 That concludes portfolio questions and we now move to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 15356 in the name of Patrick Harvie on jobs in Scotland's new economy. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request to speak butons now, or as soon as possible, and Mr Harvie, if you are ready to go, I would I'm grateful, Presiding Officer, for the opportunity to bring this debate to the chamber, and I move a motion 15356. In so doing, I'm sure that I can do that with confidence that the chamber will respond to this debate with rather more seriousness than those in the media who have already, perhaps predictably, chosen to take absurd misquotes and an attempt to misrepresent the green position on this issue. Nobody, nobody will take the issue of job losses in the north-east trivially. It's a serious matter that impacts on communities in that region and on our wider economy. Even those of us who have long argued that we are over-reliant on the fossil fuel industries would never argue that the impact of job losses on this scale is trivial, but simply to point out that, comparing one headline, the oil sector has lost 65,000 jobs with another oil and gas production rises for the first time in 15 years, this alone is enough to demonstrate that the mantra of maximum economic extraction is not the same as securing maximum economic benefit for our society or does it guarantee the security and safety of jobs in that industry or the wider economy. Many will recognise the context in which the current situation has taken place. Low oil prices bear a great connection to wider geopolitical factors, the behaviour of Saudi Arabia and others, as well as the long-term decline in North Sea production, which I hope none of us are in denial about any longer. The notion that the North Sea will get back to the levels of production that it once had is not something that is credible. The over-reliance on fossil fuels throughout our society and our economy is not just for energy but for a wide range of other economic and industrial activities. However, there are additional aspects to that context. Aspects that will, in my view, require us to face up to the long-term transition that is required and a necessary move toward embracing the change that that transition will bring about. First of all, the carbon bubble. That is an argument set out in the IPCC's fifth assessment report, which was the first to include an assessment of the overall carbon budget of the planet. At some estimates, something like 1,000 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions are equivalent to giving us a likely chance of achieving that two-degree threshold, not allowing climate change to exceed two degrees above pre-industrial levels. By 2011, it was estimated that more than half of that budget had already been emitted. Depending on the varieties of interpretation, somewhere between 446 and 616 billion tonnes are left to emit if we want to have that reasonable likelihood of restraining climate change. Other estimates put that even more starkly. If we look at the additional warming factors from the way in which carbon dioxide is emitted, some estimates put that down to as little as 270 billion tonnes left in the global budget. That is dramatically at odds with the level of fossil fuel reserves existing on the planet. We already know that we have far more fossil fuel than we can afford to burn if we are remotely serious about achieving that likelihood. That is not an argument that only comes from the IPCC. I hope that the minister is still able to hear me. That is not only an argument that comes from the IPCC, the global intergovernmental body advising all of us. It is certainly not an argument that only comes from environmentalists and campaigners. Just recently, just a few months ago, Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England, made much the same argument. Again, not to campaigners, not to activists, but to financiers in the city of London, he warned of the financial stability risk that this country faces given our massive overexposure to the carbon bubble. That is an industry profoundly overvalued because its values are based on the assumption that all those reserves will be turned into economic resources and will be effectively put onto the global market and burned. The budget amounts to between one-fifth and one-third of the world's proven reserves of oil, gas and coal, said Mark Carney. If that estimate is even approximately correct, it would render the vast majority of reserves stranded, literally unburnable, which itself alters fossil fuel economics. That is a case that I have put to the Scottish Government on a number of occasions and one previous minister, the last climate change minister, appeared to understand. In October 2013, I asked about that IPCC report and the growing consensus on the carbon bubble. He answered, I do not have a figure to give Mr Harvey for the percentage of fossil fuels that I would like to see remain under the earth, but I accept the point that if we were to burn all the fossil fuels in the world, we would be doing untold damage. Sadly, Scotland's energy minister has repeatedly failed to endorse this basic argument. All of that comes before the most recent development in context, which is the Paris agreement, because that carbon budget in the IPCC's fifth assessment report is based on the two-degree target, the idea of keeping climate change to a limit of two degrees above pre-industrial