 The next item of business is a debate on motion 2 9 1 9, in the name of Paul Wheelhouse, on support for Scotland's renewables. Can I ask members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request-to-speak buttons? Can I say that we have already eaten into the time for this debate, so speeches will have to be quite tight? I call on Paul Wheelhouse to speak to it and move the motion up to 12 minutes, please, minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This afternoon I want to pay tribute to Scotland's renewable energy industry and I want to highlight some of our renewable energy achievements. I also want to set out the challenges that Scotland's sector now faces given the current direction of UK Government policy and how we intend to go forward. I hope that members will join me in acknowledging the very significant contribution that the renewable energy sector makes to Scotland's economy, its environment and its energy needs. The renewable energy industry in Scotland is one that makes headlines and indeed breaks records. In August for the first time ever, wind turbines in Scotland generated more electricity than was used in the whole of the nation on a single day. In September, the First Minister unveiled the world's largest planned stream project, MAGEN. The first two turbines are now generating electricity in the Pentland Firth. Onshore works in the world's largest consented floating offshore wind farm site have begun and we can expect to see Statoil's High Wind Scotland project deployed next summer. A Scottish Renewables report published last week found that Scottish Renewable Energy businesses are working in more than 40 countries around the world. Recent figures from the Office of National Statistics show that low-carbon industries and their supply chains in Scotland generated almost £11 billion in turnover in 2014 and supported 43,500 jobs in the Scottish economy. In the words of the UK business and energy secretary, Glegg Clark, last month, I quote, "...there are few nations that could claim to have embraced renewable energy with as much enthusiasm and success as Scotland." Last year, over half of Scotland's electricity came from renewable technologies. A clear example to the rest of the world, Murdo Fraser, please note. However, while the UK Government ministers applaud our success, the policy decisions continue to create serious uncertainty across the sector and undermine Scotland's renewables potential. I was extremely disappointed and angered by the UK Government's handling of the contract for difference announcement in some key respects. The Scottish Government repeatedly sought assurances from the UK Government ministers about their plans to support renewable energy projects through the contract for difference auction. I regret to say that I believe that the UK Government misled Scottish ministers and investors in the renewables industry and they have reneged on earlier commitments, and I will give some key examples of that. Firstly, on island wind, developers and communities on the remote islands of Scotland have told us that they are bitterly disappointed by the CFD announcement. They cannot understand why the UK Government has launched a further consultation on the treatment of island wind. That curiously is something that the Conservative amendment seeks to celebrate. In the consultation, the UK Government has set out its position that island wind should not be considered a separate technology but should instead be treated the same as onshore wind. This new, minded-to-position of the UK Government defies belief. It contradicts its previous position and undermines the work of the Scottish Islands Renewables Delivery Forum, an intergovernmental working group that is set up to address the barriers to deployment of island wind and marine technologies. The delivery forum is co-chaired by UK and Scottish Government ministers, and the forum funded over £100,000 of research that found that, while island wind could catch some of Europe's best wind resources, the projects faced unique costs that obstruct deployment. The research showed that unlocking the potential of the islands would provide a significant economic stimulus to our island communities and boost employment. It would also spur innovation in other energy sectors. The use of multi-terminal HVDC cables will provide learning benefits to offshore wind, and the export capacity that the transmission links would provide to the islands would open the door for further development of marine energy. Island wind would also bring UK-wide supply chain benefits and contribute to the decarbonisation of the UK energy system. That will be crucial if the UK's carbon emissions targets are to be met. However, the research highlighted that island projects face a number of technical and financial barriers that make them more akin to offshore than onshore wind. Expensive HVDC cables are required to connect islands to the mainland transmission grid. An individual cable to Shetland or the Western Isles could cost an estimated £600 to £700 million, and the remote and challenging conditions in which the projects would operate increase their network and operations and maintenance costs. For instance, it is projected that a wind project on Shetland would face a transmission charge of £134 per kilowatt per annum, compared with £18 for a mainland project. Similarly, a project on the Western Isles could pay up to £114 per kilowatt per annum. The case for treating island wind as a distinct technology from onshore wind is a product of a close working relationship between our two Governments. From that evidence base, the UK Government twice proposed a strike price for island wind and concluded from its 2013 consultation that it warranted separate treatment, and there was almost no industry dissent on that stance. It was therefore with great frustration that we learned, with no prior warning, that the UK Government has chosen to run a second consultation on the treatment of island wind, effectively barring remote island wind from bidding for CFD. The only justification—I would briefly. Mr George Stevenson. The Low Carbon Contracts Company has published a booklet for 2016-17 that says that its intention is to provide long-term revenue stability to low-carbon generators. Has that not been departed from in the decisions that have been made by the UK Government? Paul Wheelhouse. I think that Mr Stevenson is absolutely right. I know about his experience in the previous role in environment and climate change. I know that he has experienced this as well. The constant chopping and changing of UK policy does undermine long-term investment. Those are long-term investments with huge capital costs up front. It is therefore great frustration that we learned with no prior warning that this had been done. The only justification given for this change of heart is the 2015 Conservative manifesto commitment to end support for onshore wind. Apparently, Andrea Ledsom's September 2015 commitment to seek a state-age case with the European Commission is now history. However, the Scottish Government is clear that the case for treating island wind as a separate technology to onshore wind has already been made. The UK Government promised Scotland that we would be better together, and I do not mean to make this as a constitutional point, but, even after years of unprecedented co-operation on this subject, in particular, and what we thought was a productive partnership between the two Governments genuinely, it seems that Scotland is unable to count on the UK Government to deliver on its word here. The lack of communication, delay and indecision on the part of the UK Government has undermined the work of the delivery forum. Since its last meeting over a year ago, Scottish ministers and island councils have written repeatedly to the UK Government, but we have received no positive response. The timing of the consultation is particularly disappointing given the UK Government's knowledge of the tight timetable for delivering the projects. Even if we persuade the UK Government of the validity of its own evidence, it is now highly unlikely that island projects will be able to compete in the April 2017 auction. The Scottish Government remains committed to the shared ambition that we developed in partnership with the UK Government to deliver island wind and to capture its benefits. We take some encouragement, I would say, from the assurance given by Barnas Neville-Rolff, the Minister of State for Energy, that the consultation is genuine. I genuinely hope so, but we will call on the Secretary of State, Greg Clark, to re-engage with the delivery forum and to stand by the strong case that has helped to develop for island wind. Although I fully ignore the important role of this in the part of the Scottish Government, it is the responsibility of the UK Government to deliver on the political promises that it has made to island councils and developers who have continued to invest in the projects in good faith. The wave in tidal sectors feels similarly let down following the UK Government's announcement on CFDs. I am immensely proud, as I am sure many members, if not all members across the chamber, are, of the marine energy industry in Scotland. The marine sector has progressed more in 2016 and in any previous year, and Scottish firms are in a dominant position, as was discussed at last week's Green Energy Awards. Edinburgh Firm Nova Innovation has deployed the first two turbines of the Shetland tidal ray at Blumall Sound. Elantiff Resources is almost completed construction of the first phase 1A of the Maidgen project. An Orkney-based Scott Renewables has begun testing the world's most powerful two megabyte tidal turbine device at our flagship European Marine Energy Centre. In this triumphant moment for the marine energy sector, it is therefore extremely disappointing that the UK Government is threatening the growth of this innovative sector by refusing to provide ring fence support for wave and tidal stream technologies. I and my officials will be having discussions with the UK Government so that we can agree a way forward for the marine energy industry. I will also be convening a round table of representatives from the marine energy sector later this month to hear their priorities and, indeed, their suggestions for initiatives that we might take to support them. Regrettably, at this juncture—I am really pressed for time, I am sorry, to Liam McArthur—regrettably at this juncture, the UK Government does not appear to have learned the lessons from wind power when it missed the opportunity to establish the UK as the world leading centre for renewable energy technology and allowed our competitors to dominate. It was a huge own goal for the UK at that time. The Scottish Government is absolutely committed to helping us to maintain our current global lead in marine energy. The sector needs support so that it can build on the success of the first projects to drive down the cost of energy. We are determined to do all that we can to ensure that the tidal energy sector, with its potential to generate sustainable jobs, is taking forward in Scotland. We again call for a new approach to the UK's relationship with Scotland on energy matters, with decisions on energy policy made following a process of consultation and agreement with the Scottish Government as set out in the Scotland Act 2016. I genuinely want to work with my counterparts to secure even more success for the sector if we can do so. Offshore wind is a sector that has been thoroughly overlooked in the auction process. It is an absolute priority to find a route to market for onshore wind. Alongside solar energy, it is now our cheapest renewable technology at scale. It makes a substantial contribution to Scottish and UK renewable energy targets and to reducing carbon emissions. At this time, the UK Government is not clear on its stance on a price stabilisation mechanism and the industry is effectively mobilised, with only legacy projects of the rocks and fits era being constructed at this time. We need clarity soon or the industry will go elsewhere. This could have a serious impact on our emission reduction targets on jobs and on communities. The First Minister and I have asked the UK Government's Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to consider Scotland's onshore wind sector as part of its forthcoming industrial strategy. Pumped hydro storage also has the potential to play a significant role in Scotland's energy future and the future of these islands as a whole. Providing greater energy system flexibility is widely regarded as a key issue for energy policy, and a range of technologies and approaches will play a role in the smart energy system. That is recognised by the newly formed Pumped Storage Hydro working group in order to ensure that Pumped Storage Hydro, a proven, highly flexible and large-scale option, is considered fully as policies and support frameworks are developed. The group commissioned an independent report on that technology. That report has now been published and we have revised a clear summary of the many benefits that Pumped Storage provides today and could offer in the future. It sets out significant investment in market challenges associated with delivering new projects and emphasises the need to explore how those barriers can be removed. I wrote to the UK Government to commend that report and to ask it to engage with industry and the Scottish Government to explore how we can work together to realise the full potential of Pumped Storage Hydro and I will continue to pursue that matter with the UK Government. In conclusion, Scotland's renewable sector has come a very long way. The more mature technologies such as onshore wind and solar are fast becoming some of the cheapest forms of power generation and are attractive for deployment for power purchase agreements, for example. It makes no sense for the UK Government to exclude those readily available forms of clean energy from having a viable route to selling their electricity to the market when they could make such an important contribution to meeting future climate change targets. If the UK Government wants to keep bills down for consumers, an aim that we share, why overlook the lowest cost methods of generating electricity green energy at this time? Members will have heard about Maidgen tidal energy project in the Pentland Firth, which I mentioned earlier. Indeed, the eyes of the world are on this innovative scheme. It is a flagship project for the whole tidal industry. The UK Government invested alongside the Scottish Government in the first phase of this groundbreaking project. It is a superb example of innovation and what can be done when the UK and Scottish Governments work together to provide a lasting benefit for the people of Scotland and to tackle climate change. However, now that that developer, Atlantis Resources, is on the cusp of reaching financial close in the next phase of the project, Bays has decided that offering a ring-fence budget for such projects does not represent good value for money for consumers. I am sure that members will agree that this is not the only irrational decision, but it is short cited. If the UK Government wants the marine energy sector to achieve cost reductions, placing obstacles in its path is hardly the way to do it. I move the motion in my name. Alexander Burnett, I now call to speak to and move amendment 2 919.1, up to seven minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I first refer to my register of interests, and in particular my involvement in renewable energy? We welcome the debate on renewables and support the