 The next item of business is a debate on motion 11945 in the name of Neil Gray on investing in Scotland's green economy. I would invite those members who would wish to speak in the debate to please press the request to speak buttons and I call on Cabinet Secretary Neil Gray to speak to and to move the motion up to 13 minutes, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I move the motion in my name. The transition to net zero will transform the global economy. For us in Scotland it presents enormous economic opportunities, together with benefits for our people, businesses and communities. This economic transformation is also, of course, essential to delivering on our wider net zero ambitions and we must manage it in a way that is fair and just. To realise those opportunities and to avoid the terrible harms that will come if we fail to make this necessary just transition, we must invest. We must invest in our future today or bear the consequences in harms and higher costs later. That is what the motion that we are debating today is about. Let me start by looking at how things stand today. Scotland's green economy already has momentum. The latest PwC green jobs barometer report shows that Scotland is leading the way in delivering a green jobs revolution and locking the tremendous potential that our energy transition and wider net zero journey holds. According to the Fraser of Allander Institute, more than 42,000 full-time equivalent jobs were already supported by Scotland's renewable energy sector in 2021. We have businesses that are competing globally in those growing markets, creating high-value jobs, innovating and repurposing supply chain strengths and capability. In other words, we are already building the foundations for a thriving green economy. Scottish firms have the chance to sell to the world and create good, well-paid jobs as part of a fair, green and growing well-being economy. Take the Scotland project, for example, where developers are projected to invest an average of £1.5 billion per project into the Scottish supply chain, or take the Climate Emergency Skills Action Plan report by Skills Development Scotland, which identified almost £90 billion worth of green investments that are currently under way or planned to commence in the next three years. We know that the scale of change that is needed is significant. Delivering our net zero target by 2045 will require the transformation of our economy and society underpinned by sustained investment, both public and private, in physical infrastructure. If we do not invest now, we will pay for it later. I agree with all that the cabinet secretary has said. Does he agree with me also that in order to maximise the efficacy of the opportunities in the green economy, we must continue to support a thriving oil and gas sector, not just because they make very substantial investment in renewables from their own resources and from their own work? If we shut them down prematurely, we lose the very skills that are required to be able to operate, to run reservoirs, to manage them, to operate the conditions in the North Sea—the most difficult arguably—around Britain. Therefore, if we shut it down prematurely, we will actually make more difficult the realisation of our green ambitions. I agree with much of what Fergus Ewing has had to say there. The oil and gas, the traditional energy companies, will be that private investment into the renewable sector that we need. I absolutely value the workforce that has delivered so much for Scotland from the oil and gas sector. I hope that we can see a just transition for them into the green economy coming forward. That was a message that the First Minister and I delivered to the Offshore Energy UK roundtable that we held last week. I will give one further intervention. I thank the cabinet secretary for giving way. Does he agree that cutting the just transition fund by 75 per cent is detrimental to reaching net zero? Investments in the choices that we have had to make in this budget are a direct consequence of the choices and underinvestment that we are debating today that have come from UK Government policymaking. The reduction in our resource budget and the reduction in our capital budget have an impact. It is a bit rich for Tory MSP to come here and to moan about the impact of the austerity that his party is delivering at Westminster and having a direct impact on our budget here in Scotland. Alongside our commitment to realising economic growth, this Government is committed to a just and fair transition to net zero for Scotland's economy. We stand behind our ambition to make Scotland more prosperous and that goes hand in hand with making Scotland fairer. We will make sure that this transition is planned and fair, so that we can meet our ambitious climate obligations and secure economic growth in a way that leaves no-one behind. The publication of our upcoming energy strategy and just transition plan will respond to feedback from the consultation last year. It will set a clear direction for the future of Scotland's energy sector and the actions that will be taken to maximise the economic and social benefits from our just transition to net zero. We are fully committed to the delivery of a credible plan that provides policy certainty for consumers, workers, businesses and investors. We have strengths and potential in sectors ranging from offshore and onshore wind, financial and professional services and advanced manufacturing. It was a pleasure for me to be able to see that work in hand at the National Manufacturing Institute this morning, where they are driving the manufacturing innovation that will help us on our green economy ambitions. There is a vital role for public sector investment in supporting the transition to net zero, especially in important parts of the green economy that are emerging, not yet established and need our support to become commercially viable investment opportunities. However, the scale of investment that is required to achieve our ambitions will require funding from both the public and private sector. We are working hard to attract private sector investment where commercial opportunities arise and we are targeting our investment in a way that aims to unlock that private investment. We are working collaboratively with industry to address the challenges that can sometimes hold back private investment. Together, we are supporting Scotland's companies, equipping workers with the skills and opportunities to access good green jobs and exploring opportunities to boost international exports in sectors where we have a competitive advantage. Our green industrial strategy this summer will set out our approach to working with business, investors and workers to realise the economic opportunities of the global transition to net zero. It will offer a clear view of the economic sectors and industries in which we have greatest strength and most potential and what government will do to support those and help to give the private sector confidence to make decisions and invest in Scotland. It will signal that we are serious about capturing for Scotland the economic benefits of the global transition to net zero. I want to give one example of our approach to investment in the green economy in action. Offshore wind was identified by the First Minister's investor panel as the single most important opportunity for attracting capital to Scotland and raising Scotland's wider investment profile. It has become clear that the next two to three years are critical to anchoring core parts of the global sector here in Scotland, with further investment also required beyond that. We have already had a significant investment in Scotland's offshore energy potential through the leasing rounds of Scotland. That is a fantastic example of a Team Scotland approach to delivering significant projects. To underpin delivery of that, we have worked with public sector partners to develop a framework that will achieve strategic alignment of public sector investment in offshore renewable supply chain and infrastructure development to ensure maximum impact. That very much aligns with the approach that is taken in developing the strategic investment model to move from project to sector level investment that better supports growth in port and supply chain capacity and capability. There is a strong pipeline of port infrastructure and supply chain projects now emerging through the strategic investment model process. That example highlights the huge opportunity that there is for collaboration and demonstrates that there is a strong appetite from partners to take a strategic approach to the delivery of infrastructure and port investment. We are backing up that collaborative approach with funding, which will be targeted to achieve the maximum impact. In the face of challenging budget decisions, we chose to focus the limited resources that we have in 2425 on the huge opportunity that offshore wind presents for Scotland. That includes investing £67 million to kickstart our commitment of up to £500 million to anchor new offshore wind supply chain here in Scotland. I will come back to Mr Whittle if time allows later. That strategic public investment in offshore wind will catalyse private investment in the infrastructure and manufacturing facilities critical to the growth of the sector, support market certainty and contribute to a productive competitive economy. It will also support market certainty, helping to create thousands of new jobs, embedding innovation and boosting skills. It is, in short, an example of the power of strategic public investment in the green economy in action. We must, however, be transparent in recognising that our powers to invest in this way are limited by devolution. We do not have the powers to borrow to invest that independent countries enjoy. I would like to have invested more in our offshore wind sector in the draft budget and to put more money into other sectors such as hydrogen, but we are constrained by the UK Government's actions and in action. The UK Government did not inflation proof their capital budget, which we forecast will result in a near 10 per cent real terms cut to our capital funding over the next five years. We need urgent action from the UK Government to buy—I will do if time allows later—we need urgent action from the UK Government to buy in to meet our net zero targets and to secure the vast economic opportunities of the green economy. We have reached the point where there can be no further delay in that action from the UK Government. Market certainty is key. We need the UK Government to work with us to create a stable policy and regulatory environment to deliver a well-managed transition that ultimately improves investor confidence in that green economy. It is worthwhile to invest and to be able to deliver its economic potential. That unprecedented announcement, made by the UK Government last year to renaig on their net zero commitments, including the rollback of policies already announced and accounted for, has repercussions. Changing those timelines undermines our commitment to growing the green economy, securing private sector investment and, of course, our net zero transition, but also knocks investor confidence. We need clarity to support long-term investment opportunities in Scotland as we transition to a green economy. While we are doing what we can to provide that investor certainty, evidenced by the likes of the onshore wind sector deal, the lack of clarity and uncertainty and barriers to investment are undermining our progress. Alongside in action and U-turns, we see a lack of recognition in Westminster of the global context in which we compete. We are deeply concerned by the UK Government's failure to recognise and keep pace with the level of capital investment that is required to deliver a just transition to net zero. Around the world, we see Governments stepping in to invest in the green economy at scale, like the Inflation Reduction Act in the US and the European Green Deal. Those ambitious packages are designed to drive investment in net zero technologies and the transition. The funding and the spending will shape future markets in which Scotland competes. UK investment levels stand in stark contrast to those initiatives. That position looks, sadly, unlikely to change, regardless of whether it is Rishi Sunak or Keir Starmer in Downing Street after the election. Labour once pledged that they would invest an additional £28 billion a year. It was to be their bold response to the US Inflation Reduction Act, but barely a week goes by that that pledge is not watered down. First, the target is delayed, then the quietly dropped the words additional. Now it is not a commitment, it is merely an aspiration, one that is unlikely to make it to polling day. We must see bolder, braver interventions in this space from the next UK Government to ensure that we are competitive for private capital. Arguably, given how competitive that landscape is and how quickly decisions are being taken, we may already have missed opportunities. We cannot afford to wait any longer, we need action now. So, to conclude, where does this leave us? Scotland must seize the opportunities presented by the global transition to net zero now or risk missing out. Our emissions targets are ambitious, we can only meet them with transformational action across our society and economy. But without UK action, we cannot achieve our goals. In action, at the UK level, limits what we can do in Scotland. We call on the UK Government to recognise the scale of the challenge and the scale of the opportunity and to invest appropriately. To recognise that one role of government in this era-defining transformation is to create market certainty and to stay the course with the right policy choices. To recognise that, under the current devolution settlement, the UK Government holds many of the levers needed to make this transition work and to use those levers correctly. Our ambition in this Government and in Scotland is to build a fair and growing green economy. We will deploy all the tools and levers that we have in the service of that ambition. We call on all the parties at Westminster to join us in that endeavour and we call on members of this Parliament to recognise and support this motion. This is an important debate to shine a light on our move towards a more green economy and how the Scottish Government should be doing more to support those industries that are contributing so much to achieving that goal. Economic growth is key to ensuring the health and wellbeing of our people of Scotland. We have to move forward to build our economy, to encourage entrepreneurship, to drive industry and deliver growth. It is only through economic growth that our country can grow and we can deliver the public services that we all rely on. We know that the Green Party members of this Government are fundamentally opposed to economic growth. They would put a stop to key industries in Scotland such as our oil and gas sector and to stop green energy sources such as nuclear energy