 The next item of business is topical questions, and at question number one I call Stephen Kerr. Thank you, Presiding Officer, to ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to avoid industrial action by teachers. Cabinet Secretary, Shirley-Anne Somerville. I'm absolutely committed to supporting a fair pay offer for teachers through the Scottish Negotiating Committee for Teachers and preventing unnecessary industrial action. Strikes in our schools are in no one's interest, at least of all for pupils, parents and carers who have already faced significant disruption over the past three years. Members will be aware that only COSLA as employers can make a formal pay offer to the teacher unions. Myself and my officials are in regular dialogue with COSLA to identify options to support an increased pay offer. I've also been in regular contact with the unions to establish whether there is any scope for a shift in their negotiating position. Last spoke with union representatives as recently as Friday 18 November. We continue to work closely with COSLA to deliver a fair, affordable and sustainable settlement for teachers and one that can avert unnecessary strike action. Stephen Kerr. I was hoping that we would hear something more positive than that answer that I've just received. I would remind the cabinet secretary that she is a party to the negotiations. As much as she might like to try and distance herself from them, she has a seat at the table. But let's not forget, it should never have come to this. These negotiations should have been included weeks and months ago, not still taking place less than 36 hours before a strike is due to take place. Teachers have been let down by an SNP government that has been too slow to come to the table and take decisive action to resolve the pay disputes. Pupils and parents have been let down by an SNP government that says education is their top priority but cannot even keep the schools open. Even if strikes are called off, parents have had to scramble around for childcare. Pupils have had the additional stress of possible loss of days of learning. If the worst comes to pass and strike action goes ahead on Thursday, what plans are in place? What is the cabinet secretary going to do to help pupils to catch up on lost learning? Will the cabinet secretary take the opportunity now to apologise to parents and pupils for the stromash of her making? I was very clear on my original answer. Yes, the Scottish Government does have a role in those paying negotiations, but the offer must come from COSLA as the employers. Four offers have indeed been made so far. Of course we want to do all we can to ensure that there is a fair and affordable resolution to the current pay disputes. However, I have to be frank with Mr Kerr. The United Kingdom Government made clear in the autumn statement that there is no additional support for public sector pay, not one penny. I am afraid that the 10 per cent pay claim that is coming from the teacher unions is unaffordable to the Scottish Government. Any extra money for pay deals will have to be found elsewhere within an already contained Scottish Government budget. The fault that we are in lies absolutely with the UK Government and the mess that it has driven to the UK economy and the levels of inflation. That is the reality of the situation that we are in. We will absolutely continue to work with COSLA to deliver a fair and affordable settlement for teachers. However, the context that we are working in is exceptionally important, and it quite frankly does a disservice to everyone involved in this for Mr Kerr not to actually pay cognisance to that. What an embarrassment to Scotland to have a Cabinet Secretary in an area like education that is fully devolved. Blame the UK Government. It is beyond pathetic. No wonder teachers are leaving the profession. Who can blame them? Teachers are striking over violence in classrooms, the lack of permanent contracts for teachers when they finish their probation. Their voices are ignored in SNP education reforms. By that answer alone is letting down teachers. Add that to the fact that they have been waiting seven months for a deal on pay. Teachers are already at least £2,000 out of pocket because of this delay. What was stopping the Cabinet Secretary negotiating a deal in April? It is absolutely negligent on her part to have allowed things to get to this sorry pass. The Cabinet Secretary has been missing in action for months. Why? Why does this SNP Scottish Government hold teachers in such contempt? The Cabinet Secretary, Presiding Officer, must do better. Will she now apologise to the teaching profession for letting them down and ignoring them? As I have already said, there have been four offers made to the teaching unions by COSLA during this current dispute. It is very important to recognise what the Scottish Government has already done during this dispute. For example, we have already committed £50 million towards the teachers offer that is currently on the table. If the current deal had been accepted by teachers, which I accept that it was not, it would have allowed teachers to get a cumulative increase since 2018 of 21.8 per cent. It would have also ensured that the starting salary for a newly qualified teacher would have been over £35,000, significantly more than the £28,000 in England. We will continue to do our best for teachers, as we have done in the past, with both the contribution that we have already made this year and to pay deals in the past. Again, the context is key. We have already had to make hard choices as a Scottish Government. The emergency budget review made that very, very clear. The funding must come from elsewhere within the Scottish Government budget. Mr Kerr can come to the chamber and blister all he likes. What I did not hear in any of the challenge that he gave to me was the suggestion of how we could improve the offer, where that money would come from and what he would want the savings to be made from. Unfortunately, the position that we are in is that those savings would have to be found elsewhere. That