levels. Will the Paris agreement go further? It notes with concern the estimated aggregate greenhouse gas emissions in 2025 and 2030, resulting from intended nationally determined contributions, as it says they do not fall within at least two degrees C scenarios. It then goes on to say that there should be a goal of achieving global temperature increase well below two degrees C and even going on to a 1.5-degree target. That dramatically shrinks even further the global carbon budget and poses a challenge to all fossil fuel-producing countries to recognise that those resources are not of value to our economy, they are a vulnerability. Does he accept that carbon capture and storage is a technology that is necessary to achieve the objectives that he describes? Will he join us in condemning the UK Government's decision to withdraw support for the Shell SSE project that we are all looking forward to going ahead at Peterhead and making just such a contribution to climate change? I have certainly condemned the decision to scrap the funding for that scheme. I have done so in debates when the minister was present before, but I do so in the context of recognising that research on CCS will tell us whether or not it is something that we can come to rely on in future. At the moment, it is not a technology that will work out of the box, not something that we can rely on, even if that funding was in place. We would still need to find out whether it is something that can play a role. There will be those who will pretend that Greens and others do not care about the job losses involved and do not care about the communities currently over-dependent on fossil fuel industries. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are the ones setting out the case for Scotland to move away from an agenda that is not only polluting, not only destructive to our environmental life support system, the system that we all depend on for our survival, not only incompatible with the IPCC's budget but fundamentally short-lived. The word unsustainable is not jargon, it means it cannot last and because it will not last, we need to be investing in the alternatives that will. I give way to Mr Brodie. Mr Harvie will accept that, as per the University of Dundee report on climate change at Scotland, in fact it is leading way as top of the European League for Emission Reductions. Based on 2011 data, emissions in Scotland fell by 29.6 per cent. The European average is 17.1 per cent. What can we do to ensure that at least that kind of message is being given? A great deal has been done by Scottish ministers and many of us to welcome and congratulate the consensus on the setting of targets. Not enough has been done on the reaching of those targets, but the point that I am making is not about our tailpipe emissions, it is about the carbon that we are digging out of the ground and pumping out from under the sea. Whether that ends up on Scotland's emissions inventory or somebody else's, you take that fossil carbon out of the ground and it will end up in the atmosphere. That is the responsibility that fossil fuel producing countries are going to have to acknowledge. I do not believe any have yet. We are setting out the case that those changes are not only desirable, not only inevitable, but they are already upon us. Those countries that deny that reality will fail to realise the positive opportunities that this change brings about. Already there are those bidding for oil and gas decommissioning jobs in Scotland, and they are up against competition from other countries. If we allow others to develop their reputation globally, as well as the skillset to undertake that decommissioning work, we will be left behind in the race to build that alternative industry. Scotland has been here already. We have been here before. Let's not go there again seeing an economic change, an industrial change coming down the line and failing to be ready to adapt to it, leaving communities stranded as a result. I want to mention one further intervention. Barrels left in the North Sea. The potential will lose a lot of the skills that are involved in the North Sea and not be able to become re-engaged when the time comes to make sure that we can exploit what is already there. Barrels does nothing to change the fundamental context of the world's global carbon budget, and the overvaluation of this industry. We will still be over-reliant on an industry that is over-valued. That is an economic bubble, not just an environmental problem, and we all know what happens when economic bubbles burst. How reliant do we want to be on that when that moment comes? I want to mention the STUC's warning as well in giving evidence to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee recently in our short inquiry into the oil and gas industry. We were told that, even if we took climate change right out of the equation and focused on the change in the economics of the oil industry, we would still have to be looking towards the transition happening much earlier than was previously anticipated. Later, we were told that we have to be planning for the North Sea to have a shorter lifespan than we previously thought. That is not a question of whether you share the view that that is a desirable change. That change is upon us and we must be ready, we must be prepared and we must be investing in the alternative. There is the opportunity for us not only to get back on track with our own carbon emissions, making up the lost ground