being established in Scotland. If we are to truly have a just transition and build our economy on a green footing, we have to be able to explore options such as nuclear energy or green hydrogen. Scotland is falling behind when it comes to new technologies and it is as a direct result of policies from this devolved coalition Government that we are seeing Scotland's economy grow at a slower rate than the rest of the UK. I will give way. I am grateful to the member for giving way. He knows, or at least he should do, that Greens, like the whole Scottish Government, are extremely enthusiastic on the potential for green hydrogen. On nuclear, is he aware of the reports just this week of yet more cost overrun, yet more delay on the development that the UK Government is proposing, a development that, however expensive it ends up being to build, still relies on an incredibly expensive price for the electricity that it will produce. It is slow, it is costly and it locks in high energy prices. I will come back to the commitment from hydrogen later in my contribution in how much the Scottish Government is cutting on that. In terms of nuclear, yes, the costs have gone up, but so is the cost for offshore wind. We can see from the CFD round six that the price of that has increased quite dramatically. The most recent budget of the SNP was undoubtedly anti-growth, with cuts being made to vital industries—I will make some progress first—who are leading in the areas of green economic growth, as well as making Scotland the highest tax part of the UK, with that gap set to become wider. By stymying investment and cutting funding, this Government is moving backwards when we should be moving forward. It is making life more difficult for business leaders, communities and individuals with higher taxes, lower investment and cuts to public services. I will continue a little bit further. Those will all affect our ability to grow the economy and make the transition to a greener future more difficult. The green coalition speaks highly of its green credentials, and the reality is very different. In November last year, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity of Scotland postponed the publication of the draft climate change plan. The Scottish Government has failed to achieve eight out of twelve of its own emissions targets to date. Scotland is not delivering on key milestones such as energy efficiency in homes and peatland restoration. In the Scottish Government budget, there is no commitment to green policies or economic growth. Instead, we see cuts on cuts on cuts. The transport net zero and just transition budget is cut. The total rail services budget is cut. The just transition fund is cut. Support for substantial travel is cut. Energy efficiency and decarbonisation budget is cut. Funding for skills development in Scotland is cut. Hydrogen support is cut. I will give way to Michelle Thomson. Thank you for giving way. I just wanted to remind the member that the Scottish Fiscal Commission in terms of capital expenditure projects a 20 per cent cut from the UK Government to the Scottish Government. Is this vital capital that is so important to help to grow this sector? Is he aware of that figure and does he support it? Let's look at the budget that Michelle Thomson has asked me to do. If we look at the spice support that is available for all members to see, if we look at the resource and capital budget together, we can actually see a 2.8 per cent real increase. It is where this Government has chose to make political decisions and that is where we are seeing the cuts coming through. All of those contribute to achieving greener economic growth and all of them cut, showing where the priorities of this Government really lie, not in the well-being and prosperity of the Scottish people but in ensuring the well-being of the coalition party in Government. Being from the north-east, I know how important the oil and gas industry is to the economic well-being of the whole of Scotland. The whole industry wants to be greener, wants to transition but to do so in a way that protects jobs, communities and the economy of the north-east. What, Presiding Officer, this SNP-green Government is driving energy businesses away just at the very time that we need them to invest in our energy transition. In today's P&J, we will hear nonsense from the cabinet secretary but in today's P&J it is reported that big names are due to join the North Sea exodus this year, with Apache, ExxonMobil and Dana Petroleum tipped as exit candidates. This is bad news not just for the north-east economy but for the Scottish economy. This Government is making them feel as welcome as a whole in a lifeboat. Demonstrated by the letter from the chief executive of ethical to the First Minister, he spoke about the £8 billion investment in Rosebank and contribution to the whole Scottish economy and his disappointment that no Scottish minister welcomed the jobs that would be supported. He went on to say that without support for oil and gas, our human capital on supply chain will be lost to the booming energy sector opportunities overseas, thereby slowing down the energy transition, a point that Fergus Ewing made. So much for the new deal for business and it is telling that no one from the energy industry was invited onto the group, SNP turning their backs on the north-east again and again and showing that they simply cannot be trusted. We also know how important nuclear power is to the green agenda, creating energy in a clean and sustainable way. Nuclear energy currently provides around 15 per cent of UK's energy needs, but this has fallen since the 90s when it was closer to 25 per cent. We need to be much more open to discussing with the industry the place of nuclear alongside renewable energy to meet our energy needs. We need to be less reliant on our oil and gas, we are all agreed on that, but the Scottish Government has ruled out a key source of energy that could contribute to that picture. We believe that it is short-sighted decision that will adversely affect the ability of Scotland to take its place as a leader within the UK in clean, low-carbon energy production. Renewables are great but they are not enough to meet our changing energy needs. Of course, when we are looking at green economic growth, we also have to consider many of the fantastic smaller-scale businesses that have grown up in this sector. Green growth is a key driver now in our economy and one that we should do more to support. In particular, I want to mention the social enterprises that currently work throughout Scotland that contribute to our economy, provide employment, community services as well as contributing to the green agenda. Those businesses have grown up around the need for us to be more environmentally aware and providing valuable services, whether that is through up-cycling projects, collection of garden waste and composting services to wood and timber providers. We are also seeing more and more community energy production through smaller-scale wind or hydropower schemes. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will join me in paying tribute to those businesses across Scotland and recognise that there is much more that we can do to support them. We welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to publish papers such as the green industrial strategy, although I am sure that we will not agree with everything that they say. I welcome the debate and the focus that we cannot have on the important issues of our economy because we want to see more done, more investment and more understanding of how businesses currently working in the energy sector want to adapt and change, not demonising a particular sector, but working with them to move towards a greener future. We want to see the Scottish Government adopt green hydrogen as a fuel source, becoming an early adopter of the technology and moving quickly to secure investment in this area, which is why it was disappointing to hear the cabinet secretary confirm at committee yesterday that the remaining 90 per cent of the promised green hydrogen fund will not be available in the coming financial year. We want to see investment in the expanded offshore wind sector and onshore wind when done in partnership with local communities. We want to see support for our oil and gas sector as a key ally in the move towards a greener energy provision in Scotland. There are so many aspects to our green economy and green economic growth that it is difficult to cover all in the time that we have. However, we must go further and do more. The green SMP coalition is failing to deliver on its priorities and failing to deliver on its targets. It has cut vital budgets and it is spending money on vanity projects instead of focusing on what really matters. It is isolating key partners such as the oil and gas sector and house builders, while shutting others out completely such as nuclear and green hydrogen. When it comes to green energy Scotland, it has so much potential, but with the SMP and Greens in government, that potential could well be spawned. I move the amendment. I want to start by moving my amendment. I crafted it as I wanted to be constructive, but then I saw the news article this morning that summarised the attacks on labour that the cabinet secretary was planning to make today, which he did indeed do. I agree that we urgently need to see green jobs benefiting Scotland, because huge investment in renewables offers us the chance to shift our circular economy with manufacturing and recycling sectors being given more support from the Scottish Government. However, we have simply not seen that in the time that the SMP has been in power too much in the way of warm words and not enough leadership investment. Sadly, the Scottish Government is not quoting deploying all the tools and levers available. We need to ramp up procurement. We need to see best practice being shared across our councils and public sector organisations. That is one of the reasons I have been pushing so hard for the creation of a future generations commissioner as part of my wellbeing and sustainable development member's bill. However, the Scottish Government also needs to move faster and deliver more joined-up thinking. The green industrial strategy was delayed and we urgently need the leadership to provide our private and public sectors to be able to support investment right across the UK. I regularly speak to renewables and innovative energy companies and those involved in retrofitting people's homes who cannot access the training courses for their staff that they need to deliver the low-carbon projects that are potentially available across Scotland. We need a proactive Government working with industry and not stepping back from the responsibility of helping to deliver the building blocks of a just transition. We have seen the failures from the UK Government and a lack of effective delivery of major infrastructure projects such as HS2, which have been appallingly mismanaged. We also need urgently to see a grid that is going to work now and for the future. Governments need to be strategic to provide confidence, certainty, clarity and support for supply chains for our renewables and our industrial sectors to get the major investment that we need going forward. I want to flag very briefly. Sarah Boyack says quite rightly that we need clarity and confidence. I was heavily critical of the current UK Government in its flip-flopping and its reneging on net zero commitments. However, does she not feel that it is fair for us in Scotland—herself included, I expect—to be challenging any incoming Labour Government to provide that clarity, that certainty? At the moment, her amendment asks us to note the policy of the Labour Party, which has changed, I think, four times within the past few weeks. I feel that it might not be appropriate to ask on the Parliament to vote Labour, so that is what I thought. I would better just ask you to note it and I will go through the benefits in it. My colleague Johnnie Reynolds is just talking about Joe Biden's fantastic inflation reduction act, but he is talking about the competition that means that we have to deliver in Scotland and the UK. That is indeed the point of my speech today. Our local authorities are vital in supporting low-carbon infrastructure, and we are disappointingly not seeing the levels of investment in community renewables that the Scottish National Party Government promised. We have also got huge opportunities to create heat and power with our land and buildings, which would deliver lower bills to our communities and deliver investment. That is an unacceptable missed opportunity. We need government leadership at the UK and at the Scottish level. To be honest, the comments from the SQC were absolutely right in their briefing. The Scottish Government has been too quick to set ambition for jobs and economic benefit from green industries without setting up the necessary policies and funding to realise them. The SNP has been in power, cabinet secretary has muttered for over 16 years, but has failed to deliver the transformative change that we urgently need. We have come together with two climate change acts 2009-19, but as the UK Climate Change Committee reported in 2022, the Scottish Government has failed to deliver on lowering our carbon emissions, on homes and buildings, on transport and land. We urgently need change, and that is where Labour's green prosperity plan would deliver the change that Scotland and the UK urgently need. To be honest, a lot of the comments from the cabinet secretary in here muttering are about deflection from SNP failures. No publicly-owned energy company has promised delays to the green industrial strategy, delays to the energy and just transition strategy, and cuts to budgets that are massive. It is not just this year. No, I will not. 48.5 per cent cut to the climate change budget, 75 per cent cut to the just transition fund, nearly 40 per cent cut to the investment that the energy industry's budget, which last year's budget promised, maximised the social and economic outcomes of the transition to net zero Scotland, 28 per cent cut to the carers budget and 100 per cent cut to the green jobs fund, a bit of an irony about today's debate. That was announced with much fanfare three years ago, with 100 million committed over five years. In answers to parliamentary questions that I got this morning, it shows that three years we've only seen a mere 28 million expected to be spent by the end of this financial year. Then you've got the underspend of 133 million last year on energy efficiency schemes. Yes, I totally agree that Tory Government has been completely chaotic with the economy, but we're talking about long-standing failures with the SNP, so it is utterly hypocritical to attack the Labour Government because we are campaigning for. We established GB Energy base in Scotland, homegrown, publicly owned energy champion for clean energy generation to build the jobs and supply chains that we urgently need. If we were elected, we would