 Can I remind members that social distancing measures are in place in the chamber and across the Holyrood campus, I asked that members take care to observe these measures, including when entering and exiting the chamber. Please only use the aisles and what-waists to access your seat and when moving around the chamber. The next item of business is a debate on motion 1193, in the name of Liam Kerr, on the future of North Sea oil and gas. I would invite members who wish to speakfa rhywbethu'r tref timingo ddim wohnaunaeth i gynelig jyst barn i wokos y bryd o'w petyn a bod Parliament mor sefydleiduaethadau? Fergus Eilidh, gallwch digwyddr hynny mewn hasch. Llet mae hwn yn collaw y gWestfsoft. Roeddngosethi'r tyfu efoach rhai. Bellach yn gwasanaeth cofoedd o nodi ar gyfer iawn ac opomachau yn iawn i gyflymau bod llunydd wedi ei fwyllhydd. doit be carefully considered. What is absolutely clear is that we must avoid the temptation to impose simplistic solutions and instead consider the science to help us to make what are tough and sometimes unpalatable choices. What lies at the core of the debate, as members of the former Just Transition Commission told the net zero committee just last week and the Climate Change Committee, is that, under every scenario, there is still significant on-going demand. Currently, oil and gas accounts for three quarters of the UK's energy needs, and it is forecast that by 2050 half of all UK energy demand will still need to be met by oil and gas. By the time cambo is scheduled to start producing, oil and gas supply will decline by 33 per cent on 2020, but demand will fall by only 15 per cent. The cabinet secretary agreed yesterday when in response to my question he said, we've done a lot on the supply side, we haven't done enough on the demand side. Indeed, Mark Ruskell agreed on GMS this morning, restating that our focus must be on the demand side, and it is a complex situation. Around a quarter of the UK's oil and gas goes towards manufacturing everyday products from medicines to cosmetics and household cleaners to asphalt for roads and materials used for wind turbines and solar panels. The fact is, we are not yet at a stage where renewables can entirely supply the electricity Britain needs to keep the lights on in our homes, our hospitals, our schools, our factories. So, from where should we source the oil and gas to meet that demand? Well, we could source from abroad. We do already. Between January and March this year, the UK had to import 56 per cent of the gas required to keep the nation's homes and its power stations running. It cannot be sensible to cut our own resources. It's Scotland's oil, after all, cabinet secretary, and become increasingly dependent on countries like Qatar, which exports liquefied natural gas thousands of miles by ship in a context in which, according to the Oil and Gas Authority, natural gas from the UK continental shelf has less than half the carbon footprint of that imported LNG. If we offshore our responsibilities and emissions, we have no means to control them. As Sir Ian Wood said, we become dependent on countries with far less strict environmental regulations than the world-leading UK. Indeed, last year, we imported almost £3 billion worth of oil and gas from Russia. I cannot believe that members really want to increase our exposure to and reliance upon that regime. If we prematurely end production, our balance of trade will suffer. Although we know that is of no concern to the Green Party, we must all be concerned that, last year, when the UK and EU production shrank but demand grew, gas prices surged. If oil and gas costs more, it will plunge thousands into fuel poverty. Mike Tholen of OGUK points out that offshoring production and importing would cause an energy skills shortage that would decimate our ability to deliver the low-carbon energy mix that our members are already creating in the UK through wind, solar, tidal, hydrogen and other green technologies. That is key. The industry supports close to 100,000 jobs in Scotland, over 60,000 in the north-east. A hard shutdown of the industry consigns that region to a bleak future and ends all the innovations that those workers are already delivering in our transition. We need those skills to pioneer greener energy, to develop carbon capture, hydrogen and offshore wind at scale and rapidly. Losing them will undermine our transition. But what of the fabled just transition moving oil and gas workers into renewables? Last week, the former head of the Just Transition Commission, Jim Ski, said that the words just transition are used as magic dust. If the UK Tory Government is serious about the future of the north-east, it should be working to secure it. Does the member agree with Professor Jim Ski a chair of the Just Transition Commission that there has been far more interest from Brussels in the progress of Scotland's just transition than there has been from London? I congratulate the member on reading out the prepared intervention, but what is most gallant about the relentless whataboutery is not only that it wastes everyone's time in an important debate, but it shows just how unable the member is to either properly address my motion or prosecute the case for her own amendment. The UK has cut emissions faster than any G7 country, a reduction of 44 per cent in three decades, whilst growing our economy by 78 per cent. In the past 12 months, the UK published clear plans to decarbonise power generation, heavy industry and oil and gas rather better than what has come out from the cabinet secretary, of course. The cabinet secretary conceded just yesterday that there are no details around the Just Transition fund mentioned in his amendment, and there will not be any details on his Just Transition plan until at least next year. Will the transition happen in any case? The Scottish Government predicted 11 years ago that there would be 28,000 Scottish jobs in offshore wind alone by 2020. The latest workforce data shows that it stands at 1,400. That is unsurprising, because a BBC report last week said that there would be 1,000 direct jobs in Scotland and 2,000 more in the supply chain if Campbell went ahead, and another 500 elsewhere in the UK contrasts that with the Viking project, a vast new wind farm in Shetland, which would have 35 permanent jobs associated. Last week in the times, an SNP commentator anonymously said that it is hard to understand the political, economic or ecological logic of where the party risks being on this just now, far better to base our policy on evidence and reality than to chase an agenda that would manage to cost jobs, harm the environment more and leave us dependent on undemocratic regimes for supply. Quite so. At decision time tonight, will MSPs particularly north-east MSPs follow the science, support their constituents, support an industry worth £18 billion to the local economy, support a fair and managed transition and support my motion, or will they sacrifice them in favour of virtue signalling to appease their coalition partners? I now call on Michael Matheson, cabinet secretary, to speak to and move amendment 1193.3 up to six minutes, please, cabinet secretary. Do we have a problem with the cabinet secretary's microphone? Could you maybe, cabinet secretary, take the card out and push it all the way back in, and we'll see if that works? Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. As the chamber knows, the oil and gas industry supports around 100,000 jobs in Scotland, and as even as we transition away from fossil fuels, we know that it has a vital role to play in Scotland's energy future. The North Sea will continue to provide Scotland with an important level of domestic energy, and, crucially, the infrastructure skills and expertise of the sector can also be a huge asset in helping us to achieve net zero. We believe that it will help Scotland to become a world leader in emerging technologies such as hydrogen technology, carbon capture utilisation and storage, and offshore wind. We are presently in a transition from fossil fuels to renewable and low-carbon sources of energy. We owe that to the planet and none of us can or should we even try to escape that responsibility, but we need to do it in a way that is both fair and just. That is why the Scottish Government is working with the energy sector in Scotland, including the oil and gas sector, not only to secure the environmental benefits of decarbonising our energy system but to secure and seize the economic opportunities that the energy transition presents. Our transition to net zero must be made in a way that is just for the workers, which is key, but also for the sector and for our energy needs. Additionally, that transition also needs to be managed in a way that ensures that oil and gas developments are compatible with becoming a net zero society by 2045. That is why we have committed to undertaking a programme of work and analysis to better understand Scotland's energy requirements as we transition to net zero, and how that aligns with our climate change targets. Members will be aware of the recent scientific report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is described by the UN as, I quote, "...code red for humanity". The report confirms that the threat posed by the global warming are already both immediate and severe. Without urgent action to reduce global emissions in line with the goal of the Paris agreement, then those impacts will only exhilarate. Therefore, they cannot be business as usual. Will the member not agree that the oil and gas industry has taken important steps in becoming more sustainable? The evidence is that the IPCC is very clear that the countries around the world cannot continue to pursue maximum economic recovery of fossil fuels if the Paris agreement goals are to be met, a position supported by the international energy agency from the report earlier this year. That is why the Scottish Government has asked the UK Government to commit to significantly enhancing the climate conditionality of offshore production, and to reassess licences that are already issued but where fuel development has not yet commenced. That is a reserved area. It is essential that the UK Government show the necessary climate leadership in reassessing those licences. I will give way to Mr Iyer. I am very grateful, but does the cabinet secretary not recognise that the UK has already put in place a £16 billion North Sea transition deal to facilitate exactly that process? The member will recognise that the UK Government has conceded a point about the need to make sure that there is a climate compatibility checkpoint for new licences. Therefore, applying that same principle to existing licences that have not been developed is absolutely consistent with making sure that we meet our climate change obligations. We are already making good progress in reducing Scotland's reliance on fossil fuels, including through the substantial increase in our renewable energy capacity, targeting up to 11 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030. Enough power to power up 8 million homes. Renewable and low-carbon jobs cannot replace oil and gas jobs immediately. That is why we are committed to ending our contribution to climate change in a way that is both just and leaves no one behind. That is why, during this year, we announced the £62 million for the energy transition fund, which has a focus on supporting the energy sector to recover from the economic impact of Covid and supporting investment in areas that can help us move towards net zero. Additionally, we are also investing £500 million in the transition fund to the north-east and Murray, an investment that I hope this chamber will support tonight in calling on the UK Government to match. That will support and accelerate the transition of a region and support role of Aberdeen and the wider north-east of Scotland as a centre of excellence in the transition to net zero. As part of that work, we will look to reaffirm our commitment to a just transition through the just transition plans that we will take forward. A just transition is the right approach for Scotland, recognising our proud heritage and continuing role of our oil and gas industry while expanding and developing our renewable energy sector while reducing our dependency on fossil fuels. However, doing so in a way that also recognises our collective responsibility to tackle the global climate emergency. I move the amendment in my name. I now call on Monica Lennon to speak to and move amendment 1193.1 up to five minutes, please, Ms Lennon. I am pleased to be opening the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour, and I refer to my Bridgser of Interest as I am a member of Unite the Union and the Gmb Union. I have five minutes to respond to the motion on one of the biggest issues facing our planet, so I will try to make this as straightforward as possible. For many years, the biggest threat to our planet was climate denial. Now, the biggest threat to our planet is climate in action. The message from climate scientists could not be clearer. To limit global warning to one and a half degrees, the international-agreed target of the Paris agreement, there can be no new oil and gas. That means no cambo. In May, the international energy agency report commissioned by the UK Government ahead of COP26 stated that to reach global net zero by 2050, there should be no new oil and gas fuels approved for development. That means no cambo. We have heard that the UN Secretary General has called the IPCC report a code red for humanity. He warned that this report must sound a death knell for coal and fossil fuels before they destroy our planet. That means no cambo. When report after report makes it clear that cambo is another nail in the coffin of our dying planet, we have a duty to call it out. Without immediate action to reduce emissions, the consequences will include rising sea levels, the extinction of vulnerable species and a higher frequency of natural disasters. Pushing ahead with cambo would be a betrayal of future generations. Industrial and economic change is inevitable. It is our duty as parliamentarians to guarantee that change and decarbonisation delivers justice for workers. We need a managed and a worker-led just transition because we cannot allow a climate crisis to become a jobs crisis in the north-east or anywhere else in Scotland. That requires a relentless focus on jobs. Jobs that are meaningful, well-paid and unionised, jobs that are good for people and good for our planet. We just need the political will and the courage to act. Over the summer, I have been listening to workers and their trade unions and they have expressed fears yes about the impacts of climate change but also about their jobs. Those fears are not mutually exclusive and they have good reason to be sceptical about the promises that politicians have made to them. The SNP's green jobs fund has not yet delivered for workers and the green jobs workforce academy so far appears to be an underwhelming website with a quite an impressive name, so we know that we have to do better. I am afraid that history has taught us that the Tories do not do just transitions. Workers know that, that is why they are worried. Labour's position is clear. CAMBO must not go ahead and nothing less in a green year deal will address the twin challenges of climate change and economic transition. My Scottish Labour colleague Mercedes Villalba has proposed off-shore training passports, which would allow oil and gas workers to move freely between off-shore and on-shore energy sectors, where standardised certification across roles. Practical policies such as those will give workers confidence. I would rather give voice to workers than to Tories. The debate coincides with the release of a landmark report from Friends of the Earth Scotland, entitled Watershed. The report calls for the redirecting of the tax breaks and subsidies offered to the oil and gas sector into funding a just transition. Notably, the report also recommends the creation of a publicly-owned energy company in Scotland. The Tories do not support that either. A move that Scottish Labour and members of the SNP agree could turbocharge renewable energy generation and control spiralling heating bills. I urge the Scottish Government not to ditch or delay that proposal. Earlier today, I hosted a well-attended parliamentary briefing on ecocides with JoJo Meta and Philippe Sands QC, distinguished international environmental and human rights campaigners. The ecocide proposal would criminalise the large-scale destruction of fragile ecosystems, a law that could one day apply to proposals such as CAMBO. At the event, we were reminded that COP26 is around the corner. What will people see when they look at Scotland and the UK? Greta Thunberg said recently of Scotland, Of course, there might be some politicians that are slightly less worse than others. That was very mean, but you get the point. We can and must do better. We need a managed, well-resourced just transition to unlock new economic opportunities. The Scottish Government needs to get off the fence. We will be opposing the Tories at decision time. They are on the wrong side of history. I move the amendment in my name. I now call on Liam McArthur to speak to and move amendment 119. There is a lot of chatter on this side of the chamber. We would like to hear every member, I think. I speak to and move amendment 1193.2 up to four minutes, please, Mr McArthur. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am as used to that reaction as I clamber to my feet. This Parliament voted into law a shared commitment to net zero by 2045. Meeting net zero as the UK Committee on Climate Change has told us will, and I quote, involve transforming almost entirely away from the unabated use of fossil fuels. This is the view of experts here and worldwide. It is the view, I suspect, of most within the oil and gas sector. Decisions over granting additional licences for oil and gas extraction must be seen in the context of everything that we now understand about the climate emergency and about the need to drive down our reliance on fossil fuels. That is a difficult circle to square because the IPCC has warned us that we do not have the luxury of time. Every aspect of how we live needs to be sense-checked in light of the climate emergency. That certainly includes the oil and gas sector. I simply cannot understand how the UK Government could consider pressing ahead with the decision on cambo while bypassing its own climate checkpoint. Let's not forget that this is a licence that was first considered in 2001. Back in 2001, many still questioned the very existence of man-made climate change. Then Bob the Builder's version of Mambo 5 was sitting at the top of the charts, and thankfully the world has moved on from then. Scotland's relationship with the oil and gas sector goes beyond just everyday reliance. It's not just the fuel that we use to heat our homes and drive our cars. Communities have been built around it. Livelyhoods depend on it. The industry needs to undergo a just transition, but those working within it, those reliant upon it, deserve a just transition. Those are skilled individuals. They remain absolutely critical to our success in developing the roles, the businesses and the industries that are needed to achieve our climate objectives. For that to happen, we need to see far more concerted and collaborative action by both Scotland's Governments to support people to reskill, retrain and move into more sustainable industries. Too often, however, we are seeing green jobs drift abroad. Without proper investment, robust planning and a just transition, many will go the same way in the future. The risk is that ministers squander Scotland's potential and leave communities and workers to pay the price in the move to a net zero economy. That would be a betrayal of those in the oil and gas sector. Polling consistently shows an appetite within the workforce for making a switch, but so far, both UK and Scottish Governments have failed to provide workers with the opportunities to change. Government support for a Scotland-wide just transition is essential if we are to avoid a repeat of the catastrophic carnage that is done to mining in steel communities in the 1970s and 1980s. The creation of green jobs is only half of the equation. We still need a revolutionary overhaul in the demand for fossil fuels. Homes are still being built with gas boilers, cars are running on petrol are still being manufactured and around two and a half million households in Scotland, the vast majority continue to leak heat from unsustainable systems like gas boilers. In the meantime, seas are rising, the world is getting hotter. After the sound and fury of this afternoon's brief debate has passed, the Parliament will have to decide how it plans to honour our shared commitment, the one that we agreed unanimously to achieve net zero by 2045, not so long ago. That calls into question decisions over future oil and gas licences, but it also demands a meaningful commitment by both UK and Scottish Governments to a just transition that is properly funded and properly targeted. I have plesur yn mwyfyn nhw i'r mewn gwneud. I will now move to the open debate. I remind members that the speeches are up to four minutes. There is no time in hand. I call Brian Whittle to be followed by Jenny Minto. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am really pleased to have the opportunity to speak on what is a hugely important debate. I think that it is a debate that will continue long after this one and hopefully will make a lot more progress in the next term of Parliament. I start from a position that I think all of us would agree on. We have an environmental crisis that is impacting the planet in ways that we just cannot afford to ignore. There can be surely no debate that we need to change the way in which we create and consume energy. The drive towards net zero emissions and beyond has accelerated greatly recently and is now in the forefront of our minds in a way that is not considered even just a decade ago. However, where I differ from the approach of some in the Government today is in the most effective and timuous way in which we can achieve that crucial goal. To me, it will be through innovation that we reach those targets, not by shutting down huge swathes of the economy as the Greens in the Scottish Government would have us do. I think that their approach is one that is blinkered. It is devoid of any creativity and as far from reality as it can possibly be. As my colleague Liam Kerr suggests, the petrochemical industry is far more than just burning fossil fuel, with a significant proportion of oil used in many other industries, not least in medicines and plastics, even in the renewable sector itself and on and on. It is far too narrow to frame this debate just around fossil fuel. I would argue that we need oil and gas industry in the north sea. How much of the 20 billion barrels of oil and gas in the north sea are going to be required to produce medicine? I will pull that figure out in my back pocket. That is a great question. I tell you what the member might not know is that the oil grade in the north sea is far less used for fossil fuel than it is, for example, from the Middle East. He might not know that. I argue that we need oil and gas industry to reach our net zero target. That industry was already considering that way before it became fashionable that I was in an office of a major oil and gas company some 20 years ago. While I was waiting to go into my meeting, I read the internal magazine in which the VP had stood up in their annual global conference and stated that his goal was for the company to be the number one supplier of renewable energy in the world within 50 years. They already knew back then that they had to change their business model, and they have been investing in renewable companies and driving innovation not just in more efficient fuels. I spoke to an oil and gas company just yesterday when they listed the investment that their company had done in the renewable sector, how they own wind farms and how they invested in wave energy management. I spoke to a company yesterday who developed offshore wind, green hydrogen and wave energy technology. Their major investors are oil and gas companies. Billions of pounds have been invested from those companies into the renewable sector, into clean energy research. Those companies with their R&D budgets can make the biggest difference—investment that Governments cannot replace. What we should be doing is working with those companies, encouraging the innovation that will drive us towards a clean environment and net zero economy. Shut down the industry and you shut down a major contributor to the future that we all want. We need a replacement for our current energy supply. Moreover, as Liam Kerr said, we all need to consider how demand can be reduced, and we all have a part to play in that. These days, I think that the oil and gas industry can now legitimately be renamed as energy supply companies. It would be absurd to just switch that investment in renewable tech off. It is time that the Scottish Government started working with those companies, not continually vilifying them, and ensuring that innovation is not stifled as we drive the crucial green economy. This