is the context and the reality of the situation. Jackie Dunbar. I welcome the update from the Scottish Government on action. It has taken to avert industrial action, which would be no one's best interests. Cabinet Secretary, I agree with me that if the Scottish stories are looking to place a blame, they should look closer at their colleagues down on Westminster, whose austerity policies have effectively tied the Scottish Government's hands when it comes to public pay rises. Cabinet Secretary, I agree that there is a responsibility on the UK Government. It could have acted in the UK autumn settlement to provide additional funding and it did not. I refer the chamber to a recent letter by the Welsh Education Minister, Jeremy Miles, who said in a letter to the teaching unions in Wales, that it is simply not possible for the Welsh Government to fund such a rise without a substantial increase in our own budget to pay for it. It is a disgrace that the UK Government has left us in such an impossible position. That is unfortunately also the reality that the Scottish Government's position is too. I am very grateful, Presiding Officer. My apologies that I will have to depart during topical questions due to a prior appointment. My apologies both to you and the chamber. I think that the Cabinet Secretary for her answers. The previous contribution from Jackie Dunbar talked about public workers. How is it that public workers in Scotland seem to need to get to the stage where they are balloted for strike action, they are on the very eve of strike, and then suddenly, well, only if the correct Cabinet Secretary turns up, they seem to get settlements? We heard in the reflection that we should avoid discourse, look for concord, be in tune with the desires of our people. Wouldn't it be better to carry out these negotiations in the case of the teachers back in April in a more honest, open fashion so that we don't end up with this challenge as we always approach Christmas? As I said on numerous occasions now, four offers have been made, including at the start of this process and what the Scottish Government has attempted to do as the year has gone on is to react to the reality of the situation in terms of the UK economic context and to try and assist as far as we possibly can with public sector pay. So we have, as I've said already, as the Scottish Government already contributed £50 million towards assisting local government with the teachers pay dispute, I would very much like to see this dispute of course being resolved. It is in the best interests of everyone involved, particularly our children and young people. Again, the reflection that we must all have in these difficult times is that further pay offers need to be made, that money will need to be found within the education budget, and that is exceptionally difficult to do and will not be without its implications. The blame for that lies squarely with the UK Government. We will take responsibility for where we will make those decisions, but Mr Kerr, from a sedentary position, might not like it, but he needs to take some responsibility for the context we are in. Briefly, thank you. Willie Rennie. I think that the Cabinet Secretary has to accept that there is a lot of anger in the teaching profession. This is the first time in 40 years that they have engaged in this kind of action, and there was 96 per cent voted in favour of industrial action. She and others have been accused of dither and delay by Andrea Bradley. If a new offer was to be made, and it was to be accepted by the unions, what is the Government going to make a new offer through the negotiating system so that we can end this strike on Thursday? Cabinet Secretary. As I have said in my original answer, it is COSLA who will make a new offer to teachers, and we are cognisant of the timings of the EIS. I repeat the position that I have already made. We are, as a Scottish Government, determined to do everything that we can to support teachers for a fair and affordable offer. We have already committed £50 million to the offer that was already in the table. Of course, we are working with local government to see where further savings could be made, to see how that improved offer can be made, and we will continue to work with local government to see how that improved offer can be made. That will have implications, unfortunately, for the rest of the education budget if such a deal was to happen. Question 2. Alex Rowley. Presiding Officer, to ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that a discussion of a two-tier health service is recorded in draft minutes of a meeting of NHS board chief executives in September. Cabinet Secretary, Humza Yousaf. The meeting references an informal meeting of a small number of NHS directors, not a meeting of NHS chief executives. The draft note of the discussion does not represent the view of NHS chief executives. The founding principle of our national health service as a universal service, free at the point of use, publicly funded and publicly delivered for all, they are not up for debate nor discussion. From abolishing prescription charges to removing dental charges for young people, this Government has a laudable track record in dismantling any financial barriers that continue to exist in a national health service. Let me repeat. While reform undoubtedly is necessary in the face of a global pandemic, that reform will never ever be in contradiction of the founding principles of our NHS. Alex Rowley. Presiding Officer, back in February, I raised with the Deputy First Minister that we were heading into a two-tier health service and have repeatedly raised the issue time and again in and out of Parliament since then. I heard Humza Yousaf say yesterday and confirm today that it will never happen. Nicola Sturgeon stated that the Scottish Government will not rip up the founding principles of the NHS, but it is happening right now. If you need an operation, a knee or a hip operation and you can afford that, then you will get it. If you have savings and you can pay for it, you will get an operation. And