Chamber and committees

The first point that I will make in response to Mr Findlay is that we must recognise the climate emergency that we face and the necessity of adapting to that reality. I know that the Conservatives are involved in a pivot on net zero. In fact, they want to deny the climate challenges that we face.

However, the underpinning point, which is at the heart of the Scottish Government’s approach to consideration of further development in the North Sea oil and gas sector, is that any such decision must be the subject of a climate compatibility assessment. That is what the courts have now said is required to take place. The judgments that have been issued, which have led to the United Kingdom Government’s having to revisit parts of its process for determining such applications, have underlined the importance of carrying out such an assessment.

We cannot deny the realities of what we as a society face, and the Government will support industry to transition to that reality. The best thing that we can all do in this Parliament is to argue for the approval of the Acorn carbon capture and storage project, which the Conservatives refused to authorise when they were in office. The quicker we get Acorn approved, the better for Scotland’s climate strategy.

—and press this Government to act on those targets and then, on the instructions of the Conservative leader, desert the field when the going gets tough.

The Scottish Government’s budget, which Mr Findlay did not support, has made available financial support and assistance for the delivery of projects under the project willow umbrella, which will secure the future of the Grangemouth site. I return to my fundamental point that the quickest and best thing that can happen is approval of the carbon capture and storage project at Grangemouth. I hope that Mr Findlay will make up for the failure of the Conservative Government by supporting my call for that today.

As is well understood, there are significant challenges in our meeting the car-use reduction target, and that issue is being considered by the Government at this time.

It is important that I set out the range of other measures that the Government is taking to invest in supporting the use of public transport, which is our way out of the challenges that we face on the issue. One of those investments is the support for the concessionary travel scheme, which is now much more extensively available, since we expanded it—with the support of our colleagues in the Green Party—to under-22s. We have also invested significantly in active travel, with support sustained in the Government’s budget, which attracted support in Parliament earlier this year, to ensure that we address the necessity of changing the priorities of individuals.

The Government has examined and explored a range of different options to support the development of our policy. We will continue to do that as we work, as part of our climate agenda, to reduce car use and to increase the reliance of members of the public on public transport.

It is not the case that a diagnosis is necessary for young people to get support. It is absolutely critical that I make that point to Parliament today, because there are pathways that are available other than those involving a diagnosis for ADHD or a neurodiversity condition that enable young people to attract the support that will assist them in meeting the challenges that they face. It is vital that I convey that message at First Minister’s question time today, so that parents can be reassured that there is support available to meet the needs of individual young people.

The Government is making a range of interventions. We are expanding mental health support and supporting the development of community interventions, and we are working to ensure that young people get support at the earliest possible opportunity. A variety of pathways enable that to be the case, and ministers will continue to focus on delivering the services that young people need in our country.

Those issues and representations will be taken very seriously by the Government. We engage and support that effort through the alcohol and drug partnerships around the country; Carol Mochan will be familiar with those in the communities that she represents.

We have taken a number of measures to tackle alcohol harm in our society, and we will continue to consider what further measures we can take. I recognise that the measures that we have taken so far have not addressed all the circumstances that we face, and we must be open to some of the suggestions that are made. There is space for us, as a Parliament, to find areas of common ground to try to make progress on this agenda, because it requires long-term intervention and action—a combination of public awareness and healthcare and support services to meet individuals’ needs.

We are not doing that. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills met Scottish Teachers for Permanence in November and discussed many of the issues that Mr Ross has raised. We have seen an expansion in the number of schoolteachers in post since 2014, and the number of permanent posts has remained stable at more than 80 per cent over the past 10 years.

Decisions about the employment of teachers are taken by local authorities, and the Government works closely with them to ensure that we increase levels of permanence in the teaching workforce so that the investment that is made in training high-quality teachers can be used for the benefit of pupils around the country.

I am aware of the City of Edinburgh Council’s recent announcement on the issue. The emergency measure taken by the council will redirect all available council-owned housing stock to people who are experiencing homelessness, with the exception of those with a disability with gold priority for housing or those who are awaiting discharge from hospital.

It will be essential to monitor the impact of that temporary measure, as the council seeks to fulfil its legal responsibilities as well as reduce the use of unsuitable temporary accommodation in the city. The Government will continue to deliver our investment of £768 million in affordable housing this year, the majority of which will be for social rent.

The EY ITEM club forecast reflects the negative impacts that global trade disruption and uncertainty will have on the economy, highlighting the need to commit ourselves to Europe and its single market.

We will continue to do all that we can to support businesses and households through those challenges. Our programme for government will focus on delivery, including targeted initiatives to boost Scotland’s economic prospects now and for the long term, particularly sustainable and renewable energy resources, to draw in new investment and create rewarding and well-paid jobs.

There has to be a careful assessment of the impact of zonal pricing on a variety of factors. For example, will it bring down energy prices for householders, which is the absolutely critical and urgent priority? Will it secure the necessary investment in the future of our energy systems? Will it enable us to contribute towards the economic growth and economic development agenda? I notice that Mr Fraser asks me this question while being associated with a party that presided over sky-high energy prices in this country and did absolutely nothing about the problem.

It is for lots of reasons—not least that the cost of nuclear power will not bring down energy prices for householders in this country. Mr Findlay wants me to press ahead with the development of new nuclear power stations. The Hinkley Point C project—a nuclear power station—was due to be completed in 2025 at a cost of £34 billion. On current estimates, it is now expected that it will cost £46 billion and be delayed until 2031. If it was supposed to cost £34 billion but will now cost £46 billion, how will that bring down fuel bills in this country?

I say to Mr Findlay that we have a very developed strategy—[Interruption.]