of 10 million extra tonnes of CO2 that we have put into the atmosphere given the missed targets. That is something that I hope that we can do despite the reduction in funding in the current Scottish budget for both climate change and energy efficiency in particular, which are being cut by 10 per cent and 13 per cent respectively. If we reverse that in the budget, we do have the opportunity to get back on track with that climate change agenda, but we must also open up the opportunity for transition, look at the opportunity for the new industries that will emerge, not only in energy production, clean green renewable energy production, not only in decommissioning but in other sustainable industries, whether that is the retrofit job that has to be done on our built environment and the huge number of jobs that can come out of that agenda or indeed the development of new science. No one can tell me, no one can convince me that Scotland does not have what it takes to put in some of the research effort that the world is going to have to undertake to find alternative chemical feedstocks when those hydrocarbons are no longer available. There will be a period when they are too valuable to burn, but we are not going to be able to pretend that they will continue flowing forever. I want to argue that ministers of any political party have been at their best in this Parliament when they are under pressure from a Parliament that is bold enough to push them to go further. Whether that is on the fracking moratorium, which I am sure Mr Ewing was delighted to have to announce, whether it is on community ownership, whether it is on climate change, and greens have a strong track record of pushing the Government beyond its own comfort zone. Greens are also the only political party willing to acknowledge that Scotland requires that transition away from over reliance on fossil fuels and setting out the opportunities for how that can be a beneficial transition, one that is good for our society, good for our economy, as well as bringing us into line with the ecological limits that the planet sets down. With a bolder Parliament, Scotland can make this change and we can make it a better change for everyone. I welcome this debate as an opportunity to highlight the importance of the energy sector to Scotland. It is important to realise that Scotland has an abundance of energy resources, including oil, gas, wind, hydro, wave and tidal. That affords us the opportunity to develop a rich and diverse energy mix that is both resilient and secure. The twin Scottish Government objectives of developing a low-carbon economy and ensuring good stewardship of our oil and gas resources are both extremely important to the economic wellbeing of our nation. Suddenly, the oil and gas industry in Scotland has achieved great things in its first half century. It is very important that we recognise the enormous asset that it has been to Scotland and the huge contribution that workers within that industry have provided. However, it is no exaggeration to say that now, in January 2016, it faces the most severe challenges. What is required from us all in this place and all those who have any position of power or responsibility is to respond positively and do everything of practical benefit that we can to help the industry through these difficult times. That applies to the Scottish Government, every MSP, the UK Government, local government, banks and industry, the workforce and trade unions. It applies to us all. Sir Ian Wood said just last week that we must not panic. There are, Presiding Officer, a huge number of successes. Production, in fact, is rising. Projects, contracts and developments are being progressed and being progressed well. Each day, we read of those in the press and journal in particular and publications like Scottish Energy News. We have many new or newly refurbished fields coming into production, such as the BP's Clearfield, Quad, E-Tap, Stato's Marinerfield, Merck's Cuisine, Enquest, Kraken and many, many more. Merchants of Doom, Pedal, False Wears. Equally, we have a unique opportunity in Scotland where the expertise gained from half a century of exploitation of oil and gas in the waters around our country gives a particular advantage in the development of renewable technology. Countries such as Norway, Sweden and Denmark show that there is no contradiction between making use of substantial, in the case of Denmark gas reserves, whilst leading the transition to a low-carbon economy. It is the energy expertise from oil and gas that often can help in renewables, as evidenced by many companies working in Scotland who are involved in both sectors. A good example is Statoil. Not only is it developing the new marinerfield, but it is also developing the world's largest floating offshore wind development—a very exciting one, in my view, and one that is enabled by decisions taken by the Scottish Government. I have just returned from a two-day visit to Caithness where I visited Scrabster Harbour. I heard how its new facilities, part funded by HIE, have served the oil industry with half a million tonnes of goods over the year, as well as renewables. Scrabster is well placed to serve west of Shetland fields such as Clare, such as the total fields of Lagan or Tormor, or the new Premier Solan field coming on stream shortly, but it also plays a part in renewables because it is just near Meijen, just along the coast, which is going to be the world's largest commercial tidal