Tory motion can only delay our journey to net zero. We must be ambitious and rejected. Scotland has a responsibility to meet our climate obligations while ensuring a secure energy supply and supporting our highly skilled workforce to transition to the green jobs of the future. The SNP, the green Scottish Government, are wholly committed to ending Scotland's contribution to climate change by 2045 and to ensuring that we do it in a way that is just and leaves no one behind. Liam Kerr? I am listening very carefully, but where would the member source the oil and gas from to meet the demand then? Scotland is a net exporter of energy. Scotland should be proud of the action taken so far. Emissions down by 51.5 per cent since the 1990 baseline. In 2020, 95.9 per cent of gross electricity consumption came from renewable sources. A renewable energy capacity of 11.9 gigawatts with 14.6 gigawatts of renewable energy capacity in development. The Climate Change Committee said of Scotland's progress in its autumn 2020 report. The Scottish economy has decarbonised more quickly than the rest of the UK and faster than any G20 economy since 2007. Emissions have fallen rapidly while the economy has grown. However, the Scottish Government recognises that there are still challenges remaining. Ending our contribution to climate change will require transformational change from every element of society. I went to Aberdeen University and gained my accountancy qualification there in the early 90s. I know the importance of oil and gas industry to the north-east of Scotland. Many of the companies that I audited were related to the oil industry. Supply boats, rig management companies, equipment repairs and supplies employing thousands of skilled men and women. Now is the time to harness their skills and experience for a just transition from fossil fuel to renewables. In July, I visited Greenpeace's rainbow warrior when she was docked in Leith. I remember the news stories of her crews protesting at the North Sea oil rigs in the 1980s, but now Greenpeace is working with oil rig workers to promote a just transition. Together, they have produced a short film, rigged, a worker story. There are interviews with ex-offshore workers to quote one of them. I do not think that we are going to have a great planet until we do things because it is the right thing to do rather than because it is profitable, salient words and words that members on the Tory benches perhaps should heed. I support the Scottish Government's view that the opening of new oil fields, including Cambo, must be reassessed in the light of the climate emergency that we now face. I was pleased that the First Minister wrote to Westminster asking the UK Government to think again. The stark warnings of the UN's IPCC that the climate emergency poses a severe threat and heightened risks to the planet are powerful reminders that we all must do more to deliver a just transition. The Green Jobs Workforce Academy will help to assess people's current skills and undertake the necessary upskilling or reskilling. The knowledge and experience of oil and gas sector and its supply chain will be so important for developing the essential low-carbon technologies. In my constituency, Argyll and Bute, as I spoke about in the chamber last week, the renewables industry is blossoming. Renewable energy support industries are also establishing themselves. Renewable parts, for example, is an innovator in the wind energy supply chain in Scotland based on Remfrewshire and Argyll and Bute. It has created a refurbishment and remanufacture supply chain that is creating new jobs in the green energy industry, skills that are critical to the growth of the circular economy. To finish, oil and gas are finite, but wind and tides are not. One way or another, sooner or later, the writing is on the wall for oil and gas. The Scottish Government is determined to use the hard-won skills of our oil and gas industries to make Scotland a green powerhouse—not only a transition to a greener future but a just transition. I now call Michael Marra to be followed by Maurice Golden up to four minutes, please, Mr Marra. I draw attention to my register of interests as a member of the GMB union. This is a welcome debate about how we remake our Scottish economy to ensure the future prosperity of our country. Industry puts wages and pockets, food on tables and taxes into our public services, must grow rather than recede. There is no economic issue of more importance to this country than the future of the North Sea. That concerns my constitution at Aberdonians, but every scot is about Musmorran, about Grangemouth, about the defence industry, about the Forth and the Clyde Valleys, about our tax take, our balance of payments, our energy security, our food system, our global security positioning, our role in Europe and the world, our recent past but much more importantly our long future. We are all clear that the nature of the North Sea industries must, like all economies, change over time. The current transition is necessitated by crisis and it is urgent. The present physical effects of climate change are becoming ever clearer. Net zero requires a 12 per cent reduction in global energy sector combustion emissions, but, with rebounding demand, we are now on track for a 3 per cent increase overall. We must think and act differently. Opening up new oil fields would demand business solutions for rapid extraction. Instead, we must clean up extraction in current fields. Doing this work promises far longer gains in innovation, in technologies and in exports for Scotland. We must tell investors, regulators, researchers and workers that future growth is in new sectors grown alongside oil and gas. The UKCCC makes it clear that their will and must be a long-term need for oil and gas extraction. Continued production is baked into any reality-based transition to net zero. The net zero technology centre has set out a compelling vision of a future for Scotland, where integrated offshore renewables, hydrogen and carbon capture can offer a cumulative £38 billion opportunity in comparison to the £15 billion contribution from the maturing basin today. We must act now to avert climate breakdown and act now to seize those opportunities. When the pace must be quickened, how do we find some semblance of security and hope for our energy workers? Robert J Gordon and his masterful work on the rise and fall of American growth is clear that, in technology transitions throughout history, education and reskilling follow opportunities. They do not cause opportunities, nor will training pre-empt innovation. People will retrain when there is a job to go into and the Government's job is to ensure that the state bridges the cost of that gap. Other members have already mentioned the SNP's risible record in regard to renewables jobs and their complete failure to capture the first generation of the supply chain. I listened when Alex Salmond told us that we would be the Saudi Arabia of renewables, when he compared himself to Labour's Tom Johnson, who transformed our economy after the war. The difference was that Tom Johnson did things, rather than telling grandiose lies that undermined the long-term confidence of workers, like those jobs that were promised in renewables to people in Dundee, which came ultimately to nothing. I think that the comments are very interesting. Dave Moxham of the STUC told the Just Transition Committee the other week that there will never be the intensity of jobs across the offshore wind sector that there is in offshore oil and gas. Does the member have a solution? What can he propose to answer that challenge? Does the member have 20 seconds left? I will try to get it in. There certainly is a broader mix of industries in terms of putting in place the right electrified grid in subsea. There has to be the change that was required for the export of the existing facility in terms of oil and gas. I think that there is a wide range in hydrogen and carbon capture that can answer some of that question. I believe that there is an intensity of activity there, and there is a far greater opportunity for us to export around the world. Labour's focus here is what has always been on jobs and wages in the future of Scotland. I think that, frankly, on those issues, it is high time that this Government got serious. I now call on Maurice Golden to be followed by Julian Martin up to four minutes please, Mr Golden. Today I would like to