Following on from Sue Webber’s question, I raise the particular issue that the Brunton theatre is on the risk register, so it is a real priority. My colleague Foysol Choudhury and I met Michael Stitt, the theatre board’s chair. There is also a fantastic petition that I want to make the cabinet secretary aware of. The Brunton theatre really needs funding, so I make a plea to the cabinet secretary to ensure that it is on his list. East Lothian Council and the Brunton Theatre Trust need our support now.

I, too, thank Michelle Thomson for bringing this important debate to the chamber. I am encouraged by the fact that I have seen more and more women in the top roles at organisations and businesses that I speak to, although a huge amount of work still needs to be done.

Groups such as POWERful Women, Scottish Renewables and trade unions play a key part in encouraging and supporting women to ensure that we maximise their opportunities in the energy sector, because the inequalities are currently stark. As Michelle Thomson said, we need to ensure that women’s equality is at the heart of our action on the climate emergency. A recent article by Care International highlighted the need to involve women in the journey to net zero, pointing out that

“Women and girls in the global south, who have contributed the least to the climate crisis, are bearing the brunt of its impacts. Yet they remain excluded from crucial decision-making and from accessing the resources they need to lead the change for their communities and the planet.”

We, in Scotland, have a global responsibility, but we also have massive opportunities in this area as we create new green and renewables jobs. We can be world leaders. As it stands, however, the UK has a poor record, with only 25 per cent of green energy jobs predicted to be held by women in 2030. We must do better.

There is the potential for us to make the green transition a reality in Scotland, but there is a skills deficit. Any future for renewables without women at the heart of it is not going to work, so we need to see investment by the Scottish Government in creating training opportunities for women throughout Scotland. I hope that the long-awaited energy strategy addresses the issues that have been raised by Close the Gap.

There are massive opportunities, from engineering and construction to finance, project management and communications, but we need a rapid increase in the number of training courses for green skills across our Scottish colleges. The Scottish Government must also think about procurement processes, to ensure that women are brought along on the journey and that, when companies benefit from the green revolution, they also invest in women for the future, to ensure that the transition is gender balanced.

The point that Michelle Thomson highlighted about women’s confidence is crucial, as is Pam Gosal’s point about starting early. Our schools need to tell girls from a young age that they can be involved in the future of energy in Scotland.

Scottish Power’s useful briefing for the debate talked about its sponsorship of camp CEO, a residential programme that enables young women to learn the skills to become green industry leaders of the future. That is a brilliant idea. I would like more such programmes to be adopted across the country, to ensure that women are encouraged to become the next generation of climate leaders and businesses.

Care International’s article says:

“Investing in women-led climate action is not just a matter of fairness—it’s a matter of effectiveness. Studies have shown that when women are included in decision-making and given the resources they need, outcomes are more sustainable, more innovative, and better for everyone.”

We need to get going, push for more action and work together, because that change needs to be delivered for women now.

I ask the Deputy First Minister to read Close the Gap’s submission, which addresses all those issues and highlights how we need to do more.

It is fitting that, as members came into the chamber today, we passed a Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks stall, showing the practical work that it is doing. I have lobbied it endlessly about housing in our rural communities. We need to see the benefits, but we need a reformed and robust grid to maximise the opportunities from our renewable resources. We will not deliver jobs and community benefits across the country without it. It is a shame that the tone from the Tories today is about slowing that work down or—as Rachael Hamilton suggested—stopping proposals that are already in the system.

It is vital that communities be properly involved in and consulted on proposals to develop the grid and renewables. That is why the consultation that has been referenced is so important. Far from cutting communities out of the consenting process, the consultation that was published last October will give, as the minister said, pre-application consultations, which will help communities to be involved in shaping consultations in order to provide clarity that will help with effective consideration and scrutiny of applications. It is vital that, for example, environmental impacts and proposed mitigations are consulted on early, so that local communities, statutory consultees and—critically—our local authorities are informed, so that they can all feed back and ensure that concerns can be addressed before applications are submitted.

The points in Liam McArthur’s amendment are important for environment, landscape and cultural history, and that needs to be acknowledged. We need change and, ultimately, we need to deliver on renewables and deliver a grid that will work.

