 I have great pleasure in opening today's debate on Scotland's transition to a carbon neutral economy, the first for this Parliament. I anticipate that Parliament will return to this issue of just transition in one form or another many times, but I hope that today we can reach a consensus about the type of transition that we do want to see. We all know that the central aim of the Paris agreement is to keep global temperature rise to well below two degrees above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5. Today's debate, however, focuses on the part of the Paris agreement that says that we must also take into account the imperatives of a just transition of the workforce and the creation of decent work and quality jobs. This is central to the Government's economic strategy in a happy coincidence. It was when I was Fair Work secretary that in 2015 we established the Fair Work convention to identify and promote existing good practice. We have endorsed the convention's vision that, by 2025, people in Scotland will have a world-leading working life where fair work drives success, wellbeing and prosperity for individuals, businesses, organisations and for society. Taking into account the imperatives of decent work and quality jobs as we increase our efforts to tackle climate change is a natural step. The First Minister had no hesitation in supporting the Solidarity and Just Transition Silesia Declaration adopted at the climate talks in Poland last month. The declaration stresses the need for a shift in thinking to recognise that decarbonisation and economic growth can and must go hand in hand. Is the cabinet secretary aware that, largely as a result of President Obama's efforts, there are 800,000 people in the United States in the renewables industry and only 50,000 in coal? Here, where we have a more favourable environment, will we also ensure that there are excellent jobs for those in the oil industry, which is many years to go, who will be able to migrate to new, renewable and other energy source industries? I am not sure that I was aware of the specific numbers of the employment sectors in America, but I was aware of the general sense in which coal played a less great part than renewables and that it was perhaps something that the president was not entirely aware of. It is important, and we need to remember that the kind of transition that we are talking about can be disruptive if it is not handled carefully and well. It is important that we see those things going hand in hand. It notes the importance of social dialogue for promoting high employment rates and wellbeing and plans to reduce emissions. It highlights the importance of sharing experience internationally. I will touch on all those points during my speech. Emissions of greenhouse gases from Scotland have almost halved since 1990, during which time we have seen Scotland's GDP increase by 55 per cent. Unemployment has also fallen to 3.7 per cent, its lowest rate on record. Between 2007 and 2016, Scotland's productivity growth has been higher than any other country or region of the UK, including London. Evidently, we do not have to choose between tackling climate change and growing the economy. We can, should and must do both. We need a carbon-neutral future where domestic industry continues not just to exist but to thrive, and it will take global effort if we are to avoid industry just bailing out to low-regulation countries. That is why our economic action plan focuses on ways to enhance support to businesses, places and people across Scotland. The aims are explicit to put Scotland at the forefront in the transition to a carbon-neutral circular economy. For example, the £12 million transition training fund that is targeted at the oil and gas sector and its supply chain is helping people who are made redundant or currently at risk of redundancy to retrain or upskill. In transport, we are working with the energy skills partnership and others to make sure that support is available to develop the skills required to maintain and service ultra-low emission vehicles. We are also working with energy intensive industries to build on existing programmes of support to incentivise decarbonisation as an economic investment opportunity rather than a threat. There are economic opportunities from being at the forefront of the global shift to carbon neutrality, but there are also risks and challenges that we cannot just wish away. Previous economic shifts, such as those that we saw in the 1980s, have left scars on our communities. History must not be allowed to repeat itself, and decarbonisation should not happen at the expense of our workforce and our communities. There is a real opportunity for us now to think about how we want our transition to carbon neutrality to be effected. It is an opportunity to consider whether the changes that are needed to reduce emissions might also present opportunities to tackle inequalities and increase regional cohesion. Whatever climate targets Parliament decides upon as we debate the climate change bill, we know that there are going to be some difficult but necessary decisions ahead as we do our bit to limit global temperature rise. Those decisions are going to impact all sectors of the economy and all of our constituents. That is why it is vital that we start a conversation now and make sure that all voices are heard. To begin this work, I have, as you know, established a Just Transition Commission. Over an initial period of two years, it will explore how to apply the principles of just transition to Scotland, how we can plan, invest and implement a transition to environmentally and socially sustainable jobs, building on Scotland's strengths and potential, how we can create opportunities to develop resource-efficient and sustainable economic approaches that help to address inequality and poverty, how we can deliver low-carbon investment and infrastructure and create decent, fair and high-value work in a way that does not negatively affect the current workforce and overall economy. That will show how overarching that is. Members will have realised now that the finance secretary is going to be in this debate closing, but it could equally have been my colleague Aileen Campbell as a community secretary, because each of those three portfolios have a very strongly invested interest in ensuring that just transition works as effectively as possible. There are cross-cutting issues, which means that the Just Transition Commission will report to three separate cabinet secretaries, albeit that it primarily sits in my portfolio for management reasons as much as anything else. That approach is similar to other states and countries that, like us, are at the vanguard of considering those issues. Last year in New York State established an environmental justice and just transition working group, and the Canadian Government set up a task force on a just transition for Canadian co-workers and communities. Both groups are non-statutory and tasked with providing advice to ministers, and our commission is similar. It is being chaired by Professor Jim Skea, an international around climate scientist and co-chair of the intergovernmental panel on climate change mitigation working group. Until the end of last year, he was also the Scottish champion of the Committee on Climate Change, and Professor Skea will be joined by 11 others representing a broad range of interests and sectors. Two environmental groups are represented by WWF and the 2050 group, which is a youth-run charity that is empowering young people to tackle climate change. Trade unions are also represented by both Prospect and the Scottish Trade Union Congress. Then there are two renowned academics for business people from the chemical oil and gas renewables and farming industries and an expert on fuel poverty from the third sector. While broad membership of the commission is necessary and should result in some helpful, if occasionally heated debate, it is not in itself sufficient, the commission needs to reach out and hear the opinions and concerns of people across the country. It is for this reason that I have tasked the commission with engaging meaningfully with workers, communities, NGOs, business and industry leaders and others across Scotland. In addition to having a representative of a youth group on the commission, I have specifically asked it to seek and consider the views of young people. I want the commission to hear and be open to all points of view. The commission will provide a set of recommendations for maximising the social and economic opportunities of moving to a carbon neutral economy, for building on Scotland's strengths and assets and for understanding and mitigating the risks that could arise. I know that there are calls for the Just Transition Commission to be established as a statutory body and for more than two years. In establishing the commission in the way that we have, it is able to begin its work later this month and will provide its recommendations in early 2021. Of course, the work that is needed to deliver a fair transition to carbon neutrality cannot be done in two years. The commission is a first step. While I believe that the principles of Just Transition are the right ones for the coming decades, whether or not a commission is needed over the same timescale is not currently clear. There may be alternative ways by which the principles can be embedded across the public and private sectors. To some extent, we are already doing this. The pace at which Energy Efficient Scotland is delivered, for example, is being carefully considered because of the fine balance between tackling fuel poverty and reducing emissions from domestic heating systems. We can do both simultaneously, and we must, but that requires very careful planning while low-carbon heat technology is still the more expensive option. We must avoid tackling climate change at the cost of increasing fuel poverty and vice versa. The transition to a carbon neutral economy is a huge opportunity for jobs and skills. Energy Efficient Scotland alone is forecast to support 4,000 jobs across the country once fully operational, and over £12 billion is estimated to be spent over 20 years from public and private sources. As much as possible, we want the supply chains and skills needed to come from within Scotland, including from rural and remote areas. That means delivering the programme at an ambitious and realistic pace, allowing for training and upskilling of local people to undertake the work in people's homes. Our progress with Energy Efficient Scotland, the Just Transition Commission and programmes such as the Transition Training Fund will all, I hope, be useful examples for other countries as they consider what a Just Transition should look like for them. Scotland is recognised internationally as a world leader in tackling climate change, and our approach to Just Transition is also attracting attention. For example, last month, the UK Energy Research Centre specifically recommended that the UK Government should consider setting up a process that is similar to Scotland's Just Transition Commission. Last month, at the COP in Poland, both the First Minister and myself heard directly about approaches being taken in other countries, including Spain and New Zealand, and at an event convened by the International Trade Union Confederation, I spoke of my desire for the commission to engage widely and provide practical advice on embedding Just Transition principles. If I could just say in parallel to that that Just Transition is a key ask of the International Trade Union Confederation, I was a little surprised to see the GMB response to this debate posted on its website today, and I hope that that arises out more of a misunderstanding than anything else. I am willing and able, as I expect other members are, to talk directly to the GMB should they so require it. It was clear at the COP in Katowice that our work here in Scotland has been noticed. We must continue in this fashion, both learning from others and sharing our learning with others. Our approach needs to be positive and optimistic about the opportunities that stem from decarbonisation, while honest and upfront about the challenges and risks. We need to build on our strengths and potential, decarbonising as we grow an ever-more-inclusive economy. We must transition to carbon neutrality in a way that is fair for all. It is that approach that is guiding my approach to the amendments, and we will be accepting both the Conservative and Labour amendments. However, I have some concerns about the Green amendment as it is currently drafted, and we will not be accepting that. I move the motion in my name, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. I now call on Maurice Golden to speak to and move the amendment in his name. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I move the amendment in my name. I refer members to my declaration of interests, and I welcome today's debate and the Government motion. I agree with the Cabinet Secretary's remarks that we can tackle climate change and grow the economy. In terms of climate change, the recent IPCC report on global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius delivers a sobering assessment of what lies in store for humanity if we fail to combat climate change. Tens of millions around the world facing drought, billions subjected to extreme temperatures and a biodiversity dealt a devastating blow. Scotland would not be spared. Communities would face increased flood risks. Our coastal towns, villages and homes are threatened with oblivion, and that is before you consider the impact on our wildlife, flora and fauna. Scotland is making progress, though, and our overall emissions are down almost 50 per cent on 1990 levels, something that we can all welcome. However, that progress has been lopsided while we have seen our energy and waste sectors decarbonised, other areas such as transport have seen little or no change. More needs to be done if we are to meet future targets, but we must ensure that we are taking action that creates opportunities for individuals and businesses rather than creating burdens and barriers for them. The low-carbon future that we all want should be a future that we can all benefit from. Unfortunately, that has not always been the case to date. For example, we should be proud of the remarkable growth in renewables. It has allowed many communities across Scotland to access new funding streams to improve infrastructure and services. However, Scotland missed out on a massive opportunity with 20,000 jobs that could have been created, not materialising here in Scotland. Missing out on those low-carbon jobs is a lesson that we should learn from as we look to establish a deposit return scheme and decommissioning more North Sea oil and gas facilities. Arguably, the oil and gas sector is most emblematic of the need to ensure a fair transition to a low-carbon economy. As the just transition partnership has pointed out, there has been little planning to ensure the protection of the people most affected, in particular those who work in sectors reliant on fossil fuels. That will not be achieved by tinkering around the edges of our current system. We need a new model that is fairer, more sustainable and intrinsically better for our environment. Gillian Martin, does the member agree with me that perhaps the oil and gas companies could do a little bit more to invest in renewable energies and fund research and development to preserve their future as well? Maurice Golden I agree that oil and gas companies could do a lot more, even in terms of helping us to decommission and get the most value from that decommissioning. For example, infrared coding of oil and gas platforms that would signify what alloys are contained in the oil and gas platforms would allow us to better decommission those facilities. There is lots more in terms of design of the actual facilities that could be done to improve. We see it in the aerospace industry quite regularly, but in the oil and gas sector there has been a overall reluctance to embrace the resale of assets and even the keeping of paperwork so that turbines and generators can then be sold on to other markets. There is lots more that oil and gas companies and sectors can do. The overall solution that answers the member's point as well as answers the question posed in my remarks is that we need a circular economy strategy. That is the option best place to capture as much value as possible from the estimated £50 billion that could be spent on North Sea oil and gas decommissioning by 2040. That represents an opportunity to create jobs in the north-east and supply chain jobs throughout Scotland. We must look to reuse assets such as pipelines, either within the industry itself or in other sectors such as construction, where it is worth more than five times the scrap value. Across all sectors and according to Scottish Government reports, an ambitious circular economy programme could add over 40,000 jobs to our economy. That is on top of the estimated 56,000 that already exist. Those jobs would have the potential to reduce unemployment in areas most needed as well as have a high degree of durability so that they are likely to survive the hollowing out of the labour market. The size of the prize is massive. That means that we must be ambitious. We rightly set the bar high when it comes to the environmental side of our low-carbon transition and the same standard should also apply to the economic aspect. That will require us to reassess how Government leads on low-carbon policy. A good start would be to embed circular economy practice across all portfolio areas to make it a marker against which to judge future policy decisions. Beyond that, we must also see a deepening of the relationship between education, business and the third sector. The Scottish Conservatives have already proposed creating new institutions such as a design academy and an institute of reuse to help to co-ordinate those activities. Such a unified approach would allow us to better identify where to focus our efforts, enabling a low-carbon economy that is driven by problem-led challenges that are relevant to Scotland. For example, constraint payments are at a record high, but why pay energy providers to turn off production when we could use excess power to facilitate an electric arc furnace