focus my remarks on our transition to net zero. It is important to remember that all parties in this Parliament agree that we need to be serious and have sustained action on climate change. We agree on net zero. We agree on building a sustainable economy. We agree on ensuring a just transition to that new economy. There is nothing new in finding common cause on climate change. The Scottish Conservatives led opposition parties in defeating this SNP Government to call for energy efficiency targets to be brought forward. The Greens and belatedly Labour support our calls for a moratorium on new incinerators. Of course, I trust the Greens still hold that position now. They are in coalition with the SNP, who, given their level of ambition, are perhaps the worst performing Government in the world when it comes to tackling climate change. The level of inaction from this nationalist Government makes co-operation in this Parliament increasingly difficult. Despite repeated warnings from myself and colleagues such as Claudia Beamish and Mark Ruskell, the SNP Government has refused to listen and is instead allowing the failures to pile up. Their emissions target failed. Their green jobs target failed. Their recycling target failed. Their fuel poverty target failed. Their renewable heat target failed, given the time that I cannot go on. However, with the Scotland hosting COP26, those failures will soon become an international embarrassment for the SNP green coalition. Take recycling. It is actually going backwards. The recycling rate is lower now than it was in 2016. In Dundee, the SNP council is promising a 70 per cent recycling rate by 2025. However, its slow progress means that it will take until at least 2040. Glasgow, another SNP-run city, and the host of COP26, is in the midst of a cleansing crisis and cannot even manage a 25 per cent recycling rate. What will world leaders make of that? What will they make of this nationalist Government having broken their promise to ban by the gradable waste going to landfill, deciding just to burn it instead? Under the SNP, incineration capacity has ballooned 400 per cent. Scotland needs a Government that will deliver policies to tackle climate change, not the empty rhetoric that is the SNP mantra. The UK Government has stepped up to the plate and launched the North Sea transition deal, which includes early reductions in offshore production emissions, investment of up to £16 billion by 2030 in new energy technologies, and a £60 million reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The current transmission charging system is entirely contrary to the net zero agenda, and it called on the UK Government to act without delay to address the dated scheme. Can the member address that point? Yes, I can. I worked as a transmission policy analyst off-gem on that very aspect, and the problem that the SNP has with that is that it is arguing for a reduction in transmission charges for generators, many of whom are big businesses, and for an increase in the cost to consumers, because that is how transmission charging policy works. So now it is the SNP policy who have failed to eradicate fuel poverty, are now arguing for increasing transmission charges to customers in Scotland. Quite unbelievable. Mr Golden, you are just coming to the conclusion. Okay, Presiding Officer. In closing, public support, parliamentary goodwill, the economic might of our United Kingdom is all there to help us to reach net zero, and I want to be there protecting oil and gas jobs, securing a justice transition and delivering on our net zero targets. Thank you. I now call Julian Martin to be followed by Mark Ruskell up to four minutes, please, Ms Martin. I like to listen to the BBC radio series, The Listening Project. It is a very simple format. Two people in a room have a chat about a topic, and this week's edition was pertinent to today's debate. Keith, an oil and gas sector geologist from Aberdeen, was having a conversation with Peter, who had been a miner in North Yorkshire. The subject was energy transition, on the one hand with a man who had not been involved in a just transition, on the other, a man on the cus of a transition, and he was mulling over his part in it. Keith said what so many of my constituents have been saying to me, and that is affordable, secure and increasingly sustainable jobs are what is needed. I have said in this chamber many times that my family owes a lot to oil and gas. Livelyhoods—many of us have depended on that—replicate my family with tens of thousands of my constituents. I understand their fears about the fluctuating nature of the industry and the new energy future in front of them. When I was elected in 2016, we were in the middle of an oil and gas downturn, and thousands of my constituents were losing their jobs. Geopolitics were reverberating around the doors of Aberdeenshire, and then, as now people told me, they wanted to secure employment. At the time in this chamber, I relayed the testimony of many people arriving at their work in an oil and gas company offices at 8am, only to be out in the car park with their belongings in a box by 9am. Families with mortgage arrears, families being referred to food banks. One of my constituents was phoned on his 50th birthday to be told after 30 years service he would not be returning on the helicopter to his production platform the next week. Transition has been in the minds of oil and gas workers for many years, for many reasons. Later on in that radio broadcast, Keith made the point that this is key to the future of oil and gas in Scotland, is that hydrocarbons are too good to burn. We will need them for other things. I am also on record of saying many times in this Parliament that it is not the extraction that is the application that is the real issue. We need the systems that do not burn hydrocarbons. We will also continue to need fossil fuels as a feedstock for chemicals and manufacturing well into the future. I would much rather that feedstock comes from our domestic supply, which is produced with the best health and safety controls in the world and where the emissions from that production have been driven down, where the environmental controls and impact analyses are robust. I do not want to export our emissions as we import that feedstock to or meet our current needs. That will not help with our economy or our planet. I see the future of the north-east of having a mix of hydrocarbons, renewables, energy innovation and life sciences as our core sectors. I am in the middle of a listening project of my own in the form of a report on a survey on transitions that have ran over the summer. Those constituents are not talking about cambo or future exploration, they are urging us to take down the barriers to transition to experiencing now. They want us to be taken action on making training affordable, about recognising the skills and certification that oil and gas workers already have, and walking the walk on transferability. The £500 million that the Scottish Government announced for just transition is action. I am looking forward to putting my ideas and those of my constituents into how to deploy that. The solution to our economic environment and aspirations is to either exploit the north-east until it runs dry, or leave it on the ground. The solutions are nuanced, complex and our mutual constituents deserve our political conversations around this to be informed and take account of that complexity. To give them a view, the UK Government's climate compatibility checkpoint does just that, and it is in line with Nicola Sturgeon's comment on the issues of new fields. I will say this. Seven years ago, people on those benches told us that oil was running out, now the tune has changed. It is there, it has great value, but the real issue is what we do with it. That is a fundamental issue that both Governments need to act in their own spheres to decide on for the good of the people and the planet. I now call on Mark Ruskell to be followed by Michelle Thomson up to four minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Mr Kerr advised us at the beginning of this debate to listen to the science. I am going to quote some people who do understand the science and who have reflected on it. UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres has said recently that countries should end all new fossil fuel exploration and production and shift fossil fuel subsidies into renewable energy, not happening through