The whole point of consulting people earlier is so that their views are heard much earlier and can shape proposals. We have examples of housing developments to which communities and local authorities have objected, and which have then gone to the reporter and the Scottish Government has approved them. That is the planning system: it is about making sure that people are properly involved, which does not happen at the moment.

Making sure that we have a grid that works is a key issue—not just to keep the lights on in our homes and businesses, but because security of supply is more essential than ever. We need to make sure that that is not just rhetoric, because we know that demand for electricity will only grow.

We need alternatives, but we did not get any from the Conservatives today. We need practical solutions. Are no upgrades at all being proposed? I sincerely hope that that is not what is being implied, because all types of renewables developments were mentioned. We need pumped hydro storage, we need battery storage and we need a joined-up approach and solutions, and the grid is part of that.

Community ownership has not come out in the debate at all. It is crucial, because giving communities benefits could lower people’s bills. Benefits could also include local jobs, local homes and local ownership. The work that Community Energy Scotland and Energy4All are doing is vital and will have real benefits for communities.

It is great to hear that the digital offshore skills passport is being launched, which communities and trade unions have been campaigning for for years, and that there is support for investment in Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen for new jobs for workers. Labour is doing that work with Great British Energy, and we are making progress.

We need to develop more of a consensus, not just in the chamber but by working with local communities, so that we deliver community benefits, renewable energy, supply chains and jobs across Scotland.

I move amendment S6M-16171.1, to leave out from “opposes” to end and insert:

“agrees that the fastest and more secure way to deliver lower energy bills, create future energy jobs in Scotland and deliver energy security is to move to clean power; welcomes the UK Government’s mission to establish a net zero electricity system by 2030; acknowledges that this will require the development of new energy infrastructure; considers it crucial that communities close to energy generation benefit from that infrastructure; welcomes, therefore, the creation of GB Energy and the commitment that it will support communities to take a stake in local renewable energy projects through the Local Power Plan, and calls on the UK and Scottish governments to work together to support the development of renewable energy supply chains in Scotland to create long-term, sustainable jobs as part of the energy transition.”

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

I thank the cabinet secretary for taking my intervention, which fits into his points about the importance of culture to our communities.

Has the cabinet secretary met East Lothian Council or the Brunton Theatre Trust to discuss the future of the Brunton theatre, which is a key cultural venue in Musselburgh and East Lothian and urgently needs funding to secure its future?

I thank my colleague Foysol Choudhury for securing the debate; his motion could not be more timely. The progress that has been made on diabetes technology illustrates the very best of human ingenuity. Before 1921, a diabetes diagnosis was a death sentence. Now, just over 100 years later, we have modern technology—such as the hybrid closed-loop system, which can monitor and administer insulin without any input from the patient—that allows those with type 1 diabetes to live longer lives and to eat what they want, and even to win Olympic medals. Diabetes no longer has to be the burden that it once was. The technology is incredibly effective. It can fundamentally change a patient’s life and can bring blood sugar down to safe levels, thereby avoiding further complications.

The problem is, however, that the tech is not making its way to patients quickly enough. I constantly receive correspondence from constituents who are simply unable to access that life-changing technology. My own freedom of information request revealed that there are almost 1,000 people who are sitting on waiting lists for an HCL system in NHS Lothian. It is incredibly disappointing that, even in our own capital city, we are unable to make progress on rolling out HCL systems at the scale that is needed. It is vital that we invest in that technology, and we must not let the up-front costs of such tech cloud the massive impact that it has both on patient outcomes and on the NHS more widely.

We all know that our NHS boards are under immense pressure and that staff are doing their best in challenging circumstances. However, if we could roll out the technology faster, the benefits to our NHS would be extraordinary. The statistics that I was given by Dexcom last year show that diabetes costs NHS Scotland £1 billion a year, £800 million of which is spent on treating avoidable complications associated with diabetes. That is why investing in the tech is vital: it saves money and capacity across the NHS.

I appreciate the minister’s collaborative approach to the issue and I have corresponded with her on many occasions, but we need to keep pushing for action, because patients do not feel that they are getting the support that they need. One of my constituents thought that he had been on the waiting list since 2021; it was only on inquiring that he found out that he had not been added to the list until 2023. Another constituent has been unable to get access to the HCL system, as only one manufacturer offers the device in Scotland.