if you are able to borrow the money to pay for it, then you will get an operation. But for those who can do none of these, they suffer in pain on long waiting lists. I reiterate that we are already falling into a two-tier health system. I have to ask, does the Cabinet Secretary understand the enormity of the situation, of the crisis that our NHS here in Scotland is in? We have had the Covid recovery plan, a winter plan, a workforce plan, a delayed discharge plan and despite all of these things, are getting worse. No wonder NHS chiefs are thinking in this way because these plans are not working. So what is next? What is the challenge? And what is the answer? To Alex Rowley, he touches upon some very important points. Can I say to him that we cannot underestimate the impact, not just of the global pandemic, of Brexit and the impact that it had on our social care work for something that I know he recognises. Of course, the impact of high inflation costs and energy costs on the health service, any one of those factors was enough to cause significant challenges in our health and social care systems. The fact that we have been hit by all three, not just in quick succession, in fact some of them concurrently, is causing huge impacts on our health service, not just here in Scotland, but right across the UK. A simple answer to the member's questions. We are working and investing in, for example, reducing those long waits for elective care. In fact, Public Health Scotland's most recent published data shows that we are making progress in both in-patients and out-patients who are waiting the longest, two years or indeed longer. There is still a way to go. What I would also say to the member is that we are making progress when it comes to our investment in social care, because I believe that social care is at the heart of this. I believe that if we are going to improve accident and emergency performance, if we are going to improve waiting times for elective care, having capacity is really important. Therefore, our investment, our focus, my unrelenting focus, is on how to improve that flow within our hospitals and investing in our social care so that we can get people out of the back door, but also preventing them coming in the front door is where our focus will be. Reform is necessary, but I will repeat to Alex Rowley that reform will always take place within the parameters of the founding principles of our national health service. Can I ask members for concise questions and answers? In that way, more members will have an opportunity to take part. Presiding Officer, we are already slipping into a two-tier health service where if you can afford to pay, then you will get it. If you can borrow, you will get it. But if you can't afford to pay, you will suffer and remain for years upon years of a waiting list. Can I suggest to the cabinet secretary that firstly we need to prioritise getting a fair pay agreement for the workforce? Pause the ill-considered so-called national care service and focus on tackling the immediate underlying causes of the workforce crisis in social care that you are failing to do. Can I suggest to the Government to be more open with the public about the current use and cost of using private sector in Scotland's NHS? In truth, does the cabinet secretary not see that we need a non-partisan approach to reviewing all aspects of the NHS in Scotland, our hospitals and our community provision so that we can build a sustainable NHS free at the point of need moving forward? Otherwise, to fail to do that, do you agree that you are in danger of running Scotland's NHS into the ground? Cabinet secretary. I thank Alex Rowley for that question on the issues that he raises on fair pay in about 38 minutes. I will be sitting around the table with trade unions to try to hammer out a deal. I think that it is to their credit and I hope to credit all the parties involved that we are continued to be prepared, all of us to sit down to get a deal to avert strike action. None of us want to see industrial action at any time, let alone during the course of this winter. I look forward to those discussions. I will not give any details of that here. I think that it is important we do that confidential negotiating space, but, of course, if there are any breakthroughs, we will make sure that members are updated on the national care service. I am more than happy to sit down with Alex Rowley and any of his colleagues to discuss the national care service. Nobody is waiting for the national care service to make improvements now to social care. That is why we have invested in interim care, why we have invested in step-down care and why we have invested to increase the pay of adult social care workers. In terms of a non-partisan approach, I am very happy to have those discussions with the Opposition. As I do regularly like Alex Rowley, I do not want people to have to think that the only option for them is to go private. What I would say is that, in Scotland, our rates of those individuals who go private by the data that has been published by the information network shows that rates are lower here in Scotland than they are in other parts of the UK. The way to tackle that is to make sure that we get our social care and healthcare systems working across the piece so that we can have that capacity within our hospitals and bring them in those waiting times. I will ask members again if we can have brief questions and responses. I call Sandesh Gulhane. I would like to start by commending the BBC reporting this meeting despite the abuse they are receiving online for daring to be free journalists. In addition to the two-tier health service, the minutes of this meeting of NHS bosses described concerns about a lack of clinical input into political decision making, a disconnect between messaging from the Scottish Government and the reality that the boards are facing and silo discussions within the Scottish Government. Will the cabinet secretary commit to ask Audit Scotland to investigate the controversy and details surrounding this meeting? It is genuinely