UK Government policy. Dr Birol, Executive Director of the International Energy Agency, has said that if Governments are serious about the climate crisis, there can be no new investments in oil, gas and coal from now, from this year. Again, not happening with UK Government policy. Lord Diben, chair of the UK Climate Change Committee, a former UK minister told Mr Kerr in committee a couple of weeks ago that the justification for any new oil and gas exploration or production has to be very, very, very strong. I cannot say that I have so far seen any such case, so no case has been presented for Canvo and for the continued exploration and extraction of these fossil fuels. Countries around the world are recognising that an oil and gas transition needs to have a clear destination to transition to. They know that a just transition needs to start years in advance, otherwise there is a risk of a sudden deferred collapse of jobs in the future. The launch of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, spearheaded by the Danish and Costa Rican Governments and now involving France, New Zealand, Spain and many more, will mark a watershed moment at COP26, because those are states that have turned the corner and are committing to no more oil and gas development. The Scottish Government should join in that conversation in Glasgow and look to accelerate our own just transition. The Green Scottish Government Cooperation Agreement commits to answering two critical questions that the cabinet secretary referred to in his opening comments. I do not want to make a little bit of progress first. The first one is about how much oil and gas we can afford to burn while staying aligned with the objectives of the Paris Agreement. The second question is given what we can afford to burn, what will our domestic demand be for oil and gas in the years ahead as we make progress in decarbonising our society? Those are questions that cannot be answered by the oil and gas sector by itself, because they will always be driven by a UK licensing policy of maximum economic recovery of every last drop from every last reserve. Again, I welcome the comments from the cabinet secretary at the beginning of the debate about some of the flaws in the policy of maximum economic recovery, which is incompatible with the climate crisis. I am running out of time, I am sorry. Those are critical questions that have to be answered not by sectoral interests, but by Governments. The answers will depend on the level of ambition and actual progress in delivering decarbonisation and energy demand reduction across the whole of the UK. What I am certain of is that any such assessment that is done will show Cambo to be superfluous to our domestic energy needs and utterly incompatible with the Paris Agreement. It is clear that Cambo must not go ahead, but Cambo is just the tip of the melting iceberg. If we are serious about staying in alignment with Paris, some of the 6.6 billion barrels of existing oil and gas reserves will have to stay in the ground, too. Alongside the 13.4 billion barrels that the sector wants to develop, those must stay out of reach. Our co-operation agreement is a great starting point for a real just transition, a £500 million deal for the north-east and a new sector deal for onshore wind. That is where the real grown-up debate needs to be in this Parliament about how we manage that just transition, how we protect people and planet. I look forward to this Government making progress in the months and years ahead. I now call Michelle Thomson, who will be the last speaker in the open debate. Up to four minutes, please, Ms Thomson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. When I read the original motion, I was struck by the perception of how simple the Tories felt this issue to be when you compared it with the SNP amendment, which was lodged by Michael Matheson. I have spoken previously about the complexity of climate change and the ambitious policy responses that are required. Only last week, as you know, I spoke about setting measurable net zero ambitions for public sector pensions. I was pleased to see SNP councillors in Falkirk pushing for that, albeit without the support of Labour and Tory councillors. Scottish Governments published its detailed response to the original just transition commission, which seeks to work with all the key stakeholder groups such as trade unions, business and communities. Let me briefly set out some of the areas that business might need to consider, which illustrates both the complexity and the effort that is required. Any significant transformational change must be driven from the top of the organisation and the board must develop a clear vision and a strategy. That strategy will have input provided from all the divisions or departments and will likely involve a number of iterations to ensure that the key themes are aligned. Arguably, that is the easy bit, because then the vision must be sufficiently compelling as to bring all the employees on board, given that it could fundamentally change the nature of the company and its operational model. That term usually sounds warning bells for employees as it could involve changes to jobs or the loss of them. Alongside that, of course, is either developing or keeping pace with innovation or new rapidly developing technologies, and we cannot forget the significant funding requirements developed in an uncertain, casual environment. As I know from my previous career, most large so-called transformational change programmes often fail. They do not take people with them. They often fail to take cognisance of the culture of the organisation and senior executives, regrettably, often lose interest. If I sound a little bleak, please forgive me. The steps that I outlined are for a company, one company, to reach net zero, multiple companies and multiple stakeholders are not going to give way in multiple states must change. My constituency includes Grangemouth, and I am following the progress of the Grangemouth future industry board with interest. Demand for hydrocarbon-based products must decrease, but considerable opportunities have been mentioned by others. For a hydrogen economy, I am not going to give way today, encompassing both energy storage and sources of fuel for transport, as well as sustainable feedstocks. We have to remember that Scotland does not simply seek to export power, rather that we want to create the added value in jobs and wealth here. It has been mentioned elsewhere that this is a global challenge, but there are considerable vested interests that act against the sort of leadership and ambitious change that is required. Our very financial system has mostly been predicated on the endless drive for profit, with boards and trustees alike having to commit to that. In a world of finite resource, the endless focus on profit is simply not sustainable. Embedding sustainability is another significant challenge. Finally, we must keep who the change is for at the forefront of our minds. Who could fail to be moved by the concerns expressed in the recent study that was led by Bath University? A statistically significant survey covering 10,000 young people showing around 75 per cent of them fearful for their future. However, those young people are the future, and we must remember that our decisions today affect their future tomorrow. Hearing their voices is vital. I was delighted to see that Scotland stepped up to the plate and the Scottish Government in hosting the COP26 climate youth conference. Grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate given the direct interest that my constituency has in the questions at hand. I declare an interest in that. I am disappointed in how much today has focused on the north-east, just as the Scottish Government's £500 million Just Transition Fund did a couple of weeks ago, because it is not just the north-east that needs to transition. Deputy Presiding Officer, my family is like many others in Shetland, with members working at the Sulunvo oil terminal or offshore in the North Sea, and there are Shetland seafarers employed on oil supply vessels. Shetland adapted to change when oil was first discovered in the North Sea, and now the islands are looking to the future, ready and willing to play their part in another transformation, but they need support to do it. Renewable projects are in the works. The potential is there, but we cannot just throw people who have built their lives around