array. I also visited JGC Engineering, just in Janettstown, up the road from Scrabster, a quality and growing engineering company whose work spans both oil and gas and renewables. The company has just produced a large number of 200 tonne ballast blocks for the Meijen project, whose onshore facility I visited on Monday. The point that I am making is a very simple one, many, many companies, many ports and harbours. Many, many people are engaged in work where oil and gas and renewables go hand in hand. Expertise in one area lends itself to a gaining success in the other. I am grateful to the minister, and he is quite right, of course, that there are skills that can be transferred across into new industries, but the question that I have put out most centrally is for how long can those go hand in hand. Will the minister acknowledge the central argument that the world has far more fossil fuel reserves than we can afford to burn and tell us what proportion he thinks is responsible for a country like Scotland to extract in the future? There are several questions there, but let me say that, without all of us supporting the work that companies in Scotland do right now in 2016 and for the foreseeable future, then we will not see companies go into transition. We will see companies go into administration because that is what happens if the green recipe is adopted. Let me carry on, Presiding Officer. The low oil price shows no sign of abating, and many believe that it will remain lower for longer. Most believe that the price will, however, recover in due course. The question is what can be done. I am wholly convinced that political point scoring is just not what is wanted. The people who work in the industry, the people who are facing redundancy, what they want from us and what is required from us all is a variety of different support. First of all, support the work that they do. In a clear and unqualified way, value the work that they do. Recognise that it is of the highest order. Second, to recognise that industry itself has the primary challenge of reducing costs and increasing efficiency. The industry will recognise that and ask any company, they will say so. To listen, heed, learn from use and gains from the supply chain, Milford Campbell of the Oil and Gas Industry Leadership Group, which we co-chair profoundly believes that the supply chain has enormous amounts to contribute that perhaps has not been heeded properly in the past. Progress has been made in cost reduction. The challenge is to do so without jeopardising safety, which must remain paramount. Third, at the Oil and Gas Day, which I attended in London last December with the industry, the OGA and the UK Government, I asked that specifically we listen and learn to the workforce. Next, adopted a practice of going out to the workforce, asking what they thought could be done to improve matters. They came back with many, many measures, techniques and changes to working practices. Many were adopted. They increased wrench time—that is productive time—in a shift offshore enormously. By listening to the workforce, we can help to improve things together. The STUC's role is invaluable there, too. Forcibly, the Scottish Government must continue to play its part. We have created the energy jobs task force announced by the First Minister last January. I can talk in detail about that work, but we are determined to carry on that work and ensure that it is supplemented where necessary in every possible way that will bring practical benefit to individuals who face redundancy. I am sorry, I have little time left. Fifthly, we need to ensure that we defer cessation of production. We extend late life assets fields and there are some practical measures that the UK Government, I believe, must do, principle of which is to sort out the lack of clarity on liability for decommissioning costs. The reason for that is that that lack of clarity is stalling and preventing deals being done, which would bring in new investment to the North Sea. That was the major point that was raised with me by several companies and operators in my most recent visit to Aberdeen a couple of weeks ago. Finally, we must have measures from the UK Government that address and improve the tax deal for the industry. We need more support for exploration. We need them again to look at tax rates. We need to look at extending the investment allowance to enable late life fields to continue their work. Lastly, we need to continue the good work that we are doing in respect of decommissioning. We in the Scottish Government, through our economic development agencies, have worked closely with many players here and have done a great amount of work. I can cite as one example the work that is taking place in Lerwick with the partnership between the Lerwick Port Authority and Peterson SPS, a major company in the field. In conclusion, I believe that it is in all our interests to have both a thriving and successful oil and gas industry that navigates those most severe challenges but also a thriving and successful renewables sector. I believe that, as the energy minister, over the past five years, we have made considerable efforts to achieve both objectives and we will certainly continue so to do. I now call on Murdo Fraser to speak to and move amendment 15356.2.1 to amendment 15356.2 In the name of Fergus Ewing, Mr Fraser, you have six minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I start by welcoming the opportunity presented to us