act fast to lead the world with the clean and cheap power across the UK with Scotland leading and making sure that we get the cheap clean power that we need. Set up a national wealth fund, crucially work with local authorities and communities to deliver renewable heat and power that people can afford. All those aims would directly benefit Scottish households and businesses, and our ambitions would be funded by gearing up to the 28 billion throughout the term of the Labour Government and would be inheriting the regulatory economy, but we would be committed to actually gearing that massive investment that's crucial. In my closing remarks, I want to ask the cabinet secretary what progress he's making in the discussions about the critical future of Grangemouth, what support the Scottish Government will offer in terms of investment, to support the just transition, protect the opportunities that the site offers in terms of its connectivity, its location and the skills in the local community surrounding the site, because we urgently need that just transition to a low-carbon economy so that those already working in the energy sector get the skills, the training and the decent, well-paid jobs to make our economy successful. If we need a government prepared to do the heavy lifting, that's why we're committed to Labour's green prosperity plan, because we know that the oil and gas sector will be with us for decades, but we need government action and support now to put in place the investment to make sure that the private sector and government can work together to deliver the just transition and the green jobs that our country urgently needs. I agree with the cabinet secretary when he was criticising the UK Conservative Government over its flip-flopping, its changing messages, the rhetoric around about investment in net zero, because what government policy is important, but how it sounds is equally important. The indication of the direction of travel is incredibly important for investors who are considering where to put their money, which part of the world to put their money in, and also those companies are considering where best to deploy their resources. The mood music is incredibly important, and I thought that it was deeply damaging, because in reality the one or two years' change with some of the policies probably weren't that significant, but the rhetoric that was wrapped around what Rishi Sunak said was deeply damaging and sent a message of uncertainty, which is the last thing we need when we're wanting people to make long-term decisions. I want to focus, however, on some of the Scottish issues here, and I'm going to try and be constructive and detailed on some of the stuff that we're in about Scotland, but also methyl, grid capacity and various other issues. I agree with him on the outset. Our response to that, in saying that Scotland is open for business, is the green industrial strategy and the £500 million that has been underpinned by the First Minister in developing a domestic supply chain, the first £87 million of that coming in this year's budget, which I hope he will accept, is us looking to make sure that we put that big saltire up to say that Scotland is open for business, come here and invest in what is a massive economic opportunity. To be fair to the minister, I think that there is consistency on the rhetoric. I think that there is some question sometimes about the policy enactment, the implementation gap, as the former First Minister might call it, I think is quite significant, and I'll come on to some of those issues. The first principle that we need to establish is that I want to make sure that communities that I represent, some of the working-class communities of the east coast of Fife, see the direct benefit from the wind farms that they see getting built off the coast of Fife, and that has not been the case so far. We saw the collapse of BiFab cost the £50 million to the Scottish Government, so the workers that were rooted in the communities of Fife weren't directly benefiting, especially when the people of Fife and the rest of Scotland are paying higher electricity bills, in part because of the investment that we are making in offshore renewables, which I think is the right thing to do, but we need to make sure that the jobs come alongside the electricity and the supply. That leads me into the whole issue about the Scotland wind process. I do fear that perhaps we have granted authority for too many opportunities for wind farm companies all at once, and that we won't have the capacity within Scotland to be able to maximise the benefit from that. We are both big fans of offshore wind. Does he recognise that one of the big issues that we have with so much offshore wind is a global lack of undersea cabling, and that that will be a limiting factor in terms of the speed in which we can develop this strategy? Some progress has been made on the cabling front, and it is quite a technical area, because there are different types of cables for different parts of the process. Nevertheless, it speaks to the challenge that we have of creating the capacity here in Scotland. It takes time, and if we award perhaps too many of the authorities at once, potentially we do not have the capacity and the supply chain to be able to exploit that. Now, there might be enough to go round ever in any circumstances anyway, but I would like to see us maximising the amount that we are getting for Scotland. I am not sure that I have seen the investment plan in the supply chain from the Government to make sure that we do not have a repeater by-fab. If you look at by-fab, the facilities there are pretty rudimentary, which is partly why the company was not able to succeed in exploiting the NNG opportunities. I think that investment plan is important, and that is why I was concerned about the report earlier from the Minister that some of the funds from Scotland has been siphoned off to other parts of the Scottish budget. We need to make sure that we are maximising the opportunities and helping business to invest in Scotland, so that we have the maximum supply chain. However, that leads back to how much we really got for the Scotland licensing ground. I think that we did not sell it for enough. The cap of £100,000 was incomprehensible. The £700 million that we got was about a third of what we were getting for the equivalent in England, and a quarter of what we were getting equivalent space in California, where it was equally deep water and equally challenging to provide and build the wind farms. I do not think that we got enough from Scotland, and I deeply regret that we will not be able to use that money to invest back into the supply chain to make sure that we are maximising the opportunity for Scotland. Another issue that the minister and I have discussed before is the regulatory capacity. I also worry that companies will see a very narrow opportunity to get their licences through the regulatory approvals. I want to hear from the minister in the summing up as to how many more planners and specialists we have recruited to be able to cope with the glut of demand that is going to come through. I think that it is important that the investors know that, if they go forward with a Scottish opportunity, they will get their application through, they will build the supply chain and they will maximise the opportunity for Scotland. I want to talk briefly if I have time, Deputy Prime Minister. A little bit of extra time, Mr Rennie? It is about methyl. I am concerned that Harland and Rolf met methyl, which was previously the BiFab facility, outside the fourth green port area. It is not benefiting from the financial incentives that other parts of the fourth are benefiting from. In fact, there could be a subcontractor, which I think was the response from the minister, but I would prefer for them to be fully included in the opportunities in the wider green port in the fourth area. If we cannot get that, and the minister is unable to negotiate that, I hope that we get some kind of investment zone status so that it can provide a bit of a level playing field between different parts of the river fourth estuary. I hope that the minister will look at that again. My final point is on home energy Scotland, and it is just a plea to speed up the process for the applications for grants for home energy. It takes an age. In England, they are much faster, for whatever reason I do not know, but they are much faster there. We need to catch up, because we are putting off customers, and we are causing an uncertainty in the supply chain. That means that we are not recruiting the people that we need in order to build the capacity in order to supply the likes of heat pumps in people's homes. Let us speed up that process and get that working. I have the honour and the privilege of being one of the MSPs that represents the future net zero capital of the world. We are not there yet, and we have a fair bit of work to do to realise that ambition, but I am confident that we will make that title our own. That confidence is not unfounded. There are a range of reasons why I believe that Aberdeen will be a global leader in the move to net zero and why it will be at the heart of a fair, green and growing Scottish economy. Just as the motion recognises the vital role of public investment, our region is being supported by a £500 million just transition fund from the Scottish Government. If the UK Government is going to do the right thing and increase green investment, then matching the Scottish Government's £1.5 billion investment in the north-east would be a very sensible starting point in my opinion. I am not going to take an intervention today, but I am going to be talking up Aberdeen, and I do not want it to talk down. Beyond public investment, so much of what saw Aberdeen establish itself as the oil and gas capital of Europe has left the city very well placed to research, develop and pioneer the new technologies that will be needed to reach net zero. On top of that, we also still have oil and gas companies based in Aberdeen and who recognise that their long-term future relies on them being able to deliver more sustainable forms of energy. However, the most important reason that I am confident that Aberdeen will be the net zero capital of the world is because of the people that we have in Aberdeen, some of the most talented and innovative workers from across the world. There is a line from Jimmy Reid's rat race speech that I keep hearing from a colleague. The untapped resources of the North Sea are nothing compared to the untapped resources of our people. It is a line that I feel needs to underpin Aberdeen's approach to the just transition and our investment in a green economy. That we have oil and gas in the North Sea was key when it came to establishing Aberdeen as an energy capital. When it comes to renewables, while we rightly recognise the potential that our land and sea offers, I do not think that we top up our folk enough. I will never tire of talking up Aberdeen and its folk. Over the years, Aberdeen has amassed a workforce that includes many of the brightest and best in the industries that are key to making our economy green. Some of those workers were trained here. Others have come from far and wide and have chosen to work here. Having such a skilled workforce does however mean that they are in demand around the world. The investment that we are seeing in the foundations of a green economy today will give those workers opportunities to move across to our green industries. It will help to keep them here and ensure that we retain our greatest asset in the move to net zero. Let me use the rest of my speech to talk up a few examples of some of the amazing folk, businesses and organisations across Aberdeen who are key to growing our green economy today and who will help us to become a global net zero capital in the future. I had the great privilege to visit Verloom last week, a company in my constituency of Aberdeen Donside that specialises in the intelligent energy management and storage technologies. Of course, it was not the first time that I visited them, but word about their work seems to have gotten out, because this time they were also being visited by the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise, the cabinet secretary and our First Minister. During the visit, the First Minister spoke of wanting us to have a fair, green and growing economy. I think that Verloom's operations facility in Dice, where they do the work that has made them front runners in the energy transition, was the perfect backdrop for that. Another business that has received Scottish Enterprise back in and which I am looking forward to meeting soon is Canale Living Systems, which is headquartered in the bridge of Donary area of my constituency. Everyone in Corrin who founded this company is reimagining what housing will look like in years to come. I am looking forward to seeing what the future will bring for them and the role they will play in making that future more sustainable. As we look to the future, I was pleased to meet Brian Snelling, the chief executive of Aberdeen Science Centre just last Friday, to hear about the work that they are doing to bring STEM learning about wind farms and engineering into the communities and school across the North East of Scotland. The staff and volunteers at Aberdeen Science Centre have for decades, especially with their outreach work, captured the imagination of our youngsters and encouraged many who are in the green economy today to study and work in STEM. As we look to realise the untapped resources of our folk, whether that be through outreach work, through support for startups, through investment in growing opportunities, through the Just Transition Fund, through creating green jobs, I am hopeful for the future. A future that will see Aberdeen established as the net zero capital of the world and a Scotland that is fairer, greener and wealthier. Well, thank you very much, Presiding Officer. This Government likes putting warm and fuzzy titles to things when they want to sound good. We've got the wellbeing economy. Nobody's really sure what that is, but there's a cabinet secretary with it in his title. We've heard from him already. He's not here now, but he was on a bit of a winch fest earlier. I found myself not for the first time worried about his own wellbeing. We have the circular economy, which is just not chucking things away and reusing as much as possible. We've got a bill on that, which will cost businesses a good deal, I suspect. Here we have the green economy, and whatever you think that is, according to the Government motion, they think that they're doing quite well at it. However, they should not be so quick to pat themselves on the back. I want to focus on two areas of interest to me, and they're both areas where the Scottish Government should be doing better, and that's transport and trees. Two things that, given the storms this week, can be linked, and they must surely be part of the green economy. Cabinet Secretary, back now I'm going