber, we have spoken about thousands of onshore and offshore jobs that have already been lost, despite oil companies continuing to pay massive dividends. One of those companies, Ithaca, has already been mentioned in the debate. In August, the North Sea oil giant paid £127 million in dividends for the first quarter of 2025, with total pay-outs set to reach around £388 million this year. There is no just transition for the workers who are losing their jobs.

As Liam Kerr said, in October, STUC research showed that only one job is being created for every £1 million in turnover in onshore and offshore wind. The figure across other renewables sectors is not significantly higher. We do not build wind turbines—we import them, and we are not reaping the economic benefits of any green industrial revolution. We have to be honest that not enough is being done to ensure good quality job creation and to develop the new sectors that would provide local benefits.

I do not accept that. I am happy to discuss it in more detail another day. I have already referenced some of the profits that are being made in the sector.

My primary role today is to hold the minister’s Government to account and talk about what this Parliament can do within our powers. I agree with the Greens that we cannot keep developing new oil and gas. However, we have to do that as part of a just transition, so I also support the offshore trade unions and the workforce in their demand for a plan.

A number of members have already made the point that we cannot respond to the challenge by importing foreign oil and gas to replace North Sea oil production. Norway and Denmark are issuing new oil and gas production licences alongside historically high investment in offshore renewables. It cannot be acceptable that we support extraction elsewhere.

The trade unions need to be centrally involved in developing a just transition. I do not believe that there has ever been a just transition for working class communities when industrial change has taken place. Working class communities see no sign of that happening now. We need to rise to the climate challenge by having a serious debate about how we ensure that we meet our climate challenges in a way that benefits our economy as part of an industrial strategy that delivers for every community in Scotland.

The face of the drugs crisis has changed with the emergence of synthetic opioids, which are linked to more than 100 deaths across Scotland, many of which have been in the west of Scotland. Will the minister outline how the Scottish Government plans to improve services in the west of Scotland given the growing use of synthetic opioids? What role does clinical and practitioner expertise have in that?

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reported comments by Professor Catriona Matheson, former chair of the drug deaths task force, that the national mission on drug deaths has failed to deliver robust, evidence-based clinical care for people affected by drug use, due to clinical and practitioner expertise being sidelined. (S6T-02748)

Given those comments, does the minister agree that the Scottish Government must focus on delivery to reduce drug deaths, rather than on chasing headlines, and that drug policy in this country must be based on the evidence?

I am grateful for that.

I appreciate that we have a time problem, convener.

I will ask one question if that is okay.

With regard to the new designations and the costs and benefits, there is, as Ben Worthy has said, a wide range of views on the cost of FOI, but there are also significant benefits to the public purse of FOI as a result of driving transparency, particularly for big organisations. As Kevin Dunion has said, the bill has changed significantly during the consultation process. Lots of people would have liked the bill to immediately designate everybody who delivers public services in Scotland, but, in reality, that is not what the bill will do. What it aims to do is drive new designations, particularly through the creation of a role for the Parliament.

Can you say something to make it real to people what the bill might mean for those sectors or bodies that you believe should be prioritised for designation? What is your advice to the Parliament on what the priority should be?

Thank you. I appreciate that you are down south.