this afternoon by the independent and green group for a debate on North Sea oil and gas. It is indeed a very well-timed debate. Only on Monday, the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee produced its report on future prospects for oil and gas in Scotland. Patrick Harvie, of course, sits on that committee. To be fair to him, he did dissent from four of the committee's recommendations in that report. I noticed that he was in the press yesterday describing the report's conclusions as reckless, which I think is rather unfortunate language to use from a report that was supported by all other members of the committee, all other parties represented, a report that is, in my view, measured and balanced, and a report that has been warmly welcomed by those in the sector and those whose jobs depend upon the industry. The fact that the debate is timely is probably the kindest thing that I can say about Mr Harvie's motion this afternoon, for it is a remarkably downbeat, depressing view of a sector that is still of great importance to the Scottish economy. The overwhelming view of the economy enterprise and tourism committee was that, with the appropriate support from Governments and enhanced collaboration, a sustainable industry can emerge from the existing downturn. Of course, it is not so long ago since we heard the Green Party banging on about peak oil. We do not need too long memories in this chamber to remember Mr Harvie and his colleagues telling us that oil production was at record high levels, that the oil was going to run out very soon and that oil prices were on an endlessly upwards trajectory and that it would become an increasingly unaffordable commodity. Today, as we look at an oil price per barrel of just $28, those predictions have as much validity as those who said that the finances of an independent Scotland would be based on an oil price of $110 per barrel or more. I got that spectacularly wrong. The Green Party has now changed its tune and is now saying that the decline in oil price means that there needs to be a transition away from fossil fuels towards a new economy. Yes, Mr Harvie can remind us everything that he said about peak oil. I am sure that Mr Fraser understands the reality of peak oil arguments and that they bear no relationship to his words a few moments ago. Will he at least acknowledge that our key argument, whether oil prices are high or low, is that burning all the stuff that we have is simply incompatible with our own survival? Will he recognise that the context that we are bringing forward is one of geology, not geopolitics and economics? The fundamental problem with Mr Harvie's argument is that he assumes that the only use to which we put hydrocarbons is to burn them. There are many other uses to which we put hydrocarbons. If he visits the Ineos plant in Grangemouth, he will see that hydrocarbons are used as the raw material in the production of a whole range of products. It is hardly anything that we use in the modern world that does not include some elements of hydrocarbons as a source material. That is not just about having an industry to produce material that we can burn, it is also about having an industry that produces material that provides essential components in virtually every area of modern life. I am well aware of the decline in the sector with some 65,000 jobs that have been lost so far and new job losses being announced almost on a weekly basis. We also know that the nature of the industry is cyclical. If we look back at changes in oil prices over the past 40 years, we see that prices go up and go down. While none of us can accurately predict the future, what we can do is expect that there will be a recovery sooner or later, there will be an industry to support in coming decades and our role today is to ensure that the industry gets the support that it needs in the interim. There are three areas where I believe that action is required. The first is in driving out cost inefficiencies, where already the industry is taking action and undoubtedly the low price is a driver to making this happen more quickly than otherwise would be the case. The second is in relation to tax. The industry was very pleased with the changes brought in by the chancellor in the budget last year. While there is always room for more changes to be considered—I know that the chancellor will be considering those in the run-up to the budget this year—the evidence suggests that further tax changes are not in fact high on the list of industry demands at the present time. Thirdly, I need to make some progress, but if he checks the evidence given to the committee, he will see that that was the case in terms of the evidence that we heard. Thirdly, there is the question of regulatory changes being driven through by the oil and gas authorities, still a relatively new body and one that is winning industry respect. All those things are necessary to ensure that we have a viable industry for the foreseeable future. However, they did not avoid the fact that we have a downturn, which might last several years or more, and those who have lost their jobs need support in helping to find alternative employment. Here, I have some sympathy for the notion of a transition to the new economy. Our amendment this afternoon makes specific reference to some of the opportunities that are available. The Beatrice offshore wind farm, a 588 megawatt scheme in the Murray Firth, is expected to commence commercial operations in 