Chamber and committees

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 the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Will the cabinet secretary confirm the total length Mr Dixon’s appointment, from when he started on the board to when he is due to finish, according to the motion?

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

I fully support the Acorn project and hope that it will get to approval shortly. More than three years ago, the Scottish Government committed £80 million for the Scottish cluster project. Would the Scottish Government consider using some of those funds now to build the commercial case for importing CO₂ from the rest of Europe, as the cabinet secretary outlined, to try to get the project over the line and to secure for the north-east the jobs that everyone is so eager to get?

The member mentioned the invasion of Ukraine and how that affects our energy security. Does that not make an even stronger case for production of our own oil and gas, so that we can increase our energy security?

Will the member give way?

I completely agree that we should invest more in gas. I would like to see a new gas-fired power station being built in Peterhead. Making that link to Acorn, which I am sure most of us would want to see happen, would be a good step forward.

Willie Rennie spoke about economic inactivity. Work is good, so let us help people who do not have it. He pointed to NHS waiting lists adding to the problem—a point that Paul O’Kane and Bob Doris made, too. Mr Rennie also pointed to the grants for home efficiency and heat pumps. All members will have heard the complaint that applying for those is difficult.

I tried a couple of times to intervene on Foysol Choudhury, to ask him when GB Energy would reduce bills by £300 and why pensioners would ever trust the Labour Party again. Perhaps it was a good thing that he did not take my intervention.

I have sat through the debate, wishing and hoping for some clarity from the Scottish Government on what solutions it is offering the people of Scotland. I should have known better. Instead, it has come to the debate with political grievance and point scoring.

Let me outline the policies of the only party in Scotland with commonsense proposals on the issues that have been discussed in the debate. Only Scottish Conservatives will cut income tax to 19 per cent for every taxpayer who earns up to £43,000 per year. Only we will exempt all pubs and restaurants from paying business rates. Only Scottish Conservatives will cut taxes for house buyers by raising the point at which they start paying tax on house purchases to £250,000. Only we will protect Scotland’s oil and gas sector and the vital role that it plays—and will continue to play—in providing affordable energy to our homes, communities and country for many years to come. Only Scottish Conservatives will put money back into people’s pockets, ensure a growing and vibrant economy, and stop those left-wing radical policies coming from a Scottish Government that is out of touch, out of ideas and out of time.

Maybe if this Government removed its presumption against new oil and gas we could work together.

Will the cabinet secretary give way?