Chamber and committees

I knew that the debate was going to be an emotional one, but I never thought that Alexander Burnett would start smashing glasses on the floor in response to Patrick Harvie’s commentary. This is darker than I ever thought possible.

We have multiple objectives here, but sometimes we look at the issues in isolation. Today, we are concerned about the jobs in the North Sea; on other occasions, we look at energy bills or at energy security; and, on other occasions, we look at climate change. Rarely do we have a proper comprehensive discussion about all of those issues at once. I accept that some do that, but we, in the Parliament, are buffeted. Investors, campaigners and people who are responsible for trying to turn back the tide on climate change get inconsistent messages from this place.

I remember that, during the 2021 elections, we were debating energy. At the time, all parties agreed that it was about cutting demand rather than about dealing with the supply—apart from Patrick Harvie, I have to say, who was in favour of dealing with the supply as well. It was about trying to deal with domestic energy use, and there was also a real focus on transportation. It then flipped and we dealt with energy bills. Ukraine came along and we had another set of priorities. We must be a bit more consistent in the Parliament and ensure that the outside world understands our direction of travel. Too often, I am afraid, we are buffeted, and that needs to change.

It would, as would a bit of consistency from the Conservative Party. I sometimes get the impression that the debate is more about trying to save the future of the Conservative Party than it is about the North Sea. I am afraid that that happens too often.

We need to understand that we are trying to get a comprehensive strategy that works. I would like, for instance, Home Energy Scotland to improve its act and get the grants out the door much more quickly for those installers who are desperate to put heat pumps in place.

I would love to have had a future of agricultural support mechanism in place to help farmers to reduce their climate change emissions on farms, but it took years to get that into place. I am afraid that it was one of the rare occasions when Mike Rumbles was right—we should have had that in place a long time ago.

We need to get more people on to public transport, but it takes years to get any strategy that is consistent and that works over time.

On renewables, we need to make the consenting process much more swift and ensure that we have the infrastructure, including housing, in place to house the workers. We also need to improve the supply chain.

Purpose-built student accommodation, alongside affordable accommodation, is important. I do not believe that purpose-built student accommodation should be in the Housing (Scotland) Bill. Does the cabinet secretary agree?

I understand that violence in schools will not stop immediately, but for teachers and staff the situation is getting worse, not better. It is frustrating that the timetable for the plan has already slipped and that the guidance on consequences will not be published for months yet. Can the cabinet secretary assure teachers and staff that there will be no further slippage?

There is absolutely no way that Fife College asked for a real-terms cut in its budget. The Government, along with the Scottish Funding Council, needs to think again, because the potential in Fife is huge. We have oil and gas jobs that are fading out while there is huge potential in offshore renewables as well as all the other sectors. Surely the minister understands that we cannot throw away that opportunity.

Together with some local creel fishermen, I have been increasingly concerned about the number of creels that are being used off the Fife coast. One company has claimed to own 18,000 creels, and that is causing great concern about the size of the catch and the healthiness of the stock.

When the minister is considering the quota management groups and inshore fisheries measures, will he consider limiting the number of creels that are used?

It seems that yesterday’s programme for government announcement did not impress the British Medical Association, because it is pretty angry today. It thinks that there is more rhetoric than reality and that what was announced yesterday will “do very little” and is a “drop in the ocean”. The reality is that the share of the overall health budget for general practitioners has fallen every single year in real terms since 2008. That has a direct impact on the staff that GPs employ and the way that they can meet demand. What new actions will the minister take to fend off the formal dispute that is coming down the tracks?

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the reported intimation from the British Medical Association that it is considering a formal dispute with it over GP underfunding. (S6O-04621)

It is striking that this is the final signature Government statement before next year’s election and yet the public gallery is almost empty.

Although the share of health spending given to GPs is down, waits are up. Why did it take a threat of a formal dispute by doctors for the Government to finally act?

Pessimist.