that recycles steel while giving Scots jobs? It is an indicative example of the type of joined-up thinking that produces better environmental outcomes, further reduces waste and generates additional economic activity. Rural Scotland stands to benefit greatly from that approach, as the Scottish Conservatives recently announced a package of measures to support food producers. We believe that we can offer those businesses the ability to recycle more and extract higher value from the waste that they produce, all while driving the costs down and offering rural communities a wider stake in our low-carbon economy. That would involve setting up a microplastic recycling facility and waste hubs, solving the problems of what farmers do with plastic waste. Now there is a ban on incinerating it and helping the environment as well as creating jobs. We also propose helping farmers and other food producers to set up on-site anaerobic digestion, which would include capital and technical support and would allow energy and heat production that directly helps them to lower their bills. Across Scotland, that is the potential to generate an extra £27 million in value from energy generation. There is also the potential to work across sector with excess heat used to dry food waste to make it easier to transport for biorefining, an industry that could be worth £900 million by 2025. If we want to see a truly just transformation, surely this is the way to go about it. Focusing our efforts on the needs of Scottish families and businesses and encouraging innovation and economic activity that uses Scottish insight, Scottish workers and Scottish resources to provide everyone with an opportunity to grow and prosper. Of course, transforming our economy is not without risk, and we must be alert to the obstacles that we face as we ask individuals and businesses to invest in Scotland. The most obvious is our size. On many fronts, Scotland simply cannot outspend larger competitors or field initiatives on the same scale. One solution is to specialise in a handful of strategies being taken forward that best suit our needs while benefiting from large-scale projects operated at a UK level. Looking at the other amendments, we are interested to hear from the Labour Party, but overall we are comfortable with the current situation and do not feel that it is a requirement to have a statutory commission with respect to that. As for the greens, the end of our oil and gas sector is not just by any manner or means, and for us to look at that proposition is not something that we would be comfortable with at all. We believe that innovation is what drives economies forward. Hand in hand with transitioning to a low-carbon economy, we should be building a culture that rewards those who are willing to experiment and push the envelope of success. Success is what we need to ensure the transition to a low-carbon economy for every family, every community and every business is a positive one. I move amendment 15380. The debate on just transition principles is very significant for the fair future of Scotland's economy and society in the global context. We will support the Scottish Government motion, which recognises how essential a just transition is as we shift to carbon neutrality and net zero emissions. Just transition principles are fundamental to the international labour movement, and I am pleased to be speaking here today on behalf of Scottish Labour. Last year's publication of the special report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told us that half a degree of warming would put hundreds of millions of people at risk of climate-related poverty. Governments in the world over need to really hear and heed this message and plan now for climate justice. That means safeguarding the rights of the most vulnerable and sharing the burdens and benefits of climate change mitigation equitably. That means Scotland delivering its fair share on a global scale and applying these principles to protecting people here in Scotland as well, including our future generations. That is the Scottish Labour way, and I want to expand on that as will other speakers. The 2018 UN climate change negotiations, COP24 held in Poland, had a strong focus on just transition, as we have heard from the cabinet secretary. It is really fantastic to hear and see the mainstreaming of the term and to see the 54 world leader signatories to the Silesia declaration, including the UK and our First Minister. It is this human rights-based thinking that led to Scottish Labour's target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 at the latest and an interim target of 77 per cent reductions by 2030 to drive action with urgency, but a statutory and long-term just transition commission is a vital companion to that ambition. In this context, it is with relief that I hear today that Scottish Government will be supporting our amendment, and I am eager to discuss with the relevant cabinet secretary how that might be considered. Why do I feel so strongly about Scottish Labour's position on the commission? Across the planet, now and in the past, there are too many tragic examples of communities and local people being deeply affected by and left behind by fundamental change, both good and bad changes. Too many have lost out and been excluded. As an ex-community councillor in the Douglas valley, I have witnessed the effects of the failure of government to robustly intervene and support communities after the rapid closure of our deep minds. The effects on communities were callous, long-lasting and unacceptable. We have a collective responsibility to plan strategically. The updated membership of the commission is welcome. As Scottish Labour is absolutely clear that a commission without trade unions and those with current industrial experience would be a sham. I recognise that the Scottish Government does not want to create an inexhaustible list of members, but I note a lack of direct representation, although I wonder from today whether the cabinet secretary has highlighted perhaps that there is transport representation, but also I would highlight the education planning sectors. Do the cabinet secretaries feel confident that the membership reflects all key areas of concern? The Just Transition Commission, in our view, must be statutory and long-term. That will ensure that whatever government we have in Scotland, until we reach net zero fairness and climate justice here at home 2, will be at the core of our decision making. Of course, there is a Scottish Government precedent for this in the Scottish Land Commission, with land reform being an equally long-term shift and to aid the formulation of its recommendations. Finally, we are also keen that it is properly funded with a well-resourced secretariat. I think that it is really important that it is independent of government and is accountable to our Parliament, which will aid confidence and respect of all for its deliberations very briefly. I think that this is an important part of the debate. Stuart Stevenson, there is time for interventions. Mr Stevenson, given that the member is advocating a parliamentary line of responsibility, does the member expect the appropriate member of the corporate body to be the person who comes to stand at the front there to answer questions from members about the operation of this body, rather than, as if it were a Government body, holding a minister to account? Claudia Beamish. I understand the point that the member is making. There is a debate to be had about this. I think that it is important that it is independent of government. I think that there is precedent for that to happen. It will go beyond each Government. I think that the whole Parliament should take responsibility for it. As for who will stand at the dispatch box, I cannot answer that at the moment. I want to reflect as well beyond the commission itself on further issues. The Just Transition Partnership is a fundamental part of the way forward. I pay respect to the grouping and its collective positive work today. This is a significant partnership, not least because it has enabled unions and NGOs to work together and to develop supportive strategies and engagement with politicians and others as Just Transition has evolved. Labour identifies with its briefings strongly today. As far as the Green amendment goes, we will not be supporting the amendment today, though we agree with Mark Ruskell on promoting renewable energy and building the principles of a Just Transition into Government policy. We look to the Just Transition Commission to engage with all existing industries, including energy industries, on what part they will play in the Just Transition Commission. All sectors are increasingly playing their part in the process. Of course, there are the heavy emitters, which will need the most support as we progress. The farming industry needs attention here. If food and farming is to do the job that we want it to do, we should look to the sustainable development goals by 2030. The Government's pace of change has to pick up. Transport and our buildings, domestic and commercial, of course, are also ones that must be considered by the commission. My colleague Lewis MacDonald will talk further about the energy sector. Skills are the best insurance for Scotland's future, in our view. Providing support for education, skills and training is vital to maximise the opportunity to change the labour market. That is a central tenet of Scottish Labour's industrial strategy. That forward-looking planning in the industry will avoid all-too-persistent skilled shortages at many levels. There is clearly an obligation for businesses to engage positively with the process and the need for guidance and support from Government and from the energy agencies. It is our view that there should be some form of obligation on businesses that have been heavy emitters to actively contribute to the transition, and that should be discussed further. There is certainly a need to support businesses of all scales that are developing new technology, such as Sunamp, which manufactures heat storage systems, or McCreber, which is creating road surfaces from plastic input, both in my region. We will be supporting the Conservative amendment on the circular economy. With the appropriate financing, the shift to the net zero economy could be transformative. Scottish Labour's industrial strategy sets a focus on, I quote, the developing the economy of Scotland by increasing its diversity with a focus on creating sustainable, high-quality employment, ensuring that new jobs are environmentally friendly and broadening our export base. UK Labour's industrial strategy follows suit with the national transformation fund committing £250 billion over 10 years to be shared across all parts of the UK. Setting the right investment criteria for the Scottish National Investment Bank is also an opportunity to power innovation and accelerate the just transformation. And a shift to reinvesting pension funds in local initiatives and sustainable industries is an opportunity to protect the funds that people rely on after retirement while moving justly towards a fair renewable future. We must never forget that there are also multiple benefits to getting the necessary shift done right, to highlight but three, cleaner lungs and better hearts. With less air pollution, as we move to EVs and active travel, better mental and physical health, as we move to more safe walking and cycling opportunities, and improved physical health through tackling fuel poverty and creating warmer homes, a UN right. But none of this can happen in a fair way without a really robust just transition process, which Labour is fully committed to working with all who will work with us and, of course, with the Scottish Government and others, and who have a similar vision for Scotland and how we will achieve that. Thank you very much. I now call on Mark Ruskell to speak to and move amendment 15380.1, Mr Ruskell, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. How we respond to the climate emergency while guaranteeing the economic security and wellbeing of everyone in our society is surely the most pressing issue of our age. We cannot afford to condemn whole communities to the kind of crippling intergenerational poverty delivered through the collapse of the coal mining industry in the 80s, a tragedy that we are still living with today in terms of the legacy on those communities. We have to put in place a just transition that leaves no one behind and take the kind of strong human rights-based approach that Claudia Beamish spoke about. That is why the Scottish Greens do support the Scottish Government's just transition commission that will be working to ensure that the principles set out by the international labour organisation are embedded in Scotland. That includes building a strong social consensus on both the goals and the pathways of a just transition, getting the dialogue going within and between all levels of policymaking and action on the ground. Most importantly is the principle that the transition creates decent jobs and provides protections for job losses and training in new skills. The work that the just transition commission will undertake is important and it is long term as well. It is inconceivable to imagine that it will just be here for two years and that is why we will be lending our support to Labour amendment which seeks to place the commission on a more solid statutory footing. The Green amendment deals with the principles of the just transition, calling for those to be applied across all infrastructure planning, projects and policy, stepping up investment in Scotland's infrastructure, including low-carbon energy, transport, housing, while reducing and even eliminating investment in high-carbon infrastructure will be key. We welcome the Scottish Government's plans also to establish a Scottish national investment bank, particularly the reassurance that the bank would seize the economic opportunities of tackling climate change. We believe that the bank must adopt a mission-orientated outlook from the start. That has been defined by the economist, Professor Mariana Mazucato, who is also a Scottish Government advisor. She says that this approach, mission-orientated approach, is where government sets a broad direction for what a just transition economy would look like, introducing top-down legislative measures that are required, while local level policy makers, stakeholders and businesses design bottom-up solutions to deliver the changes. It was this kind of thinking, as Mazucato argues, that allowed the US to first put a man on the moon. That same big picture thinking is needed to make the just transition a success. The Green amendment seeks to address the context in which the just transition will have to happen. Our global dependence on fossil fuels is driving the climate to a breaking point, and all Governments across the world now need to face up to tackling the emergency. It will not be achieved if we only focus on the opportunities presented by low-carbon technologies. We must also build independence from fossil fuels and act to ensure that at least some are left in the ground and out of the atmosphere. Both are Scottish and UK Governments favour a policy of maximum economic recovery of oil and gas reserves, but at what cost? The science suggests that we must leave the vast majority of known fossil fuel reserves in the ground. A 2015 report in the journal Nature advised that one-third of the world's oil reserves and half of natural gas reserves must be off-limits if we have any hope of meeting the temperature targets set out in the Paris agreement. We are seeing climate leadership springing up around the world. In April last year, the Government of New Zealand announced that it would grant no new offshore oil exploration permits. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern stated that this is part of her Government's plan to transition towards a carbon neutral future, one that looks 30 years in advance. She said that this would bypass the risk of acting too late and causing abrupt shocks to communities in our country—good planning. Will we see this kind of climate leadership from the Scottish Government on this front, too? In the same week that the First Minister attended the climate talks in Bonn, her MPs at Westminster voted for around £24 billion—that's right, £24 billion of tax relief for the industry over the next 40 years. Tax break money that would be better redirected into renewables and decommissioning. The Greens report that jobs in the new economy highlight some of the opportunities that could come as a result. Our research suggests that over 100,000 new roles could be created in offshore wind, over 20,000 in decommissioning and around 19,000 in building retrofitting. New jobs would also be created in education and training to support those roles and ensure workers have the skills needed for this new economy. Those are high-quality, skilled jobs and, unlike those that rely on non-renewable resources, they are secure. Ultimately, we need to take heed of the demands of the Paris agreement and the recent warnings from the IPCC. We have 12 years left to drastically cut emissions and avoid the most devastating consequences of global warming. Our actions over the next decade will determine the impact of climate change here in Scotland and overseas. Setting stretching targets now could drive the innovation that is needed to spark the just transition and mitigate the most damaging effects of climate change. We want to see increased ambition on our 2030 target to hasten that drive to net zero. The purpose of targets is to send the strongest message to drive innovation, especially where future pathways are unclear. The kind of mission-orientated policy approach advocated by Professor Mazucato can help some of the most intractable challenges of our times, but it needs bold Government leadership. The earlier this transition begins, the better chance we have of a fair and just approach to tackling this climate emergency, one that can deliver prosperity and wellbeing, the reindustrialisation of communities cast aside decades ago, a rebirth, not an ending and a viable future for our world. I move the amendments in my name. Presiding Officer, today's just transition debate does entwine the importance of building a fairer and more equal society while transitioning away from carbon-dependent industries. That must recognise the impact and alternatives on working people and communities across Scotland dependent on high-carbon sectors, notably oil and gas. Scottish-level Democrats have consistently forced the pace in countering climate change threats. We established the first ever renewable electricity target some years back and set up the green investment bank. We have continued to press for incentives to help people to switch to ultra-low-carbon vehicles and make our homes warmer through the right fuel poverty policy. In the transition debate and in the work of the commission that the cabinet secretary set out today, there needs to be a particular focus on sectors where emission levels have barely budged since 1990, notably around buildings, agriculture and, indeed, transport. Even though technology is getting cleaner, transport is still immeasurably challenging because of increasing demand and, indeed, poor uptake so far of the alternatives. It is why we do not support, for example, any plans for a £250 million tax cut for aviation. If I could encourage the finance sector in one area, particularly at this time of financial challenge, it is to note the publication today of glowing press statements from Edinburgh airports saying how well the airport is doing, the growth and the record number of passengers. It does not suggest to me in industry that it is in great need of the largesse it has when there are many other pressing areas of need, not least in environmental policy terms. On oil and gas before Christmas, Enquest, the current operators of the Sulem Foyl terminal in Shetland, held a commemoration dinner to recognise 40 years of production. My whole life, as an islander, has seen the change of that industry literally on our doorstep. Oil and gas in Shetland to this day still employs 150 to 300 personnel on site, and that is just the direct jobs. 66 oil tankers went through Sulem Foyl in the last year, 5 million tonnes of oil were exported, 105,000 barrels per day. 17 per cent of the UK's undiscovered gas reserves are located west of Shetland. There are total gas finds. Chevron has sold the Rosebank field to Equinor, previously known as Statoil, where there is a huge role for the OGA in oil and gas export routes. The point in the context of this debate is about the Sulem Foyl terminal environmental standards, the Shetland standard that was put in place many years ago. That simply cannot be compromised. Enquest have declared their intention to save £50 million per annum from the running cost of the terminal. Shetland depends on our coastal waters to fulfil the potential of a £300 million seafood industry. Indeed, does Government, the food and drink sector, the food and drink export numbers, not look much without salmon grown around Scotland's coastlines? Cutting pollution control and readiness at the terminal is therefore not acceptable. Shetland lived through the Esau bonusia and indeed the Braire. West of Shetland is a highly challenging theatre of operation, so I expect—Shetland expects—the oil and gas industry to maintain the highest standards of environmental protection and readiness in the event of any oil spill. I would ask the Government to recognise that argument and to maintain a watching brief through the appropriate government agencies, including the OGA. The oil and gas industry is changing on Maurice Golden's earlier point. Just before Christmas, Shell announced that it was changing its executive pay policy, linking that from 2020 to carbon emissions, linking pay to hitting targets. It is a pretty novel approach in the commercial sector. One, we might even try in politics one day, but I suspect that that might be going too far. I think that it is important to recognise that there is some change there. As the cabinet secretary rightly said, we need a sense of realism in policy development over oil and gas. By 2035, the maximum forecast impact of alternative technologies will only reduce UK oil and gas demand to around 100 million tonnes of oil equivalent. That is more than the oil and gas UK industry will produce according to current forecasts. As Dave Mockson of the Just Transition Partnership said to a parliamentary committee, there is a tendency to look at this issue in straight quantum terms rather than to look at the quality of jobs and particularly middle-income jobs. He went on to say that many people who previously worked offshore now work as labourers. There is nothing wrong with labouring work, but it is not particularly good for an economy that people who were on 40 pounds now now work on 10 pounds now. That is a notable point that the Government might wish to bear in mind. The oil and gas industry remains a hugely valuable asset to the UK, currently employing and supporting one out of every 100 jobs across the entire UK. As Angus MacRone of the Bloomsburg New Energy Finance said again to the committee, electric vehicles account for only part of oil demand. Cars account for only 20 per cent of world oil demand. Even on our own very aggressive forecast for electric vehicle uptake, we will only see about 7 million barrels of oil per day being taken out by 2040 as a result of electric cars and buses. Overall demand for oil and gas in the UK in 2017 was around 100 and 150 million tonnes of oil equivalent per year, which was a 15 per cent reduction compared to 2008—again, a notable feature of how that is changing. Given that UK oil production was around 90 million tonnes in 2017, even if alternative technologies are exploited to the maximum extent that UK production would not surpass that level of demand. I do not think that there is a contradiction between supporting an indigenous oil and gas industry already going through significant change, which supports hundreds of thousands of jobs and supporting climate change action across Scotland and indeed across Europe and the world. 80 per cent of the UK's 27 million households are heated by natural gas, which has helped the UK to reduce emissions and can be a transitional fuel for the future. There are two very brief points on agriculture, which is also mentioned by others. It is important to recognise that UK emissions have declined from agriculture by 14 per cent between 1990 and 2016, but it is also important to recognise the dichotomy of existing policy and the challenge there between the high cost of entry into farming and even crofting for new entrants. Reductions and support payments will lead to two directions of travel for farming and crofting communities. Larger farms—agmi businesses indeed—will have the resources to invest in climate emissions, reducing technologies. Small units and crofters will just struggle with that. The reduction of subsidy, which could negate some of the risk to investment, may further remove the incentive for the smaller, sometimes part-time businesses to participate and therefore create further inequalities across agriculture. The Farming for a Better Climate initiative, backed by the National Farmers Union of Scotland, is a good one, but in that context, and especially in the context of the task force mentioned by the cabinet secretary for rural affairs last Thursday in this Parliament, I hope that the Government and the finance secretary will look at how that project is funded. If we genuinely want to see that shift there, perhaps the £375,000 spent in that particular budget line might need to be reconsidered. Similarly, on current agri-environmental payments, which are important across most of Scotland, they are based on income for gone and do not perhaps always provide sufficient incentive compared to the risk of participation, some further thought by the task force in that area is important. I recognise, too, in winding up the importance of… No, I have been generous. I think that I just asked you to conclude this. I hope therefore that others, too, will back the Labour and Tory amendments, but I, too, would not back the green one. Thank you very much. As you will have guessed, there is some time in hand for interventions. I could be a bit elastic on the six minutes, but not so elastic, it snaps. Six and a half minutes, perhaps, but not too much. You can see that for yourselves now, but Gillian Martin, do we follow about Alexander Burnett? Ms Martin, please. Presiding Officer, I want a low-carbon future. I want Scotland to play its full part in the fight against climate change. I want to spend my time as a representative in this Parliament helping to ensure that the decisions that we make put in place, the mechanisms, systems and decisions that will ensure that we are not stoning up catastrophe for our kids and their kids in the future. I agree with Mark Ruskell that there is no greater issue for the world's government today than climate change. I have been listening to stakeholders' views on our efforts to reduce carbon emissions in Scottish society and sectors, but I am acutely aware of the importance of ensuring that our decisions do not destroy communities and people's livelihoods. My parents had their lives turned upside down as a result of the destruction of the sector that paid my father's wages in the 1960s and 1970s. My parents are from Clydebank and my dad was an engineer in John Brown's shipyard. Oil and gas gave my family a lifeline. My mum and dad packed us off to Aberdeenshire in about 1977-78 to ensure that we had a future and that my dad could have a second chance as a planning engineer, not of ships but of drilling and production installations in the North Sea. Many of their friends did not make the move to the North East and many of my dad's friends never worked again. I multiply my family's stories thousands of times, maybe hundreds of thousands of times, then add the next generation of native northeasters who have been working in the industry since they left school and have known nothing else. Add in the wider economy that oil and gas prosperity has engendered. You might start to get a picture of what impact a transition away from fossil fuels could mean to my part of Scotland and the people that I represent if that transition is not one that takes into account the need for that shift to be one that is just, planned, managed and resource. As you can probably tell, this issue is deeply personal for me. The last two years have been tough for many people that I know who have wondered whether they keep their jobs or have lost their job. The North East should be at the forefront of all our minds as we move towards our shared ambition to transition away from the burning of fossil fuels. I welcome what the Scottish Government has already done in that regard, particularly its investment in offshore wind, city deals, transition training fund and substantial infrastructure investment, particularly in rail that is on-going. I welcome the cabinet secretary's remarks about oil and gas representatives, which has been included in the Just Transition Commission. Does our ambition mean that it is the end for oil and gas? No, nowhere near it. We will continue to need feedstock for chemicals and manufacturing into the foreseeable future. There will not be one item in this entire chamber—either the furniture that we have sat on, the clothes that we are wearing, the building materials that we are housed in—that has not gone element of oil-produced materials in it. Similarly, as we consider viable alternatives to diesel and petrol to fuel our vehicles to a low-carbon alternative, we can look at hydrogen to fuel our vehicles, as we are already doing in Aberdeen City. Hydrogen manufacture will be dependent on the feedstock coming from our offshore reserves, particularly from gas. Last week, I noticed that a German start-up Sunfire was giving 25 million euros investment from steel industry in Germany to power steel plants with hydrogen, so there is a good opportunity for us to be supplying that kind of fuel going forward. However, not only do we have the material resources that will power manufacturing in low-carbon alternatives, we have the expertise and supply chain capability in the oil and gas industry that will be vital as we explore the alternative renewable energy that will need to revolutionise transport, heat our homes, schools and hospitals. We must be harnessing that now, putting plans in place for the north-east to be the energy capital, to be manufacturing the hardware that we can use here for that revolution and to explore our hardware and expertise all over the world in the same way that we have done for decades with oil and gas. We need to be investing the research and new technologies that we are doing with high wind, wind power and scooping the kids up from schools into engineering that is focused on that renewables revolution and has the same guarantees of jobs at the end of it that oil and gas has for nearly two generations. Friday, I was really proud to join my colleague Paul Wheelhouse in the north-east village that I grew up in, Nubra, to officially open the national decommissioning centre. I am excited about what groundbreaking technologies they will produce, but decommissioning is not the consolation prize as we transition, it is just one of a whole suite of investments that we have to make to safeguard the livelihoods of those in the north-east. Those investments cannot just be a Government's responsibility, and I guess that was the substance of my intervention to Maurice Golden, which is why I asked about the responsibility that oil and gas industry and those private companies have with regard to that as we look for an alternative to burning fossil fuels. The climate change bill means that Scotland will have the toughest climate change legislation in the world. By the end of this parliamentary process, it might get even tougher. Scotland is stepping up to the challenge. The huge potential for new jobs and opportunities arising from the transition towards a new, a low-carbon economy must have a north-east focus wherever possible. We are skilled, we are diverse, and no transition should ever have the same kind of negative legacy that happened to the shipbuilding communities in the 1970s. I know that this Government is focused on this, and I will continue to argue for decarbonisation alongside arguing for the north-east to be at the epicentre of an ambition to realise that ambition. I thank you very much and now call Alexander Burnett to be followed by Stuart Sears and Mr Burnett. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and as I did last week, I would like to start off on a positive note and commend Scotland for performing well on reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, which has led to us as a country meeting our annual legislative target for 2016. That means that we are now 49 per cent below the levels recorded in 1990. However, as ever, there is always room for improvement, and it is only possible if our policies begin to reach into all sectors of our society and industry, particularly those that have not contributed as much as others thus far. As a member of the Scottish Parliament who represents a rural constituency—I should note my register of interests around that point—I would like to take this opportunity to raise the rural sectors' issues and questions when discussions take place on transitioning to a carbon-neutral economy. With one in ten of Scotland's jobs being in the rural sector, it is a vital part of our society and requires support. That could not be true when discussing how to support our farmers in achieving a transition to a carbon-neutral economy. Currently, the agricultural sector is the third-biggest emissions sector, contributing 17 per cent of Scotland's emissions. NFU Scotland has accepted that their performance has been poor in terms of reducing emissions. It has also called for Governments to work with them by investing in resources and advice for food producers and land managers, and we support those calls. With over 70 per cent of Scotland's land mass under agricultural management, farmers and crofters are responsible for the stewardship of many aspects of Scotland's renowned environment, and it is important that the Scottish Government invests in them. Unfortunately, however, our farmers still do not know their future, with what payments and support they will receive. Although the UK Government has outlined its plans in the UK agricultural bill, the Scottish Government has left farmers in the dark. Farmers face uncertainty in much of their industry. They are the ones experiencing the impact of climate change, and they know more than most how important it is to reduce emissions. However, the Scottish Government needs to do more to relieve some uncertainty in their lives. I ask the Scottish Government to consider the impact that it has on our farming community by not announcing its plans for a new agricultural policy for Scotland. Alexander Burnett I thank Alexander Burnett for taking the intervention. It is just to pose the question that does the member not accept that the Scottish Government has tried to give as much stability and certainty as possible? Certainly, Fergus Ewing, as Cabinet Secretary, has tried to outline the position. However, the basis and the premise for the on-going uncertainty is simply down to Brexit, and that is what is leading to the uncertainty for everyone and that sector that we can move on from once we have certainty around Brexit. I see some Conservative members shaking their heads if they are in that level of denial. Indeed, the Conservative Party has no hope whatsoever. Alexander Burnett I think that the best way of getting certainty would be, obviously, to be backing the deal tonight. I think that it is only hypocrisy from the Scottish National Party's benches to be advocating a position that is more likely to lead to no deal, while, at the same time, demanding more money in the event that there is no deal. If we do not support the industry now, we will continue to face problems with achieving a carbon neutral economy. Any targets that are currently proposed are unlikely to happen if we do not engage with every single industry proactively. If you, Scotland, have outlined their vision for future agricultural support in their steps for change document, that includes giving farmers and crofters the time and tools to adapt and become more resilient by putting the agricultural perspective at the heart of all measures from design to implementation. It is not just the agricultural, forestry and fishing industries that will need our support to aid the transition to a carbon neutral economy in rural areas. The small and large businesses, schools, organisations and local residents will all need support in our rural communities as well. The prospect of decentralised energy and digital connectivity offers an opportunity for rural communities to not only survive but thrive. We would like to see further engagement with our rural communities to aid this transition and we need to listen and work with them. It is vital that we do not leave them behind as it will be rural areas that will feel the impacts and have the biggest changes to make in order to achieve a carbon neutral economy. An important point to make was from friends of the earth who put at the top of their breathing summary that protecting workers' livelihoods, creating new jobs and delivering a fairer Scotland should be at the centre of a move to a low-carbon economy. For our rural areas that are doing their best to encourage people to live and work there, any policies that would seek to harm job creation would be detrimental to them. All of those issues need to be worked on in a collaborative effort, and they can only be achieved by having our cabinet secretaries working in tandem. The carbon neutral economy is one that we must set out to achieve for future generations to come. Again, I ask the Scottish Government to ensure to reach out and engage with all areas across Scotland and not to leave our rural communities behind. I say to members that I understand why they turn round to listen to a member behind them, but not to spend the entire speech with their back to the chair. You may have found it enthralling, but I think that it is a discourtesy, not a discussion. Mr Golden, I was not going to name you, but now I will. Mr Golden had his back to the chair for the entire duration of that speech. I understand why, but I think that it is a discourtesy to the Presiding Officer, so I do not think that it should be continued. I just put that down as a marker. I could get cross. I am being very gentle today, but that can lapse. I now call Stuart Stevenson to be followed by Lewis MacDonald. Mr Stevenson, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and let me hope I say nothing to annoy you too much. Exactly 10 years ago, I was at COP14 at Poznan in Poland, just as the present climate change minister has been at COP24 in Katowice in Poland. 