2018-19, backed by an early investment deal under the contract for difference programme from the UK Government. That 110 turbine scheme could create up to 5,000 jobs. Along with other mid-Scotland five members in the chamber, I have been backing burnt island fabrications as a bidder for the contracts for installing those offshore turbines from SSE. By fab, an important local employer in Fife, which has seen significant contraction recently, and the opportunity from this contract could be of considerable value in securing jobs and creating new ones in the local area. I am sorry, I do not have time for the minister. It is not just an offshore wind where we have the opportunity for low-carbon energy. The new nuclear power station at Hinckley Point C will provide some 20,000 jobs in the construction phase. There are three Scottish companies, Doosan Babcock, SPX Clyde Union pumps and Weir Group, who are preferred bidders for contracts worth more than £1.3 billion, potentially securing thousands of jobs in Scotland, utilising skills, transferable and engineering from the oil and gas industry. We cannot support the negative, backward-looking Green Party motion today. We are happy to support the Scottish Government's forward-looking amendment arguing for a more balanced approach to energy provision and continued support for the oil and gas sector in the North Sea. I have a pleasure in moving the even more forward-looking amendment in my name. Scotland faces an oil jobs crisis, which demands an urgent and concerted response. Getting that response right should be the focus of our debate today. As we have heard, there are those who would abandon future production and rush to decommissioning in the North Sea. That would indeed increase the risk to the livelihoods of thousands of people in oil and gas and far beyond and undermine the Scottish economy as a whole. There are also those who have claimed that there is no crisis, only a downturn in the economic cycle. A modest increase in production means that all is well and that the industry can be sure of a bright future. That is equally misguided. Neither collapse nor recovery is certain. What is certain is that those who understate the significance of the industry or the severity of the challenge are in danger of making the crisis worse. The production of oil and gas from the North Sea has rightly been described as one of the most important episodes in our economic history since 1945. The oil and gas sector is undoubtedly one of the pullers of the modern Scottish economy. Before the current crisis, oil and gas accounted for 13 per cent of Scottish GDP, business won by Scottish oil service companies around the world, generated billions of pounds of income to the Scottish economy and the industry supported directly or indirectly well over 200,000 Scottish jobs. Whatever the future prospects of North Sea oil, it is not a bonus and it is not an optional extra. It is of critical importance to us all. Today, it is under threat. Thousands of jobs have already gone. Last September, the industry's own estimate was that 65,000 jobs had been lost across the UK economy and, sadly, the tally of jobs lost continues to rise. In the few days that have passed since BP announced 600 job losses in the North Sea, another 500 redundancies have been announced or confirmed by Sparrows Group, ConocoPhillips, Enermec and Petrofac. Wood Group has said that it is moving office jobs from Aberdeen to India. Amic has announced that it will cut the pay of offshore and onshore contractors by 7.5 per cent. Every job cut or pay cut in the oil and gas sector in and around Aberdeen has a knock-on effect. Every part of the local economy takes a hit from the travel agents who also announced redundancies in the city yesterday to the fast food vans selling to workers at the factory gate. Those still in jobs are affected too. Fewer people having to do more work is bad enough for workers onshore. Workers offshore worry about fatigue and stress when they are asked to go from two weeks on the platform to three and wonder whether the cost, pressure and employers will affect the safe operation of the platform itself. The impact on the wider economy reaches far beyond the northeast, from island communities where earnings from working offshore are combined with part-time agriculture to steel plants and engineering firms in west-central Scotland, facing the very real threat of closure. The Federation of Small Businesses this week reported that Scottish smaller business confidence has fallen to its lowest level in three years and the gap between Scotland and the rest of the UK is widening. We cannot discuss the oil jobs crisis or a transition to a low-carbon economy as if they were abstract issues. That is about working people who have lost their jobs, communities under pressure, businesses facing closure. The oil jobs crisis is a reality of life right now for thousands of people across Scotland. Claudia Beamish and other colleagues will say more from this side about how to achieve a just transition to a low-carbon future, but others must also recognise that the transition driven by crisis and dislocation would be anything but just. All the more reason for why the Scottish Government must carry out an urgent and detailed assessment of the impact of the current low oil price on the strength and stability of the Scottish economy itself, as we call for in our amendment. Setting up a task force to help workers made redundant is, of course, welcome, but