Government's acknowledgment of the opportunities that the latest round of contracts for difference brings to the Scottish economy. We would also strongly support the Scottish Government using powers within its means to further develop the renewable energy sector. As for the Labour amendment, which we will hear shortly, I think that we can also safely say that we will support anything that uses transferable skills and creates jobs. Within the green amendment, there are elements such as sectoral targets, repowering and energy bonds that we may be sympathetic to. I hope that today's debate will develop those areas, and I move the amendment in my name. However, as always, it is important to note the absolute hypocrisy that is present in the SNP today. It continues to moan about the lack of funding for Scotland, but only in this chamber. I am not sure whether the minister is aware, but his colleagues in Westminster, full of indignation on the Thursday at the CFD announcement, had calmed themselves to not even be bothered to raise an emergency question on the Monday, as is normal practice. It is apparently problematic enough for Scotland, but not problematic enough to change their weekend plans. Perhaps they appreciate, unlike here, that, while Scotland contributes less than 10 per cent of the levy-raising funds for CFDs, we have received over 43 per cent of its allocation. The UK Government remains committed to helping the offshore wind sector in Scotland with a record level of investment. Let me put it into context for the chamber. Before 2010, under the last UK Labour Government, the average level of investment in renewables was £3 billion. That figure has now more than doubled in the six years since, to £7 billion a year. He may not like it, but the minister has to acknowledge that it is this UK Government that is currently steering us towards our COP 21 targets. It should come as no surprise then that the UK is now up to second place in the latest climate change performance index. We have now also committed the UK to stop using the dirtiest of fuels, coal, from 2025, a bold commitment that shows the great progress that we are making in decarbonising our energy sector. It is not only our Westminster colleagues taking the initiative on this, as we on this side of the chamber have always supported Scottish Renewables' attempt to create a new sustainable energy innovation centre in Scotland. It is a great opportunity for Scotland to harness its research and development abilities and to export those skills all over the world. Unfortunately, so far, this is going down on the list as just another missed SMP opportunity. It is no wonder that the poles are tightening, and it would appear as well as powering our grid that the winds of Scotland are changing. As we move to decarbonise Scotland, it is clear that the Scottish Government has to deal with our elephant in the room, heat. Heat counts as 54 per cent of our energy usage, and 49 per cent of our home energy usage is space heating, which is effectively wasted. We are charging consumers for heat that they are effectively pumping into the sky. It is ever more worrying when you consider that the rising levels of fuel poverty in Scotland—one second—and that means that more than 40 per cent of Scotland's households are spending more than 10 per cent of income on their fuel. That simply is not good enough. The Scottish Government must take action on this immediately. Another problem, another SMP fail. Julian Martin Will the member admit that the carbon emissions levels that have been put out by the UK as a whole are not helped by the Tory Government's obsession with fracking? Alexander Burnett The only issue with fracking that we have in Scotland is that it is completely hypocritical to be taking a stance on it in Scotland, yet importing fracked gas from America, which has a higher carbon emissions content when you consider the shipping costs of bringing it over. The hypocrisy in saying that fracking should not happen and that it is still happy to import fracked gas would seem to turn that argument on its head. I will just continue on heat. In the most recent figures that were published this morning, 8 per cent of lofts still have lessened the minimum to 100 millimetres of insulation or no insulation at all. The figure is remained nearly unchanged for three years. That is 144,000 homes with inadequate insulation this winter, wasting hard-working families' income on inefficient heating. Although the Scottish Government twiddles its thumbs and sits on its hands, there is no doubt to keep them warm. The problem is not just limited to lofts. Investment in district heating needs to be a priority for the Scottish Government, and nowhere better would district heating work than the Scottish Government's own buildings at Victoria Docks. Even with a quick glance at the Scottish Government's own heat map, it is evident that the building is a prime candidate for district heating. Yet the Scottish Government has not even looked into that. How are companies supposed to take the initiative when the Scottish Government cannot literally put its own house in order? In conclusion, I would like to quote from the recent Strathclyde University report, that doing nothing is simply not an option. How many times do we have to tell them? I now call on Jackie Baillie to speak to and move amendment 2919.3, up to six minutes, please, Ms Baillie. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and I welcome the opportunity to debate renewables. We will be considering the draft energy strategy in the new year. There will be a longer period for discussion and debate, which will undoubtedly cover renewables along with a range of other energy sources, because I am clear that we need a mix of sources in our energy supply for the future. However, in the interests of time and brevity for this debate, I want to focus predominantly on two things. Firstly, the support, or indeed lack of it, from the UK Government, and secondly, the economic impact of renewables investment. Let me take them in reverse order. We have seen a substantial increase in renewables, in particular with onshore wind projects in the past few years, and that is welcome. For many people, their support in part depends on where the turbines are sighted and how much they work well with the background environment. That said, Scotland punches above its weight in attracting the lion's share of UK Government subsidies to do so. However, I am not convinced that we have the biggest bang for our buck in the process. I am told by the industry, those who work in it, that there is considerable supply chain potential that we are simply not capturing. Typically, the vast majority of wind turbines are manufactured abroad. That is where a considerable amount of our resource goes and that is where there is the biggest jobs impact. Let me give you two examples to illustrate that. The offshore wind turbine project in the Pentland Firth, I am told, sends its work on turbines to Austria. The new Scottish power project in the North Sea is sending its order for turbines to the Gulf. That potentially is 200 jobs, the benefit of which is not in Scotland. Frankly, I do not think that that is good enough. At a time when our economy is struggling, every penny should be a prisoner and we should seek to make more of the economic opportunities, especially those that enjoy public subsidy. The Scottish Government economic strategy, indeed. Will the member congratulate the firm and the workers at BiFab, which is on the Isle of Lewis, who has successfully started work on 28 jackets and eight piles for the Beatrice field? I would, indeed, absolutely welcome that. I just want to see more of it and I am sure that that is something that he agrees with me on. The Scottish Government economic strategy suggested that the low-carbon sector—this was its strategy in 2011—could support 130,000 jobs by 2020. That was probably a little overambitious and I suspect that the Scottish Government thought so too, because by the time we came to the 2015 strategy, the figure had disappeared. Scottish renewables in their briefing today suggest that there are something like 21,000 jobs in renewables. There is no reference that I can find in Government documents to a target for jobs, little prior work on securing more of the supply chain for Scotland. I really should make progress. While that is disappointing, I am ever hopeful from the minister for change. As a general principal—I think that he would agree with me—we should always consider the economic and jobs impact of any public sector investment. It is not protectionist, it is sensible. It is about maximising economic opportunity, getting the best value for our investment and, quite simply, I want the lion's share of renewable jobs in Scotland. Scotland is uniquely placed to take advantage of the renewables revolution. We have lots of wind, not just in this chamber. Indeed, if there was a renewable technology that captured energy from rain, we would be quids in. Joking aside, we have considerable expertise in the oil and gas sector. Oil and gas UK estimates that there will be 120,000 job losses in the industry by the end of this year, many of them engineers with transferable skills. Let's make sure that we connect up those opportunities and renewables with a skilled workforce in the oil and gas sector. I hope that the Parliament will accept Labour's amendment, maximise the supply chain and consult on setting a target for the jobs to be delivered from renewables. I think that because of the potential that we have, I am genuinely disappointed by the Tories' attitude at a UK level. The announcement of the second pot of funding for contract for difference was delayed by a year. The £290 million was indeed welcomed. That is for delivery in 2021-23. Whilst the funding is welcome, the devil is as ever in the detail. We see support for offshore wind technologies. Clearly, Donald Trump did not manage to have a word with the UK Government before he decided on this course of action. He is, of course, the gift that keeps on giving. If anybody cares to look at his tweets, I found one from him. David Cameron—sorry, at David Cameron—should be run out of office for spending so much of England's money to subsidise wind farms in Scotland. Well, dearie me, it's almost tempting to call for a comeback from David Cameron. The UK Tory Government has not made any commitments about onshore wind and solar to help these technologies find a route to market. There's also no minimum level for wave entitle technologies, so they will have to compete with cheaper technologies, which will be difficult. There is no promise to the Scottish Islands—a departure from the UK Government's previous commitment to remote islands. We know the real challenges of delivery, investment in interconnection and the clear social and industrial benefits for small island communities. I genuinely hope that, when the consultation ends, the UK Government will have listened to those remote communities and decided that they should be treated as a separate category to onshore wind projects. We on the Labour benches support renewables, but we believe that there is an even greater economic gain to be had from current and future investment. Therefore, I move the amendment in my name and commend it to the chamber. Mark Ruskell to speak to you and move amendment 2.919.4, up to six minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I declare an interest as a councillor in Stirling. I thank the Scottish Government for bringing forward the motion for debate here this afternoon. It's right that, as a Parliament, we repeatedly celebrate the green energy achievements of the last 17 years. In fact, 2016 has been a record-breaking year, with wind power generating more electricity than Scotland's entire demand on several days for the first time ever. The fact that renewables meet the equivalent of well over half of our electricity needs in Scotland is a story of success, but it also begs the question about our longer-term goals. There's no room for complacency, because electricity generation only represents a quarter of our energy needs. Transport and heat are largely still fuelled by fossil energy sources. It's clear that if we are to fully decarbonise the energy sector by, for example, shifting to electric transport and district heating, it will inevitably mean an increase in demand for electricity, requiring efforts to create real local energy systems that can balance supply and demand. Much of the support and development of those approaches is possible here in Scotland under devolved powers, and good work on innovation has been piloted already under programmes such as the LECF with support from Ofgem. I note, however, that the minister, as I understand it, will not be supporting our call for an all-energy target today, but I do hope that he will take the opportunity of the energy strategy in January to renew our collective ambition in this Parliament, and in particular to look to countries such as Norway and the Netherlands, who are now pinning dates on the phase-out of fossil fuel-powered cars. However, in a debate about potential and ambition, it's also right that we challenge the assumption that the current pipeline of electricity projects will still be there in years to come in the face of what can only be described as ideological attacks from the Westminster Government. I accept that we have a regulated market for electricity in the UK, and that the reforms that were put in place by the Westminster Coalition were designed to deliver the lowest cost to consumers with an effective route to market for the energy infrastructure that will be relying on for at least the next generation to come. The pathway of progress for onshore wind in particular has delivered more energy generation for less and less cost to consumers year on year. Costs down in the supply chain, costs down in operation and maintenance, with more powerful, more efficient turbines able to harness more of the infinitely renewable wind resource Scotland is blessed with. The expectation amongst the industries onshore wind and in time other technologies will become subsidy free, able to generate on the wholesale price of electricity alone. However, instead of Westminster giving the industry a stable financial bridge to cross a narrowing cost gap to a subsidy free future, it has simply pushed the whole onshore wind and solar sector into the abyss. Confidence is down, jobs have been lost, long-term investment strategies are being questioned, public sector projects such as Stirling Council's five megawatt solar farm fell short with a renewable obligation cut, agonising the close-to-grid connection, losing millions of pounds to close attainment gaps, reable the elderly and fix potholes locally. What was the point in the huge cuts to subsidy? The Don Quiotes of the Tory government had already successfully railed against turbines in the home counties by introducing draconian planning policies, despite the fact that their own research was showing growth in public support for wind across the UK. There was no need for them to kick against their own market ideology by fixing a scheme to exclude the lowest-cost technology of onshore wind from the mix because they had already loaded the planning system. It undermined the very—I am very short for time—I will take a very brief intention. Gillian Martin, with regard to the target that you were asking for in your amendment, I mean, do you agree with me that if you were to set a target of like 50 per cent you really would have to do an impact assessment on what—if you could achieve that target, and some of the measures that you have just been talking about really are making that quite difficult? Matt Ruskell? Well, I mean, I think that that is rightly for the energy strategy. What we are doing today is putting forward a number of policies and ideas which we think need to be taken seriously by this government, and I hope that that is something that the minister can reflect on in closing today. What was needed was a balanced approach—I am going back to the issue of subsidy and CFDs here—was a balanced approach to investment, recognising the advantages of onshore wind as a mature technology, while putting the far market technologies of wind, of wave and tidal on a clear pathway to commercialisation. Instead, we have a second CFD round dominated by offshore wind, which, yes, has a big role to play, but not to the exclusion of those technologies that are already ahead of it and those that are coming up behind. There is a strong future for onshore wind. The trend towards higher turbine heights means fewer turbines in the landscape, and with many projects entering their second decade, there is a golden opportunity for Scotland to repower, replant and, where appropriate, extend wind farms. Taking a landscape-scale approach to degraded uplands could deliver a triple win of massively increased power output while delivering opportunities to invest in habitat restoration, while renegotiating community benefit agreements with more profit sharing and partnership built in. We see island communities reaching out for the onshore wind developments that could release nearly three quarters of £1 billion worth of investment, great constraints that have had a stranglehold on their economic potential for years finally released, land reform delivering the foundation of a renewables legacy that will ensure wealth and wellbeing are shared across the islands for generations to come. Allowing island wind to place in CFD process that recognises the challenge alongside the enormous social and economic potential has to be the priority of every single member in this Parliament, alongside a new target for all energy. I move the amendment to my name. We now move to the open speeches of up to six minutes, please. I have Ivan McKee, followed by Liam Kerr. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Scotland has made tremendous potential in green energy, infrastructure and capacity over recent years, now generating more than half of our electricity requirements from renewables. In Scotland's contribution to the UK's renewable energy sector is substantial—26 per cent of the UK total. Scotland has ambitious targets for the future to deliver 100 per cent of our electricity needs from renewables by 2020 and to focus on making significant inroads into converting heat and transport energy supply to renewables in the coming years. It is worth taking a step back and remembering why we are focused on the shift towards renewables. The impact of climate change on our planet is clear. That is not about saving the planet, but the planet will do just fine as it has done for the past four billion years. It is about keeping the planet habitable for homeless happenings, pure self-interest. Scotland's work in building our renewables capacity means that we meet and exceed our climate change targets. Scotland's progress in this area is internationally recognised. Renewables provide not only clean energy and mitigate climate change, but also provide the opportunity to leverage new technologies to build industries of the future. However, as with all energy technologies, renewables require market stability and support in order to invest in capacity and development. In that context, we debate the UK Government's contracts for difference pricing mechanism and its commitment or lack of it to Scotland's renewables technologies. The UK Government's recent announcement of the CFD's structure was delayed over the summer due to Brexit. Its unveiling has been very disappointing in terms of the way it limits the growth of Scotland's renewable potential and stifles Scotland's renewables ambitions. There is no ring-fenced funding for marine or onshore wind in the CFD, making it unlikely that those projects will win funding. Yet nuclear will, the Hinkley Sea Deal provides support pricing set at £92.50 per megawatt hour, almost double the current wholesale price of electricity. Onshore wind costs and contrast have to continue to fall with a last round of support at around £80 per megawatt hour, an industry working towards much lower prices as technologies mature. Island Wind offers a route to establish high-efficiency wind generation, a significant contribution to our energy mix and economic contribution to our island communities. Despite repeated assurances to the contrary following the 2013 consultation, the UK Government has effectively excluded island wind projects, such as the Viking project in Shetland from the CFD allocation. Instead, it has kicked the can down the road, initiating a further consultation, delaying implementation and creating yet more uncertainty. Many parts of the renewable sector, such as tidal and wave, are in their infancy. Those technologies will become mainstream in the future. The countries that invest in them will reap the economic rewards for decades to come. The UK Government has failed to recognise the future potential of investing in those technologies, at the same time making a £35 billion bet on the unproven EPR of nuclear technology at Hinkley Sea. It is not good for consumers, it is not good for industry in this country and it is not good for Scotland. The recent CFD announcement was disappointing news for the wave and tidal sectors, as there was no minima set aside for those technologies. Without minima, waving tidal projects will be included in a cost-competitive auction process alongside offshore wind projects, which are currently significantly cheaper due to the technology's maturity and scale. Given the comparably high cost of those projects, unlikely they will secure a contract in a competitive auction. It is especially problematic for Scottish firms who are in a dominant position in the marine sector. It is a truism that wind does not blow all the time, although sometimes in Scotland it feels like it. They need to balance intermittency can and has been tackled in a number of ways. For example, smart demand management, battery storage technologies and the use of local solutions to feedback into the grid. However, the use of pumped hydro has a large role to play in balancing energy supply, allowing excess generation from wind to be stored as hydro energy for future use. Major hydro projects at Crookin and Corriglas, with a total additional capacity of one gigabot, are costed, funded and ready to proceed, prevented only by the lack of CFD support by the UK Government. Despite the UK Government ministers applauding Scotland's success in renewable energy, their policy decisions continue to create serious uncertainty across the sector and to undermine Scotland's renewables potential. Renewables is an industry that Scotland was made for. Blessed with the fabulous resources of oil and gas sector in earlier decades, Scotland has hit the jackpot not once but twice with its potential for renewables. We need to support and develop those sectors, not just to provide our own energy needs and those for export and not just to build manufacturing industries on the back of them, but also to build up levels of expertise in those sectors, similar to what has been achieved in the oil and gas sector previously, providing us with a revenue stream and high-value employment far into the future. Low-carbon industries in Scotland generate £10.7 billion in turnover and support 43,000 jobs and have the potential to do far more to support our economy of the future. However, what we need is that the UK Government will hold the economic levers in this sector, as in many others, do not stand in the way of Scotland's interests. Liam Kerr, followed by Gillian Martin. I live in Aberdeen. I have worked there predominantly advising the energy sector for over 13 years. I am now privileged to represent it as part of the north-east region. I have spent a great deal of time since being elected seeking to understand in ever greater depth its energy needs and energy delivery. It is a city that has grown rich thanks to North Sea oil and gas, and until recently it had the highest concentration of millionaires outside of London and boasted an unemployment rate below 2 per cent. In 2009, as the rest of the country suffered under Labour's Great Depression, it proudly declared no recession here. However, times have been tough of late. Oil and gas UK estimates that 40,000 jobs have gone in the industry. Hotel takings down 50 per cent. Visitors through the airport 20 per cent lower year on year. Mortgage arrears have spiralled to double the national level and could rise further as unemployment increases, as the EY report stated yesterday. Despite the considerable support from the UK Government, which has been welcomed by Oil and Gas UK, who said that they are pleased to hear the Chancellor recommit to Her Majesty's treasuries driving investment plan and welcomed the autumn statement. That is why I welcome the news that Vattenfall has agreed to move into Aberdeen Harbour to support the construction of Scotland's largest offshore winds test and demonstration facility, a 25-year lease with Aberdeen Harbour board, which is the first offshore wind operator to invest long-term in the ports facilities, and I cannot wait to visit them on commercial key when they are operational the second quarter of next year. It is a shining example of the future of the energy industry, an energy sector that has a mix of renewable and traditional. Nowhere is more readily equipped. Nowhere has the expertise, the infrastructure, the experience of building and maintaining an offshore energy sector than the city and shire. I am confident that this investment is a sign of things to come, as the city diversifies into a modern energy future. It is this energy mix that is key to the future, and that is why our amendment urges the Scottish Government's forthcoming energy strategy to set out a balanced energy mix. We have got to stop talking about wind and tidal as the be all and end all, but this debate is on renewable energy. Let's talk about how the UK Government has invested record amounts in the development of the offshore wind sector in Scotland and across the rest of the UK. Pre-2010, the average level of investment in renewables at UK level was £3 billion. That figure is now £7 billion. No, I'm afraid I won't. Let's talk about how the UK is now in second place in the latest climate change performance index behind Denmark. Let's talk about how the UK Government has pledged to end the use of coal in our energy mix by 2025. Let's not forget that £290 million has been announced for the next round of contracts for difference funding to support less-established technology such as offshore wind, biomass, wave, tidal stream and geothermal projects. I represent a party committed not only to the ambitious emissions targets as demonstrated by the UK's continued leading stance at COP21, as Alexander Burnett said, but also to our energy security and to creating a genuine energy mix, including shale gas. Unlike those who impose a moratorium on even the exploration, the exploration for shale gas in Scotland, who claim to be environmentally aware and then support the shipping of shale gas from halfway across the world on massive super-tankers to Grangemouse. It's up to you, Mr Kerr, not me. I'll take an intervention on that point if I get time. That is so kind of the member. Would he care to reflect that the licensing for bringing in fracking into the port at Grangemouse is done by the UK Government? I will reflect on that, but the point remains the same. The point remains that you cannot bring shale gas from halfway across the world and then try not to turn up to a photo opportunity and hope that no one will notice. I can tell you that the people of Scotland did notice and they noticed the lip service given by that Scottish National Party to local community concerns when wind farm applications are rammed through against the wishes of the residents. I simply haven't got time. Two thirds of wind farm applications rejected by local authorities have been overturned in 2016 so far, such as the 22 turbine development in Altnahara, the first to be approved in a designated wildland area since the Scottish Government revised its planning framework. Mr Wheelhouse justified his decision by saying that it had popular support, so that will be a petition organised by an SNP supporter, enthusiastically supported by locals in Fraserborough, in Donfermline and in Doncaster. I noted with interest the World Wildlife Fund's briefing paper saying that transport accounts for a quarter of Scotland's energy consumption. I noted it, but it was only the amendment that picked it up for today's debate. It is the autumn statement that announced that the UK Government will invest a further £390 million by 2020-21 to support ultra-low-emissions vehicles, renewable fuels and connected and autonomous vehicles. Unlike the SNP, we, on those benches, are genuine about creating an energy mix, genuine about investing in renewables, genuine about trying to combat the chronic lack of insulation in Scottish homes and genuine about standing up for local communities. That is what our amendment seeks to do, and I urge the chamber to support it. I call on Gillian Martin to be followed by Lewis MacDonald. Renewable energy is one of the keys to an economically successful and sustainable Scotland. The minister's opening speech gave a full picture of the Scottish Government's considerable efforts in assuring Scotland's position as a leader in renewable energy and its success globally. Coming from the north-east of Scotland, I have a particular interest in the energy sector. For one thing, the oil and gas aspect of the industry directly facilitated me being brought up in the area in Newburgh, in my constituency. My father is an engineer. It is that engineering skill that brought him to Aberdeenshire, because he was brought up in Clydebank. Like many folk from that town, he worked at John Brown's engineering. Cut to the late 1970s, and you do not need me to tip to remind anyone in this chamber what happened to manufacturing and heavy industry in Clyde as a result of Tory policy. The shipyards were decimated. Many engineers, like my dad, upsticks to Aberdeenshire and helped to develop the oil and gas industry, accompanied largely by their shipbuilding colleagues from the north of England, whose heavy industry suffered the same fate under Margaret Thatcher. Yesterday, I read an excellent article by Dick Winchester, an engineer of a similar vintage to my dad, who writes in the press and journal every week. Mr Winchester pointed to the huge amount of manufacturing and engineering projects that our renewables industry requires, and the huge amount of jobs that renewable innovations and manufacturing could create. The massive potential for engineering talent to be redeployed into new industries that will develop our future greener world, a third wave of Scottish engineering, ships, oil and gas, and now renewables. We have the natural resources that can generate the energy, but more needs to be done to ensure that Scottish manufacturing and innovation are once again redeployed. Scotland is an engineering nation, and we have amazing companies doing vital work in this area. However, it is our northern European neighbours who are making the most of the opportunity that Scotland's