10 years ago, the core of what we were discussing was climate justice. I had the privilege of meeting Mary Robinson of the now of the Mary Robinson Foundation for Climate Justice for the first time when she spoke at an event organised by the Scottish Government 10 years ago. Just transition has moved up the agenda as an important item that we need to take account of in protecting people's jobs, exploiting the skills and opportunities that come from the transition and supporting the people who will have to undertake it. Why does it matter the whole agenda? In my intervention to the cabinet secretary earlier, I talked about the United States and the move of employment from coal to renewables. It is very welcome. If we look at the cost of hurricane Florence, for example, the United States, it is estimated that that single hurricane, which is broadly attributed to climate change in its ferocity, costs $22 billion in cost. Therefore, the cost of doing nothing on the whole agenda is enormous. 10 years ago, we were being told by the UK Climate Change Committee that the costs of doing nothing were approximately 10 times as great as the costs of addressing the agenda. I have not heard an update to that ratio, but there is little doubt that that remains the same, probably the ratio, as the issue has become more important, has increased. That is why we are addressing this particular agenda. The Government in Scotland has been doing quite a lot of things to address this. We have seen a just transition of drivers in ScotRail from the diesel trains that my back-of-the-envelope calculation shows between Edinburgh and Glasgow via Falkirk High burns 75,000 litres of fuel a week, whereas the now electric trains that we have there are slightly more of them, with many more seats, carry 30,000 seats a day and only need the power from 10 wind turbines. If you compare those two options, you can see why, in economic terms and in climate terms, we will be making the transition from an environment where we rely particularly on transport upon oil. Oil is very important, and the industry in the north-east is very important for my constituents. I have the St Fergus gas plant that brings a huge proportion of the UK's gas ashore, together with East Anglia, which is the other main place, and some of Blackpool. The skills that have been developed in my constituents and in my constituency are transferable skills. One that can enable us to build a new renewable industry, we have to manage it. It will not happen simply by accident. We have acorn, climate change, carbon capture and storage projects, undergoing its early stages at St Fergus. It is not quite the size of the project that we had previously looked forward to at Peterhead gas station, an ideal place to have a carbon capture system because of its proximity to the pipelines that would take the carbonic acid away and into reservoirs offshore. Will oil continue to matter to us? Yes, it will. We have not found a way of successfully replacing oil in any meaningful way as a feedstock for our chemical industries. That is a challenge that we can see some of the way forward, but we are certainly not ready to complete that transition. We are not yet in a position where we can say that oil does not matter to our economy and does not matter to the future of human rights. However, in transport, we can certainly see the way forward and we should do. Oil is too precious for us now to be burning as much of it as we currently do in transport. Let me turn to the just transition process itself. I very much welcome the debate and its process on just transition principles. The Labour amendment is broadly comfortable—I think that I am not quite as comfortable as the minister is—because I am not at all clear that independent of government and accountable to Parliament actually makes sense and works. Why should I say that? Yes, there is a place for outside bodies that fit into that category. Examples would be the commission for standards in public life, because they are our policemen, Custodius, who will guard the guards. You need that independence by that role. Similarly, the boundary commission should be independent of politicians and should therefore not be reported by the normal ministerial lines. However, I genuinely have concerns that, if you have an independent commission on a policy area like this, first of all, the corporate body will have to, from parliamentary funds, find the money to fund such a commission every year. It will have to have a line of accountability to this Parliament. How is that going to work? We know how ministers can be held at our behest here to account for the areas that are their responsibility. That is not going to be their responsibility if it is independent and reports directly to Parliament. Can I be persuaded on the subject? I probably can, but so far, the argument has not advanced to the point where I have heard the arguments for that aspect of a just transition commission, which, in principle, I very strongly support. That is an excellent debate. Some ministers have shown us the way to do things. In 2008, the Welsh Environment Minister, Jane Davidson, was able to travel by train from Cardiff to Poznan in Poland and took it two days each way. As a minority Government minister in 2008, I regret that I had to fly. I hope that that does not happen again in the future. Last month, hundreds of energy workers and employers came together at a breakfast briefing in Aberdeen to consider how Scotland's existing energy industries could play their part in the future energy transition. Chris Stark, the chief executive of the committee on climate change, set out the wider challenges. He stressed the importance of containing the increase in global temperatures to 1.5 rather than 2 degrees. He showed where Scottish and British emissions fitted into the wider global picture and laid down a challenge to the oil and gas industry, still by far the largest energy employer in Scotland, to get involved in planning and delivering a transition to a low-carbon future. The answers were interesting, not least from those working in oil and gas. Will Webster, the energy policy manager at Oil and Gas UK, introduced energy transition outlook 2018, the industry's first annual report on the implications and opportunities of future transition for existing energy companies? That publication and the briefing to launch it tell their own story. Oil and gas workers, like coal miners before them, are citizens of the world, as well as skilled workers in energy production. They know the changes coming. They want to be partners in that change, not victims of it. That is what today's debate is surely all about. They want, for example, offshore safety training certification from oil and gas to be fully recognised in offshore renewables. They want to see the expertise and experience from producing hydrocarbons over the past 40 years to be put to good use, as well as the infrastructure in sequestering carbon and storing it below the seabed in the North Sea. Workers in Aberdeen sadly know only too well the impact of unplanned change, and not just in the context of the recent oil downturn. Only yesterday, Stonywood paper mill was placed into administration, putting hundreds of jobs in the last paper mill in the north-east at risk. If the Government has a responsibility to support jobs that are threatened by global market trends, as I am sure ministers will accept that they do in the case of Stonywood paper mill, it is all the more true when it comes to jobs that put at risk in the name of public policy. Many who worked in Scotland's coal and steel industries, and Gillian Martin mentioned shipbuilding in the same context, many of those remember only too well how their jobs were sacrificed in pursuit of Government policy objectives a generation ago, and the impact of that is with us still. The whole point of a just transition is that such devastation should not be repeated in the name of public policy, no matter how laudable the policy objectives might seem to be. That is why Chris Stark's approach to an existing energy industry is the right one, to ask what it can do to support the energy transition. Far more constructive and far more likely to succeed than advocating an end to production of oil and gas from the North Sea without reference to what the energy mix of the 2020s and 2030s might actually look like. It is nearly 20 years since UK demand for oil and gas overtook UK production. Reducing that demand below the level of production, as Tavish Scott said, is likely to take at least as long. Of course, we should support ambitious targets for renewable energy generation and renewable heat, for stimulating demand for alternative fuels across the economy, for improving energy efficiency and reducing emissions. However, we need to start with what we want to achieve, what we want to make happen, not which jobs we want to abolish or which industries we want to close down. Outlining how we make progress without making redundancies is surely what a just transition commission is for. Last week, we debated ultra-low-emission vehicles. In that debate, I quoted motor industry experts who argued that 2018 might well turn out to be the peak year for petrol and diesel consumption worldwide. That did not happen because of a fall in demand for transport or a decision to decommission car plants. It happened because of action here and elsewhere to promote electric cars and vans and hydrogen buses and trains, so that future transport needs can be met from lower-carbon sources. We should take that same approach to other markets for oil and gas. Electricity generation has made big strides in the right direction. There is still more to do, but the decommissioning of Lunganneth came after 15 years of expanding wind power, not before. The next challenge is heat. 80 per cent of British homes are heated by natural gas, many homes in rural Scotland, which are off the gas grid, suffer from serious fuel poverty as a direct result. What we cannot do is force households to give up affordable gas heating for much more expensive electric alternatives. Instead, we have to promote lower-carbon alternatives, whether that be biomass or heat source pumps or hydrogen gas, which might be one way forward in that sector, too. A just transition is not just about justice for those working in the energy industries, but it is about protecting consumers too. Energy policy must address climate change and security of supply, but it must also ensure that future energy is affordable for all, and that is no small task. We must also protect jobs in the wider economy. I have mentioned the paper industry, but that is only one of the manufacturing industries in Scotland that currently produce high levels of CO2 in their production processes. Increased energy efficiency in the industry is essential, but it is not enough. We must also seek to drive down emissions from the energy that will continue to be required. That is why carbon capture and storage will be critical. Scottish ministers, I hope, will work with UK colleagues to make sure that the next attempt to develop CCS on this island is more successful than those that have gone before. For all those reasons, we need an approach to a just transition, which is serious and long-term and truly inclusive, as Claudia Beamish and the others have laid out. I hope that Parliament can broadly agree on how to achieve that today. Thank you very much, Ms McDonnell. I call Joan McAlpine to be followed by Donald Cameron. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. We will start by saying that if we are going to have a just transition to a carbon neutral economy, we all need to be more honest in how we debate the subjects of climate change and economic growth both in Parliament and across the country. In this chamber and in the media, we talk repeatedly about economic growth. Indeed, it is one of the key measurements by which Governments are held to account. Yet, often the same voices who unequivocally demand accelerated growth one day can the following day argue with equal passion that we must reduce emissions at a pace that will kill off jobs. The Scottish Government's climate change bill is the toughest legislation of its kind in the world, tough but not destructive. The two ambitions for economic growth and significant carbon reduction are not, however, mutually exclusive, but they cannot be discussed in separate silos, and that is why we need the Just Transition Commission. That is absolutely in the spirit of the Paris climate agreement, which emphasises the importance of social inclusion and ensuring that no family, no community gets left behind in this historic process. We can make the most of the economic opportunities offered by decarbonisation. A good illustration of how that is already working in practice can be read in the briefing today from Scottish renewables. In my own region, the global headquarters of natural power, a leading clean energy consultant employing 350 people, is situated in the small village of St Johnstown of Dorei in rural Galloway. That is one of many, many good news stories that decarbonisation has brought across rural Scotland. While I welcome the jobs that are brought by renewables in the region that I represent, I also note, as others have noted, that agriculture is a foundation stone of the economy in particular livestock farming. That is not just about the farmers themselves, but the dairy workers, the local builders, the fencers, the seed suppliers, the vehicle franchises, the local shops, all of whom depend on a thriving farming sector. We all know that cattle farming has challenges to meet in terms of carbon reduction, but the key aspect is co-operation with the sector. That is why I am pleased to see farming represented on the Just Transition Commission. I also note that NFU Scotland's briefing today supports the Government's approach to the climate change bill, because, as it says, a net zero approach would result in the reduction of output in the decline in the agriculture and food sector, which I do not think anybody would want to see. I know that there are climate campaigners who do not agree with that approach. They would like us to embark on a journey at breakneck speed, which could devastate farming and food. That is unacceptable to my constituents in the south of Scotland. I am pleased that it is unacceptable to the Scottish Government, and it should be unacceptable to everyone in Scotland who values jobs in a rural economy. If we are to prosper economically as a region in the south of Scotland, we also need to improve the roads that we drive on. Political parties across this Parliament support upgrading those roads, for example the dualling of the A75, as an essential to the economic prosperity of the south west. I believe that the Government is listening to those arguments, but I am well aware that there are those who will always oppose any road upgrades on the grounds that it risks increasing emissions. I am not one of them, but I acknowledge that their position is consistent. What I find harder to accept is those who demand impossible emissions reductions one day while also demanding new roads with equal fervour. A just transition would find a pace of change that allowed road infrastructure improvements in rural Scotland where those were needed. That is not just about one sector versus another. However, social justice is also about income levels and opportunities. In parts of Dumfries and Galloway, for example, it is often impossible for people to get to work to see a doctor to do the shopping without a car. Indeed, last week at the Scottish rural action event in Parliament, it was noticed that the traditional statistical measurements of poverty in rural areas are often underestimated because they assume that car ownership is a sign of prosperity when, in fact, it is a necessity. Any move to decarbonisation must acknowledge that rural car use is a need, not a choice. While I welcome the Government's initiative on electrical vehicles, it will be some time before it is affordable to most of my constituents, whose wages are significantly lower than the Scottish average. I say that, of course, with the proviso that the Scottish Government is not responsible for the price of motor fuel or the duty levy down fuel by the UK Government. Similarly, people in rural areas such as the south of Scotland have challenges heating their homes. Many are dependent on heating oil because there is no gas and the price of electricity is prohibitive. Indeed, the average domestic standard electricity bill in Scotland for 2017 increased by £43 to £606 last year, while the price of gas fell, which certainly does not make any environmental sense. Again, I realise that the Scottish Government does not regulate the energy companies and so has no control over bills. However, it is important to put a just transition into the context of fuel poverty, which is higher in Dumfries and Galloway than most other parts of Scotland. Again, that is why I welcome the presence of experts on fuel poverty on the Just Transition Commission. Social justice is at the heart of this debate. We are reducing our carbon emissions to help communities and individuals thousands of miles away whose livelihoods and homes, whose lives, often, are threatened by rising sea levels and red-fold droughts. We have an obligation to them and that is why our ambitions and reduction targets should be welcomed by all. However, we also have an obligation to those living in poverty in this country or those who would be plunged into poverty if their jobs were lost as a result of policies that were not considering just transition. That is why I support it. I thank you very much. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I begin by referring to my register of interests, specifically residential housing, renewable energy and farming. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to what has been a generally consensual debate. It is an important debate, particularly as we look forward to the Eclare Committee's stage 1 report into the climate bill, a bill that will help to shape and define our approach to making Scotland greener and more environmentally sustainable. There is, of course, much wider importance to this debate because the actions that this Parliament, this Government takes, will help to contribute to a global effort to reduce carbon output. We must all be mindful of the SR 15 report that was published last year by the IPCC, which noted that if global carbon emissions continue on their current trend, we may reach global warming of 1.5 degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels between the years 2030 and 2052. Indeed, whilst almost everyone will be impacted by such a global temperature rise, it will be more than likely that this will have the greatest impact on some of the poorest parts of the world, so there is clearly a lot at stake. With all that said, we must ensure that where we seek to reduce carbon emissions, whether that be in the housing sector or in transport, that we allow businesses and other organisations the time to adapt and that Government provides proper support to allow those changes to occur. As Maurice Golden noted earlier, transforming our economy in such a way to meet those changes comes with risk, and we should seek where possible to work at a UK level and a Scottish level to help our country to meet those challenges. In my speech, I would like to address two specific areas—the agricultural economy and housing. In relation to the agricultural economy, which others have spoken about, I feel that this is a sector that would feel a significant burden should any changes be rushed through with little or no consultation and without co-operation. Joe McAlpine was absolutely right, in my view, to speak about the need for co-operation in that sector, because it truly does require a just transition. Our agricultural sector is vitally important to Scotland's economy, and we know from recent debates in this chamber that it supports thousands of jobs, manages much of our natural environment and maintains the existence of rural communities across the country. Farmers, crofters and land managers right across Scotland have already made a contribution to reducing carbon output and helping our natural environment. From planting hedgerows and trees to investing in more fuel-efficient machinery, it is clear that this sector realises the need to adapt and, more importantly, is willing to adapt. However, I was very struck by comments that Tavish Scott made in relation to the fact that smaller farmers and crofters will find it much harder to transition in terms of reducing emissions than larger farms or agribusinesses. That is absolutely right. That should be recognised as we move forward in redesigning agricultural support in Scotland. The NFUS has recognised that reaching the existing 90 per cent target will be very challenging for the farming industry. It has acknowledged the need for there to be a strong focus on environmental benefit and delivery as a central plank of a new Scottish agricultural policy. Indeed, the agricultural sector recognises that making such changes will not only benefit the environment but could also be more cost-effective for farms and drive-up production. We all recognise that this is a sector in particular that needs time to adapt and to change. Turning to housing and fuel efficiency, I would like to touch on this area again on another sector that has to adapt if we are to achieve a greater transition towards a low-carbon economy. Scotland's building remains one of the largest contributors to emissions in Scotland. We have to look at ways of improving home efficiency, building more sustainable housing, incentivising property owners to make changes that will save them money and also address the challenge that is facing the world in relation to climate change. As the Government's figures state, 19.7 per cent of total greenhouse gas emissions in Scotland originate from buildings, so there is a lot of work to do. I recently had a particularly interesting meeting in the Highlands regarding the German passive house model, which seeks to create homes that have a high level of occupant comfort, while using very little energy for heating and cooling, in short, building better and warmer homes. One particular example of the project has been successfully executed outwith my region, but it is called the dormant estate near Lockerbie, where eight, two and three-bedroom semi-detached properties were built to passive house standards. Following a two-year study of the energy performance of those properties, it was shown that not only were bills substantially less than that of the UK average, but that total energy consumption per annum for a passive house building was just 10 per cent of the total UK average. In short, passive house is a type of housing that consumes less energy but also creates a saving for consumers who live in them. A prime example of how making our homes more energy efficient can help to reduce carbon output. That is not only beneficial for our natural environment, but it is also beneficial for our society, too. To adapt our homes in order to conceive heat and to save energy will inevitably help the most vulnerable people in our society. The CPG on health inequalities, which I co-convened, took evidence last year from the energy agency that looked to the effects of the HEAPS programme on 30 what were described as hard-to-treat properties. They found that installing insulation meant that 93 per cent of residents felt that the overall condition of their home had been improved. In conclusion, it is clear that we must take action to contribute to the global effort to reduce carbon output and to create the conditions for business and industry to transition justly to a low-carbon economy. We must be effective in our approach but mindful of the challenges that lie ahead. Above all, we must take an evidence-based approach, and the Government must play its role in supporting our industries to take the steps that are required to achieve a positive outcome. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I think that it is fair to say that the IPCC's 1.5 degree centigrade special report, which was published last October, was a wake-up call for all of us. If it was not, it should have been. The report brought significant clarity to the scientific evidence on the impacts of global warming, including the valuable summary of the evidence of impacts at 1.5 degrees. Thanks to another two reports published last year, the UN's emissions gap report, which was published shortly before COP24 in Poland, and the Met Office's UK climate prediction, the three of them helped to give clarity on the Scottish UK and global position that the world has already reached around 1 degree centigrade of post-industrial warming. We are on course for an alarming 3 degree centigrade. Extreme weather events happening now can be attributed to warming at this scale with confidence. Faced with those facts, NGOs continue to claim that current national pledges are not sufficient to keep temperature increases to the Paris goal of 1.5 degrees. I have a lot of sympathy for the calls for a zero emissions target being set in the bill, but we have to be realistic about the target dates that we set. That said, we all await with interest the views and advice of the UK Committee on Climate Change in the spring, which will hopefully set out a pathway for the nation to achieve carbon neutrality. As we know, Scotland's draft climate change strategy has a headline target of achieving 100 per cent reduction in carbon emissions as soon as possible. However, at this moment in time, the UK CCC advised that a 90 per cent target for all greenhouse gases by 2050 is still the limit of feasibility. However, that said, I was pleased to hear the Cabinet Secretary of State in the chamber last November that, if the CCC advises that even more ambitious Scottish targets are now credible, we will adopt them. It is clear that the Scottish Government wants to achieve net zero, but it must be done credibly and socially responsibly. That is where the assistance of the Justice Transition Commission will come in, which will provide members with practical advice on promoting a fair and inclusive jobs market as we move to a carbon neutral economy. However, before I turn to the Justice Transition Commission, it is maybe worth reminding the chamber that Scotland achieved a 49 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions against a 1990 baseline and that we recorded a 10.3 per cent year-on-year reduction in carbon emissions between 2015 and 2016. Of course, our country's carbon footprint will also be reduced thanks to the six large-scale renewable energy projects that have been approved, not to mention the world's first floating wind farm and the country's largest solar farm, which has been given the green light. Many working on those projects have already transitioned from the oil and gas industry. We have spoken in the past about picking the low-hanging fruit when it comes to reducing the carbon footprint, however, one box that has not been ticked, and it is, I believe, a piece of low-hanging fruit that we have missed, is tackling the 14,000 Scottish homes that still use coal as their primary heat source, as well as 186,000 domestic properties that rely on oil or bottled gas. It is estimated by Scottish renewables that homes using coal emit on average more than four times as much carbon as those using electric heat pumps, biomass, boilers or solar thermal panels. With the closure of Lungannate, coal-powered electricity generation has already, thankfully, become a thing of the past in Scotland, but I believe that it is time that household coal heating was consigned to the dustbin of history 2. The short-term employment opportunities such a commitment would create are high and would help to ensure that workers successfully transition as the employment landscape shifts. We all want cleaner air and healthier environment, and less of the harmful emissions would cause climate change. Getting rid of coal as a household fuel would be a small but significant part of that. That was an issue raised by Swedish academic Anders Wickman when he gave evidence to a declared committee before a recess when he said that there is a need for a Europe-wide discussion about support for communities reliant on the coal industry. Before I close, I would like to return briefly to the Just Transition Commission, which will be invaluable in the coming years as we see a more resource-efficient and sustainable economic model introduced in what must be a fair and socially just way. We must be keenly aware of the potentially disproportionate impact that badly managed transition could have in, for example, rural areas and those working in the agricultural industry. Clearly, food and farming have a crucial contribution to make to mitigate and start adapting to climate change, but let's not forget that the entire agricultural industry is made up of thousands of SMEs. It is fair to say that farmers get that they have to play their part, but first-class support and planning for transition in the agricultural industry is imperative. Personally, I would like to see a return to the old-fashioned department of agricultural advisers who had a good rapport with local farmers on their patch and gave them advice free of charge that they required. I know that the free of charge bit is a big ask, but such a service will be crucial if we are to ensure that the agricultural industry is 100 per cent on board, because the policy decisions that could be made to secure reductions in emissions from agriculture will potentially have a major impact on the industry. Ensuring that funding for a better climate initiative is significantly increased from the very low £375,000 per annum, which Tavish Scott has already mentioned, will go some way to helping to support change in the specific industry. I have run out of time, but— If you have something pressing to say, Mr McDonald, I have got the time. Excellent. The NFUS has provided us with an excellent briefing in advance of today's debate. There are clear concerns that if a net zero target were set, the sequestration that would be possible through various activities that can be undertaken on land such as tree planting, peatland restoration and investment in renewables is not likely to be sufficient to reach net zero. It is the next step of reduction in output, which translates to a declining agricultural and food sector. It will therefore be critical, in my view, that any pathway to reducing emissions will allow for maintaining Scotland's farming industry and output. That said, as I mentioned earlier, better progress can be made if our Government works with the industry to invest in resources and advice for food producers and land managers. Have I got any more time? Not too much longer, please. In closing, Presiding Officer, I would just like to touch on the issue of carbon capture and storage. If we are to set a target at net zero in the future, we must consider the impacts on jobs of all high-emitting co2 industries in Scotland, not least the plants in my constituency in Grangemouth. The Scottish Government must do all that it can to support the development of co2 transport and storage infrastructure in Scotland to enable industries to greatly reduce their emissions. All much has been done and I welcome the recent vote fast by the UK Government with regard to support for CCS. Clearly recognising that CCS enables industry to keep producing and retaining jobs that would otherwise be lost if production was transferred overseas or shut down altogether, which is a risk that we must always keep in mind. That is something else for the Just Transition Commission to consider. Jamie Halcro Johnston, followed by Alasdair Allan Thank you. I refer members to my register of interests, particularly in relation to the farming business of J. Halcro Johnston and Sons. Deputy Presiding Officer, this debate is an opportunity to look ahead to a future that will hopefully be quite different. One of the defining challenges of this generation has been not just to tackle climate change but to find a way for our society to live more harmoniously with our natural environment. The priorities that climate change drives forward remind us that our relationship with a wider environment is fragile. Scotland, particularly in my own region, the Highlands and Islands, has a long relationship with environmental management and particularly the production of environmentally friendly energy. While Scots were drivers of the industrial revolution, we are also a country that has made significant inroads in developing and expanding hydroelectric power throughout the 20th century. We have harnessed wind energy on a significant scale, and we are home to the innovative developments in areas such as wave and tidal generation, including in Orkney, for example, EMECH, the European Marine Energy Centre, which is the global centre of marine energy research excellence. Organisations such as EMECH need our support, and one of the major contributions that we can make is to work with industry more effectively to ensure that a pipeline is in place to provide the sort of skills that this sector needs. I will touch on that later. For all our advantages, we also know all too well that decarbonisation has been driven intensely in certain sectors, but with little progress made in others. In its progress report in September, the Committee on Climate Change made clear that there were, and I quote, no significant emission reductions in most sectors outside the electricity generation and waste over the five years to 2016. That is a statement that should cause us all considerable concern. As the economy committee heard during its inquiry into the climate change plan, we need clarity from the Scottish Government on the policies that will help to meet our targets. There are two obvious areas where significant progress will have to be made to come close to meeting those targets. Those are in transport and buildings. The CCC identifies transport as Scotland's biggest sectoral challenge. Scotland has