to talk about transport and trees. Good. Gentlemen, gentlemen, please, not like that. Mr Simpson. I'm pleased he's doing well. Let's take transport first and look at the draft Scottish budget. The Cabinet Secretary was somewhat in denial about that, but we heard from Douglas Lomson a number of cuts. The Scottish Government has cut the total transport net zero and just transition budget in real terms by £29.3 million. It's cut the total rail services budget by £80 million. It has cut the just transition fund by three quarters. It has cut support for sustainable travel by over 60 per cent in cash terms. It has cut the future transport fund by over 60 per cent in cash terms. In 2324, it spent £99.4 million on that fund, but in 2425, it's only going to spend £36 million. I find that all a bit rich, because I'm assuming that Graham Simpson still advocates and supports the UK Government's approach to austerity in public spending and the fact that our public finances have been cut, as is confirmed by the Scottish Fiscal Commission, and the projections that are coming forward for our capital budgets are cut. So isn't it a bit rich for him to come here moaning about the impact of the austerity policies that he supports? Graham Simpson. The cabinet secretary needs to read the spice paper, which shows that the total budget from the UK Government has actually gone up. That's the reality. I'll tell you what's a bit rich, Deputy Presiding Officer. It is a cabinet secretary coming here to have a debate about the green economy when the Scottish Government has cut the total green economy budget completely. It's gone to nothing, and the cabinet secretary is shaking his head. He obviously hasn't even read his own budget. The figure is zero. The figure is zero. What a nerve they have. They've got absolutely no chance of hitting their target of cutting car miles by 20% by 2030. They don't even have a plan to do that. They've got no idea. If there is a green economy in transport, then it should focus on making public transport better. But we're seeing the capital budget for SPT cut to nothing. That's another zero. Jeopardising key projects throughout the region, such as the upgrade to the subway system and a new station at Hairmire's in East Kilbride. I'm going to move on to trees while I've got time. I'm a hugger of trees, occasionally. I'm a member of the Woodland Trust. I'm a species champion for the Ash. Earlier, I asked a question about the forestry budget. The enormous cuts to the Woodland grant budget will torpedo Scotland's chances of meeting climate and nature targets. Scottish Forestry is facing a cut of over 32 million from its grant budget. The Scottish Government has increased its woodland creation targets every year, but the amount of woodland that is being created has fallen in each of the last five. The gap between ambition and reality has grown year on year. Over 14,000 hectares of new woodland creation has been approved for the current year, but the reduced funding will support only 9,000 hectares. Alasdor Seaman, director of the Woodland Trust Scotland, said that the Scottish Government must remember that warm words won't stop climate change or restore nature. We need investment in new woodland and fast if we're to have any hope of a strong economy—a green economy, you might say—and a healthy landscape in the years to come. I haven't even touched on things like energy, where ideology, as always with this Government, will get in the way and it won't keep the lights on, or insulating homes, or electric charging, or missed environmental targets, or areas where the Scottish Government needs to do better. I support the amendment in Douglas Lumsen's name. Thank you, Presiding Officer, for being quite a bit of a chat at the moment about the spice paper and the budget. Just to put it on the record, for complete accuracy, it's a rise of 2.6 per cent in cash terms for the Scottish Government, or a 0.9 per cent rise after taking anterflation into account so-called real terms. I really don't think that people should be shouting from the rooftops to be absolutely frank about that. All the people who are claiming their red spice paper clearly have not. To go on to my speech, Presiding Officer, I very, very much welcome the speech from the Cabinet Secretary. To my mind, effective investment in the green economy will require the Scottish Government, the UK Government and the private sector to be in the same page in terms of investment strategy. It absolutely requires a clear focus, mutual ambition and support. I'm going to quote from David Whitehouse, CEO for Offshore Energy's UK, in his letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in October last year that he said, in the right investment environment, UK offshore energy companies could invest £200 billion in homegrown energy this decade alone. Given the profile of Scotland's economy, we should expect a significant level of private sector investment counted in the tens of billions and dwarfing the amount of capital spend available to the Scottish Government, but that regrettably is not guaranteed. Final investment decisions have to depend on policy, planning and design over several years, as well as having retained and enhanced capacity and capability amongst business. Going to a point that Willie Rennie made, this absolutely emphasises the need for a stable policy environment, facing the challenges but also exploiting the opportunities together. In that respect, it appears in fairness that only the Scottish Government is staying the course in this regard with the Tory Government and the potential Labour Government weakening its commitments. Effective investment in the green economy of sufficient scale has to be needed to make a real difference and is dependent upon effective transition strategy backed up by practical commitments. In that respect, I am very much looking forward to the Scottish Government's green industrial strategy, the meet, if you will. I feel, and I can put it on the record, that there is some naivety in some quarters when they call for an abandonment of any investment in fossil fuels, thereby creating a cliff edge for the businesses needed for an effective transition. I say this because I am well aware that we desperately need the existing energy supply chains to support investment in the future and, critically, to supply the necessary skills, capacity and capability for a sustainable green economy, happily. I thank the member for allowing the intervention. Can I just ask if she supports the roseback development now, because that is oil and gas that we desperately need? I suspect that I will be out of alignment with the policy as ever. I am putting it very clearly that I am very much against falling off the edge of a cliff, and I think that we all need to be sensible about that. In fact, as I will denom and put in the Scottish National Investment Bank's transitional finance report from last year, for transition to net zero to succeed, we need the skills and capabilities of the people and organisations currently working in the fossil fuel supply chain. A just transition means bringing them on this journey with us, not leaving them behind, and that will take long-term strategic investment. So it absolutely is about real active partnership, not merely to protect current jobs but to invest in the future and realise opportunities. Taking the situation in my own constituency regarding the future of the Grangemouth refinery, Scotland and the UK need the refining skills, business capability and supply chains currently serving our economy. The decline of fossil fuel refining should not be the end of refining in my constituency. Part of a just transition must involve the establishment, for example, of biofuel refining capacity, including to support the development of sustainable aviation fuels. Those fuels will play a critical role in reducing aviation greenhouse gas emissions. So I was very disappointed to learn that the UK Government's sustainable aviation fuels plan, included in its £15 million green fuels green skies competition, led to eight projects being given funding but none from Scotland. However, the still modest £165 million advanced fuels fund may be a further opportunity. I hope that, if that comes to pass, the Scottish National Investment Bank, given its already stated views, would be a willing partner. One possible process involves hydro-treated esters and fatty acids, or HEFA for short, which refines vegetable oils, waste oils or fats into sustainable aviation fuels through a process that uses hydrogenation. Because of refinery capabilities and the wider plan that develops in Grangemouth, that would seem a potentially ideal centre for urgent investment from both Government and the private sector to realise new opportunities. I am aware that the Scottish Government ministers, Neil Gray and Gillian Martin, are involved in very purposeful discussions in Grangemouth and are working very hard, and for which I thank them. It may be that the Cabinet Secretary or Ministers is able to provide some further updates in the summing up. It is often cliched to say that every problem is an opportunity, but in the case of Grangemouth, it may well be the case that current problems will act as a spur and indeed should for future strategic investment from both the public and private sectors. The mood music, as Willie Rennie put it, is so important in this respect. I will certainly be doing all I can as a local member to support the development of a sustainable future that is built around Grangemouth. Today's motion from the Scottish Government is true to form it. It rightly criticises the UK Government's failings, but it does not show any humility at all by acknowledging its own. It mentions that the 42,000 jobs supported by the renewable energy industry, but it does not mention the 130,000 promised by Alex Salmond, when he said that it would be the Saudi Arabia of renewables. I recognise that the huge progress that has been made in reducing emissions through renewables, but I know that the cabinet secretary accepts that it is not translated into the jobs-led transition at the scale that we all want to see and, frankly, we should have seen. The Just Transition Commission was right when it said, and I quote, despite progress and applying a Just Transition approach to policy development and planning at the national level, the tangible benefits in people's everyday lives are yet to be felt. Scotland is a massive share of Europe's installed on-shore wind capacity, but we know that none of the turbines are manufactured here. We have some of the largest offshore wind farms, but we barely fabricate any jackets. Now Scotland's seabeds have been leased for offshore wind almost entirely to overseas-owned firms, meaning that billions of pounds in profits will be offshore. We cannot afford to continue to offshore far too many of those supply chain jobs, too. That means that we need to ensure that the positive words of NPF4 and renewables translate to deliver it on the ground through the pace of consent in those offshore wind developments. It means setting out an energy route map with timelines for that steady stream of work that is needed to give supply chain companies the confidence to invest. It means that the STUC has a proper, long-awaited green industrial strategy that includes the sector's key to building Scotland's manufacturing and supply chains, the interventions and investment that will be made to build capacity in those sectors and anchor them domestically and how those jobs, crucially, will be created on fair work terms and covered by collective bargaining agreements. It also means ensuring that the economic growth from renewables is inclusive and benefits all of Scotland. If we consider the sectors that can tackle Scotland's sluggish economic growth that could create those greener, fairer, good, secure jobs, we know that roads all lead to renewables, but sadly those roads do not currently lead to every part of Scotland. If we are serious about a just transition, we are no worker and no family and no community left behind, we need to get more serious about where those green jobs are created. In my home region, Dumfries and Galloway, we have 3 per cent of Scotland's population. However, we generate 8 per cent of Scotland's renewable energy and we are home to 11 per cent of Scotland's more than 4,000 wind turbines, yet few of those renewable jobs are located in the region. There are exceptions to innovative companies such as Natural Power, which have a proven track record of running a high-tech international business from a rural location and also supporting the local population. However, there is a need for opportunities to do an awful lot more. Take the decommissioning of wind farms. That will significantly ramp up from 2028, when many of the first-generation developments come to the end of the lifespan. It is an environmental contradiction that, although some parts of those wind turbines can be easily reused or recycled, the blades made of reinforced polymer have created a significant challenge. The Scottish Government recognised that in September when it agreed that it is part of the onshore wind sector agreement with the industry to deliver a specialist blade facility in Scotland for decommissioning and recycling of old wind turbine blades. Myself and a cross-party group of MSPs have written to the cabinet secretary making the case for that hub to be in Dumfries and Galloway at Chapel Cross, the optimal location for Scotland's blade hub. Presiding Officer, using that former nuclear power station would be a real visible example of a just transition in action, fitting with the Government's commitment to the borderland's inclusive growth deal with its pledge to make Chapel Cross a focal point for clean energy. The site is at the geographical centre of the on-and-offshore decommissioning pipeline with major wind farms not only across south Scotland but in north Wales and northern Ireland. There are clear transport lines with its close proximity to the M74 and A75, and the major ports provide an ease of access if I've got time. You're mentioning the site at Chapel Cross and I've been involved with the letter writing as well. I just wonder if you agree that just highlighting the south Scotland opportunities for just transition demonstrates that just transition is for the whole of Scotland, not just the north-east. I agree with the point that just transition should be about the whole of Scotland, but so far, frankly, the south of Scotland hasn't benefited to the scale that it should have. As I've highlighted, this is an opportunity to do so by locating Scotland's blade hub at Chapel Cross. It already has service land available via the South of Scotland Enterprise Agency and the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency. The region is also the operational base of the UK's first blade decommissioning company, Reblade. This high-growth Scottish start-up would be an obvious anchor enterprise to lead Scotland's new blade hub. A great example of an indigenous