laughable that Dr Sandesh Gulhane thinks that it is a really good use of Audit Scotland's time to investigate an informal meeting where one NHS chief executive is there and, of course, as I have said, does not represent the view neither of NHS chief executives nor NHS chairs, nor the chief executive of the NHS, nor the chief operating officer. I may say most importantly by anybody in Government because we are the ones that decide the policy of the national health service. No, I will not ask Audit Scotland. It is a good use of their time. What I would say to Dr Sandesh Gulhane is that we should be judged on our deeds. Of course, the Scottish Government abolished prescription charges. We removed dental charges for young people. We continued to fund free eye tests. We scrapped car parking charges in our hospitals. When the Conservatives were presented with a Lord's amendment in Westminster to take the NHS trade deals, the Conservatives were whipped to vote against that amendment. One of those individuals not present in the chamber today was one Douglas Ross MP. The threat of privatisation does not come from the SNP Government. It comes from the Conservatives refusing to rule out the NHS in any future trade deal. That is where the threat to the privatisation of the NHS comes from. Emma Harper. I will always be a public service free at the point of need. Ensuring that the NHS has the right staff is vital. Does the Cabinet Secretary agree that, as well as investing in training and recruitment, we must also seek to attract staff from overseas to make Scotland and the NHS our home? Does he share my disappointment that Keir Starmer seems content to use anti-immigration rhetoric on a power when agile forage? I regret that that question is largely not relevant to the substantive question that I call our school Hamilton. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I will make the commitment today to the Cabinet Secretary that every time he seeks to deflect his Government's role in the NHS crisis by reference to the pandemic. I will remind him of the words of former chief executive NHS Scotland Paul Gray who said that this crisis was always coming because of SNP mismanagement regardless of Covid. Today there is a new public health Scotland report which says that the burden of disease by extension on our NHS is set to rise by 21 per cent over the next 20 years. The pressure on our NHS is nowhere near its peak yet. Can I not suggest to the cabinet secretary that this is a damning verdict on the SNP's handling of the health service and that senior bosses are even discussing extreme proposals like this is a reflection of how bad things got on his watch. For somebody who has made a lot in the last couple of weeks about the accuracy of the parliamentary record, he might want to reflect on what he has said about directly quoting Paul Gray. I am sure that people will be poring over that quote to make sure that Paul Gray has not been misquoted. What I would say to Alex Cole-Hamilton is once again that if he thinks that he can put his head in the sand and deny the impact of Brexit, the global pandemic and of course the high cost of inflation and the cost crisis inflicted upon us by the Conservative Government, then I do not know genuinely what planet he is living on. What I would say to Alex Cole-Hamilton is that nobody is arguing with him that reform of the NHS is necessary. We have discussions regularly around reform but that is always within the parameters of the founding principles of the national health service in terms of where the public are and who is best to judge in relation to the performance of the NHS. What I would say to Alex Cole-Hamilton is that every election in terms of who they believe should be trusted with stewardship of the NHS. I would ask Alex Cole-Hamilton to reflect why he is leading a party that has four MSPs in this building while time and time and time again the people of Scotland trust the SNP with stewardship of the NHS. Mark Ruskell To ask the Scottish Government what its assessment is of the outcome of COP 27. COP 27 has delivered a very mixed outcome on the one hand in a truly breakthrough moment it finally saw acknowledgement by developed countries of our responsibility to support those experiencing the impacts of climate change first and worst in the final throws COP 27 agreement on a loss and damage fund was agreed and that after 30 years of perseverance and campaigning by many dedicated individuals Scotland was very pleased to play our small part in that being the first country to make a financial contribution to loss and damage last year. However on the other hand COP 27 was deeply disappointing we did not make the progress that was needed on actions for 1.5 on the transition away from fossil fuels on adaptation and others and countries must recommit themselves urgently to progress in that regard. Mark Ruskell Well can I thank the minister's response and indeed her attendance in Egypt at the COP as well while one very positive step was taken on addressing loss and damage two steps were taken back on fossil fuels and there was a clear failure to commit to any phase out of oil and gas COP 27 has effectively arguably left 1.5 degrees dead. Fossil fuel companies are right now using the energy charter treaty to sue Governments for hundreds of millions of pounds if they bring in policies or laws that limit the use of coal, oil and gas. However at COP 27 Germany joined the calls for collective withdrawal of countries from the treaty. Does the minister agree that the energy charter treaty is now beyond reform and will ministers raise this issue with the UK Secretary of State? Minister I am aware of criticisms of the energy charter treaty and concerns that it poses a barrier and obstacle to policies combating climate change. I am also aware of the risks that the ICCC have recently set out on the topic. We are, the Scottish Government is already in contact with the department for business, energy and industrial strategy about the ECT renegotiations which is currently on going and we've done that with a view to