on its own it is not enough. When one of the pillars of the Scottish economy is trembling, the first thing that Scotland's developed government should do is to assess the nature and scale of the risk that we face. Either ministers have not yet done that, or they have carried out that assessment, but chosen not to publish the results. Ministers surely have a duty to measure and to report on the scale of the challenge so that their own enterprise agencies, local councils and other partners have the information on which to act. Thank you for taking the intervention. I think that we share the short-term concerns about the industry. I wonder if Mr MacDonald can give us some view on why production in North Sea oil was actually arose last year. Very short and simple answer is that the companies under the immense pressure of the low oil price have finally begun to address the issues of efficiency that they have failed to address in past years. I hope that the Scottish Government will give support to the oil and gas authority as the regulator charged with changing the culture of the UK oil and gas industry towards that greater co-operation and to encourage it to continue to share risk in extending the life of key infrastructure offshore, as was done with the investment in exploration in the last few months. Ministers should support the transfer of knowledge, skills and technologies from production to decommissioning and the big new opportunities such as offshore wind, but they should do that in the context of maximising economic recovery of oil rather than closing it down. They should carry forward the work of planning jobs, where jobs in Scotland will come from for future generations, without throwing away the jobs and business that we have here today. We now move to open debate, and I call on Mark McDonald to be followed by Leslie Brinon. No time in hand at all today, so up to six minutes please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. As a member representing a constituency in Aberdeen, clearly today's debate is of extreme importance to the area that I represent and to my constituents, many of whom are facing an uncertain future as a result of the oil price downturn. I think that one of the challenges that is always faced in politics is to address the seriousness of the issue while at the same time avoiding talking the future prospects of the industry down. We have seen a number of commentators speak of the fact that there is still a long-term future in terms of exploration and production. It is a question of how the industry is supported during the current period, not a question of casting it adrift. I think that that is the balancing act that needs to be performed when we discuss this. However, to deal with the issue that Patrick Harvey and the Greens have brought to the chamber today around the transition, because, to listen to what is being said and to some of the commentary previously, it would be easy to assume that support for renewables is not in place, that there is not work being done and leadership being shown by the Scottish Government in relation to renewables. However, if we look at the briefing that is sent to members by Scottish renewables themselves, they speak of the leadership of the Scottish Government and cross-party political support setting strong objectives to the renewables sector, leading to thousands of jobs and attracting finance from across the globe. Perhaps in just a second, Mr Harvey, it talks of renewables now being our largest generator of power, renewable heat quadrupling from 2009 to 2014. That, to me, demonstrates a strong performance in relation to renewables. Indeed, renewables overtook nuclear in 2014 as Scotland's single largest source of electricity. We also, in September 2015, reached the target for 500 megawatts of community and local-owned renewables. That was a target that was set for 2020, not 2015, so that target was hit five years early. There is leadership, support and the work is being done to ensure that the renewables sector can thrive. However, there are impediments in place, which I will come to after I take Mr Harvey's intervention. I am grateful to Mr MacDonald for giving way. I welcome the progress that has been made on renewable electricity, much less progress so far on renewable in the rest of the energy system. However, it is clear that generating more renewable electricity in itself does not cut emissions unless it displaces fossil fuels. If we continue to extract those fossil fuels, whether they end up being used in Scotland or anywhere else, fossil carbon ends up in the atmosphere? That is where Mr Harvey and I depart when he creates the either or situation that he is seeking to create here. We have to have appropriate management of our resources because we will require those hydrocarbons in the near future. We cannot simply get to that stage that Mr Harvey seeks to get to by simply switching off support and allowing the industry to decline further. I will say that there are impediments in place in relation to renewables. The Scottish Renewables briefing goes into some detail of those. They exist in terms of the policy changes that are taking effect at Westminster level in relation to the energy policy approaches that are being taken there, which are making it harder for renewable companies to invest, to attract finance and to operate. Those are the changes that need to be made and need to be affected if we want to see that support, that welcome