innovation born out of the Scottish green energy sector and an existing supplier of blade services to major wind farm developers in turbine OEMs. The company is already delivering contracts for its innovative work, turning those blades into public realm furniture. It has pioneered blade material repurposing R&D, it's a global leader in circular blade innovation and it's established links with academic blade research and with organisations including the National Manufacturing Institute Scotland. The company already has existing specialist supply chains located in Dumfries and Galloway, which will be required to grow and forecast 80 full-time jobs by 2030, if we grab that opportunity. I hope that the cabinet secretary, at the very least, responds positively to the request in her letter to meet with me and those cross-party MSPs based in Dumfries and Galloway to discuss the opportunities that locating Scotland's blade hub at Chapel Cross would bring to the local economy. I passionately believe that our net zero targets are not the barrier to economic growth, at some claim, but they are the very pathway to it. However, that must lead to every part of Scotland if we are serious about making that transition to net zero a genuinely just one. I now call John Mason to be followed by Brian Whittle. Energy and especially oil and gas have been a big part of the Scottish economy in recent decades. As we move towards more renewable energy, again Scotland has tremendous potential. However, the green economy is not solely about energy, and we want the whole of our economy to become more green. However, energy is obviously a big part of that. However, that will not happen automatically. We need to invest now, and sadly the UK tends to have a very short-term outlook, cutting national insurance in order to try to win the next election, but sadly cutting expenditure and especially capital expenditure as a result. The UK is only spending about 3.1 per cent of GDP on capital investment, which is in the lowest quarter of the 30 OECD countries. Generally, the UK is ranking between 23 and 27 out of 30, and specifically only 1 to 2 per cent on a just green transition. So it does seem that the UK is falling behind larger competitors like the United States and the European Union. Brian Whittle. I am very grateful to John Mason for giving me that. He also recognised that the UK is the only country in the 20 countries that have actually cut their carbon emissions by half. I will come on to some other foreign examples in due course. I welcome any improvement by the UK and other countries, but I mean just going back to the nuclear power point earlier on if that is included as cutting carbon emissions that is being done in a very bad way. So the result of low UK capital investment is a low capital budget for Scotland. Now Spice, as has been quoted, tells us that it is a decrease of 1.2 per cent in cash terms, which equates to a 2.8 per cent decrease in real terms for next year. Of course, that is using the GDP deflator and real inflation is much higher than that, so the purchasing power has fallen by a lot more than 2.8 per cent. The vast bulk of our capital funding comes from Westminster, some £4.7 billion, whereas our limit for capital borrowing is less than 10 per cent of that. It has been £450 million per year for some time and even with the updated fiscal agreement that only takes us up to £458 million. Whether we use bonds or other forms of borrowing, that is still the limit. The very restricted capital budget impacts on electrification of rail, SNIB investment, improved capital housing and a host of other spending, which would boost the economy in general and specifically boost the green economy in the longer term. I want to mention the national performance framework too. The finance committee is often critical of the fact that we do not always talk about the national performance framework and national outcomes explicitly enough or often enough. Civil servants have told us that the NPF lies behind decision making and is usually more implicit than explicit. So let's remind ourselves that our overarching purpose is to focus on creating a more successful country with opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish through increased wellbeing and sustainable and inclusive economic growth. The national outcome for the economy is that we have a globally competitive entrepreneurial, inclusive and sustainable economy. Following on from that, the relevant national indicators include international exporting, economic growth, carbon footprint, greenhouse gas emissions and income inequalities. The related sustainable development goals include SDG 7, affordable and clean energy, SDG 12, responsible consumption and production. Previously, when I was on the economy committee and when that committee covered energy, it was clear that one of the huge challenges that we face is storing energy. What happens when the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine? Crookhan and pump storage are great but they only take us so far. That is why my gut instinct is that green hydrogen has to be a great opportunity for Scotland and beyond. Therefore, when we have excess wind rather than turning off the turbines, if it is brief, yes— Edward Mountain. I thank the member for giving way. I agree with you that hydrogen is a real opportunity for us, partly because it means that we do not have to have pylons all the way across Scotland. We can have pipes but, given that the Government has drawn back from its commitment to invest £100 million in hydrogen, how do you think that we are going to achieve that? I thank Mr Mountain for his intervention. I think that some of that comes back to the point that I am making that, if the UK restricts our capital investment, Scotland has very little room for manoeuvre, especially when some of the capital investment is already legally committed, so the space for moving around what we can do is very limited. However, the opportunity to export hydrogen, as well as storing it for our own use, is absolutely great. I know that the cost of production is high at the moment, but it is surely likely that the cost will come down as technology advances, and we know that there will also be export opportunities with Germany for one looking to reduce its dependency on Russia. Just the other week, in one of the real magazines, I was reading how Alstom are producing hydrogen-powered trains for both Lombardy and the south of Italy. Even today, in the same magazine, it was talking about a Spanish consortium developing the world's first hydrogen high-speed train. Nearer to home, we have the H100 project in Fife, and we look forward to seeing the results of that and other pilot projects. I make the point, too, that there does not need to be any clash between supporting our green economy and continuing to support our tourism sector. I get emails from around Scotland complaining about turbines and the claim—perhaps, as Mr Mountain says, pylons—and the claimed negative impact on allegedly unspoilt countryside. For many, those wind farms are very attractive, quite near Eaglesham, which is the UK's largest onshore wind farm, and a walk around there is an absolutely great experience. My father, as an electrical engineer, used to point out to us the beautiful pylons in the highlands and how the wires curved around the valley. Finally, at a more local level, Scottish Enterprise Scotland makes the point in their briefing for today's debate that social enterprises are already delivering in our green economy. They give examples of local organisations and point out that they have produced a toolkit for net zero, which aims to help social enterprises to improve their environmental impact. Just to close by mentioning our company in my local area, which has achieved B Corporation certification, which is Dear Green coffee in the east end of Glasgow, and that shows that companies can become more green and very successful. Thank you. I call Brian Whittle to be followed by Fergus Ewing. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I do welcome the opportunity to speak in today's debate, which is obviously an extremely important topic for Scotland as the world looks to transition to a cleaner energy solution. Can I start with a brief moment of consensus? I am sure that we all agree that Scotland has some fantastic opportunities to benefit from the necessary move to a greener renewable economy. We have a richness of natural resources that could and should put Scotland at the forefront of that green economy. However, the actions of the Scottish SNP Green Government fall far short of the stated ambition that they are so keen to peddle. It puts me in mind of a quote from Milton Friedman, who said, and I quote, that one of the greatest mistakes is to judge policies and programmes by their intentions rather than their results. That, Presiding Officer, encapsulates everything that is wrong with the Scottish Government over the past 17 years. It is all about targets and objectives, with it ever coming up with a route map to achieve the desired effect. Outcomes, Presiding Officer. That is what actually matters. Without outcomes, all we have is a wish list that may as well have been born in the land of rainbows and unicorns. With the Greens in tow, the SNP credentials of this Government have got worse, not better. Let us not forget Patrick Harvie declaring by 2030 that Scotland will have 1 million homes retrofinted with heat pumps. What a fantastic ambition. Right up to the point that we have pointed out to him, Presiding Officer, that we were 22,500 engineers short. They would have to be in place by 2028, meaning that they would have to be in education and training right now. Through written questions to Patrick Harvie, I discovered that the Scottish Government does not even keep track of how many qualified engineers are currently working in the industry. How can you possibly plan to have the numbers that you need if you do not know the numbers that you have, and I will give way to the minister? I am grateful to the member for giving way. Will he reflect for a moment on the appallingly damaging signals that were sent to those who want to invest in the skills, the supply chain and the capacity for our heat and buildings programme when they saw the UK Government backtracking, downgrading and diluting climate action, including on heat and buildings? If we want the investment that is necessary to make these changes possible on the scale and pace that we want, we need to give crystal clarity to industry about making it worth their while to invest, and what Rishi Sunak did was blow a hole in that kind of agenda. In that answer, we see everything again that is wrong with the minister's approach, because he did exactly that. Once he realised that he could not hit his ambition, he backtracked on that. It was his targets that he decided to bench. Willie Rennie was quite right to point out that in trying to get a licence to put heat pumps in, it takes up to three or four months in Scotland to get that money through. In England, it is about five days. That is why your policy has failed. It is simple, really. Work out what has to happen to hit your targets. Targets, which this Parliament is in agreement with, go about putting the building blocks in place so that those targets are achievable. Create stretched targets, make them bold, world-leading even. I am a big fan of that approach, but this is not the end of the process. It is only the beginning. Unfortunately, it seems that the thinking stopped at the targets and then off to celebrate in the wine bar. Making big decisions matter little if you do not follow them up with a commitment to action. We saw that when the First Minister, Alex Salmond, declared that Scotland was going to be the Saudi Arabia of wind. What an opportunity that was to ensure that we had the education in place, the technology and the engineering capacity to deliver on that opportunity. None of which happened. We imported all that technology, enriching other nations who had planned and were ahead of us on the curve. We did have some potential manufacturers who had intentions to develop a wind farm manufacturing technology capability by FAB and Ferguson Marine. Unfortunately, those opportunities did not come to fruition. What did they have in common? Scottish Government intervention. I will give a way to Ben Macpherson. I think that it is important to bear in mind that the UK did have a comparative advantage in onshore wind development in the 1970s and 1980s, but unfortunately did not take that opportunity. The German economy and the Danish economy in particular became very strong manufacturers and that remains the case to this day. This goes back way longer than the dates mentioned by the member. I love the way that the SNP tries to find any strangle route to blame somebody else apart from themselves. Alex Salmond declared that he would deliver the Saudi Arabia of wind, but the fact of the matter, he did not. We looked to transition from fossil fuels to a greener, more sustainable energy source. It is hugely important that, firstly, we recognise that we will require the oil and gas sector for decades to come. Secondly, we will need the skill set developed in that oil and gas sector transitioning to the green economy. Thirdly, we must ensure that our education system is developing the skill set that will be required to deliver a just transition. Unfortunately, none of that is happening. The language used in this chamber by the SNP and an increasingly shrill and ill-informed green party is vilifying an oil and gas sector that, if we are not careful, will stop investing in this sector in Scotland. There is already clear evidence that the workers in this sector are moving away. I spoke to a recruitment agency who told me that they are already taking highly skilled workers from the oil and gas sector in Scotland and moving them to other oil-producing nations. Why would those workers stay in Scotland when they are having to pay for their own retraining to get jobs that pay for less? There is a gap between the highly paid skilled jobs available in the oil and gas sector and what is available in the green economy, especially when it comes to those high-value jobs. What we need are targets to develop a green economy, but more than that we need policies backed up with actions that give us a clear direction for our skilled workers to make that move. We need to weave the green economy throughout our education system to show the huge opportunities that it can bring, and we need to stop undermining our oil and gas sector before we just offshore that problem and end up importing more and more of our energy requirements. The gains just seem to have a grasp on reality. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The Highlands and Islands should become the heart and hub of renewable development in Scotland over the next 50 years. We are working with Aberdeen and other centres of excellence, of course. That is not, Presiding Officer, a Trumpian hyperbole, but a conclusion that I think can be inescapably drawn from the facts of the existing development in the Highlands over the last 20-30 years in various types of renewables. In particular, the huge scale of planned investment over those decades is, as I am sure the minister is extremely well aware of. Whether it is massive grid upgrade, pump storage projects, offshore on-shore wind, modern salmon farming, the Inverness and Cromarty green freeports development, Cishorn, tidal energy in the Pentland Firth and constant array of exciting developments in Orkney in particular, but other islands as well, or the Stornoway Harbour. The Highlands is really where it is going to happen, and the scale of that is quite immense. It is staggering actually, and the HIE five-year plan fleshes this out. Let me give you some examples. Haventus, the owner of Ardyssey port, once the home of McDermott's and Barmac, the largest fabrication centre in Scotland, has been a sleeping giant, and we have seen many false dawns with potential developers come and go. Haventus have come with 300 million development. Lewis Gillis, the CEO, showed me around that in a couple of months back. It is quite stupendous what they are doing there, and they have huge plans to extend the plan into attracting manufacturers of components of offshore wind. I have known Lewis for some years. He is going to succeed, provided that he gets the co-operation from the Government, which I will come on to. Roy McGregor's global energy group is set to achieve great things with a huge manufacturing plant for subsea power cables, mentioned by Brian Whittle and Willie Rennie. It is a key aspect of succeeding here. There is a shortage of cable capacity manufacturing globally, and we need to be part of that party to have a proper integrated supply chain. The Japanese sumo electric industry has announced plans for a factory at Nake. Pump storage schemes at Corrie Glass at Red John, four other sites in Scotland building on foyers and crook in our two existing plants are enormous investments, each usually around £1 billion or £2 billion. The grid upgrade that is planned by SSE is the tune, I believe, of £20 billion. Backerfrost is investing in modern salmon farming techniques. Stornoway Harbour is set to welcome cruise liners with the missing piece of the jigsaw, so that there is a place for cruise liners to stop as they go round circumnavigate the British coast, providing a missing link from the commercial aspect of the cruise liners business. We have, of course, Ali Ferguson at Cishor and doing great things. I just mentioned some of these, but there is an awful lot of things that we need to happen. If I can make one general point, much of this debate has been defending or attacking the Scottish or UK Government's record. Those are political points and this is a political debate, so far from me to present myself in any higher plane than anybody else. However, I do not think that it is really the point, because the companies that I mentioned are going to do business, not because somebody gives them a handout or a subsidy, but because they think that they can make a success of that business. I am not even actually sure that a subsidy or a financial support is necessarily what they want anyway. Therefore, I just wanted to make a few general points about things that I think they do want. Of course, I am happy to give way to the minister. I thank Fergus Ewing for his contribution, which, as someone originally from Orkney has insights into the success and the competitive advantage that there is in the Highlands and the success that is already happening in the Highlands and Islands in this renewable energy front, is very welcome for me to hear played back. He is absolutely right in terms of the needs of business that are needed to be addressed, and that goes beyond subsidy. It is the business conditions in which people operate, and the investment certainty that is given is most important, which is why I hope that you will welcome the fact that we are coming forward with a green industrial strategy to set out just that for those who are looking to invest in supply chain, for example. I welcome that, and I hope that, as a humble minister, I might get a little bit of time back. We need more people and more homes, and we need proper transport links. I am remiss of me not to mention the dualling of the A9A96. If we are going to achieve all these things, we cannot have the transport system that we have. It is not good enough, so I will make that general plea that you would expect me to. The streamlining of consents in licensing the regulatory regime, and Willie Rennie mentioned that. I think that that is absolutely key, because there is a real risk that that will just take years and decades. I have seen it happen when I was the energy minister and paid tribute to Ed Davie. We very nearly got island connections, but it was stymied, I am afraid, by political intervention, sadly. Therefore, the next suggestion that I make—and I do not wish to be unconservational, of course—is that we really should have in Britain a standing committee comprised, principally, the UK and Scottish Government to drive forward these matters. They do not stop at the border, they require action from both sides and from many, many, maybe too many public bodies. I think that a standing committee would give that political oversight and drive, and it could meet by annually in Venice, obviously, and maybe London. To be serious, it would really give a focus and a momentum, and you need that to drive things forward. Politics, you move from one topic to another. Things very quickly get forgotten about. I recommend that the consideration be given to that. If you might conclude, Mr Ewing. I have just anticipated my very words. I hope that I have given some food for thought this afternoon. I wish the minister well in what I found absolutely fascinating and in-drawsing portfolio. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I begin by thanking all those organisations who sent us briefings for today, challenging us to think differently about what our economy is for, what a green economy includes and the kinds of actions we need to take to make it a reality. The Scottish Greens are clear that the just transition we need is not just an energy transition, it is not just a shift from polluting fossil fuels to clean renewables, it is not just about replacing dirty energy with clean energy, it is a transformation of our economy and therefore a transformation of our society. That transformation is a vital effort to create communities that are fairer, healthier, more empowered and more prosperous and to ensure that our planet remains livable for humans and other species for generations to come. That is the purpose of the flourishing momentum driving Scotland's commitment to a green economy. With that foundational purpose, it should be clear that we need to recognise and act accordingly the intertwined nature of social, environmental and green economy outcomes. Scottish Greens have always been clear that social justice, environmental justice and economic justice are inextricably linked and mutually reinforcing. Our work to develop a green economy is not just about technological innovation and industrial transformation, although that is a matter, and we have heard about that this afternoon already. A green economy must be a pathway to more equal communities that have the powers and resources they need to shape their own socioeconomic objectives. It is this emphasis that will be the measure of our success or otherwise of our commitment to a just transition, one that centres the voices and needs of communities and workers that support equality and inclusion, and prioritises the wellbeing of our citizens and the sustainability of our planet alongside decentralised economic development. Of course, while the imperative to transition away from oil and gas is clear, given the climate crisis that is already devastating communities here and around the world, it presents us with significant opportunities. We have already heard about the substantial increase in jobs within the renewable sector, more than half in 2021 alone, and the potential for more secure, well-paid, highly skilled jobs in energy, but also in agriculture, in nature, in construction, in transport. We must also recognise low-carbon jobs beyond those sectors, in sectors vital to our wellbeing as humans, such as those in care and creativity. Our economic development activities and investment must align with social and environmental wellbeing. The Climate Emergency Skills Action Plan, with its pipeline of nearly £90 billion of green investment over the next three years, is welcome. However, we must ensure that such plans also deliver on gender equality and inclusion objectives. As closed the gap has highlighted, our current approach is gender blind and risks reinforcing unequal structures and practices. We have to understand the symbiotic relationship between public investment and the just transition to net zero and see this underpinning the forthcoming green industrial strategy. The strategy must be more than a plan, it must identify and channel actions to take advantage of the economic opportunities for Scotland in energy, manufacturing, house building, food production and more. Public investment is the catalyst for our social and environmental goals, as the cabinet secretary identified. In that context, the UK Government's failure to match the ambition and action taken by the US and EU in their respective Inflation Reduction Act and Green New Deal is a major barrier to progress. It constrains our ability to rise to the challenges that we face in Scotland, to deal with the climate crisis and build a new society with care, equality and opportunity at its heart, and to secure Scotland's place as a world leader with all the advantages that affords in our just transition journey. I do hope that we see the investment that we need from future UK Governments. Despite those limitations, Scotland remains steadfast in our commitment to climate action, with significant investment planned in the coming year. We know that we can enhance our lives without disrupting the planet's life-sustaining processes, but our communities need to see the benefits of the opportunities available, from clean air and warm homes to good jobs and healthy food. All the practices and approaches that we develop must be genuinely sustainable. They can help us to replace precarious, repetitive, unfulfilling or dangerous jobs, improve working conditions and satisfaction, and support community empowerment and wealth building. Alongside that, we should develop and implement the right regulation, monitoring and assessment of not only our practices and processes, but also of our institutions and governance structures. Tweaking around the edges of the status quo won't do. We must lift our sights and remind ourselves that strategic planning and long-term thinking are required. Remember that our communities and workers have extraordinary skills, capacity and creativity to change. I echo Jackie Dunbar's passionate call for Aberdeen, I'd say the whole of the north-east, to be the driver of Scotland's green economy and sustainable future. I pay a special tribute to the excellent work of the Just Transition Lab at Aberdeen University as a model of interdisciplinary working that brings together social, environmental and economic understanding in a way that we need to replicate a cross-government and wider society. To conclude, our pursuit of a Just Transition goes beyond mere economic realignment. It's a call for synergistic integration of social, environmental and green economy outcomes into the fabric of our future. The time for decisive action is now and, together, we can propel Scotland towards that future. I call Rhoda Grant to be followed by Ben Macpherson. I want to address two things today. First, Scotland leases and, after that, the opportunities that community energy can deliver. Like others, I really can't comprehend why the Scottish Government set an arbitrary maximum for BIDs for Scotland projects. It was absolutely senseless. That maximum was well below what was BID later in international auctions. The Scottish Government massively undervalued Scotland's natural resources. Since Scotland, three offshore wind auctions have been completed, two in the United States and one in England. The common will estimates that it raised up to 40 times as much as the Scotland wind auction. The UK Crown estate ran a similar auction back in 2022, and it used annual fees rather than a block sum without an arbitrary BID cap. If Scotland had followed a similar model, Scotland would have raised £28 billion over the next decade, enough to cover the budget shortfall and over a billion a year to invest in our public services and a just transition. Others have said that there are very few supply chain jobs that have come to Scotland from those auctions as well, and Sarah Boyack quoted the STUC making it clear that the Scottish Government were quick with its ambitions and economic benefits, but very slow, or indeed without setting up the necessary policies and funding to realise them. There is no industrial strategy. We see workers in danger of losing their jobs in Grangemouth. That is not a just transition. It is a disgrace that the Scottish Government has squandered the opportunity that Scotland would have brought. If that were not bad enough, we now learn that the sums that Scotland raises will be used to fill a black hole in its budget created by its own mismanagement. It is therefore disingenuous for the cabinet secretary to criticise those who do not yet have the tools and levers that they have despite them squandering their tools and levers. If I can contrast this Government's incompetence with what communities have achieved, those who have had the opportunity to develop their own renewables have built renewables, have built their local economies and they have laid down the foundations to address depopulation. Energy companies developing renewables will of course create community funds, but the amounts that are given are poultry and often come with caveats to stop communities investing in what they need. By assisting communities to develop their own renewable generation means that the profits stay local, the communities have control over how they are spent. I will give you some examples. Point and Sandwick Development Trust has founded community owned wind farms and the community returns are 34 times the standard industry community benefit payment. That is 170,000 per megawatt per annum compared to 5,000 per megawatt per annum, which they would have received in community benefit otherwise. In Westray, a 0.9 megawatt community owned turbine in Orkney has returned to the community approximately £299,057 per megawatt per annum and is expected to contribute £6.8 million to the community over its 25-year lifespan. Noidart Hydro is owned by the community foundation that owns the Noidart estate. It is not connected to the national grid, so there is supply