lagged behind the rest of the UK on the uptake of electric vehicles. As the committee observes, we need far more concrete planning for significant progress to be made. As Donald Cameron mentioned, in housing, there has been work on energy efficiency, but there is still far greater scope for future-proofing new-build homes. Working in those areas to develop sectors that are carbon-conscious will depend both on direction from government and their own capacity and skills base. To take agriculture as an example, as Alexander Burnett also highlighted, the sector is aware of the need for change. While the direction of travel is clear, bodies like NFU Scotland have recognised the particular challenges that the sector has. As it observes, Scottish agriculture contains with it a complex network of thousands of small and medium-sized enterprises that run along a range of very different models. Where considerable change will be required, even in the future, it seems obvious to me that government engagement should be given priority to best equip sectors to adapt. It is undoubtedly also true that a lower carbon future will touch a great many parts of the Scottish economy, some it seems more than others. Those changes in our economy will have costs, but they will also create opportunities. The greatest risk is that we absorb all of the costs while seeing few of the benefits. Scotland can be a world leader in decarbonisation, and we have made significant progress towards that end. Business in Scotland can benefit globally from the skills that we create and foster locally. The reality, however, is that many of the jobs that are promised in the past from low carbon technology have simply not materialised. We have seen opportunities lost as contracts here in Scotland have been fulfilled, but with the skills and facilities in other places. If we have the natural potential to be a global centre for decarbonisation, we must ask ourselves why those skills jobs have not come into fruition in the past. The costs, however, are very real. Many will fall on Scotland's SMEs who have raised, for example, the impact of low emission zones on their businesses. The level of collaboration between the public sector and SMEs on decarbonisation is clearly below what it could be, and often it will be those firms that will bear a great deal of the burden of change. In a joint statement by the Just Transition Partnership, which contains not only environmental organisations but also a number of trade unions and involvement from the STUC, they caution that, and again a quote, it is necessary to confront the danger of losing a large part of the industrial basis employment as traditional sector declines. This is a very real issue and one worth highlighting. If we are to see fast change in our economy and wish to cushion some of the negative effects of that change on people, it must surely be based around a firm offer of retraining and re-skilling. At the risk of repeating myself in this chamber, I would point out that we lack a truly lifelong approach to learning. The draft budget in December promised the establishment of a national retraining partnership. That is at very least an indication that the Scottish Government recognises some of the challenges. The reality is that reforming adult learning significantly will take a considerable political commitment, but it will also make our labour market more resilient, not just in the face of the challenges of climate change, but more widely too. While I appreciate that environmental considerations will motivate wider economic change, we have spoken today about a just transition. In doing so, we must recognise that many of the areas that we will have to contribute to, sorry, in doing so we must recognise that many of the areas that we will have to contribute to climate change targets, our rural economy and our small business particularly, are often already struggling. Costs will fall heavily on them, yet they remain an important thread that ties communities across Scotland together. If the Scottish Government and this Parliament is to be ambitious in reducing carbon emissions, it should recognise now the future challenges that change will present when new sectors have to play catch-up in decarbonisation. I welcome the opportunity to reiterate the Parliament's support for achieving a carbon neutral economy in Scotland. As people live are tired of hearing, I represent an island constituency, which simultaneously contains some of the most environmentally sensitive land in the country and some of the greatest potential for renewable energy from both wind and the waves. I can see and recognise the responsibility that we all have to get this transition to new energy sources right. The motion today therefore rightly focuses on a kind of environmental justice, as have a number of speakers today. The transition to a carbon neutral economy in Scotland is one that we have already embarked upon as a country, and clearly huge challenges remain in getting there. However, it is worth reflecting that Scottish carbon emissions have almost halved since 1990 and 49,000 jobs are now supported in our low-carbon sector. It is also worth mentioning, in all due national modesty, some of the things that Scotland does on the front that not all countries can lay claim to doing in reaching their targets. The Scottish Government has, for instance, further strengthened our commitment to achieving our carbon targets through domestic effort rather than via the alternative of paying other countries to make emission reductions on our behalf. Under our own legislation, Scotland will maintain a fair share of all international aviation and shipping emissions within our targets. Again, no other country does that. We will maintain emissions from land use and forestry counting towards our targets, which is not something that is done everywhere. However, perhaps what is worth saying about that is that Laurent Fabius, the architect of the Paris agreement, has described Scotland's legislation as a concrete application of the Paris agreement. All that is said, renewables and low-carbon energy will provide the foundation of our future energy system, offering Scotland a huge opportunity for economic and industrial growth. By 2030, Scotland aims to generate 50 per cent of its overall energy consumption from renewable sources, and by 2050, we aim to have decarbonised our energy system almost completely. The Scottish Government is supporting low-carbon energy by establishing the energy investment fund that will invest £20 million in low-carbon energy infrastructure, and that will promote the development of onshore wind in Scotland and across the UK. I believe that it will also help to support the marine energy sector. It will make it easier to invest in local and small-scale renewables, which are so important to communities like my own, and to develop a bioenergy action plan that will invest £60 million in the low-carbon infrastructure. The Scottish Government and Scotland's political consensus more generally, I hope, clearly now want to ensure that we benefit fully from leading the global transition to low-carbon energy. Therefore, the decision to appoint Professor Jim Ski to chair a commission on how the transition to carbon neutrality can help Scotland not just to become greener but more prosperous is a very welcome one. It is a move that demonstrates, as if it needed to be demonstrated, the inseparability of environmental and economic progress for Scotland. Indeed, the Paris climate agreement itself recognises that just transition means moving to a low-carbon economy in a way that leaves nobody behind. That means not just the public sector but the private one, too, working together to consider ethical and sustainable supply chains. I hope that we may soon see some other direct economic benefits again, thinking of my constituency, but other places, too. Benefits that will arise from Scotland's carbon agenda. I hope, for example, that we will soon be able to hear further news on the future of the Arnish construction yard in Lewis from its new owners, who have committed such attention to ensuring that the new work comes its way. The yard is certainly extremely well placed to carry out fabrication work for Scotland's offshore renewable industry, among other things. However, the potential for that kind of work to provide apprenticeships, for instance, would be transformational in retaining young people in rural economies, like my own. The recently announced CNES 60 foundation apprenticeships in conjunction with Skills Development Scotland are already a good example of a national local government partnership that seeks to achieve just that in our island communities. Although there is still much potential in the North Sea oil industry, as a number of members have said today, there is also a potential for skills to be transferred from the oil sector into offshore renewables, providing both direct and supply chain jobs. Although living in a windy place, as I do, brings with it an obvious energy source, that very climate is one of the reasons for a major problem locally, which is fuel poverty. In the western isles, the recent figures show that fuel poverty stands at some 56 per cent compared to a national average of 31 per cent. Other island communities face similarly stark figures, although much is now being done to address the problem by providing insulation, particularly for older house types. Renewables are also helping to drive socioeconomic benefits and community development, but are sometimes hampered by infrastructure constraints, which again make it even more important in the longer term that we see an interconnector enabling island renewables to be exported. I applaud the work that is being done by many organisations, not least in my constituency, the University of the Highlands and Islands, and other institutions to ensure that technologies such as domestic combined heat and power, hydrogen ferries and better insulation are at the top of our agenda. However, we should now make sure that energy and climate change policy is island proofed and ensure that the potential of our island areas to make a national contribution to a carbon neutral Scotland is fully recognised. The last of the open debate contributions is from Keith Brown, Presiding Officer, I am very pleased to have the chance to contribute to this important debate on securing a trust transition to a carbon neutral economy. Some people have mentioned debates happening elsewhere today, and they may well be important, but what can be more important than the future of our planet and the livelihoods of those in our society? I would want to start by recognising the efforts of both the Parliament and the Scottish Government, including Stuart Stevenson, who took a prominent role in the passing of the relevant legislation through this Parliament in pushing forward this agenda and making sure that Scotland is, as we have heard, a leading player in delivering progress on this. We have to talk about carbon neutral ambitions because that is so important to the future of the planet, but we also have to talk about just transition because that is so important to the people in our economy. Of course, there is much more work to be done in terms of climate change, but the debate is a chance to take stock of the progress that we have made so far, and we need to continually refocus on the job that still requires to be done. It is also important to recognise that we have come a very substantial distance down the path to delivering a truly carbon neutral economy. As has been pointed out by Maurice Golden, the amount of carbon emissions has virtually halved since 1990, dropping from 76 million tonnes then to 39 million tonnes now, a reduction of 49 per cent. Those efforts have to continue, and we also have to take advantage of our world-leading position on that to maximise the potential for cutting-edge jobs and exportable technology and skills so that our companies and innovators see Scotland's economy feel the benefit in a very real sense. The point that Gillian Martin made was very important. That is not just down to Governments and Public Agencies, but it must be down to the companies themselves. The private sector should be driving much of that. There are many Scottish companies that are at the leading edge of developing the technology. We need to drive the reduction in carbon emissions further in order to achieve the ambitious targets that we have set as a nation. It is also true to say that Government support is, despite that, very important. I have been very troubled over the years to see the actions of the United Kingdom Government, first of all, in relation to carbon capture, where it was in, then it was out, and it caused a huge amount of frustration in the industry and it missed some vitally important opportunities, not least opportunities to be world-leading, and also the inconsistent and ever-changing support framework for renewables, which has been very damaging to the renewables sector. Many people in the Conservative Party have said that themselves. The transition to new technology, such as the transformation in taxing carbon emissions as part of our strategy to meet the challenge of climate change, inevitably means that some ways of working and, indeed, some jobs will be threatened. It is absolutely vital that we move, as we move in that direction, we do so in a way that means that the transition recognises the essential need to see a transition also in the employment market, so that there are skilled jobs to replace those that no longer support our low-carbon emissions emissions. I am pleased to say that, through the actions that the cabinet secretary described, the Scottish Government has put jobs at the heart of its strategy. As the cabinet secretary said in the chamber in June, the low-carbon transition involves and will continue to involve very real impacts on people, jobs and local economies. There will be many co-benefits, but there will also be genuine challenges, and that is why we need to take a balanced approach to meeting our climate, social and economic priorities. I think that a very far-sighted approach has been taken by the Scottish Government, and I fully endorse that approach. It also recognises the direction that we need to move in to meet environmental objectives, but we ensure that the impact on the jobs and the lives of people is fully taken into account. The new technology creates new job opportunities that can be positive in the same way that transition to a low-carbon economy is also positive. It will not all be about technology. There can be other innovations that we have heard in the debate. Tavish Scott suggested that MSPs should be paid according to their carbon output, which might change some of the pay differentials in this place between the front bench and the back benches and even the Presiding officers. That would certainly be a just transition in my book. I welcome the work of the just transition partnership in seeking to achieve the outcomes that I have just mentioned. The work that has been done by the Friends of the Earth Scotland and the STUC is one of the first meetings of the just transition partnership. The very positive and pragmatic approach that has been taken by the trade unions was very refreshing, as well as the approach that has been taken by the environmental members among that group. Like me, they recognise the need for effective carbon reduction measures to be developed and implemented. We have willing partners on the just transition process, but they also recognise the imperative that needs to put Scotland's skilled workforce in jobs that will be affected at the heart of the strategy. The partnership highlights the need to put jobs right in the centre of strategic thinking across Government departments and in terms of strategic planning for public infrastructure projects. Mark Ruskell mentioned the Scottish National Investment Bank, which he is absolutely right to have a crucial role to play in that. I know that its thinking is mirrored within the Scottish Government and that the aspiration of the partnership on behalf of its member organisations to have a key role in helping to deliver on a low-carbon transition is and will continue to be welcomed in the Scottish Government. For example, it is a key principle of the Scottish Government that no one gets left behind as the employment landscape shifts, and all of us across the chamber, I would imagine, would be keen to support that. The Scottish Government's Fair Transition Commission will take that work forward, bringing together stakeholders to develop a cohesive strategy to deliver on our shared objectives to bring down carbon emissions, while ensuring that the change that is required is achieved in a way that protects the jobs and communities. As has been mentioned by one or two speakers, we should not underestimate how difficult that is to do. Creating well-paid, meaningful work is not an easy thing to do, and it is not just one that can be done either by the private sector or the public sector, but it should be done jointly. I also welcome another approach to the Scottish Government, which will undoubtedly deliver results on this agenda, and that is in terms of the importance of encouraging responsible business practices that consider ethical and sustainable supply chains. That is exactly the right approach to that. In that, the Scottish Government must and it does lead and encourages the change in behaviour in companies, the public sector and the third sector, which in and of themselves are small, but when added together can make a tangible and significant contribution to carbon reduction efforts. If we get that right, it can not only help to save the planet as we have to do, but it can also make sure that, as we do that, everyone is treated fairly and has an equal opportunity to benefit from the economic potential of changing the way that we currently do our business. Thank you, Presiding Officer. No move to the closing speeches. It might rustle around seven minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It's been an interesting, very wide-ranging debate here this afternoon, and I think it's important that we reflect that ultimately this is about people, this is about people who are impacted by climate change around the world who are going to face devastating changes