Chamber and committees

We do not know. Where is the plan?

Will the member take an intervention?

I absolutely accept that there is a need for transition, but a plan needs to be in place. I have signed Unite the union’s campaign pledge for no ban without a plan. I think that Jackie Dunbar has, too. Has Daniel Johnson signed it?

It is fraudulent when we are promised 1,000 jobs but the chair of GB Energy then says, “Well, those jobs will perhaps come in 20 years’ time.” That is what I call fraudulent: it is a joke.

We have Labour and the SNP—two partners in crime—determined to destroy the countryside with pylons, and both turning a blind eye to the desecration of the north and north-east of Scotland. We have Labour and the SNP—two partners in crime—determined to destroy the oil and gas industry and, with it, tens of thousands of well-paid jobs.

It is common sense not to have a ban without a plan. We on this side of the chamber understand that, and Unite the union understands it. Like Unite, I will fight for my constituents and to save the jobs of the North Sea oil workers. It is shameful how few Labour MSPs have signed up to Unite’s campaign. It is a party that is meant to stand up for workers. Instead, it is siding with its donors and Just Stop Oil.

Like GB Energy itself, the process that we are being asked to follow in approving the LCM is a joke. We had an LCM a couple of weeks back and a supplementary one was lodged on Monday, which—as the convener said—gave no time for the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee to scrutinise the impact before the Parliament makes the decision today. That is complete disrespect for this Parliament. It sounds as though we might have another LCM coming next week.

What will the LCM change? From what I can gather, it will add amendments on sustainable development. The definition of sustainable development is:

“development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.

What about the future generations who will have their countryside ruined by the overindustrialisation that we are seeing? What about the future generations who will have prime agricultural land taken away and replaced by battery storage sites, substations or solar panels?

Earlier this week, I met the Angus Pylon Action Group. It has asked to speak to Gillian Martin, but its request has fallen on deaf ears, as have requests from all other campaign groups. Members of the APAG are devastated by what they are facing. They feel ignored and abandoned by the Government, which talks about engaging with communities but does not want to listen to them. They have real concerns, but are struggling to get answers.

That is where the Scottish Government is also to blame. In the weeks since the last time that we had this debate, there has been no news on the energy strategy. That strategy is now years late. There is no strategy, no plan and no clue. That sums up this devolved Government. We are still working under the shadow of its presumption against new oil and gas, and its presumptions that we should import oil and gas rather than use our own resources, that we should protect jobs in Azerbaijan rather than in Aberdeen and that we should make ourselves poorer while we make the Saudis richer.

We need a commonsense strategy for our energy that puts our own resources and workers at its heart. This Government does not care about oil and gas and it certainly does not care about the people working offshore or in the supply chain. Oil and gas from the North Sea is good for Britain, good for Scotland, good for the environment and good for jobs.

Let us drop the pretence that GB Energy will bring down bills, or be good for investment or for my constituents, because it simply will not.

Earlier, we heard from Tim Eagle about fly-tipping. Is fly-tipping one of the priorities that was listed, and what actions is the Scottish Government taking to reduce fly-tipping in rural areas?

We have heard mixed views from stakeholders on whether registration should be required in advance of people exercising a pre-emptive right to buy. Some have argued that there are barriers to registering and others have argued that it is important that the landlord knows which areas of the farm are subject to a pre-emptive right to buy and the boundaries of those areas. Does the Scottish Government recognise that both concerns are valid? How will it balance those two considerations?

I want to move on to the community right to buy, cabinet secretary, and will start with a general question. You have mentioned that the existing community right to buy powers are presently under review. Why is the bill being brought forward at the same time as that significant review, and what will happen if the review recommends significant changes to the process that is in the bill?

Do you think that Government amendments will be lodged?

The committee has also heard evidence suggesting that the pre-notification and registration provisions in the bill are unnecessarily complex and difficult to navigate. Why was that approach taken? Could there be changes to them?

So the definition will come from that piece of work.