there energy to the 120 local residents using a 280 kilowatt hydro per annum system that they have recently upgraded. That has allowed for the connection of a new micro bureau, a brewery, creating new local jobs and the development of new property developments that are able to benefit from this electricity. The lower energy prices that they charge to their community mean that the micro brewery is able to thrive and not paying the colossal energy costs that other micro breweries have to. In Kinloch Berby, there is a wholly locally owned hydroelectric scheme. It is estimated that it saves over 13,000 tonnes of carbon emissions and contributes £1 million in community benefit over its lifetime. It has invested in training local people in the maintenance of the scheme and creating local skills to ensure that they have energy security. Presiding Officer, there are many more. Contrast that between the efforts of this Government, it is stark how the Government manages its resources. It is time that we invest in communities and enable them to develop their own projects. That not only helps us to meet our targets but also invests in the economies of local communities. Ben Macpherson is the final speaker in the open debate. The development of our green economy is, of course, an important debate to make our collective contribution to tackling the climate emergency. However, because of the huge economic and social benefits that a green economy is bringing and will bring more of as we develop it, whether that is lower energy costs, better health and less pollution and more job creation. The green economy development that we have seen so far and that we want to see in the future has been and will be mostly private sector-led. That is the reality. However, appropriate strategic public investment and policy direction are extremely important. Whether that is the measures that we have taken as a Parliament in recent years, the development of the First Minister's investor panel and focus on enhancing the supply chain and creating opportunities or considerations around UK Government subsidy funding, such as the contract for difference at the moment, all of those things matter, as have the Inflation Reduction Act in America and the European Green Deal on an international basis. I talked about how the change that we want to see will be private sector-led. As I reflected ahead of today's debate, I thought about two different roles that I played in the private sector before becoming an MSP and why I think they matter. Around 15 years ago, I worked for one of Scotland's wave energy companies, which was staffed largely from people from the oil and gas sector, so emphasising the point that has been made about how that expertise is vital for the development of our renewable capability. In that company, there was huge technological innovation and development—remarkable people who looked for solutions and weren't perturbed by problems. We were moving towards the commercialisation of that technology. There are so many lessons learned from how that technology development can happen that we can think about going forward, so that we make the most of the opportunities before us. Whether it is the current tidal development or the growing capacity of our hydrogen sector, or companies such as Gravitricity in my constituency who are looking to use the power of gravity to create storage and then release when the market needs it. All of those areas of sustainable innovation fuel that was mentioned by a member, and we have somewhat of a comparative advantage in those areas. We must not lose them. That is why support is vital. As I said to another member earlier, in the 1970s, the UK was at the forefront of innovation on onshore wind. However, we let that go. Companies elsewhere, particularly in Denmark and Germany, grew their capacity. Now they have such strong market power that onshore wind is, for the foreseeable future, going to be manufactured in those countries. We need to create the conditions here, through strategic public investment and policy, to make sure that those companies are investing in our renewables' development and potential. It is really exciting what is happening at the moment in that regard. Sarah Boyack is a bit unnerving, because I have agreed with most of what the member said so far, but I wonder just to reflect on the issue about consenting, particularly offshore. I know that there are a lot of companies, some of which are based in our constituency, which takes two years in Canada, but about eight years in Scotland. That is something that we could work together on to change. I absolutely agree. I raised those points at the committee yesterday, and I will conclude on them shortly. I also want to go back to a second aspect of what I did in the private sector before becoming an MSP, which is important in terms of the time period that I worked in that area to learn lessons around making sure that we maximise the opportunities. About 10 years ago, I was involved as a solicitor in helping to finance onshore wind. It demonstrated to me the excellent professional services that we have here in Scotland for renewables, as well as the more manufacturing-based skills and opportunities. I worked in the financing of such wind farms in a thriving time when we had the renewable obligation certificates. Unfortunately, a Conservative party manifesto commitment in 2016, which, in good conscience, it would regret, removed support on a subsidy basis from onshore wind at a time when the industry was really about to reach a position of not needing a subsidy. It was such a illogical mistake. We need to learn from that as we move to offshore wind. That brings me on to the contracts for difference. It is widely recognised that the auction round five was not well considered by the UK Government. As we move to auction round six, I really hope that there will be an increased auction strike price, so Scottish offshore projects are eligible for the auction. The UK Government is giving that signal, and I hope that that bears fruit, because it is such an opportunity in offshore wind. I conclude on the point that Sarah Boyack rightly raised about consenting. That is an ask to the Scottish Government. In my experience and constituency case work for a range of different organisations, we have to improve the consenting timelines in Scotland. I know that the Government is attentive to that. I see that as the most prominent area in which we could lose out on opportunities if we do not make improvements in the period ahead. We need resource, we need to build a skills base, and I am welcoming the Government's attention to that. Collectively, we have huge opportunities. We need to learn from mistakes of the past. Let's work together, create as many jobs as possible and make the social, economic and climate difference that we can. We move to winding up speeches. I call on Alec Rowley up to six minutes, please. Neil Gray talked about the enormous economic opportunity at another point just made just now by John Mason and Brian Whittle. To achieve that opportunity, we need to ensure that we are able to deliver, not just to talk. Fergus Ewing was right to highlight the issues around oil and gas. Michelle Thomson also said that we just cannot fall off a cliff edge. I agree entirely with that. The Cabinet Secretary's response to that is generally to talk about a just transition. For many workers, they want to know what a just transition is. It cannot just be words. It is coming from a mining community. I know what happens when you do not support workers and we are still paying the price in those communities yet. Willie Rennie talked about the Fife Energy Park and BiFab up at Methil. There is a real concern there, I would have to say, why it was not part of or included in the Forth Green Port, I am not sure, but it now puts those yards at a major disadvantage, both at Methil and indeed at Arnish. That is a point that I hope the Government is well aware of and is going to take some action on. Douglas Lumsam, when talking about the Scottish Government, should do more. I agree that both Governments should do more, but I would have to say that the people of Scotland, what they crucially want, is both their Governments to work together. I do believe that people are sick and tired of both Governments' pointscoring and fighting with each other, instead of putting the interests of the people of Scotland first. That is also a point that Fergus Ewing made. Good debate, but we need actions that speak louder than words. Yesterday, I met workers from Grain's Mouth. They also want to see a just transition, but right now, their future is looking bleak. I hope that the Minister will say what actions I have been taking to support those workers and their industry. Ultimately, this debate is about how we prepare for a future that is fast approaching, a future that demands a change in thinking, a change in attitude and a change in action. My interest in this debate comes not only from my concerns about the increasingly harmful impact of climate crisis on our planet, but also from the work that I undertook for my member's bill to introduce a passive house equivalent energy efficiency target to all-new-build housing in Scotland, which the Government has adopted. Throughout that work, I had the opportunity to meet with a range of stakeholders, many of whom are working in the very industries that we are discussing today. I hear from them not only on my proposals, but on the issues that affect them and their future successes. The point that came up time and time again, a point that I have raised in this chamber time and time again, was the shortage of skilled workers in construction and across the Scottish economy. When it comes to skills, training and education, I believe that there is the real world, and then there is the SNP Government world, a world of strategies, plans and wishful thinking, but very little when it comes to actions and delivery. Our colleges are in a state of perilous, locked in industrial action, jobs losses, staff morale at rock bottom, and little evidence that the colleges have the resources to deliver on all those SNP plans and strategies. Where is the skilled labour going to come from to fill the jobs that the Government says are going to materialise with all those new opportunities? Right now in Scotland, our industries would collapse tomorrow if they were not able to access skills and trades from abroad. Meanwhile, education is going backwards, resulting in school pupils not getting the knowledge and qualifications that they require in order to advance to the apprenticeships that do exist, all of which is why we have a skills shortage of near enough every part of our economy. You do not have to take my word for that. You just need to go and speak to employers up and down Scotland, anywhere in Scotland, and ask them what are the main issues, then the challenges. They will tell you that it is the inability to recruit skilled labour, so we must move beyond the rhetoric, give our children the education and the skills, and the chance to gain quality jobs for the future. Otherwise, those pupils will not get access to that. When the Scottish Government says—and they are absolutely correct to say—that a just transition is vital to tackling the climate emergency and to build a secure future for the Scottish economy, sitting alongside that is the future workforce. If our colleges are buckling at the seams, if our schools are in serious trouble when children are not getting the opportunities, are we building a workforce for the future or are we dependent on bringing workforce from abroad? I am grateful to the member for giving way, and it comes down to the case that we are making for a large-scale investment. I hope that we have common ground with Labour that will press an incoming Government to bring the scale of investment that is required, but we also should press them on restoring freedom of movement, because that is also a critical part of addressing the skills shortage in many parts of our economy. In conclusion, Mr Rowley, as we are over time— In conclusion, it is absolutely crucial. Even the Conservatives on these benches will accept that we are going to have a change of government, and that Government will bring investment. It is crucial that we use the powers that we have here, tackle the skills shortages and start to give every child in this country the opportunity of skills, decent education and an opportunity for a well-paid job. That has to be our priority in this Parliament. I call on Murdo Fraser up to seven minutes, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I just start on a note of consensus, because I think that all parties in this chamber will welcome the opportunity to develop Scotland's green economy, and I want to celebrate its current strength. I agree that we all want to continue to see it grow and create secure well-paid jobs for the future, at the same time as helping us to meet our ambitious climate change targets. On those points, I think that we will all agree. However, I think that it is regrettable that, in many of the speeches that we heard from the Scottish National Party benches this afternoon, our focus seemed to be not on addressing what the Scottish Government is doing, but rather on criticising the record of the UK Government. As Brian Whittle reminded us, under a Conservative Government, the UK is making faster progress in reducing carbon emissions than any other country in the G20. We are the first country in the G20 to have our carbon emissions. We are genuinely our world leader amongst major nations. John Mason. I thank the member for giving way, but however well the UK is doing, would it not be doing better if there was more capital investment? Murdo Fraser? I just wish that, instead of being quite so grudging, Mr Mason would at least celebrate how well the UK is doing. We have to look at what other countries are doing too, and we are leading the world. Why can't we just celebrate that? Of course, those ambitious targets are being backed up with hard cash. We are then announced by the Prime Minister back in September of £2 billion for the Green Climate Fund, the single biggest commitment of its kind that any UK Government has ever made. We heard earlier in the debate from Mr Simpson, who, with his usual forensic laser-like focus on numbers, set out all the cuts in the Scottish Government's budget, one after the other, in areas in relation to the portfolio. There is an interesting exchange between the Cabinet Secretary and Mr Simpson about the overall size of the Scottish budget. Mr Simpson quite rightly quoted the SPICE briefing, showing that the Scottish Government's budget is up both in real terms and in cash terms since last year. A position that is very healthily confirmed by Michelle Thompson with her intervention from the back benches, so even its own back benches do not agree with the Cabinet Secretary's analysis of the Scottish Government's position. Yes, I will. Michelle Thompson. I am enjoying the joke that he is making, and I