the oil industry on the scrap heap. I would like to see a new Northern Isles Just Transition Commission to help to ensure that the islands are not forgotten in future debates like this, because we have specific needs and unique opportunities, those risks being lost in amongst the politicking that we have seen here today. As Shetland's MSP, I recognise that the licence for cambo has been in the works for 20 years. There is investment and highly skilled and highly paid jobs associated with it. While the demands of the climate emergency mean that the need to move away from oil and gas could not be clearer, questions about how and when that happens are not so easily answered. Even when we meet our hugely ambitious emissions reductions targets, which the SNP has failed to reach in recent years, some small amounts of fossil fuels will still be needed. The UK Committee on Climate Change says that some oil will still be needed on the pathway to net zero. The Committee on Climate Change is respected, and their expertise and independence are an asset to the country. They do not play politics on that, nor do they ignore their responsibility to help the country to navigate the way to net zero. There are two tests that I believe that both the UK and the Scottish Governments currently fail. To make real progress on carbon emissions from oil and gas, you need to grow the renewable alternatives and to reduce demand. On that, the SNP has emphatically failed. Take transport. It is Scotland's single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. In 2018, it accounted for 36 per cent of total emissions, having barely reduced since 1990. Car travel has been on the increase since the end of World War 2, while the SNP's active travel target has crumbled. Without a real reduction in demand, it does not matter whether or not we licence more projects. Our country will still continue to run on fumes. The only question will be whether they come from Cambo or from Russia. That is why the UK Government's decision to abandon the climate compatibility checkpoint is so difficult to understand. If communities that depend on oil and gas are to navigate their way towards a net zero future, the questions that climate checkpoints and other such mechanisms must reasonably pose must be handled properly, drawing out answers grounded in science. If the Cambo licence cannot pass the basic tenets of the checkpoint, there are reasonable questions to be asked answered about whether or not it should be granted. Politicians ignoring the rising seas will not do the industry or the people behind it any good. I now call on Mercedes Villalba to wind up for labour up to four minutes. With this motion, the Scottish Tories are seeking to exploit workers and communities who are concerned about their future. The motion is unrealistic. It lacks credibility and offers no new ideas on how we tackle the climate emergency and deliver a just transition for those most affected by climate change. In just a few weeks, Scotland is due to host COP26 and the eyes of the world will be upon us. How could we vote to back the Cambo oil field? How can we vote to back the Cambo oil field when all signs point to it having a hugely detrimental impact on our environment? Passing the Labour amendment would signal a clear intention to take decisive action on climate change, create green jobs and develop a green industrial base. We can no longer accept Scottish Government in action in the face of escalating climate emergency. Years ago, the Scottish Government promised to deliver 130,000 green jobs by this year, but they have only delivered just over 21,000. They also pledged to create a publicly owned energy company but have now backed out of that as well. For all the talk of investment, they have failed to develop the green industrial base that we need. Despite their commitment to achieve net zero by 2045, they continue to refuse to clarify their position on Cambo. I was pleased to hear in Jenny Minto's speech that she expressed her personal opposition to Cambo. Like her, I also attended the Rainbow Warrior event by Greenpeace in July. At that event, her colleague Paul MacLennan also voiced his opposition to Cambo. The Scottish Government and its ministers need to make a choice whether they are going to stand with the Tories and the multinational companies that pollute our planet for private profit, or if they are going to stand with climate campaigners, workers and their own backbenchers and co-operation partners in calling for a just transition. Last week at FMQs, the First Minister expressed willingness to consider developing an offshore training passport for oil and gas workers. Last night, I received a response from the Just Transition Minister, which appeared to suggest that there is no desire to introduce an offshore training passport as part of the Just Transition Fund. To be honest, we are all sick of this empty rhetoric that never matches reality. Now is the time for the Scottish Government to get off the fence, oppose Cambo and support the Labour amendment for a worker-led transition. I welcome the fact that the Conservative Party brought this debate to Parliament today, because it concerns a major sector in Scotland that concerns the future of the Scottish economy and the fortunes of many families and individuals in our country. It also affects the future of humankind and our planet. The recent scientific report from the UN intergovernmental panel on climate change shows the very real threat and heightened risk that the climate emergency poses to the planet. It also makes clear that, with immediate concerted international action to reduce emissions, the global temperature rise can still be limited to the Paris agreement's aim of one and a half degrees in the longer term. That is an urgent call for action for all, and it simply cannot be business as usual. Therefore, it is disappointing to read the terms of the motion that has led to this debate. A few weeks before COP26 comes to Scotland, the Conservative Party have tabled a motion saying that we should support the extraction of fossil fuels irrespective of whether it is compatible with Scotland's net zero ambitions and targets. That is an embarrassment to the Conservative Party, but I will take one of the members. Given the on-going demand and need to heat our houses in Scotland, there will be demand for fossil fuels in the future. Would you rather those fossil fuels are taken out of the ground in Scotland or taken out to the ground elsewhere in the world with a higher carbon footprint? At the Just Transition to our 2045 net zero targets, it is a Just Transition that addresses issues that the member raises. I do not understand Liam Kerr's position on that. He seems to be all over the place. He just asked me a written question a couple of days ago, which says the following. To ask the Scottish Government whether it plans to establish a fund to support island and rural communities to end their reliance on fossil fuels. On the one hand, we have a motion saying that new development should get the green light and go ahead irrespective of whether it is compatible with the 2045 net zero targets. On the other hand, he is supporting communities who want to end their use of fossil fuels to help to save the planet and save their own future. We should be focusing on the Just Transition and the Energy Transition, which is the biggest part of that Just Transition, given the reliance of jobs in the energy sector in this country. We have a number of announcements that have been made and signs that hundreds of thousands of green jobs can be created in our country, and we can make sure that we have that Just Transition. I will take it from Liam since it is the base. Liam Kerr? I am very grateful. I apologise to my colleague. The green party's manifesto wanted to stop carbon capture and funding for things like the net zero technology centre. Now that they are part of a coalition government, is that the member's position? The member will be familiar with the SNP green co-operation agreement, which outlines its position very clearly, and he should read that because that is the Scottish Government's policy. In terms of the number of jobs that can be created in Scotland, it is exciting. That is a massive opportunity for our economy and for the future of Scotland, not only to create hundreds of thousands of green jobs here, but to export our expertise and our knowledge from particularly the oil and gas industry