natural resources offer. Dick Winchester's article mentions Vestas, the Danish engineering company that manufactures wind turbines and employs over 20,000 people. He mentioned Vattenfall, a Swedish company who is working in my constituency in Black Dog, as we speak, to get the substation for the Aberdeen offshore wind farm under way. Those innovative companies are investing in Scotland and working in partnership with us, and that is most welcome. However, the environment for Scottish-owned businesses in this area also has to flourish in the same kind of forward-looking environment that those other small countries were able to foster. Mark Ruskell, please. I think that you recognise the importance of setting targets in driving the progress that we have seen with renewable electricity. Do you also acknowledge that the same will be true for transport and heat, and that we need to drive strong progress in order to develop new industries? Gillian Martin. I am not dealing with that aspect of things in my speech, but I broadly agree with that. That is why it is bitterly disappointing that the UK Government has not provided a minimum allocation for Scotland's marine energy technologies, an area in which we have probably the biggest potential for innovation and some of the world's most innovative companies. The lack of action and contracts for difference that the Scottish Government asks for assurances on makes life even harder for our renewables industry. That is on top of the early closure of the renewables obligations scheme, where the industry has roundly and rightly criticised them on. Then there is the cancellation of the wind farm subsidy programme. The message that this gives to investors is the big problem. It says that the rug of government incentive and support can be pulled from under their feet any time, just as it was with the carbon capture project that Peterhead was leading on and could have been a giant step in managing our carbon emissions, not to mention providing jobs for the north-east and exporting that technology to other countries, like the northern European firms that Mr Winchester mentioned in his piece, or the Austrian-built turbines that Miss Bailey mentioned in her speech. It takes time to recoup investment from new technologies, and removal of incentives are unhelpful at best and leave a destructive lasting legacy in the minds of investors at worst. Today, I asked Dr Lena Wilson of the Scottish Enterprise what her key asks of both Governments were in facilitating the diversification of skills from oil and gas into the renewable sector. She welcomed the Scottish Government's actions in this area. She herself heads up the transition training fund and is proud of its achievements so far, but she did say that the UK Government was making it a challenging environment for renewables innovation. Her appeals to the former UK Environment Minister, Amber Rudd, had not borne fruit in this area, and she urged the new incumbent to look again at what they could do to create a more attractive environment for potential investors and innovators. We are already way ahead of the rest of the UK in supplying renewable energy. As Ivan McKee mentioned, renewable energy generation in Scotland made up approximately 26 per cent of the total UK for renewable generation in 2015. Of course, we can do more, but it seems to often be the case that the priorities of the two Governments are at odds with one another on energy policy. Scotland has built ships. We have built offshore platforms. We have the engineering expertise to deliver decommissioning projects, but we cannot be left behind as European neighbours surge forward in this area. Their Governments have facilitated that innovation through investment and tax incentives. We need the same commitment from the UK Government who needs to appreciate the resources that Scotland has, both natural and our people, and have a more constructive and forward-thinking approach, and afford renewables the same support that it gives to the more costly and precarious nuclear and fracking projects that it is obsessed with. I remind members that, when you take an intervention, you take your seat, so we do not have two members standing at the same time. I know that Ms MacDonald did not need to be told that. I call Lewis MacDonald to be followed by Stuart Stevenson. When it comes to building our renewable energy powerhouse, Scotland has three critical advantages. We have the natural resources, as we have heard. We have the political will across parties, and in the supply chains built up to support offshore oil and gas in the last 40 years, we have the formidable concentration of energy and engineering expertise from all over the world, which makes Aberdeen the energy capital of Europe. The Aberdeen supply chain has been innovative from the outset, enabling the recovery of more natural resources from further below the seabed in more hostile environments over a longer period of time than once would have been thought possible. It is the same pioneering spirit and technological innovation that are needed to realise the potential of renewable energy and to turn aspiration in this field into reality, and it is very largely the same people and businesses that can help to make that happen again. There are, however, some challenges to be met. Renewables UK has yet to recognise that much of what the members want to do in the marine environment is already being done, in particular as regards safe working practices offshore. It is deeply frustrating for workers made redundant as a result of the downturn in oil and gas to be told that their hard-earned offshore safety certificates are not recognised by marine energy employers, even for aspects of the job that are virtually identical in both sectors. Safety standards that are set by OPTO in the North Sea are recognised as the best worldwide in offshore oil and gas. Unemployed oil workers who want to make their own transition to renewable energy should not have to spend precious redundancy payments on repeating training that they have already done simply in order to tick a bureaucratic box. I hope that the Scottish Government will add its voice to the calls that are already made by all workers unions and training organisations for renewables UK to look at all of that again. Even where practices do differ and they do in some respects short and affordable conversion courses would surely be to mutual advantage. Last week, as the minister knows, I was delighted to welcome ABB in holding their first reception at the Scottish Parliament. ABB is a specialist service company supporting oil and gas and other sectors with their UK operational headquarters in Aberdeen. Now they want to drive the new technologies that will shape the industries of the future from digital manufacturing to electric vehicles. And Vattenfall, as has already been mentioned, is another big inward investor in the north-east. They have indeed just agreed terms with Aberdeen Harbour Board for a non-shore base. That is for the European offshore wind deployment centre to be built in Aberdeen Bay. Just as Orkney hosts a Europe's marine energy centre, so Aberdeen will host a Europe's prime site for proving new offshore wind technologies. That, in spite of the opposition of a well-known local hotelier recently elected as president of the United States. International companies like ABB and Vattenfall enjoy working in Aberdeen, as we have already heard, because of the strength and depth of the engineering sector there. They like the fact that the whole city embraces energy and engineering as a great way to make a living. They also like the fact that Aberdeen is a city that plans for the future. Re-branding the oil capital of Europe as the energy capital of Europe was a symbol some time ago of that forward thinking. An Aberdeen city region deal recently agreed with both the UK and Scottish Governments also looks to the future beyond oil production from the North Sea. The city council set up Aberdeen renewable energy group to act as a catalyst for change, working with public and private sectors and local communities. There are many examples of the progress that has been made in recent years. The Donside hydro project in Aberdeen was recognised as the best community project in Scotland at the Green Energy Awards last week. It is an urban village of social and affordable homes, generating its own power and profits as well, funded by large numbers of small investors in and around the community. The city also has the biggest and best district heating network anywhere in Britain, thanks to the efforts of Aberdeen heat and power, connecting thousands of homes and many public buildings to heat and power grids that have reduced both carbon emissions and energy bills for people formerly in fuel poverty. Aberdeen is also trailblazing on transport. Paris, Madrid, Athens and Mexico City committed last week to ban diesel in the city limits by 2025, so the race is on to commercialise hydrogen fuel cell technology and the work done in Aberdeen has put Scotland in pole position in that race. Aberdeen has Europe's largest fleet of fuel cell buses and the UK's largest and most efficient hydrogen production and refuelling station. The scheme has had valuable support from the Scottish Government and the European Union. It is attracting huge interest in Japan, which sees hydrogen as the next big thing in energy. However, for Scotland to keep its lead in this area, Aberdeen needs government support to continue. I would ask the minister today to agree that the work to turn aspiration into reality must not now be put at risk and to confirm that the Aberdeen hydrogen bus project will receive the funding that it needs if it is to proceed to the next stage. Scotland's devolved Governments since 1999 have all set demanding targets for renewable energy production and they have all been delivered. A target for jobs would be a good step to take at this stage and an increasing focus on transport and heat as well as power, as we heard from Mark Russell. With the right support from government at every level, Aberdeen can play a big part in that as a centre of engineering, technology, skills and innovation and as the energy capital of Europe long after North Sea oil. That way, all our aspirations can be turned into reality. Thank you very much. Mr MacDonald has called Stuart Stevenson to follow by Liam McArthur. Mr Stevenson, please. Thank you very much. Jackie Baillie made a slight reference to the fact that David Cameron has not been very supportive of offshore wind. He is absolutely 100% supportive. Mine UA is the SNP councillor in Aberdeen, David Cameron, perhaps not the one that he had in her mind. Liam Kerr's memory seems to be slightly shorter than mine. It was a remembrance day and when we were both sitting round the table listening to Shell UK, I think that Lewis MacDonald was also there, so he might nod when I say that Shell did indicate some considerable disappointment at the inadequate support that they were getting from the UK Government for many of the initiatives that they wished to pursue. Finally, let me also say to Liam Kerr that Aberdeenshire perhaps has a higher concentration of onshore wind farms, primarily because the Conservative-led council for many years had a looser planning authority with not the same restrictions as the rest of Scotland in the distance between wind turbines and communities. Something that was there, and I urged them to harmonise with others. Liam Kerr knew to us perhaps not so familiar with some of the history as others might be. There are some interesting things said on this whole subject from time to time. There was a 2010 general election candidate who stood against Austin Mitchell and nearly beat him within 714 votes, called Victoria Ailey, standing for the Conservative Party. In 2015, she showed perhaps that startling insight that those on the right of politics show when she posed the question, what happens when renewable energy runs out? That was something that was drawn to her attention as perhaps not being the most sensible thing to have said. It was a good deal of desperate back peddling. She back peddled even further. She stood in 2015 again in the same constituency in Grimsby for UKIP. She will be making a third attempt to get to the UK Parliament on Thursday, when she is standing in the Sleaford and North Heicam by-election, once again for UKIP. Appropriately enough, on the ballot paper, immediately following the monster-raving loony party and immediately before bus pass Elvis, whose candidate appears to be a gentleman called David Bishop. There is a lot of nonsense talked about in this general subject. Some of it is merely amusing, but some of it is serious indeed. Some unexpected sources point us to the seriousness of the whole issue of climate change and why renewable energy has such an important part in this. I like to quote no less a person than John Brennan, who is the director of the CIA, who on 16 November 2015 said, climate change is a deeper source of instability. He identified climate change as one of the key challenges that was creating an unstable world that his agency would have to engage with. It was not the only thing that he identified, but he identified climate change in a handful of things. That is why we should take this debate on the subject of renewables and on the broader subject of climate change extremely seriously indeed. We have made progress in Scotland, that is for sure, beating our climate change targets six years ahead of the date that we set in 2009. That is absolutely terrific, but we are but 1,700th of the world's emissions. We can set an example, but we are not the source of the entire problem. The UK Government is much bigger in its contribution to climate problems, so it is bitterly disappointing to see that it is failing to understand the best economic way of tackling the issues that are before us. Contracting a price twice the market rate for nuclear power from Linkley Point is not only a foolish one in relation to relying on a technology that is unproven and by the early attempts to implement that technology that Linkley Point C would depend on, looking to not be successful, but it is economically benighted and unhelpful. The money could much more usefully and to proven technologies be installed in renewable energy. The low-carbon contracts company that I referred to earlier, which is part of the quite complex infrastructure surrounding contracts for difference, there are six significant parties to these contracts, which make things far from easy. They certainly did not, in their contracts for difference booklet for 2016-17, give us any prior insight into the vault fast by the UK Government. I hope that the UK Government will listen to this debate, but also more to the point, it will think not just of the investments that are being made in renewable energy and the value that is derived from there, but, as Lewis MacDonald and others have made reference to, the key opportunity to re-exploit the huge skills that have been built up in Scotland, in the north of England, in East Anglia, throughout the UK, in offshore gas and offshore oil, both industries that have been around for decades now, which we can make much of in the future. I start by making the chamber aware of my ownership of a micro turbine and a ground-source heat pump, but that is only one of the reasons I am grateful to Paul Healhouse for allowing the chamber this debate on Scotland's renewable energy sector. A vital issue for this country is a bit of particular significance to the constituency that I represent about which more shortly. I also welcome the minister's constructive