Chamber and committees

Which you did.

Sandesh Gulhane mentioned the app down in England. We do not have anything comparable up here. Is there any reason why we could not copy that app or even use the same one? Are there any technical reasons for that?

For once I agree with everything that Kevin Stewart has said. He talks about different pathways and improved pathways. I am sure that he is aware that, in Aberdeen, the UCAN swift urological response and evaluation—SURE—unit is now delayed by 15 months because the NHS board wants to move where the unit will be. Will he join me in urging NHS Grampian to resolve the issue quickly, so that the unit can be set up as quickly as possible?

I have been in contact with many of the campaigners who want fairer ways to transmit energy to hear their views on the £250 amount. One constituent, June, told me:

“I think it’s disgusting, and another bribe for some people.”

She also said:

“It won’t make a dent in the drop in property prices.”

Another constituent, Vince, told me:

“Offering a householder £250 per annum is derisory, to say the least.”

Does the First Minister agree with June and Vince that the amount offered is a drop in the ocean compared with the tens of thousands of pounds that people have seen wiped off their property value, and will he do something that his ministers have all refused to do and come with me to meet the campaign groups that are feeling ignored by both of their Governments?

To ask the Scottish Government what percentage of referrals to audiology services at NHS Grampian are seen within the 18-week target. (S6O-04418)

I have heard from constituents who have had to wait for more than two years to get a hearing aid. A review of audiology services was carried out in 2022, but there seems to have been no improvement since then. How many of the 55 recommendations from the report of that review have been implemented?

I thank the cabinet secretary for her comments, which cleared up some of the points that I was going to raise because I feel that there is some confusion on the matter.

As I understand the timeline of Mr Dixon’s involvement with Environmental Standards Scotland, he was first appointed to the board in December 2020. He was then reappointed to the board in November 2024. In January 2025, he was appointed as interim chair, and today we are being asked to confirm his appointment as chair for a further four years, which will take us to 2029, unless I am mistaken. Therefore, he has been reappointed once and has changed roles twice within that time.

Paragraph 4.3 of the Environmental Standards Scotland framework document states:

“Ministers may reappoint members on one occasion only”.

I think that that might have been addressed by the cabinet secretary. I was thinking that, surely, this would be the individual’s secondary appointment and therefore contrary to the rules that are established by the framework document.

Paragraph 4.3 continues:

“members may thus serve a total of two consecutive terms”

and a member’s

“total period of appointment may not exceed 8 years.”

If Mr Dixon was first appointed in 2020 and the secondary appointment will take us to 2029, that would be about eight and a half to nine years. Once again, that contravenes the rules that are set out in the framework document.

At committee, I was willing to put aside Mr Dixon’s sympathies towards Just Stop Oil and his stance against nuclear power, but the rules were put in place for a purpose. They are there to ensure that the work of ESS remains independent and above reproach. Its reputation is essential for ensuring that public bodies recognise its authority, but the SNP’s proposal will drive a coach and horses through those relationships.

Given the fact that the motion breaks the very rules that the Parliament has agreed to, it is impossible for the Scottish Conservatives to support it. I suggest to colleagues that the Government needs to look at this appointment again and put forward a new timeline for the candidate.

Will Sarah Boyack take an intervention?

Thank you, Presiding Officer—that was perhaps a warning.

This has been an interesting, if somewhat predictable, debate. The motion from the Government is a shameful attempt to deflect all responsibility away from it. Let us remember that we are seeing inflation-busting council tax rises because of its financial mismanagement. Of course, we also have the Government’s usual attempt to pat itself on the back in the motion.

Then we have Labour’s amendment, which makes me think that it is living on a different planet. It is as if its string of broken promises over the past six months should just be brushed aside, which is a point that Stephen Kerr made. No wonder Labour members were too ashamed to take interventions.

In the run-up to the general election, Labour promised change. However, I do not think that our pensioners were expecting change to mean their winter fuel payments being snatched from them a couple of months after Labour came in. I do not think that our farmers were expecting change to mean a family farm tax that would see many have to sell parts of their business to survive. I do not think that businesses thought that change would be a tax on jobs as national insurance was hiked. I do not think that households were expecting the promise of lower energy bills—by £300 a year, by the end of the Parliament—to actually mean bills going up. However, that is exactly what we have.

I have spoken regularly of GB Energy being a sham. We were promised lower bills, but bills are rising. Aberdeen was promised 1,000 jobs, but now we are being told that there might be 200 jobs by 2029 if we are lucky. Only last week, it was reported that the Treasury was lining up spending cuts to GB Energy, which is a point that was made by Graham Simpson. To be honest, I am not surprised, because Treasury officials, like the rest of us, are probably totally confused as to what GB Energy actually is. No wonder it seems to be struggling to hire a chief executive; it probably cannot agree on a job description.