know that it is a joke, but let's be absolutely clear that 0.9 per cent is not something to shout home about. Let's be honest. Murdo Fraser. It is still a real-term increase, I would say, to the member. I am glad that she recognises that, even if the front bench does not. We are seeing, as we heard in the debate, a lot of good work going on and a lot of expansion, particularly in offshore wind developments around the coasts of the UK, and particularly here in Scotland, that the UK Government has referred to has invested £110 million in offshore wind manufacturing in Russia, creating jobs and supporting a vital industry. That expansion is supported by a tax and regulatory regime designed to encourage investment. We heard from SNP members, Mr McPherson, referred to this about the contracts for difference policy. The contract of difference policy is, of course, there to try and ensure value for money for energy bill payers. The UK Government can hardly be criticised for trying to drive down the cost under contract for difference for offshore wind, trying to drive that down as low as possible. It is something of an irony that the very same people in this chamber who constantly demand more action to reduce energy bills are exactly the same people who criticise the UK Government who are trying to do just that through the contracts for difference regime. I have time, I will give away again. There is no extra time, cabinet secretary. His generosity is noted and appreciated. I think that there is a balance to be struck. There has to be a balance to be struck in the allocation rounds for contracts for difference. Of course, there has to be. I hope that we will see an increase in the quantum for AR6, as there has been an increase in the strike price. For Murdo Fraser's line to be consistent, he must therefore be incredibly disappointed at the strike price that has been achieved for nuclear and the extra billion pounds that is having to go into the size well sea project just this week, which is going to increase the bill payers' costs. Can I gently say to the cabinet secretary what he needs to do is sit down with an energy economist and discuss with him the whole system cost of different types of energy production, because when you take an intermittent source of energy like wind, you have to factor in the additional costs for storage, for transmission, for back-up, potentially from fossil fuel burning stations, whereas nuclear provides base load and therefore is in a different category. So look at the whole system cost, cabinet secretary, and it gives a different position. Now let's move on and look at Scotland. Rhoda Grant reminded us of the scandal of the Scotland round, where some estimates say that the Scottish taxpayer has lost out on £60 billion of potential income because of the Scotland bidding process being mishandled by this Government. We learned yesterday from the cabinet secretary for finance that £750 million has been taken from the money raised by Scotland to fill the black hole in the Scottish Government's budget for the coming year. That's a one-off capital windfall being used to fill our revenue back hole. I can remember for years we've sat in this chamber, Presiding Officer, and I've been lectured to from the SNP benches about previous Westminster Governments, both Conservative and Labour, not using oil revenues to establish an oil fund for the future. They are now doing exactly the same with the Scotland money, using it to fill a black hole in the budget instead of building for the future. I'm very short on time, Presiding Officer, but let me just try to cover a few more points briefly. I'm sorry that we don't see more investment in new nuclear, as Douglas Lumsden said. The new technology is coming forward, small modular reactors being developed by the likes of Rolls Royce. We have a real opportunity in Scotland, and here in Scotland we have expertise in the nuclear power industry, unsurpassed in many other parts of the world, and what a shame we're missing out on those opportunities and those jobs, Presiding Officer. We still need to have a role for oil and gas, again as Douglas Lumsden and indeed Fergus Ewing said earlier in the debate, because we will continue to need oil and gas even after 2045. We will still have a role for oil and gas with carbon capture and storage, and we shouldn't be turning our back on that as SNP and I think Labour would do too. And we need to have a proper workforce plan. Alec Rowley, Brian Whittle have both made this point. We're going to need many more skilled workers. There is no plan from this Government to train these workers. We have no idea where the 23,000 additional trained technicians are going to come from to install domestic heating systems. Where is it coming from, Presiding Officer? There are big gaps in the plan of this Government. Our approach is summed up in the amendment, in the name of my colleague Douglas Lumsden, which I'm very pleased to support. Thank you, and I call on Patrick Harvie up to nine minutes, Minister. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Well, there's been a little bit of fairly predictable knockabout stuff in today's debate, as usual. Perhaps it's inevitable. We all do it sometimes, but let me start by stepping out of character a little bit and agreeing with something that Fergus Ewing said. Yes, it does happen once in a while, because Fergus Ewing was right when he said that those who will simply make speeches saying how wonderful or awful the Scottish or UK Government is, and that kind of simplistic knockabout stuff are not rising to the occasion. This debate was intended to set out the urgent need for a scale of investment, both state and private, that would rival the likes of the European Green Dale and the Inflation Reduction Act. Some members did rise to that and engage with that really deep question, not just about what's happening in policy terms in the Scottish Government or UK Government, but what is the context of the UK as an economy? Could Scotland do that better? Will an incoming UK Government do that better? This is the scale of challenge that's needed and the scale of investment that's necessary. If we're going to recognise that addressing climate change is not just a necessity, the greatest challenge of our age, but also an enormous opportunity for Scotland, that's why it's one of the three defining missions of this Government. The cabinet secretary highlighted some of the hugely positive developments, and let me do the same. In the 20 years that I've been an MSP, we've seen a revolution in renewable electricity. In 20 years ago, there were a little over 300 sites generating electricity for renewable sources in Scotland. That compares with 130,000 today. In the next 20 years, other areas such as green hydrogen have the potential to mirror that scale of growth, but to deliver it, we need investment, not just investment, but the right environment for the relevant businesses to grow in the right way and respond to those challenges. That means clarity, stability and long-term horizons. That's at the heart of what I'm seeking to do in my portfolio in heating buildings, supporting Scotland to transition away from a volatile fossil fuel market to a clean energy future. At the end of last year, we consulted on proposed legal backstop for decarbonising our homes and buildings, sending that clear signal of intent that all homes and buildings will use clean heating by 2045. The response to that has been positive. The chief executive of the UK climate change committee called a template that could be followed by other parts of the UK. The Aldersgate group, whose members include National, Gredge, Scottish Power, Lloyd's Bank, welcomed the clarity that is provided by our proposals and the potential benefits of the economy for upgrading our housing stock. That contrasts very clearly with the damaging signals that were sent by the UK Government. There is, of course, far more to do, continuing to grow our skills, capacity and supply chain. We are already making changes to improve the application process, which Willie Rennie referred to. There will be further developments on that later this year. The bill will also further increase the investment that we've seen happening, including, for example, a heat pump factory in Scotland, part of a global business that's chosen to base that part of its operation in Scotland, employing 1,800 people. Businesses new and old across Scotland in many parts of Scotland, a great many of them, seizing the positive opportunities that come from manufacturing the products that will be needed, skilling up their workforce and investing for the future. That bill will create a giveaway. Brian Whittle is very grateful for the minister giving me that. I wonder if he recognises currently that the high skill set that's in the oil and gas sector, there's a gap between that skill sector and the currently renewables. If we don't actually bridge that gap, we're going to lose that high skill workforce abroad. I think that there are many examples where we are already seeing people transition across and we should support them to do so. Certainly in terms of the heat in buildings agenda, the gap in skills between those installing fossil fuel systems and those who will install heat pumps are already doing so. That gap is relatively small and can be met easily, quickly and cheaply. The opportunities across our economy are huge and we've got a great deal to build on. Whether that's decarbonising our homes, as I said, both onshore and offshore wind as well as green hydrogen, a couple of members have mentioned some of the issues around planning and consenting. A great deal of work is already happening on that. Some of it under the auspices of the onshore wind sector deal and a great deal more besides, I'm sure that the minister with portfolio responsibilities will want to update colleagues on that as it continues to progress. We need the UK Government to share that ambition as well. We've seen other Governments seek to rise to the challenges here. I've mentioned the Inflation Reduction Act £369 billion in tax credits, subsidies and loans. The EU and its Green Deal industrial plan pledging to mobilise at least a trillion euros of investment to building industrial capacity in green technologies and accelerating the transition to net zero. Scotland could and should be among the countries responding at that scale. I give way. I very much thank the minister for giving way. I wonder whether, in his final remarks, he will reference Grangemouth as part of that process in terms of new opportunities for the green transition that has existing staff, but it gives them new opportunities and uses that place for that transition. Yes, indeed. A very strong case has been made by a number of members. The workforce needs investment in their future. There has been information coming into the public domain as well as on Scottish Government social media during the course of the debate that I don't have right in front of me at the moment, but there will be more coming into the public domain during today about the work that is taking place there. What do we have as part of the UK, instead of having the ability to make some of those macroeconomic choices about the scale of investment for ourselves? We have a Prime Minister who sees climate change as the latest front in a culture war that he wants to provoke. His notorious speech in September signalled to householders and businesses alike that climate change is basically dispensable and the economic opportunity of net zero to be ignored. Chris Skidmore may be departing Parliament in dismay at the climate reversals, but as the former chairman of the UK Government's own net zero review, he said at the time that diluting green policies would cost the UK jobs and would investment, future economic growth, that could have been ours and by committing to the industries of the future. He said that Rishi Sunak still has time to think again and not make the greatest mistake of his premiership condemning the UK to miss out on what could be the opportunity of the decade. I think that that was right. It contrasts with the arguments that come from the Conservative Party's net zero scrutiny group, Mr Sunak's own policy reversals. Indeed, this week it has been reported that the UK Government's net zero secretary has taken cash from a funder of climate denial lobbyist. The UK Government's position is at a mess, so attention must turn to a change in government and the opportunity that that might offer to develop an approach that stands comparison with what we see in the US and the EU. Back in 2021, the UK Labour Party did seem up for that. A £28 billion annual green prosperity plan would have been additional investment from the outset, and that would have been extremely welcome. I hope that Labour MSPs will put pressure on the UK Government to stick with that original plan of a £28 billion additional investment from the outset. The First Minister indeed has engaged with that. In his letter to Keir Starmer, he has argued that Scotland's transition to net zero represents a huge opportunity for the country, but one that requires action by both Governments, so that, for example, the UK can benefit from Scotland's huge renewable energy resource. Hardly a week at the moment goes by without chipping away at that £28 billion commitment. It is not additional now, it is in total. First, it was a pressing priority, then it might be by halfway, then in the second half of the Parliament, which could be as late as 2029. We will support Labour's amendment today, but we do so on the basis that they must be expecting that their support for our motion signals their support for that full £28 billion of additional investment outlined in our motion. The Parliament expects them to support the delivery of that package. Let's recognise in closing that even that level investment is at the bottom end of the 1-2 per cent figure that the UK CCC has recommended, and it would not bring us up to the level of investment in the overall economy that we have seen in countries such as the US and across the EU. I support the motion in the name of the cabinet secretary and send that clear signal, not only to the current UK Government, but to those in Cullin as well. That concludes the debate on investing in Scotland's green economy, and it's now time to move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of business motion 11952, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme. I call on George Adam to move the motion. No member has asked to speak on the motion, therefore the question is that motion 11952 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed, and there are three questions to be put as a result of today's business, and the first is that amendment 11945.2, in the name of Douglas Lumsden, which seeks to amend motion 11945, in the name of Neil Gray, on investing in Scotland's green economy, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we'll move to vote, and there will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.