approach, reflecting the strong cross-party support that Lewis MacDonald referred to that has characterised the approach to those issues since the establishment of this Parliament. Scottish renewables highlighted in their briefing that the political consensus has helped to reduce the risk and enabled the sector to deliver real advances in a relatively short space of time. 57 per cent of Scotland's gross electricity consumption in 2014, 10.7 billion pounds of turnover and support for 43,500 jobs across the low-carbon industries in Scotland, and displacement of more than 13 million tonnes of CO2 in 2015. Despite that progress, others have acknowledged that challenges remain. Sadly, since 2015, I believe that the UK Tory Government seems intent on undermining that progress, while putting it at risk our ability to achieve future emissions reduction targets and indeed jobs growth, is disappointing therefore to see Alexander Burnett seek to legitimise that approach in his amendment. I accept and welcome that contracts for difference do offer good opportunities for offshore wind, yet it is beyond me how Mr Burnett believes that wave and tidal stand the remotest chance at this stage of bidding competitively for any of the available funds. Removing any minima for wave and tidal generation effectively locks those technologies out of any funding up until 2021 and probably later than that. It also sends entirely the wrong message to developers, to the supply chain companies and to investors. Instead of repeating the nonsense that wave and tidal can compete on price with offshore wind, Mr Burnett and his colleagues should join in making the case for capped support along the lines previously envisaged. The number of projects involved and the hurdles that they still need to overcome mean that any UK Government outlay would be low and slow in marked contrast to the boost such a cap would give to confidence within the wave and tidal sectors. As for the decision to consult on an island strike price as beggars belief, we have been around the houses on this already twice. Moreover, the framing of the consultation makes it pretty clear that this is just a mechanism for allowing the UK Government to dump commitments made by the previous coalition. That is not the way to develop energy policy or to build confidence or to secure future investment in renewables. We need our islands to play a full part in delivering the renewables revolution, but that will require new infrastructure and upfront costs that must be reflected in the funding available to support island-based projects. In Orkney, the approach of UK Tory ministers on those two issues alone is having a noticeable effect. As confidence and activity leak away, so too do jobs and income. The waste that it represents is shameful with the potential loss of innovation, of skills and of expertise that was picked up by Jackie Baillie. We need a much stronger focus on supporting innovation, something in which the Scottish Government and the UK Government's language is in much alignment. I urge the minister to take the lead and challenge his UK counterparts to follow suit. By all means, use Orkney as a testbed. Our islands have an impressive track record as a living laboratory, but we have the potential to do more. On energy management and storage, the take-up of micro and community-based renewables, the roll-out of electric vehicles and hydrogen-fuelled ferries, innovation in tackling fuel poverty and delivering energy-efficient homes and public buildings, Orkney's living laboratory is genuinely pioneering. Indeed, I hope that the energy strategy that it will do out next year will capture that and reflect the fact that Orkney is much more than EMEC and indeed the wider marine renewables. As for innovation, let us not forget that it has a happy knack of securing wider benefits. For example, work that has been done recently in Orkney by sustainable marine energy in relation to rock bolts is now helping in the aquaculture sector at precisely the moment that SME is having to scale back its renewable operations in Orkney. To allow more of that innovation to happen, the minister will have to dip into his pocket UK colleagues likewise, perhaps through finally delivering some actual benefit from having designated Pentland Firth in Orkney waters as a marine energy park. Meanwhile, PPAs and renewable energy bonds seem to offer opportunities and scope for supporting innovation, while also growing the supply chain and providing routes to market for renewables technologies are all very welcome. Before closing, let me touch briefly on some of the issues that are perhaps less well covered in the governance motion, which I am happy to support. Although I have reservations about a Government-owned renewables company, I think that Mark Ruskell's amendment very fairly captures the task ahead in relation to heat and transport, where the forthcoming energy strategy really needs to show the Government upping its game and being more ambitious. 50 per cent of energy from renewables by 2030 is the scale, I believe, of what needs to be done, but, as WWF highlighted, on heat, half of our energy source at the moment, current figures stand at around 5 per cent. Key to meeting our ambitions in this area will be a warm homes act proposed by the Scottish Liberal Democrats and other parties. As well as helping to deliver clean, affordable heat for homes and businesses, such legislation could pave the way for real progress finally on district heating in Scotland. On transport, again, more ambition is required, making the Government's position, I have to say, on APD and Heathrow expansion, all the more inexplicable. Helpfully, the WWF and Scottish renewables have laid out proposals for the electrification and decarbonisation of our transport system, greater incentives for the take-up of EVs and other sustainable vehicles, including the use of bus lanes, priority parking, low emissions zones and major expansion and improvement of maintenance of charging and refuelling points. I have no problem joining the minister. No, you must close now. Sorry, Ms MacArthur. I call Mary Todd. We are followed by Donald Cameron, Ms Todd, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I was eager to participate in today's debate on renewables because I am a passionate supporter of the industry. The need for clean energy is indisputable and the potential for green energy around the highlands and islands is absolutely unrivaled. We have suffered centuries of depopulation in the highlands and islands, but if we can harness that energy potential, it could transform the region from a low-wage economy to one that not only enables our young folk to stay but attracts people in. We have been generating electricity from hydro schemes for over 100 years. More than half of Scotland's hydro schemes are in the highlands and islands area, and today, hydro power contributes about 12 per cent of Scotland's electricity, with considerable potential remaining to introduce new schemes and expand or improve the efficiency of existing facilities. The sea of the north coast of Scotland and around the Orkney Islands contains half of the UK's and a quarter of Europe's tidal resource. The Shetland Islands and the water around our giles also have huge potential. Orkney is the home of the European Marine Energy Centre, EMEC, which was established in 2004, and it is still the world's only grid-connected wave and tidal test site. In August, the world's largest tidal turbine began trials in Orkney, and in Shetland power was exported to the grid for the first time from a pair of tidal devices. The Pentland Firth is the location for Maidgen, the world's largest tidal streamer aid project currently under construction. Let's move on to wind. Scotland is one of the windiest countries in Europe, and it's absolutely no surprise that the highlands and islands have the UK's most sustained wind regimes for turbines. The Burridael wind farm in Shetland has the world record for the highest capacity of a wind farm. Nearly 500 onshore wind turbines are currently operating in the highlands and islands. On the Altonahara wind farm point that Liam Kerr raised, I would say, don't believe everything you read in the newspapers. There may well be some support from outside of the area, but that doesn't detract from the considerable local support and unanimous support from Highland Council, which the project received. There's many a fragile community in the highlands and islands, which is coming back to life because of wind farm money. Over £10 million in community benefit has been paid this year to communities who host renewable energy projects, and it's paying for a whole range of activities from local transport schemes to brownie trips. Scotland's home to around a quarter of the whole of the European offshore wind resource. Offshore has led to investment of over £190 million in the Scottish economy by April this year. Exciting projects are planned for the waters around Scotland, including the Beatrice farm and the Murray Firth, and my region is well placed to assist in the delivery of a dynamic offshore wind sector. Scotland is in the midst of a global energy transition towards a renewable energy future, and we are already enjoying some of the economic benefits. As somebody mentioned, the Office for National Statistics has shown that low-carbon industries in Scotland generated £10.7 billion in turnover and support for 43,500,000 jobs, both directly and in the supply chain. Independent analysis has found that playing to its strength, Scotland could have almost entirely renewable electricity generation in 2030, without the need for coal, nuclear or new gas generation capacity. You would think that low-carbon technologies in early development with the potential to unlock energy sources in remote and fragile communities would warrant whole-hearted support from their Governments until they become fully, commercially viable. However, as is often the case, we have a tale of two Governments. While the Scottish Government set ambitious targets and drive innovation, the UK Government U-turn on promises and failed to deliver a route to market. In the latest announcement of contracts for difference, the UK Government put off a decision about how to provide connection capacity for projects that are cited in Scotland's islands. It has failed to ring fence funding for the wave and tidal sectors, and it has left onshore wind and solar in limbo without any contractual framework to support long-term investment, despite those being the cheapest of any form of electricity. As for the Conservative amendment, it is wholly wrong for the Tories to pass it off as an honest consultation about island wind. It is now consulting on a negative proposition, and the people on the islands absolutely recognise that it is a complete betrayal of island communities. Those decisions are totally, totally at odds with the ones made about nuclear capacity at Hinkley Point, where a 60-year-old technology has been provided with cast iron certainty and subsidy, despite the fact that we have not yet solved the fundamental question of what to do with the waste. That lack of support and grid constraints are causing huge frustration for Lewis and Chetland, but nowhere are they causing more frustration than in Orkney, an island that is generating more electricity than it can use. With UK Government support, they could export their excess, but as that cannot be relied on, they are researching their own solutions and innovating. The people of Orkney are aiming to become established as a global centre for energy storage, and I would agree with Liam McArthur that Orkney is perfectly placed to be a living laboratory. A series of initiatives have now been put into motion, including a hydrogen project, using tidal and wind power to produce fuel. That is where you must conclude. Time is tight. Keep looking at the clock. Donald Cameron called Donald Cameron to be followed by Ben Macpherson. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. As someone whose name has been confused with both David Cameron and Donald Trump, I am grateful that you have my name right. I refer to my register of interest in the reference to renewable energy therein, as well as my shareholding in Green Highland Renewables Unicari Limited. It is to hydropower that I would like to turn my remarks today, not least because it is the technology that I know best due to my personal experience of it in the course of running a family business, as Mr Willhouse will know from a visit to Lochaber in August, but also because of the benefits that it has brought communities across the West Highlands in particular. There remains a huge potential for Scotland to lead the world in hydropower energy. In particular, my own Highlands and Islands region can continue to be the hub for that development. Once all forms of energy sources are included, hydropower only accounts for 12 per cent of our total supply. That may be small, but it is not insignificant. Scotland is the UK leader in hydropower and has been for some time. We are lucky to have the natural resources to produce hydropower energy in this manner. It is perhaps obvious to say the least that much of Scotland is rich in rainwater. My answer to Jackie Baillie is that we do make use of our rain already, but what is so interesting about hydropower is that it is such an old technology, perhaps it is the oldest renewable energy of all. The radical history of the hydro revolution in the Highlands since the days of Tom Johnson is well known, and I pay tribute to that record today. In a different manner, the aluminium smelter in Fort William, much in the news recently, is of course also a massive hydropower station. As a child, I recall looking at the two massive pipes running down the side of Ben Nevis towards the smelter and asking an adult what was in them. Whiskey, they replied. I now know better. Of course, it is water, but there has been a second revolution in the last decade, which again has seen power to the glens in which we must all recognise has been driven by the renewable energy policies of successive UK Governments of different political hues. One of the big reasons for this is the feed-and-tariff scheme, which helps more people to produce energy on a smaller micro level or even from home. The feed-and-tariffs mean that the cost of installation can be offset over time and deliver a cost benefit in some cases. Can I please make some progress given the time? The feed-and-tariff in Hydro, and indeed the rock that it succeeded, has enabled communities in the West Highlands to directly benefit from this revolution. Not to mention the economic stimulus that it has provided to the Highland economy, in particular to the building trade and to associated contractors. There are remote communities in Morvan, on Marl and in Wester Ross to name but a few that have benefited. Exciting community projects with innovative funding arrangements have allowed communities to own hydropower schemes outright or at least benefit from them via their own rental income or to be given a community benefit by the developer. To those who say that the UK Government has now ended the feed-and-tariff, I will reply that that is not the case. It has lowered the subsidy and focused it on certain power outputs in specific technologies, but the feed-and-tariff remains and will remain until 2019. That is just one example, yes. The certainty that business needs was what was most catastrophic about the Tory Government's decision to cut the solar fit's input early. That is the sort of business strategy that really must not be allowed to happen by the Tory Government. I