Although I am not averse to the devolved Government pointing out the failings of the Westminster Labour Government, it cannot pull the wool over the eyes of the Scottish public when it comes to its own failings. Pointing the finger at someone else does not absolve it of the guilt of failed policies and abandoned communities, such as the north-east. We are still waiting for a just transition plan and an energy strategy from the Government. We are still waiting for it to meet its environmental targets and for it to tell us how it will meet our long-term energy needs without being reliant on imported oil and gas.

As much of a farce as GB Energy is, at least the Labour Government has actually set it up. Although I am not sure what it is, unlike the state-owned Scottish energy company, it is set up. That company was announced by the Scottish National Party in 2017, but is now not spoken about and seems to have been quietly ditched. There was also the Scottish Government’s bonds, which Humza Yousaf announced in this place—another grand announcement quietly dropped in the hope that no one was looking.

This is a Government that is out of ideas and out of time. It needs to focus on the basics and on growing the economy. As Liz Smith said, we get criticised for being obsessed with economic growth but we are right to bang on about it. It is essential because it leads to more jobs, more money for our public services, better education, more opportunities and lower poverty. It should be at the heart of everything that this devolved Government does, because, without it, we are in a downward spiral. Without growth, this devolved Government has backed itself into a corner of higher taxes, lower productivity and less money for public services. We need to break that cycle. That is why it is criminal that the Scottish Government is turning its back on well-paid jobs and tax revenues through its demonising of the oil and gas sector.

Paul O’Kane spoke of energy security, but the Labour UK Government is forcing through a ban without a plan, through its policy of no new licences, and the devolved Scottish Government has adopted a presumption against new oil and gas exploration. While we still have a need for hydrocarbons, why on earth would we shoot ourselves in the foot by not using our own domestic supply? That is not good for our jobs, our economy, our energy security or the environment.

I will now turn to the contributions that we have heard. The cabinet secretary spoke about getting existing housing back into use. I completely agree with that. Voids have been a problem for years, but those have been caused by the lack of local government funding. Those issues are linked. We often hear talk about how well local government is funded, but, if that is the case, why are we seeing inflation-busting council tax rises?

Patrick Harvie spoke about the proposed heat in buildings bill. He is right to say that we deserve to know what has happened to that bill. Has it been dropped? We need some honesty from the Government.

Fergus Ewing made an important contribution. Our power is too expensive, which means that our manufacturing base cannot be competitive—a point that Graham Simpson also made. Our highest industry energy costs could be pushed to consumers and so fuel inflation. However, I agree that the solution is not as easy as simply breaking the link between gas and electricity pricing. If that were the case, I am sure that it would have been done already.

I thank the cabinet secretary for her comments, which cleared up some of the points that I was going to raise because I feel that there is some confusion on the matter.

As I understand the timeline of Mr Dixon’s involvement with Environmental Standards Scotland, he was first appointed to the board in December 2020. He was then reappointed to the board in November 2024. In January 2025, he was appointed as interim chair, and today we are being asked to confirm his appointment as chair for a further four years, which will take us to 2029, unless I am mistaken. Therefore, he has been reappointed once and has changed roles twice within that time.

Paragraph 4.3 of the Environmental Standards Scotland framework document states:

“Ministers may reappoint members on one occasion only”.

I think that that might have been addressed by the cabinet secretary. I was thinking that, surely, this would be the individual’s secondary appointment and therefore contrary to the rules that are established by the framework document.

Paragraph 4.3 continues:

“members may thus serve a total of two consecutive terms”

and a member’s

“total period of appointment may not exceed 8 years.”

If Mr Dixon was first appointed in 2020 and the secondary appointment will take us to 2029, that would be about eight and a half to nine years. Once again, that contravenes the rules that are set out in the framework document.

At committee, I was willing to put aside Mr Dixon’s sympathies towards Just Stop Oil and his stance against nuclear power, but the rules were put in place for a purpose. They are there to ensure that the work of ESS remains independent and above reproach. Its reputation is essential for ensuring that public bodies recognise its authority, but the SNP’s proposal will drive a coach and horses through those relationships.

Given the fact that the motion breaks the very rules that the Parliament has agreed to, it is impossible for the Scottish Conservatives to support it. I suggest to colleagues that the Government needs to look at this appointment again and put forward a new timeline for the candidate.