to their communities, but also the people here who are undergoing transition. Gillian Martin made quite a moving speech about the personal transition of her family from the shipbuilding work of the 1970s to the oil and gas sector. She talked about the oil and gas sector throwing a lifeline to her family. I think that that's very powerful. When I speak to communities in Fife who represent and the workers at Bifab, many of these communities, many of these families are looking for a lifeline today. They're looking for a lifeline for economic opportunities that aren't just about oil and gas. They recognise that much of their income still comes from oil and gas, but they're also seeing a bright future there, with offshore wind infrastructure and marine energy as well, which can provide the jobs of the future. They can see where the order of books for the companies like Bifab are going to fill up in the future if we can get the right incentives for that sector to grow. Part of this is about planning, and Maurice Golden talked about the importance of up-front planning. In many ways, if we look at the closure of Long Gannet and Coalfive power stations, for example, that closed early. I don't think that anybody totally understood the date that it was going to close. It led to 350 jobs going pretty much overnight. They were reallocated within Scottish Power and around Scotland, but the connection people had to Long Gannet, those exact jobs went. Much of the work of the Long Gannet task force was after that decision. It wasn't in advance of that decision. It wasn't about planning for the transition of those jobs in advance. It was very much about mopping up the impact of that decision. Of course, four or a couple of years on from that now, and we see a transition happening in West Fife. We see a Spanish electric train manufacturer, Talgo, a fantastic company that I've met recently with the senior executives in the UK. It's a fantastic vision for local communities. And an investor who could bring 1,000 jobs, almost three times the level of jobs that Long Gannet supported back into West Fife. Combined with other low-carbon industries in that part of the Fourth Valley as well, Alexander Dennis just over the water, the Kincardian bridge as well, leading the world globally on the development of electric bus technology. I'm really excited about re-industrialisation, particularly in communities that have been blighted over the years. If I could turn briefly to the Just Transition Commission, which I think has been an important part of this debate, which was raised by many of Stuart Steams and Claudia Beamish and others, I think that it's welcome that Jim Ski has been appointed as chair of the commission. I think that that will give us much confidence that this is a commission that will be driven by the science and the imperative for us to meet net zero emissions and tackle climate change. I think that Claudia Beamish is right. The Scottish Land Commission provides a model for how the current voluntary Just Transition Commission could become statutory over time. I don't agree with the cabinet secretary for the environment that needs to stop its work overnight. I think that we can move its work on to a more statutory basis. I think that the cabinet secretary told us that there will be recommendations coming in 2021 and that there may be other ways to deliver the long-term work of that commission. I'd like to know what those ways are now, because we do have a climate bill on the table going through the Parliament at the moment. If there is a way, if there is a sense here—I think that members are just starting to get the heads around what the options might be here in terms of an independent body—if there is a sense here in having a statutory commission that is somewhat independent from Government, then we need to figure that out soon, because we are coming to a point where the climate bill will be amended potentially at stage 2 on this. Stuart Steams, I just hope that the member might help us to understand why it needs to be independent of Government, because that's my key area of concern, while I can be convinced possibly. Mark Ruskell. That's to be considered further, but we have an independent UK CCC as well. We need to look at exactly how an independent statutory body could emerge. We can hopefully have those discussions ahead of stage 2. If there was a need for a framework to be presented in the bill, we can do that. We can do it with a good evidence base as well. Other members have talked about the membership of the JTC, needing to reflect all areas of concern. Joe McAlpine and many others have talked about this. I think that that's important. If we have to have a meaningful discussion with those who have a vested interest but also those who don't have a vested interest in the future of sectors, we need to have that meaningful discussion about what is the technological pathway? What are the issues to do with the transition of workers? What are the issues to do with training? How do we affect that? What is the role of Government in that? It is important that those sectors are sat around the table. I think that the inclusion of fuel poverty experts is an important addition to the JTC. There has been a lot of focus on agriculture. This is part 2 of the debate that we had last Thursday. Tavish Scott, Donald Cameron, Joe McAlpine raised particular challenges that we have with agriculture. Of course, that will be an important part of the transition. There are challenges, particularly with small farms that don't have the ability to look at new innovative ways of changing practices, because there just aren't the numbers of people who can support that and croft us as well. I like Angus Macdonald's idea of bringing back the agricultural advisers, but we have an agricultural extension investment from the Scottish Government. We have a programme that can be targeted more towards mainstreaming climate change advice rather than putting it into discretionary funds that can be applied through pillar 2 funding. I don't agree with the NFUS. There will be challenges, particularly with livestock, but we can include carbon sequestration in the mix and get a more sensible way of measuring the total greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural inventory. We can come to a place where we can see net zero carbon farming. Of course, we would not be alone in that in that France and many other countries around the world see that pathway as well. I will perhaps finish by saying that one area where we have been a bit quiet this afternoon is on economics. Mr McKay has had it quite light up to now. Perhaps he has been considering the implications of Shell's executive carbon link pay policy on his own portfolio, should the Scottish Government adopt that. I am sure that he would be quids in after this next budget. Stuart Stevenson reminded us that the massive economic implications are laid out by the Stern report now, which is over a decade old. I would like to hear from Mr McKay in closing about the hard economic levers that we need here—the Infrastructure Investment Commission, the Scottish National Investment Bank, the need to embed climate change at every single bit of Scottish Government policy, not just Cabinet Secretary for the Environment, but in terms of those economic investment levers. That is the bit that I am really interested in, because that is going to deliver a huge amount of change across the whole of Scotland's economy. The debate today has been positive in the recognition that we must take action when it comes to climate change. Equally, we must recognise that, where people's livelihoods are dependent on jobs that extract or depend on the use of fossil fuels, we must provide an alternative that protects their livelihoods and the communities that have historically relied on a carbon-based economy for their jobs. It has been said in today's debate, and, as the Just Transition Partnership states, a Just Transition means moving to a modern low-carbon economy in a way in which it protects workers' livelihoods, creates a new industrial base and delivers a fairer Scotland. Considering the impact of such a transition to our economy, it is both welcome and important that we must acknowledge that this is not an easy thing to do. Our starting point must surely be to be honest about the progress that we are making today. Moving to a carbon-neutral economy is not a small or simple task, but the consequences of doing nothing are unimaginable. We will never be forgiven by the generations to come who will pay the price of that failure. As Claudia Beamish reminded us, last year's publication of the special report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told us that half a degree of warming would put hundreds of millions of people at risk of climate-related poverty, and there would not be a country in the world that would escape the consequences of that. We need action in every country to combine climate change, and sometimes that can seem such a tall order, and people think that, as individuals, I cannot change the world. However, as Pope Francis has said, we need a conversation that includes everyone since the environmental challenges that we are undergoing and its human roots concern and affect us all. He continues that obstruction-less attitudes, even on the power of believers, can range from the denial of the problem to indifference, non-solent resignation, or blind confidence in technical solutions. We require a new and universal solidarity, so in terms of that inclusiveness, we must engage with the very industries that we seek to change. That is why Labour is calling for the establishment of a statutory long-term just transition commission that has the necessary funding, is independent of government, and is representative of industry and the workforce where change is most needed. I also make the point again that we must be honest as to where we are at. The former energy minister, Brian Walson, said recently, as the windiest country in Europe, we should be angry and embarrassed that every single turbine around us has been imported. I think that he makes a fair point. We cannot just talk as we have done today about what a good idea a just transition is. We must take action to make it a reality. If we are honest with ourselves, the actions today have been insufficient for building a new economy for the future. For example, the announcement last month of a £160 million fabrication contract for the Murray East offshore wind farm awarded to a United Arab Emirates-based firm raises many questions. That announcement led to the Scottish secretary of the GMB, Gary Smith, stating, and I quote, what we cannot entertain is more of the same across Scotland's renewables sector, where we have been fighting for the scraps from our own table. That certainly is not a just transition towards a low-carbon economy. I have to say that I struggle to see where the strategy is for the creation of skills, apprenticeships and jobs in the renewables sector. We need more focus from government at both Scottish and UK levels. Many jobs in this sector are high-skilled and high-waged, but we need the intervention and an industrial strategy to make that happen. Brian Molson reminds us that, in the 1970s, the offshore supplies office was established with the objective of securing 70 per cent of the North Sea supply chain for UK companies. Hundreds of companies ended up providing thousands of jobs as a result. When it comes to renewables, we need an action plan. We need direct intervention from government, and we need that to happen sooner rather than later. Will the member agree with Alex Rowley on the benefits that we should enjoy from the onshore supply chain? Does he not respect the matters of commercial confidentiality, but, in relation to BiFab, specifically mentioned that the Government has intervened in providing necessary support to ensure that there is work for the yards? In Scotland, is that not accepted by the member's very welcome intervention? Last time I met the trade unions, they welcomed it. Alex Rowley? I was careful not to mention BiFab. What I specifically talked about is the contract that was awarded to another company last year. Of course, when it comes to BiFab, and I am due to meet the minister in the coming week to discuss specifically BiFab, when it comes to BiFab, I am very much welcome the action that the Scottish Government has taken so far. However, I think that it highlights that, for the majority of renewables that are being constructed in Scotland, we are not playing a part in actually constructing and building those. The jobs that are coming are going to elsewhere. Other Governments have intervened and other Governments have directly intervened, so we should learn the lessons of the past, as Brian Wilson says, where there was clear intervention so that people in this country could benefit from the jobs that came from oil and gas. We need to be doing the same. I can also turn, because the truth is that it is true in the farming sector as well. The National Farmers Union of Scotland recognises that agriculture sector is criticised for its poor performance in terms of reducing emissions. However, it believes that better progress can be made if Governments work with the industry to invest in resources and advice for food and land management. Again, we see a request to work with Government for a plan and for the resources to deliver that plan. We need to have a forward-looking proactive approach to the economy. That means that an industrial strategy is a plan for the future that is clear and strong on actions. It is not incredible that, in 2019, over a quarter of households in Scotland suffer from fuel poverty. Rather than simply changing the definition of fuel poverty and introducing a target to reduce it to 5 per cent by 2040, should we not be putting in place a plan and resources to make better progress now? Part of that would be a skills and training strategy to give people in local communities the jobs that would come with that action. We have a housing crisis in Scotland. Should we not have a national houseball strategy, we need to say that housing is a national strategic priority and build the houses that we need. If part of that national strategy is that we can ensure that the skills and training opportunities are available in every community of Scotland so that jobs are local jobs. To include a just transition means investment and skills in training and in jobs for local people. None of that is currently happening on the scale in which it needs to happen. Let me start by referring to my register of interests in relation to a smart meter business based in England. That has been an important debate. It deals with one of the most pressing and critical challenges facing this and future generations, how to address climate change by transitioning to a carbon neutral economy and society. As mentioned by a number of members, the backdrop to the debate are the challenges and the goals set out in the Paris climate agreement, which seeks to limit global temperature rises to well below 2 degrees and to pursue efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels. Here in Scotland, we have seen significant progress over the past 30 years. Emissions have reduced by 49 per cent since 1990 and much progress has been made towards the goal of a carbon neutral economy. However, progress has varied considerably across sectors in Scotland. Emission cuts of 69 per cent from energy and 73 per cent from waste contrast with low reductions of only 28 per cent from agriculture, 21 per cent from residential and just 3 per cent from transport. In her opening remarks, the cabinet secretary set out the steps that the Scottish Government is taking to deliver future reductions in emissions through the climate change plan, the Just Transition Commission and other initiatives. Those targets include a wholly decarbonised electricity system by 2030, a reduction in emissions from the service sector of 96 per cent and from residential of 76 per cent. Those are ambitious targets that we can all support, but significant challenges need to be addressed to deliver those reductions and to do it in a way that is just and fair to all members of society. Some of those challenges were raised during the debate. Jamie Halcro Johnston and other members highlighted the fact that the climate change plan needs to set out more detail on how emission reductions will be delivered by the Scottish Government. That concern was raised during the economy committee's recent inquiry into the climate change plan. Existing Homes Alliance told the committee that it is right to have ambitions but that it cannot be wishful thinking. It must be backed up by credible policies and resources to give us the confidence that those targets will be met. WWF agreed. We are disappointed by the level of policy detail and they called for a clear indication of all policies and proposals that will deliver those plans. The evidence led the economy committee to recommend that additional details on budgets, targets, timelines and policies be included in the climate change plan in order to deliver a just transition in a transparent manner. In the weeks and months to come, as we debate the climate change bill, the Government is setting out the details of how those targets will be delivered. In addition to further clarity and detail on policy, we also need to see a whole-of-government approach to the delivery of a carbon neutral economy. The briefing from Scottish Carbon Capture and Storage circulated yesterday called for a just transition to be part of an industrial strategy that identifies the industries that will emerge in a low-carbon economy and industries that will become less viable as a result, and a strategy that takes a co-ordinated approach to ensure that jobs and skills from the declining industries can be transferred to the new emerging sectors. Maurice Golden, in his opening remarks, set out a number of constructive proposals on how that could be delivered. He referred to an ambitious circular economic programme that would add over 40,000 jobs if the Scottish Government embeds circular economic practice across all portfolio areas. That would include the creation of new institutions such as a design academy, an institute of reuse, microplastic recycling facilities and waste