hope that he will take that back to his Tory colleagues at Westminster. Donald Cameron. I do not agree, but I will certainly take that back. The point that I was making was that the feed-and-tariff is still in place, it will remain until 2019. That is just one example of continuing UK Government support for renewable energy. With hydropower, the critical issue, which often defines whether a project will go ahead or not, is not funding or indeed planning, but grid connection. That is the real determinative factor. There is of course a question of capacity. There are only so many streams, rivers and burns to tap, but it is wrong to say, as the minister did, that only legacy schemes will be built. The easier schemes have perhaps already been built, but I am sure that there will be future hydro projects that will go ahead in the highlands, not least because the pre-accreditation system, which allows an often crucial two-year timeframe between planning consent and commissioning, has been reinstated. A decrease in subsidy is not new since April 2014. There has been a system of digression, which operates whereby the subsidy slowly decreases over time. There are many purposes of renewable energy subsidy, but one is to kick-start new technologies or assist the construction of well-established technologies where the build costs are often prohibitive. Let us remember that renewable energy subsidies cost to general public because it goes directly on to our electricity bills, so subsidy simply cannot be unlimited and never ending. Mark Ruskell accepted that the ideal is a subsidy-free future. Since 2000, there has been a huge increase in the amount of electricity generated from hydropower, and we need to do more to promote smaller renewable energy schemes in general. I would like to close by saying that, despite the Government's relentless criticisms of the UK Government today on renewable investment, the Conservative-led Government has committed to £7 billion of investment in UK-based renewable energy since 2010. We have said that we would invest a further £390 million by 2021 to support ultra-low vehicles. I remind members opposite that it was the Conservative-led Government that set up the UK Government, the UK's first green investment bank, here in Edinburgh. There is no question of the UK Government's pragmatic and realistic commitment to the renewables sector. In a debate on renewable energy, I am pleased that the member must close. I think that what is evident in today's debate is that we all believe in the strength of the renewable industry in Scotland, and that it is a real success story for Scotland, and that we as MSPs in this place need to do all that we can to support this vital industry. It has been touched on that the natural resource here in Scotland is abundant and significant. We have 60 per cent of UK on-shore capacity, 25 per cent of Europe's offshore wind capacity, 25 per cent of Europe's tidal capacity and 10 per cent of Europe's wave capacity. Because of that, we have developed expertise in this sector, inspiring engineers, consultants, planners and lawyers. Throughout my career, before I came into politics, I had the great privilege to work in the marine sector with some extraordinarily inspiring, innovative pioneers who literally were changing the world in their daily work. As a lawyer, I worked on on-shore wind projects and other renewable projects and saw the depth of the expertise that we have in professional services. I will come back to why protecting them is so important in a few moments. It has already been highlighted that the major project of Atlantis Resources is such a success story, and it has already been highlighted that NOVA innovation, which is based in my constituency and I am looking forward to visiting soon, is such a world-leading tidal project. However, there are also small companies such as Quinotian, which is based in my constituency. We need to take this opportunity in this debate not only to recognise them but to commit to supporting them. As we reflect on that expertise and capacity within the Scottish economy and Scottish expertise, we should also reflect, as has been by other speakers, on the huge contribution that we have already made so far. 57 per cent of Scotland's gross electricity consumption in 2014 was renewables, while on the way to 100 per cent by 2020. That is the environmental contribution. Economically, the Office of National Statistics has shown that low-carbon industries in Scotland generated £10.7 billion in turnover and supported 43,500 jobs directly and in the supply chain. I think that it needs to be acknowledged that 10 million of community benefit funds have been contributed to communities who host renewable energy projects. So, together, environmentally, socially and economically, the renewable sector makes a huge contribution. Moving to policy, with all of that advantage, with all of that expertise, with all of that progress made, we need to think, Presiding Officer, about how we are moving forward. That is why the recent CFD announcement is so disappointing. Scottish renewables have said that, like all generators, renewable energy developments need some certainty to support investment, and the recent CFD allocation has left many parts of the renewable sector without a clear route to market. WWF has stated that there has been a real missed opportunity to provide long-term confidence. Many of the points around the problems with the CFD allocation and the UK Government policy at present have already been made, but I would like to emphasise some of them. Mark Ruskell spoke very powerfully and clearly about the fact that the lack of a CFD allocation to onshore wind makes no economic or logical sense. The advantages of investing in such a mature technology and to build on the strength to bring costs down to then move to a position in which we do not need a subsidy is absolutely clear and true. When it comes to marine development, and I know this from my experience of working previously in the industry, the fact that no minimum amount of the CFD allocation budget has been allocated makes absolutely no sense, not just in terms of that section of the renewable industry trying to compete, but also in terms of building on the comparative advantage that we already have in terms of expertise, in terms of providing future jobs and, as Jackie Baillie rightly stated, in terms of making a viable supply chain. That uncertainty in terms of the CFD allocation is, of course, supplemented by Brexit. I mentioned earlier that NOVA innovation is doing great work in based out of Edinburgh, Northern and Leith, with its tidal project in Shetland. It was awarded last week at the Green Energy Awards, the minister was there, Alexander Burnett was there, Lewis MacDonald was there. In those awards, not only was there a recognition in the room of the strength of the Scottish renewable industry, but there was also a palpable sense of uncertainty and worry. We all must have felt it, those of us who were there. I think that that is behind the message that needs to go out clearly from today. The Scottish Government is clearly supporting this industry, doing all it can. What we need from our Scottish Conservative colleagues instead of making tribal remarks and speeches written by researchers, we need you to get on the phone to ministers in your Government, to the Secretary of State, and ask him to get behind one of Scotland's most important industries, the Scottish Renewables Industry. You have the chance here to make a real difference to an absolutely vital element of Scotland's economy towards also making progress on the environment. Do the right thing, get on the phone, use any back channels you have and support Scotland's vital renewable industry. Richard Leonard will by Tom Arthur, Mr Leonard and your penultimate speaker in the open debate. Public investment in renewable energy is not a luxury, it is a necessity. Of course, it is true that across the world energy is bought and sold like any other commodity, but it is not any other commodity. Renewable energy especially is a natural asset, but it is also a national asset, and it needs to be supported with a national policy for energy, a policy that is coherent and credible and underpinned by an industrial strategy that generates jobs in our manufacturing base. That is why we say that no government—and it is not because it is a UK Government, it is because it is a Tory Government—we say that no government should be allowed to abandon this natural endowment for the sake of short-term political fixes, and we say that no government should be allowed to leave this public service to the lottery of the market or to leave the switch over to renewable energy simply to the economics of short-term profit and loss. That is why we are critical of the Tory Government's decision in the second round of the contracts for difference to exclude island onshore wind projects and to downgrade marine renewables. It is Labour's goal that we should meet 50 per cent of our heat and transport demand in Scotland from renewables by 2030. Just yesterday, I met a fledgling firm BMM Energy Solutions, which is still working out of a farm in Calder Crooks in North Lanarkshire. It installed electric vehicle charging points. What struck me about was that it was a company based in central Scotland supplying the rest of the UK market with contracts with York NHS, the London Fire Brigade with two electric vehicle charging points at each of the 75 fire stations in London with contracts right across England with the environment agency but with only a limited number of contracts in Scotland. It strikes me now that we need, first of all, more support for small and medium-sized enterprises that are expected to compete against transnational corporations in all aspects of public procurement, including that. Secondly, we need more leadership from all public bodies in Scotland, but especially the Scottish Government, in supporting the shift and in leading the move from the carbon economy to the sustainable society. Leadership, by example, is critical. Leadership at home is essential. Thirdly, we need to seize the opportunity that electric transport provides to help towards solving the problem of overproduction from renewables at certain times of the day and night and underproduction at other times. Electric vehicles can help match demand to supply. Next year marks the 40th anniversary of the death of the influential international writer and thinker, but also national coal-board chief economist Fritz Schumacher. Fritz Schumacher said a number of very interesting things in his life, but I want to quote just one. He said, back in 1967, that an active relationship to the future is called inverted commas planning. A passive relationship is called inverted commas forecasting. I want us to start planning again to have a plan of action. I want us to have a vision in our politics to which includes renewable energy at its core. We need an energy policy that is about ending fuel poverty, not least among our pensioners, which is about providing adequate heat and light and, of course, about tackling climate change, not about building lots of power stations and generating monopoly-style company profits, but about learning the lessons of history, looking towards human scale decentralised intermediate technology, where human values no longer are secondary to economic imperatives, but instead of working together. Where there is community ownership, including municipal ownership, instead of absentee ownership of our energy systems. Energy-saved through conservation is not controlled by big corporations or foreign governments. Efficiency and conservation is more productive than drilling for energy and conservation does not run a ground on a beach in the outer hebrides on its way to Turkey. Let me finish with this final point. I think that we need a vision here. A vision of an indigenous supply chain with steel rolled in Lanarkshire made from recycled scrap, for wind turbine jackets fabricated in Fife and Arnish Point, pumps built in Glasgow, wind turbine towers assembled in Makrahanishing Kintire, wave technology pioneered in the Orkney Isles with the promise of jobs to rural and urban Scotland, highlands, islands and lowland Scotland alike. A hub of research and development bringing together our colleges and universities with our industrial pioneers and with workers playing an active part. Upstream and downstream, creating jobs in the supply chain, real jobs, green jobs, union jobs, that is our vision. It is what I hope that the Scottish Government and this Parliament can share. Thank you very much, Mr Leonard. I will call Tom Arthur, the last speaker in the update, and we move to closing speeches. As we rapidly approach the Christmas recess at the end of what has been another record-breaking year for Scottish renewables, I am delighted that we have the opportunity to discuss and debate how we build on the success with continued support for Scotland's renewables. After almost a decade of investment and support under the SNP Government, it was confirmed that Scotland now generates the equivalent of 57 per cent of its total electricity usage from renewables, significantly surpassing the interim target of 50 per cent. That was, as has been noted by my colleague Ivan McKee, a 14 per cent increase from 2014 and represented 26 per cent of total UK renewables generated in 2015, with an estimated 13 million tonnes of carbon dioxide displaced, as was highlighted by Liam McArthur. We already know that further progress has been made with days and August and since, where, for the first time in Scotland, wind turbines generated more electricity than was needed. In 2016, we have also seen the commencement and orcney of one of, if not the world's largest tidal turbine trials. Not only are renewables contributing to Scotland achieving our ambitious climate change targets, but they are also making a significant economic contribution, something that is highlighted by Jackie Baillie and Ben Macpherson. Recently, released figures from the Office of National Statistics show that, in 2014, low-carbon industries in Scotland generated 10.7 billion in turnover, which supported 43,500 jobs. That means that Scotland counted for 12.9 per cent of the total UK turnover and 9.7 per cent of the total employment in the sector. Both those numbers are higher in Scotland's population share, demonstrating the importance of low-carbon industries to the Scottish economy. I would also like to note the positive impact of community renewables, with over 10 million pounds paid to communities hosting renewables in the past year and an estimated 508 megawatts of capacity now operational, exceeding the 2020 target of 500 megawatts. In my constituency of Renfrewshire South, the Neuston community wind farm produced enough carbon-free electricity in the past year to power twice the number of homes in Neuston. The substantial progress and developments that we have witnessed in the Scottish renewable sector have been undergirded by the steadfast commitment and support of this Scottish Government. Since 2007, Scottish renewable electricity output has more than doubled and is now equivalent to half of the electricity consumed in Scotland. However, that progress is at risk of being undermined by a backward-looking UK Government. Although many countries have begun the process of phasing out nuclear power, the UK Government has approved and given goodness to an £18 billion Hinkleysea project for rolling back support for renewables. It is worth noting that this project will be two-fords funded by EDF, whom it was reported in the Guardian last