Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is very diplomatically put. However, I think that the ministers would regard me not as a marriage guidance counsellor but more of an agony uncle.

Mr Lumsden has raised some salient points, many of which I agree with. Those include the threat to the stability of the grid from the impending closure of nuclear stations and the uncertainty surrounding Peterhead. Without base load and back-up, it is more difficult to provide stability and synchronicity—and, therefore, inertia—to the grid. This is a technical topic, where more facts, more scientific analysis and less politics would be extremely useful in Britain.

Aside from that, the Robert Gordon University report, which I think was written by Paul de Leeuw, whom I know, warned that the oil and gas industry in the UK could lose 400 jobs every fortnight, which is a staggering figure. There is a lot more that could be said, in particular that Britain cannot have industry unless energy costs are on a par with those of our European neighbours, at least—which they are not. Therefore, industry is likely to cease to exist in Britain, where it is energy intensive, within the next five years. That is a point that one does not hear very much.

I have raised a few issues, and my suggestion as to what we do with the petition is this. I hesitate to recommend closing the petition, although I know that the pressure is there. Instead, we should write to the Government, suggesting that there should be a full debate on the matter in the Parliament. I suggest that we have two full days on energy, or at least one day, which would allow us to have a proper debate, with lengthy contributions from people—from all parties—who have an interest in the topic. It is a complicated, wide-ranging debate.

The idea that we cannot have an energy policy because of developments, as Mr Lumsden has described, is absurd. There are developments all the time. That is not a reason for not having a policy; it is a pretext.

It is reasonable for us to suggest that the degree of interest in the matter is such that there should be a parliamentary debate on it. I note that the petitioner is a student studying the economics of renewable energy at Heriot-Watt University, and she has made a lot of useful points to us. We should raise the issues with the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy at the thematic evidence session that we will be having soon. That will probably have to be quite a long session. I am sure that many members would wish to participate, and rightly so.

I have two issues with regard to the first area we are looking at—patient experience. The cabinet secretary is well aware that I have raised the issue of vaccination services incessantly since 2022, because the general practitioner contract was taken away from GPs and centralised in 2018. Not only has that been a complete catastrophe in the Highlands; as the cabinet secretary knows, it is also believed to have directly led to the death of an infant—not in my constituency, but in the Highlands—because the mother did not get notice of the necessary vaccine for the pertussis virus, or whooping cough, at the right time.

Cabinet secretary, despite my raising that matter with you and the First Minister, and despite the fact that, as I understand it, you have now said that the contract should be returned to GPs, it still has not been. Therefore, people from all over the Highlands have to travel to Inverness. It is sometimes a journey that they cannot make themselves, because of infirmity, because they lack access to a car or other means of transport or because they have to get their parent or friend to take time off work. Is centralisation not completely wrong? Why did the Scottish Government allow it to happen in the first place? When will such services be restored to GPs?

I raise a question of which I have given notice to the cabinet secretary regarding the pause on capital funding for new primary care, and the particular example, in my constituency, of the Culloden medical practice, which has been seeking to move to new purpose-built premises for many years. It is the only practice in the Highlands that has had to close its books to new patients, simply because of the huge pressure of the number of patients on its list. I know that similar pressures might well exist in other parts of Scotland—most of the parts of Midlothian, for example—so this is not only about my constituency, but about a wider issue.

The practice has a tough decision to make. Does it wait for the new premises that it really needs or go for a temporary solution of portakabins, which will cost £300,000 pounds? It does not know, because it does not know when the pause will be lifted. Not only is the pause preventing the service to people in my constituency, who cannot get into the practice, but the practice itself is hamstrung, because it is not armed with information to enable it to make an informed, rational decision.

Cabinet secretary, I suggest that the money can easily be found from the public sector heat decarbonisation fund of £200 million, through which, in one case, the Scottish Government saw fit to spend an estimated £3,560,000 on a building worth £275,000—so, 13 times more than the building’s value. Instead of throwing money away on such ridiculous, preposterous expenditure, it would be better to spend it on the health service, which is really important to people’s lives in Scotland right now.

It will be an announcement. It is another prequel—part of a never-ending process.

Fair enough.

When can we expect the infection prevention and control strategy to be published?

With regard to the national fund element of the petition—the first of the three asks of the petition—I note that, the previous time this matter came before us, members suggested that we ask the Scottish Government about the upshot of its work with the UK Government to come up with a solution. In response to that, there has been a submission from the new cabinet secretary, who says that the Scottish Government is continuing to work with the UK Government. In that regard, I note that there is a new Secretary of State for Scotland.

I strongly believe that it is no use Scotland blaming London and London blaming Scotland. The people in the middle, some of whom are here today, are the ones who are suffering—in some cases, from the threat of bankruptcy—and are under severe pressure. I think that the blame-passing approach is just not good enough. We have a new Cabinet Secretary for Housing and a new Secretary of State for Scotland—Màiri McAllan and Douglas Alexander, respectively. Why do they not just meet and come up with a solution? The current situation cannot go on for ever. The longer it continues, the more it brings into disrepute the Scottish Government and the UK Government, which does nobody any good.

I acknowledge that time is short, but we still have about two thirds of a year to go, and we should try to use that time as best we can. I will explain to those members of the public who are here and have a direct interest in the matter that this committee does not have any budget; all that we can do is put pressure on the Governments to do the right thing. That is our job, and I think that we should invite the cabinet secretary to confirm that she will seek a meeting with her counterparts in the UK Government and not only come up with a solution but explain why people in Basildon have had money handed out to them while people in Scotland have not. She should also explain why the money is being restricted to monitoring and surveys and not to actual repair work. None of those questions has been answered at all.

I appreciate the constraints on the committee, and I will not be pleading for every petition to be kept open, for the reasons that you correctly set out, convener. However, in relation to this petition, a lot of human misery has been caused to people by RAAC through no fault whatsoever of their own. If I were one of the people watching the meeting today, I would be pretty disgusted if passing the buck was allowed to happen.

I hope that members will agree that there is more that could be done. The Governments talk all the time about working together positively, do they not? Well, let us see the proof. That is my suggestion.

It is par for the course, convener.

Will the contract be restored to GPs before the winter?