Yet another constituent of mine was on a trial for the HCL system and was amazed at how life changing it was. Her haemoglobin A1C levels dropped, and she saw vast improvements in her glucose levels. On completion of the trial, however, she was told that she would not be able to keep the HCL system, and she had to revert back to her previous system instead.

Those with diabetes already have greater pressures placed on them, whether it is the extra financial cost of ensuring that their snacks and emergency glucose are always supplied or the pressure—which both Emma Harper and Foysol Choudhury mentioned—of having to make 180 extra decisions a day. Access to diabetes tech is not just about people’s health; it is about giving people a much greater quality of life.

We must keep working on the issue together, and I hope that the Scottish Government continues to work constructively with members and with health boards to ensure that the tech is rolled out as soon as possible, because it cannot be right that people in Lothian who are on low incomes are less likely to be able to access diabetes tech. It is life-changing tech: it keeps people well and healthy and enables them to be economically active. In addition, it is an investment that will pay back and will save our NHS money. We therefore need those patients who could benefit from such tech now to receive it as soon as possible.

I, too, congratulate Lorna Slater on bringing the debate to the chamber, because the park is important—indeed, it is vital—for people, nature and heritage. As others have said, the park has incredible views across the city, and it is an important resource for people, whether they are using it for exercise or looking to explore the nature, heritage or geology of the park.

I thank Lorna Slater for holding the consultation on Monday this week to continue the discussions that have been on-going—for years, I have to say—about the future of the park, how visitor experiences can be improved and the challenges that need to be addressed. This is not the first time that communities have been consulted. Last December, we had an excellent meeting with the Edinburgh Geological Society, Ramblers Scotland, the Cockburn Association, Mountaineering Scotland and ScotWays. The focus of that meeting was the urgent need to reopen the Radical Road, a vital part of the park’s history that has now been closed for years. Strong arguments were put forward to call on Historic Environment Scotland to invest in making the park safe, in order to allow people not just to access the incredible views from the Radical Road but to access and explore the geology of the park. At Monday’s meeting, the point was made forcibly that nothing had happened since that meeting last year. There is a bit of frustration because, although people get consulted, there is a sense that we need more action.

Another important point that was made on Monday was on the need for an inclusive approach involving local schools in the park, given that it is a superb resource, which would give young people access to the park and, thus, benefit their education. We could perhaps do with better signposting so that people can maximise the benefits of visiting the park and understand its nature, heritage and geology.

Tourism opportunities were also raised at Monday’s meeting, as they have been on regular occasions. Historic Environment Scotland notes in its park strategy that the park raises £1.8 billion a year in income generated, which is a huge amount of money. That is a big part not just of Edinburgh’s tourism offer but of Scotland’s tourism offer.

There is a huge amount that we can be proud of, but there are some key issues, such as the legislation needing to be updated, as has been mentioned by several members. I look forward to hearing the final analysis of Monday’s meeting.

The points made by Ben Macpherson summarised the challenges of maximising walking and cycling and ensuring access for people with disabilities—points that have been made from around the chamber—as well as the issue of traffic, which is controversial but really important to get right. The idea of banning traffic in the park has been raised on numerous occasions over the years, and it is hotly debated by local residents. I declare an interest as a local resident. I will not say exactly where, but members can probably work it out. I cycle through the park extremely regularly.

Like the constituents who have written to me, I regularly see heavy goods vehicles and commercial vehicles, which are not allowed to drive through the park. However, there is no monitoring or enforcement of the rule about HGVs and commercial vehicles not being allowed, which adds to the number of vehicles going through the park and creates a sense of unsafety, particularly when big vehicles pass one another, as the road was not designed for that.

We need a more joined-up approach and, speaking as a former town planner, I think that we need more of a strategic approach. As Ben Macpherson has mentioned, we need better public transport. Since the meeting that we held in December last year, the number 12 bus has now been running on a Sunday and further into the evening, although that does not really meet the needs of people in the area. We need a strategic approach and an enforcement approach.

One issue that has been raised several times is that of financial support for Historic Environment Scotland. Its staff have to do a huge amount of work, and there is an issue around the nature of what we need to get fixed in the park. Northfield and Willowbrae community council’s submission to Historic Environment Scotland’s consultation contains some suggestions of practical changes and improvements to walking and cycling in the park that could be done now and do not need to take a decade. It also suggests access steps up to St Leonard’s.