Friday, had 13 of their 58 French atomic plants offline. The Guardian goes on to report that, although some were offline due to planned maintenance, most were due to safety checks ordered by the regulator over anomalies that were discovered in reactor parts. I highlight that, because it is further reported that the problems identified stem from a fault first identified last year by the French Nuclear Safety Authority and a reactor currently under construction in France, which uses the same design as approved for Hinkley Point C. We can only hope that the significant new safeguards spoken of by the UK Government in relation to the UK deal are more robust than EDF's reactor design for Hinkley seems to be. However, what is definitely not robust in the UK Government's plans for Hinkleysea is the thinking behind a guaranteed payment of £92.50 per megawatt, almost double the current wholesale price for electricity. That will mean that ordinary consumers and taxpayers will be forced to subsidise a mature and wealthy industry at the expense of promising renewables. Approving Hinkleysea is just one of a number of factors identified by the EY, Renewable Energy, Country, Attractiveness and Index, as undermining confidence in renewables across the UK. Further highlighted was the closure of the Department for Energy and Climate Change and the uncertainty caused by Brexit. Against that backdrop, it is important that, when the UK Government dispublishes its industrial strategy and emissions reduction plan, that it includes details about the long-term support for renewable energy. More immediately, the UK Government has to realise that reneging on its commitments to preserve a portion of the contract for difference budget for marine energy projects is frankly slapping the face to this emerging industry, which has progressed more in the past year than in any other year. The UK Government should work with the Scottish Government to perhaps provide some bespoke agreements so that we can safeguard our global lead in this dynamic and creative sector. Whitehall has been fond of saying that Scotland has two Governments, but it is clear from the approach taken by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy that Scotland has two, often being an afterthought. As the minister noted in his opening remarks, given that the Secretary of State Greg Clark has stated that there are few nations that could claim to have embraced renewable energy with as much enthusiasm and success as Scotland, surely it is now time for the UK Government to start matching that enthusiasm and support the Scottish Government's ambitions for Scottish renewables. Thank you very much, Mr Gathart. I now move to closing speeches. Andy Wightman, please close for the Green Party. Six minutes, please. Thanks to all who have contributed to this debate today. I am particularly pleased to speak in my first debate on renewable energy since I started my working life, doing undertaking research on renewable energy for the energy technology support unit in the 1980s, when renewable energy was at its infancy and when it was regarded as an emerging technology that had some security implications around it. The administration of this programme was run from the UK Atomic Energy Authority in Harwell and Didcot, which made for some interesting meetings. We have heard much today about the need for greater financial and political support for renewable projects, and I am glad to see that there is some consensus across the chamber for Scotland to continue to drive to a clean energy future. Indeed, that consensus is reflected in the Scottish public themselves, 70 per cent of whom said that they would like to see more renewable energy generation in Scotland in a survey earlier this year. I commend Richard Leonard on his infectious enthusiasm, and I commend the dedication of many members here who have been speaking up for their constituents in the north-east of Scotland. Scotland has some of the best renewable energy potential in Europe. We have heard some examples of that today, and the Green amendment highlights the need to develop that sector in the interests of Scotland. People like renewables, but to sustain the benefits they need to be shared more widely. Patrick Harvie in a debate in 2012 pushed the Government into supporting local authorities, for example, who want to create publicly-owned renewables. We argued that publicly-owned renewables could help lower carbon emissions and generate revenue for public services. Other European cities such as Berlin and Munich generate millions of euros of income from their escos. Local authorities in Scotland are ahead of the Government on that in many ways. In my own region in the City of Edinburgh Council, they appointed directors to an armless length company in September this year. Green councillors are impatient to see the projects happen, projects that they first proposed back in 2010. Glasgow is making similar moves, and Aberdeen Heaton power has been operating for over a decade, with some heroic efforts to make those benefits a reality. I will recall Patrick Harvie making very much of those points. I think that I have a great deal of sympathy for that local engagement in public ownership. The concern that I would have is the proposition of a Government-owned renewables company, and perhaps he can perhaps allay those concerns and explain precisely what he is envisaging there. I do not know what those concerns are. Gillian Martin mentioned earlier a company that she visited in the north-east, Vattenfall, which is a wholly-owned company of the Swedish Government. The idea that the state cannot provide a complementary role in the generation of electricity is a strange one, but I would be happy to talk to Mr MacArthur further about that in future. Of course, there are other models. Our power energy is a non-profit energy company set up by a group of social housing providers last year. Their residents are provided with low-cost energy and, rather than dividends being paid to shareholders, the profits are reinvested in the local communities. Mark Ruskell spoke to the first half of the green motion today on industry and civil society calls for a 50 per cent renewables target across all our energy use. Gillian Martin and I were intrigued at her support at Mark Ruskell's intervention for setting clear targets for heat and transport. However, the fact that she was then skeptical about it when it came to agreeing with such a target when it came to the green amendment, perhaps her reluctance is due to her enthusiasm, which was shared by many other parties in the chamber to extract every last drop of hydrocarbon from the North Sea, when, in fact, to keep global temperatures below two degrees, we need to keep to thirds of existing reserves in the ground. I will. Gillian Martin, perhaps my point was misconstrued. What I was effectively saying is that, before setting targets, it is important to do some research into the impact of what those targets might mean for consumers, for companies and before setting targets, it is important to have that research done and that some of the UK Government's failures to support renewables will make reaching those targets even harder. Mr Wightman, I will give you another minute. You have taken two interventions. Research is all very well, but what we need is clear targets. Other countries are setting them, and we heard from Lewis MacDonald of targets being set in Japan. Targets are vital to making absolutely clear commitment of Governments and local authorities to move to a carbon, low-carbon future. The green motion refers very specifically to the role of community-owned energy. We have heard a lot about community benefits in the past. They are one thing, but community ownership, with the power and the autonomy and revenue that comes with it, introduces a far greater level of benefits to communities. The Green amendment today supports a Government-owned energy company and the creation of a Scottish renewable energy bond. Those were both calls made in the Scottish Greens election manifesto, and I welcome their inclusion in the programme for government. We are promised consultations on both of those in 2017, and I hope that the minister can confirm that those will indeed be going ahead on that timescale. Scottish renewables and SNL bridge consultants have published a paper outlining how we could go about creating a Scottish renewable energy bond by transferring current community renewable assets that are held within the Government's renewable energy investment fund into a Scottish community energy fund that the public could invest directly into that fund to facilitate new projects. However, thanks to cuts from the UK Government, communities can no longer rely on the certainty of feeding tariffs or the renewable obligation to sustain those energy projects. A bond would provide people in Scotland the ability to invest directly in those energy projects with relatively low risks. I myself have invested in community shares, for example, in Broome Power, in Marie Todd's constituency and in Apple Juice, Apple Cross and in Wester Ross. Risks would be managed through checks such as an independent board and a clear investment policy where funds are spread across multiple projects. Finally, the renewable energy revolution must provide and deliver much more for communities and local authorities, and part of that must involve new ways of governing public land, in particular the national forest estate. Greens will be bringing forward proposals to democratise the management of that land that is currently managed by the Forestry Commission and using the opportunity of a new forestry bill to increase local democracy and community benefit from this public estate. I commend the amendment in the name of Mark Ruskell. Thank you very much, I call on Claudia Beamish to close for labourers. Beamish, six minutes, please. Scotland must maximise the opportunities for jobs in renewables, as we have heard throughout this debate this afternoon. The Paris climate change agreement has finally been ratified by the UK Tory Government, and Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England and the chair of the financial scrutiny unit, has set out a vision for green global growth. He states that investment can avert economic climate change catastrophe, describing it as, I quote, a historic chance to mainstream climate finance and to turn risk into opportunity. Further, a G8 industry task force, chaired by Michael Bloomberg, is due to deliver a set of recommendations on how companies should voluntarily disclose climate-related financial risks. It is, in this context, again particularly disappointing, as we have heard from so many members in every part of the chamber except the Tory benches today, that the Tory Government at Westminster simply cannot grasp the importance of the need for certainty for investment. Many members have referred to the issues around early and rather sudden cuts to solar power and the onshore wind issue. Scottish Labour hopes that the Scottish Chory Party can use its influence still to encourage appropriate development of contracts for difference for island communities. Marie Todd and others have stressed concerns, she and Orkney and others for other island communities, as this is replicated across the islands with their particular demands. Turning to pump storage options, the minister has highlighted the report that was issued recently, which is welcome, especially in relation to the removal of barriers. Were there great opportunities in this form of development, if it is environmentally done properly? My question today is how inclusive will the opportunity be for workers now and in the future? How inclusive will it be for communities? Our amendment today from Scottish Labour addresses squarely the jobs issue. I hope that the Scottish Government will now consider setting a jobs target for renewables, as it will send a clear message to the markets. Again from Mark Carney yesterday in the Roscoe lecture in Liverpool, he said that in order to support inclusive growth where everyone has a stake in globalisation, although perhaps that is somewhat of a challenge, he observes that because technology and trade are constantly evolving and can lead to rapid shifts in production, the commitment of reskilling all workers must be continual. Lifelong learning, evergreening skills and co-operative training will become ever more important. The need for a skills strategy for initial and transferable skills from early years right through life for the new energy sector is an imperative that the Scottish Government must act on. Short and affordable conversion courses, rather than barriers to transfer, should be standard, as was highlighted by Lewis MacDonald in his comments. This morning, I returned from Brussels, where I attended a just transition conference organised by the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation and Transform Europe. It brought together representatives of all levels of trade unions and NGOs from across Europe. As Richard Leonard says, renewable energy is a national asset and a vision is needed and an industrial strategy must follow from that vision. For larger developments, we must be sure that there are well-paid union jobs, as there have been in the oil industry, with good conditions and employee participation in decision making—which there hasn't always been, I would say, in the North Sea industries—and, indeed, for smaller-scale, more dispersed operations in the supply chain and manufacturing, such as in my region where Sunamp is doing heat storage manufacturing, there should be union possibilities as well. Transport unions are testimony to the possibilities of union's relevance to a dispersed workforce. What of ownership itself? We have heard about opportunities for local authorities today. District heating can help our poor record on emissions from this sector, while bringing local high-skill jobs and co-operative models are, of course, owned by their members. The Edinburgh Solar Co-operatives is an example where solar panels on primary schools are raising awareness, giving clean energy and profits for distribution as a public good to those who live in fuel poverty to benefit from energy efficiency programmes. Communities can also become owners—increasingly helped as stressed by Mark Ruskell by the new land reform act. I am introducing a fracking ban bill because I am clear that we must not lock into a new fossil fuel. We need clean energy jobs and must avoid the impact on our communities that onshore fracking would bring. It is also clear that developing this new industry is likely to divert investment from the cleaner, greener future of renewables. That leads me finally to innovation. Last week's green energy awards show the great contribution that is already made in Scotland by the renewables industry. Scottish Renewables calls for a sustainable energy innovation centre, and while I take the minister's point from the previous debate on that, there are already many good centres in Scotland. The synergies of having a strong robust hub altogether, where transport, storage and renewables can share their experiences in innovation, leading to commercialisation, are very important. Gillian Martin stressed our engineering experience, history and looking forward to the future. Lewis MacDonald reminded us that Aberdeen is already the energy capital. Did you say of Europe, my colleague? Yes, and that is where we must stop with the energy capital of Europe. Thank you very much. I call Maurice Golden to close the concert to six minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Firstly, it is important