to the rest of the planet and economies around the world have taken to interventions already. We have to make the most of this transition and focus on that because that is the key to reaching our net zero targets. The Robert Gordon University report said that by 2030—not 2045—2030, 200,000 jobs could exist in the offshore energy sector. With a number of jobs in the decarbonised part of that sector rising from 20 per cent to 65 per cent. 90 per cent of those jobs can come from people who work in oil and gas who have transferrable skills. The hydrogen assessment report carried out by the Scottish Government says that the number of jobs that could be created through hydrogen could range from 70,000 to 300,000 jobs. Scottish Power, just recently, the First Minister visited the company and announced more green jobs in Scotland. The oil and gas industry, who are at the heart of our success for a just transition, are planning on creating tens of thousands of green jobs in the Scottish economy between now and 2030 and 2030 and 2045. I met TotalEnergies just a couple of days ago in Aberdeen. I met the senior management and they have really exciting plans for the future. Their website says that we are reinventing and diversifying our energy offering to promote renewable and decarbonised energies. It goes on to say that we are also encouraging our customers to change their consumption habits, prefer energy efficiency and turn to low-carbon solutions first. They are reinventing themselves in light of the climate emergency. I really suggest that the Scottish Conservative Party also reinvent themselves and get behind the national effort to have a just transition and create hundreds of thousands of green jobs in this country, work in partnership and help to save humankind and save the planet as well. I now call on Douglas Lumson to wind up for the Conservatives up to six minutes. Okay, thank you Deputy Presiding Officer. This is a vital debate, especially for the north-east of Scotland. One of the reasons that is so important is that it means that the public can see where all the parties are with respect to supporting the energy industry and the vital jobs in the north-east. With the alternate motions put down, it is pretty clear where most other parties are. With Monica Lennon's motion, we can see that, while Labour has re-admitted their nine Aberdeen councillors, they have turned their back on the rest of the north-east. Similarly, the Liberal Democrats have also abandoned places such as Aberdeen, Montrose and Lerwick, which rely heavily on the oil and gas sector. However, to be fair to Labour and the Liberal Democrats, at least we know where they stand, we see from the SNP more deflect, dither and delay. The cabinet secretary is sitting on what must be an uncomfortable fence, trying to please everyone but actually pleasing no one. The SNP motion before us is to appease the Greens and nothing else. It sells out Scotland and it sells out Aberdeen. However, colleagues, it will please China and Russia, who will benefit no end, as my colleague Liam Kerr pointed out in his speech. The oil and gas industry has been and continues to be the lifeblood of Aberdeen's economy, and the north-east is at the cutting edge of good practice and technological excellence in oil and gas recovery. The engineering and manufacturing talent here cannot be allowed to go to waste. Aberdeen is the energy capital of Europe, powering our industry, lighting our businesses, warming our homes and making sure that our trains run on time, unless it is a Sunday. It also plays a leading role around the world, with personnel from Aberdeen leading development projects throughout Europe, Africa and Asia, sharing the best practice and technological excellence across the globe. As a result, the oil and gas industry has been one of the most important contributors to the Scottish economy. However, the industry is not just a success story in the past, it has a bright future in a more eco-conscious world. The UK was the first major economy to embrace a legally binding obligation to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Scotland's oil and gas industry is fully committed to supporting the Scottish Government in meeting its ambitious net zero goals by 2045, and companies in Aberdeen are changing and adapting, investing millions in cleaner technology and leading the world field in that. That should not be stamped out of business before that can happen. The engineering capabilities and essential expertise are too valuable to lose, and even the cabinet secretary recognised that fact. If we were to close the North Sea and end the energy industry in Aberdeen, like some of the Scottish Government are now calling for, what would be the actual alternative? Would your green colleague seem to suggest that? As Liam said, 75 per cent of our current energy needs are met from oil and gas. Renewables would not be able to close that gap fast enough, especially if we have just caused the economic carnage to our engineering base in the north-east of Scotland. Therefore, we would be forced to rely on imports, increasing our carbon footprint as transport emissions would leap up, and increasing the energy bills of struggling families up and down the country. If Scotland's oil and gas industry was shut down immediately, as some new members of the Scottish Government wish, the result would be nothing short of catastrophic. I am concerned that Douglas Lumson is asserting that members of the Scottish Government have said about the oil and gas industry. I would like him to point to quotes where that is the case, if he is going to make those assertions. I think that Patrick Harvie is on record saying that the oil and gas industry needs to transition or die. That type of language is not helpful to the industry. If Scotland's oil and gas industry was shut down immediately, as some those hard-working men and women who are highly skilled and highly capable would be left with no hope of work being made redundant long before any greener job alternatives have been made available to them. It is those workers that we need for the transition. If we look at the cambo development in particular, we can look at what that means to the Scottish economy. 1,000 direct jobs—labours are against that. 1,000 more are supported through supply chain. Over 1 billion capital investment in the UK over the next five years. An additional 1 billion additional support costs over life of field and 140 million already invested that they want to flush down the drain. It is not just people employed directly through the supply chain that will benefit. Taxi drivers, restaurants, hotels and shops all depend on those types of investment to take place. Is it not best to protect those jobs and create new jobs by having a just transition between now and 2045? Where is the Conservative party's concern for jobs when you shut down the coal mines? I am coming on to parts of that. In summary, we are not voting on our ambition to become a net zero nation. As Maurice Golden already said, we are all agreed on that. What we are voting on is where the oil and gas will come. Oil and gas that we currently need and will need for the next 20 years. The UK is a net importer of oil and gas. We are transitioning to renewables, but it takes time and investment. I welcome the UK Government's 16 billion North Sea transition deal, and maybe that should be matched by the Scottish Government. Just now, we have a choice. We can produce it ourselves and protect thousands of jobs in this country, but also regulate how it is produced, regulating the impact of the environment and ensuring that production is carried out with the lowest possible carbon footprint. We can invest and develop new technologies, innovate, learn how to do things differently, lead the way in a cleaner energy production and share that learning internationally and become a world leader. Mr Lam, please bring your remarks to close. Or we can do what other parties have proposed, protect jobs in China and Russia, transport oil and gas halfway around the world. I meant what I said, please bring your remarks to close. That is why I am supporting the motion in Liam Kerr's name. It sends a clear message, we will support jobs, we will welcome investment, we do support a cleaner greener energy sector and we will not abandon the people of the north-east of Scotland. That concludes the debate on the future of North Sea oil and gas, and it is now time to