identifying and mitigating any impacts on Scotland. We are very clear that no part of a trade or investment agreement should limit the ability of the Scottish Parliament to regulate and devolve the areas or constrain the action that is so needed to achieve our next zero goal. Mark Ruskell. Minister, for that very clear response however the issuing of over 100 new oil and gas licences by the UK Government is reckless and hampers the just transition at a point when investment urgently needs to switch to renewables. The First Minister has previously said that the Canva oil field should not be given the go-ahead. Does the minister agree that the rose bank licence should also not be granted? Minister. The Scottish Government has made previously very clear that we do not agree with the UK Government issuing new oil and gas licences. We don't agree that's a valuable answer to either the energy cross crisis or to the climate crisis that we're facing. The answer to both of those is the rapid investment and deployment of renewable energy and energy efficiency. We've also made clear our view that the proposed climate compatibility test from the UK Government is not fit for purpose and that before any development takes place a robust stringent climate compatibility test including both domestic and international compatibility with Paris should be introduced. On that matter, I would ask members to consider our actions as well as our words. The Scottish Government approach is best seen in that way because, whilst the UK Government looks to licence oil and gas, Scotland looks to the expansion of offshore wind as reflected in the lease options awarded to Scotland earlier this year. Fiona Hyslop. It is undeniable that the critical leadership role of the Scottish Government at COP26 on pushing the momentum of the loss and damage fund was pivotal, but does the minister agree that the thanks should go to all those countries who have campaigned for years for it and that the global north cannot and must not think that 1.5 degrees on life support is some kind of result at COP27 for these countries or indeed anyone else? Minister. I quite agree with Fiona Hyslop on that. That was something that I was very pleased to be able to communicate with Global South but also with media when I attended COP27. Scotland is very proud of the small part that we played being a global north country standing up and saying that we accept that we have been enriched by the processes that are now causing climate change and that we owe responsibility to those who are being impacted. Equally, that has come after 30 years of campaigning by activists, nations who in the face of continued inaction have shown perseverance and I think that the examples of the flooding in Pakistan and the drought across the Horn of Africa remind us all why they have remained so committed. However, we absolutely need that continued action on 1.5 because loss and damage will only get worse should the world fail to take the action needed to keep global warming below that temperature. At COP27 the First Minister announced £5 million for, as she put it, to address loss and damage. Can the minister tell us precisely what the eligibility criteria application process and defined outcomes for that £5 million are? Minister. We are still designing the criteria for that £5 million and I'll be more than happy to update Liam Kerr in the chamber when we do that. We have already set out that it will rise to the underfunded area of non-economic loss and damage, slow onset loss and damage and indeed the extent to which loss and damage disproportionately impacts women. As I say, I will be more than happy to set out the details of that when they've been agreed. Colin Smyth. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Despite some modest steps in relation to support for climate vulnerable countries, on the crucial issue of keeping warming to 1.5 degrees COP27 has failed and we are heading for a disastrous 2.8 degrees. We need to demonstrate to the world that climate leadership at home doesn't just mean setting targets, but meeting them which we are failing to do. Can I ask the minister how cutting the energy efficiency budget by £133 million instead of tackling the causes of why it isn't being utilised shows leadership given the shameful level of fuel poverty in Scotland and knowing that properly insulating our homes not only cuts fuel bills use and therefore emissions. Minister. Energy efficiency is absolutely at the core of this Government's plan not only to combat climate change, but equally to rise to the challenges of the cost of living crisis. I know that it was very absent from requisite plans from the UK Government. Scotland has and is internationally recognised for having some of the most stringent climate targets in the whole of the world. Set by this Parliament as a whole, we are making good progress against them. We are already more than half way to net zero, but we are never complacent and we will continue to plan very stringently right across our economy and society for how we meet our emissions reduction envelopes, not least through Scotland's enormous renewable energy but also through nature-based solutions, which I'm very pleased to have oversight over. Thank you. That concludes topical questions. Point of order, Alex Cole-Hamilton. Further to my exchange with the cabinet secretary, I'd like to clarify my remarks. I've reviewed the quote from Paul Gray and I want to make it explicitly clear that in his writing for reform Scotland on 4 October 2021 he said and I quote, the current system was going to be overwhelmed regardless of Covid. He made no explicit reference to the competence or otherwise of the Government. That was in my inference, and I want to make it absolutely clear that I'm not putting words in the form of chief executives' mouth, but it is clear that he believed that this crisis was always coming. Thank you. That is not a point of order, Mr Cole-Hamilton, but it is now on the record. We move on to the next item of business. I'll just give members a moment to assume their seats.