to recognise the contribution of renewable technologies in the fight against global climate change. There are tough targets at every level—Scotish, British and international—to reduce carbon emissions, to combat climate change and to increase the amount of renewable energy that is generated. Reflecting on that debate, I think that reserved matters should be the focus of debate at Westminster, not Holyrood, but I also see that there is a degree of consensus over the path forward, which is under the competence of this Parliament. Ben MacPherson recognised the strength of renewable industry in a passionate and thoughtful contribution. Tom Arthur was full of figures and recognised the importance of the sector. Gillian Martin gave us a history lesson, speaking about a UK Prime Minister elected before I was even born. That was followed up by Ivan McKee talking about climate change as a mechanism merely of self-interest keeping the planet habitable for Homo sapiens. I have to disagree with Mr McKee on that point, because ensuring that we protect against the ravages of climate change are important for Homo sapiens, but they are also critically important for our biodiversity, for our land and marine animals, as well as our flora and fauna. Scotland is blessed with its geography, its natural resources, which Lewis MacDonald highlighted, and our access to a larger UK energy market. Those are all ensured that renewable technology will continue to thrive in Scotland. Renewable technologies have been heavily supported by the British Government and this has fueled a renewable revolution in Scotland. In 2014, 38 per cent of the electricity generated in Scotland was produced by renewable energy, the highest proportion of any part of the union, and Scotland accounted for almost a third of all the renewable electricity generated across the whole of the UK. Furthermore, in terms of our capacity, we have 60 per cent of onshore wind capacity, 85 per cent of wind and tidal capacity and 85 per cent of hydro capacity, and that potential was indeed recognised by Paul Wheelhouse. It is important to note that the cost of subsidising renewable technology through the renewable obligations, feeding tariffs and contract for difference have been met ultimately by British consumers through their electricity bills. It is right that Scotland, because of its geography and natural resources, has received a disproportionate level of investment comparative to its size of population. Our renewables industry has grown, benefits have been felt across this nation and much of that is down to Scotland's place at the heart of the union. Jackie Baillie made the point eloquently that Scotland is missing out on jobs, particularly those manufacturing jobs, and indulged in some jocularity around bringing back David Cameron, or just stopped short of saying that, as well as recognising that there's lots of wind in Scotland, particularly in this chamber. However, I notice that you didn't look over at these benches when you said that. Ultimately, we should applaud job creation as it is. 21,000 jobs is not something to be sniffed at, but I fully accept that more could be done. We should also recognise that investment as well, as well as recognising that the majority of those benefits have been received by large companies. It is they, not the consumer, who have been the real winners from windfarms subsidies. Some of those companies receive supernormal profits from windfarms and that large companies, as well as landowners, gain those profits at the expense of energy bill players, including those suffering from fuel poverty in my constituency and across the rest of the UK. Liam McArthur and Donald Cameron further added that we must see the benefit of public subsidies spread across communities. That is a view that I also share. One of the reasons why the subsidies have been changed is recognised by the Scottish Government when they said when scrapping the renewable energy generation relief scheme that the sector had reached financial maturity. One of the biggest challenges that we are now facing is the amount of energy that is resulting in constraint payments being paid throughout the UK. That burden is felt by UK consumers. £5.5 million on a single day in August and, in the first three months of this year, there has been £70 million paid. Part of the solution is a smart power revolution and one such opportunity would be to develop an electric arc furnace, which is far more flexible and environmentally friendly than a blast furnace for steel recycling, which could be used to harness the excess energy supply using the £5.5 million tonnes of steel from the 571 platforms in the North Sea. Today, we are calling on the Scottish Government to establish a sustainable energy innovation centre, a point that Alexander Burnett has highlighted. We also want to champion the decarbonisation of heat and transport sectors, a point that Liam Kerr has made. In addition, we want to— No, there cannot be any in addition. I am afraid that you have run out of time. Thank you. Thank you very much. I now call on Paul Wheelhouse to wind up for the Government Minister until five o'clock, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I have a hint that my time will be cut off as well, so I will be very careful with the clock. I am glad that there have been so many valuable contributions to this important debate from members across the chamber. Andy Wightman is right that there is a degree of consensus in some areas across the entire chamber, and we need to work together to find how we can share that agenda and find the areas of common ground. I welcome Liam Kerr's implied support for the Government's position and the opposition to the Conservative amendment today. We will certainly be intending to support the Labour amendment at decision time. There are some reservations that I will touch on, but we believe that it is important to show consensus where we can. I will turn briefly to the Mark Ruskell amendment, which I have a lot of sympathy with, but I will explain in some detail why we do not feel able to support it today, but hopefully offer some hope to Mr Ruskell as well for the future. But Scotland's renewable energy industry is a UK success story. What was a niche industry is now mainstream. Electricity capacity has grown significantly over the last few years, and average annual capacity has increased over 635 megawatts since the end of 2007. The sector enjoys unprecedented public support, evidenced by increasing community ownership of projects. Indeed, Mr Wightman referred to recent polling evidence, which is very strong support for renewables. When it comes to the Green Party's amendment under the name of Mark Ruskell, I want to set out a little bit of the background why we cannot support it today, although it shares a lot of the ambition that it shows. Our ambition for renewables remains high. Our new energy strategy will be published for consultation in the early New Year in January, and we will reconfirm our commitment to renewables as a vital component in Scotland's progress towards a low-carbon energy system. As we move forward, we want to make the most cost-effective transition towards our climate change goals, and, in doing so, it is clear that we will need a range of technologies and measures to help us to do that. Some will be renewable, some will be low-carbon, some will focus on energy efficiency. In light of the whole system approach and challenge, and in order to achieve a fully integrated approach to heat, transport and electricity, which I acknowledge a number of members have asked for, we are determined to try and deliver on that. I am of the view that the Greens and Labour parties can probably support that ambition. Indeed, I am sure that Mr MacArthur has also made similar points today. We want to hear from our stakeholders and the Scottish public on the best approach for Scotland, which is why I do not want to be drawn at this stage into setting targets today. As Gillian Martin very capably put, we need to do the underpinning research to make sure that we do the due diligence on the figures and come out with a set of proposals that are deliverable. It is key to have credibility for the industry to invest, which I know that members want to see happen, to deliver targets that are deliverable on the day. We are looking very closely at the work of WWF, Friends of the Earth and RSPB in terms of its aspirations, which are shared by Mr Ruskell, but we will take that forward under our energy strategy. Our draft energy strategy will be published as safe for consultation in January, and I invite members to consider this proposal in due course. I hope that we can also pick up the issues that Mr Wightman raised around Government-owned energy company, which I am obviously looking to take forward as a manifesto company in that area, and the issue of renewable energy bonds, which is an interesting idea. I want to point out in brief to the Conservative benches that I want to quote from Mr Greg Clark again, the Secretary of State, when he said in relation to the point about the degree of subsidy that Scotland has received for renewable industries so far. I think that Maurice Golden went some way towards making a reasonable stab at explaining why that is the case, but I just want to put on record what Mr Clark said. Scotland has worked hard to provide a clear policy context and to foster investor confidence, and that is why so many projects came forward under the RO. CFDs are a competitive process and the last CFD auction saw 40 per cent of the projects locating Scotland because Scotland has some of the UK's best renewable resources. I need to remember that. This is not an issue that is around some geographic benevolence in the part of the UK Government. It is because the resources need to go where the best projects happen, and Scotland has some very excellent sites for development. I want to pick out the fact that Mr Burnett in his opening remarks did not really make any comment about the issue about reneging on promises around remote island wind commitments by Andrew Ledson and previous ministers. In terms of Jackie Baillie's speech, she made a very comprehensive speech, but covered a number of issues. I just want to respond to one or two of them. She is absolutely right to highlight that Andrew Ledson is the manufacturer of turbines for the initial phase of the project. It is the very reason why we want to see further phases developed, because it is only if those phases happen that we are likely to secure the manufacturing facilities and contracts in Scotland. I am optimistic that we can do that if the UK Government is able to provide the long-term commitment that technology needs to develop in the UK. Indeed, in the East Anglia projects that she referred to, yes, the company is based in the Gulf, but I understand that the contracts are going to bell fast, so there are UK contracts in there. In relation to the oil and gas industry, she is again quite right. We have seen a significant number of job losses, which we all regret in the oil and gas industry, but we are working very closely with the industry to try to make sure that the transition to renewables in other sectors can be taken forward as best we can. I agree with her comments about the lack of a minima being set for the industry. In relation to Mark Ruskell's points, he made a very good example about sterling solar farm, which was cancelled as a result of loss of certainty about funding. He is right that onshore wind is the lowest-cost technology, and we will be looking at repowering, replanting and, indeed, extension of projects in the energy strategy in our onshore wind statement. In relation to Liam McArthur, who made an excellent speech, I felt as did Marie Todd around the importance to the Orkney economy of marine industries in terms of tidal and wave power. He is right that consensus reduces risk. That is why today's debate is so important. If we can show consensus, that gives a signal to the industry. He is absolutely right about the amount of CO2 emissions that are being offset by the industry. Indeed, we are also very much aware that in the previous administration, the coalition arrangements, the Scottish Government had a good working relationship with Ed Davies. I would offer that as an example of how the Scottish Government can work with UK ministers if there is an appetite to work in both directions. He is also right about the capped support that it will not be drawn down at an accelerated rate. We think that the UK Government is being overly pessimistic about that, and we believe that there will be a relatively slow drawdown of the CFD funding. Other members made excellent contributions as well. I commend Donald Cameron for his support for the hydro industry. Ivan McKee pointed out the impact of climate change, and I see that my time is coming to an end. However, today has been a very welcome debate in that we have had great consensus in many areas. There is a strong call from the Parliament to hope that we will be supported today at decision time to ask the UK Government to do more to support Scotland's renewables industry. We have great examples in this country of innovation and practice, and I believe that, as a Parliament, we are showing a clear desire to see that continue and to support further jobs in our economy. Thank you very much. That concludes our debate on support for Scotland's renewables. The next item of business is consideration of three parliamentary bureau motions. I would ask Joe Fitzpatrick to move motions 2834, 2835 and 2836 on approval of SSIs. There are seven questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is that amendment 2919.1, in the name of Alexander Burnett, which seeks to amend motion 2919, in the name of Paul Wheelhouse on support for Scotland's renewables, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on the amendment in the name of Alexander Burnett is yes, 30, no, 91, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 2919.3, in the name of Jackie Baillie, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Paul Wheelhouse, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that amendment 2919.4, in the name of Mark Ruskell, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Paul Wheelhouse, be agreed. Are we agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on the amendment in the name of Mark Ruskell is yes, 6, no, 97, there were 18 abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that motion 2919, in the name of Paul Wheelhouse, as amended, on support for Scotland's renewables, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 2919, in the name of Paul Wheelhouse, as amended, is yes, 92, no, 29, there were no abstentions, the motion as amended is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion 2834, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on the approval of the Air Weapons Licensing Exemption Scheme, be agreed. Are we agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that motion 2835, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on the home detention curfew licences amendment Scotland order 2016, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 2835 is, yes, 91, no, 30, there were no abstentions, the motion is therefore agreed. And the final question is that motion 2836, on the crofting commission elections amendment regulations be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. And that brings to an end decision time. We will now move to members' business and we'll just take a short a few minutes just to change seats before we have business in the name of Joanne Lamont on Care Tax in Scotland.