hubs to promote best practice across Scotland. The Scottish Government talking about co-ordinated approach and a strategic approach to that, the Scottish Government can also facilitate the delivery of a just transition by working closely with the UK Government under the UK industrial strategy. That includes clean growth as one of the four grand challenges. The transition to a carbon neutral economy will require investments of significant scale, and the UK industrial strategy will invest more than £2.5 billion in the next five years to support low-carbon innovation, including the transformation of construction techniques to improve efficiency, making energy intensive industries competitive, and making the UK the global leader for green finance to support clean growth. The low-carbon economy in the UK is expected to grow 11 per cent in the next 10 years, faster than any other sector of the economy. Scotland can benefit significantly from the scale of the economic growth, as well as the investments under the UK industrial strategy, but only if the Scottish Government works closer and collaborates further with the UK Government to capitalise on those opportunities. A number of MSPs during the debate, including Claudia Beamish, Mark Ruskell and Donald Cameron, pointed to the need for increasing investment in training, education and skills to ensure that Scotland's workforce is ready for the challenges and the opportunities arising from the low-carbon industries that are yet to emerge. If we are to equip Scotland's workforce for a low-carbon future, we need to address the chronic underinvestment in training and lifelong retraining, as Jamie Halcro Johnston mentioned. Otherwise, the workforce of the future will not be prepared to capitalise on those opportunities. There is a danger that we will lose out in significant opportunities if we do not have our workforce ready. Alex Rowley pointed out in the past where we have not had a strategic approach to the new emerging industries. We have lost out in manufacturing jobs, with the vast majority of turbines that we see in Scotland being manufactured elsewhere. In delivering a just transition, another priority for the Scottish Government will be to minimise economic disruption in the pathway towards a carbon neutral economy. For example, the Federation of Small Business has warned that very few Scottish firms are prepared for the new low-emission schemes planned for four cities in Scotland. I would express concerns about a lack of consultation and consistency in implementing those schemes. We agree with the FSB when they call for more consultation and Scottish-wide standards to be established when the Scottish Government is introducing new regulations in the pathway to a low-carbon economy. We also need to see a coherent approach across Scottish Government agencies as well, not just the transition commission, but we also need to see Scottish Enterprise, the Scottish National Investment Bank and the strategic board all being aligned around the priorities and the implementation of policy in that area. Perhaps Derek Mackay in wrapping up can explain how the Enterprise agencies will work together and be aligned across that policy area. Finally, Donald Cameron mentioned in his contribution that this is an area where the Scottish Government must follow an evidence-based approach to ensure that policies work in practice. Questions still remain over the Scottish Government's policy proposal to tackle energy costs through the publicly-owned energy company and how and whether that will work in practice. Two years after that policy was announced, the very viability of the publicly-owned energy company is still open to question, as we heard from the minister at the economy committee just this morning. I was surprised that we are still at the stage of stress-testing the viability of that flagship policy that was announced by the First Minister two years ago. Scotland moves towards a low-carbon future. It is inevitable that our economy will change significantly. Some industries will experience rising costs, others will fall in demand. New sectors will emerge that do not currently exist at the moment. There will be a need to balance the needs of small business, unions, employees, large business, the fossil fuel sector, the renewable sector and new emerging sectors. To deal with all of those challenges, we need to see a whole-of-government approach adopted by the Scottish Government. However, above all, we need to take steps—the Scottish Government needs to take steps to train and upscale our current and future workforce to be ready for the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. I support the amendment in Maurice Golden's name. I now call Derek Mackay to close the debate. Around 12 minutes would take us up to decision time, please, Cabinet Secretary. I am dali, so I think that this has been a very consensual debate that we have had this afternoon. It is an important debate, nonetheless. Throughout the debate, the principles inherent in the term just transition resonate right across the chamber. I have heard a number of comments about a whole-of-government approach, and I think that that is right. However, in a sense, I think that we are moving towards a whole-of-government approach as well. If nothing else, the agreement that this is important, and there is a lot of opportunity to work together to ensure that we get it right, we share the ambitions for the just transition, and I am sure that the cabinet secretary, Roseanna Cunningham, is particularly relieved with that level of engagement and consensus. The principles align with our national performance framework, our desire to meet the sustainable development goals that underpin that, and the principles and outcomes. We have set them to create a more successful country, but one that creates a sustainable and inclusive growth agenda, reducing inequalities and giving equal importance to economic, environmental and social progress. They go hand in hand, and they are not exclusive to each other. I have heard many important contributions today about the targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and, of course, the climate change bill process is in place to debate those issues more fully. I will not focus on that specifically this afternoon. What I did want to focus on—many members have asked about it—is my view, as cabinet secretary, for the economy. No one will be surprised to hear me say that I am particularly focused on boosting Scotland's economic performance. That is not because economic growth is an end in itself, but because it provides the jobs and investments that are needed to raise living standards, reduce inequality and support high-quality public services. I appreciate that. Jobs are so important here. The most impactful, purposeful thing that we can do is that a Government is to create those quality jobs. That is so good for social inclusion and a better quality of living. However, as the environment secretary has mentioned, Scotland has successfully combined reducing her greenhouse gas emissions with growing a successful and more inclusive economy, record low levels of unemployment, although exports, R&D investment and foreign direct investment all continue to grow. However, we know globally that unmitigated climate change would cause extreme economic damage, and that is what is focussing on the minds as well as environmental damage. We also know that, by being at the vanguard of a global move to carbon neutrality, Scotland can reap the economic benefits from the new markets and the investment opportunities that it creates in itself. I want to be clear that industry will continue to flourish in Scotland as we decarbonise and that we are investing in skills for the future. I am sure that all members will appreciate that there is also an honest on the private sector, not just Government, to adapt in those circumstances and to take forward that agenda as well. As we invest in the skills for the future, I want Scotland to be a leader in the technological and social innovations so that we can harness that innovation to boost productivity and create those new employment opportunities. Analysis by the International Finance Corporation indicates that the Paris agreement will help to open up $23 trillion worth of opportunities for climate smart investments in emerging markets between 2016 and 2030. There is huge economic potential and one that Scotland is very well placed to compete with. We are already delivering policies that demonstrate our commitment to a just transition to carbon neutrality. I want to highlight three live examples. I think that they give that perspective of action that we are working on now. First, on investment, it is important that we are committed to supporting investment in the low-carbon economy. The budget proposes to do that and to continue that. We have already allocated £40 million to 16 low-carbon capital projects through the low-carbon infrastructure transition programme, and now we are providing support for renewable and low-carbon infrastructure through our £20 million energy investment fund and £60 million low-carbon innovation fund. That funding is helping to secure the low-carbon innovators who will shape the future and ensure that we are supporting local businesses while attracting outside investment. Building on that investment, a number of members have mentioned that. In the coming months, I will introduce a bill to underpin the establishment and capitalisation of the Scottish National Investment Bank. Let me be clear that the bank will provide patient mission-based finance that will help to create and shape future markets and help Scotland to achieve its full economic potential. In the transition to a carbon neutral economy, there will be a central mission for the bank. The bank will have a role to play in Scotland's transition to a carbon neutral economy. I have committed to providing £2 billion over 10 years to initially capitalise the bank, and that will make a material difference to the supply of capital to the Scottish economy by leavering in additional private investment, supporting ambitious firms to flourish and enabling the kind of transformational change that is needed to achieve that carbon neutrality. We all know that that is successful. Mark Ruskell, I thank the cabinet secretary for giving way and for laying out this mission-orientated approach from the new investment bank. Would it not help that mission-orientated approach if the mission was clear that it should be a net zero carbon target for Scotland? Would that not help investment innovation? Derek Mackay I am trying to be very clear that we are focusing on achieving carbon neutrality, and that will underpin the work of the bank. I think that I am being clear in that regard. That is about technological and societal change that will make the innovation necessary, so I am very supportive of making sure that the bank helps to achieve that. However, the other example that I wanted to give, because it is important, was that around Michelin in Dundee. It is an example where we were faced with a challenge in manufacturing and industrial manufacturing. However, to seize the opportunities and create jobs for the future—the intervention that we have made—is absolutely focused on things such as low-carbon transport, circular economy, retraining, upskilling and all that. Of course, that will be supported by Government resources and the partnership that we have with Michelin specifically. It involved a cross-sector approach with politicians, trade unions, businesses and key stakeholders such as the local authority. In Michelin Scotland, we want to create an innovation park that will stimulate development in remanufacturing, recycling and low-carbon transport. That is a real-life example of how we are acting now to try to achieve those outcomes. That will support our low-carbon ambitions and economic development. We will continue to do all that we can to support workforce to ensure that it benefits from the opportunities that a number of members have raised in a positive way. The third example that I wanted to give was around the transition training fund, because it demonstrates its commitment to ensuring that we provide the support that the workers need to retain and retrain and upskill when industry conditions change. We have established £12 million transition training fund in 2016. Excuse me, cabinet secretary. Could we have a bit of quiet, please? It is getting difficult to hear the cabinet secretary. Please carry on. With that fund, it is specifically to support workers in the oil and gas sector in the face of rapidly changing market conditions. We have supported over 3,600 people through the fund, of whom 50 per cent have transitioned to work in new sectors, and 92 per cent consider their job prospects improved. We will continue to work with the oil and gas sector to address the transformation that is expected. Recent studies have shown that the job opportunities are there for the future as well, but the jobs will be very different to the ones that exist today. New roles will be needed in areas such as data science, data analytics, robotics, material science, remote operations, nanotechnology and cyber security. Furthermore, to remain sustainable in a carbon neutral world, the sector is also positioning itself to support the development of carbon capture, as members have discussed, storage and hydrogen projects. Transformation of this scale shows why a just transition approach is so important. Oil and gas has featured quite heavily in this debate, but we have shown how the North Sea is highly regulated, with some of the most advanced and comparatively least-producing production methods in the world. That means that maintaining domestic oil and gas production can lead to lower net global emissions and increasing our reliance on imports. A number of members have mentioned the importance of the sector. Given a number of examples of my perspective as economy secretary and some of the interventions that we have been making, there is a lot more work to do. That is why the just transition will be so helpful in giving us the advice to take that forward in the fashion that the cabinet secretary has outlined to achieve that economic, environmental and social progress. In defence of the Labour Party—something that I do not often say—the Labour Party is asking us to consider that statutory footing. I think that it is worthy of that consideration, and that is why we are quite comfortable with the amendment. I think that a number of members have made very powerful contributions today in terms of the change that is required, the geographic impact. Gillian Martin was very eloquent on that. Stuart Stevenson on the analysis strategy, John McAlpine on ambition and honesty, Angus MacDonald on the need for action, Alasdair Allan on the role of the commission, demonstrating its usefulness and Keith Brown on the opportunities before us. Maurice Golden, I thought, was his raison d'etre and clearly enjoyed the contribution in the debate. He almost did not sound like a Tory at all, but one of those those impassioned equal-warrior Tories that Maurice Golden has energised himself on a mission with Claudia Beamish's contribution was considered. Mark Ruskell spoke very powerfully on the legacy for communities as well and the need for decent jobs. Tavish Scott brought the realism to the debate that was very welcome and the support of rational pragmatic change. No, there's no insult, Tavish Scott. It's all compliments today. Donald Cameron spoke of a pragmatic and considered approach and Dean Lockhart as well on the importance of the economy. This has been a constructive helpful debate that I think will help to steer the just transition through. As we tackle the challenges and opportunities before us, if we do it in the fashion that we've done this afternoon, I think that our country will be better for it. That concludes our debate on securing a just transition to a carbon neutral economy. The next item is consideration of business motion 15413, in the name of Graham Day, on behalf of the bureaus heading out of revision to Thursday's business. I could ask Graham Day to move the motion. No one wishes to speak against the motion. The question is that motion 15413 be agreed. Are we agreed? We are agreed, thank you. The next item is consideration of parliamentary bureau motion number 15414 on a committee meeting at the same time as the chamber. Again, could I ask Graham Day on behalf of the bureau to move the motion? Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. That one will be taken at decision time. Our first question this evening is that amendment 15380.2, in the name of Maurice Golden, which seeks to amend motion 15380, in the name of Rosanna Cunningham, on securing a just transition to a carbon neutral economy, be agreed. Are we agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that amendment 15380.3, in the name of Claudia Beamish, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Rosanna Cunningham, be agreed. Are we agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to division. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 15380.3, in the name of Claudia Beamish, is yes, 85, no, 29. There were no abstentions, the motion is therefore agreed. The next question is that amendment 15380.1, in the name of Mark Ruskell, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Rosanna Cunningham, be agreed. Are we agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 15380.1, in the name of Mark Ruskell, is yes, 6, no, 107. There were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that motion 15380, in the name of Rosanna Cunningham, as amended on securing a just transition to a carbon neutral economy, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 15380, in the name of Rosanna Cunningham, as amended, is yes, 86, no, 0. There were 28 abstentions, the motion as amended is therefore agreed. The final question is that motion 15414, in the name of Graham Day, on a committee meeting at the same time as the chamber, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed, and that concludes decision time. We're going to move shortly to a member's business debate, in the name of George Adam, on paisley voted Britain's top town. We'll just take a few moments for members and ministers to change seats.