support for the renewable sector continue to increase in Scotland. There is another point here around the oil and gas sector and where support is required. I heard the comments that Murdo Fraser made about there not being support around further tax issues to further tax changes. It is quite clear that there is a requirement for tax changes in relation to exploration to try and stimulate and boost exploration activity. That would have two effects. First, it would allow for safeguarding of jobs, it would allow for the activity to increase and also for support to go into the supply chain. I spoke to a supply chain company in the north-east recently who said that if rigs were out active and exploring at present, that would be worth around £250,000 per rig to that company, so four exploration rigs for that company would equate to £1 million. That is a stark contrast with the zero that they get while rigs sit idle. Exploration activity being boosted has a direct effect not just on those individuals who are employed and those companies who are employed in that exploration activity but further down the supply chain. There are massive benefits that could be realised in the short term and that would support those who are currently being affected as a result of the downturn. However, the other issue around why exploration activity and stimulation of exploration activity is important is because it allows for the industry to be in a position to be able to hit the ground running when price recovers, rather than to have to then undertake that exploration activity to reap the yield that comes from it. Exploration tax credits in Norway in the mid 2000s proved to be a significant success, led to some substantial discoveries and at the point at which the oil price recovered in the mid 2000s—mid to late 2000s—Norway was in a position to capitalise upon that very early. I believe that the same opportunities can be realised for the oil and gas industry where those tax credits to be put in place. I think that it is a plea that the industry should be making and many in the industry are making, many experts are making, and I believe that the Scottish Government is making. I think that we should unite to make those pleas to the chancellor for the budget and those changes can be affected. Many thanks. I now call on Leslie Brennan to be followed by Czech Brody. Members will wish to note that this is Leslie Brennan's first speech in our Parliament, Ms Brennan. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I begin by thanking you and the other members across all the part days and the parliamentary staff for the warm welcome that I have received since coming here, rather unexpectedly. I thank the Green and Independent group for this opportunity to discuss jobs in Scotland's new economy. Especially as my first academic job was in the fields of environmental economics, I then taught ecological economics during my time at Dundee University, so this is something that I am really interested in. Before discussing the topic in hand, I wish to pay tribute to my predecessor Richard Baker, who worked hard for the people of the north-east and he was known across the chamber as a sincere and compassionate person. Richard was a strong voice and a very willing and active participant in the chamber. Those attributes that Richard has will stand age Scotland in good stead as a really good guy and to have back on their team. I return to the motion. At the heart of the motion is the economy, and no one would disagree that the Scottish economy is currently weak. The Scottish Government's latest figure for growth is 0.1 per cent. Research published today from the Resolution Foundation reinforces the fragility in the labour market in Scotland. Looking forward, there are very few glimmers of hope on the horizon with the massive cuts to local authorities due to the settlement from the Scottish Government and the devastation in the oil and gas industry. The sharp contraction in the oil and gas sector is devastating for the thousands of workers and their families, particularly in Aberdeen and the rest of the north-east. I have a local councillor in Dundee, and we have had people who have been made redundant from the oil and gas sector who have been made redundant from the oil and gas sector and then coming to become taxi drivers. We have skilled workers, and the difference in that income is having a huge impact on their families and their local community days. We have that contraction in the economy. On top of that, it causes less forecast and 15,000 job losses due to the local government settlement, so the full effect of those on local businesses in Scotland should not be underestimated. Because of that, there is a real risk of contagion spreading throughout the Scottish economy, so action is needed now. The other component of the debate that needs urgent attention is the environment. Our environment is a precious system full of linkages and interdependencies. Our environment cannot be replaced when lost. The scientific evidence for climate change is overwhelming, as is the role of humans in speeding up the changes. The pace of climate change needs to reduce, where possible, reversed. All organisations need to implement change. We have a role here in the Scottish Government. We are obviously making sure that, whether it is households or private businesses, they implement those changes. It was disappointing to read today that a survey of 1,400 CEOs from across the world, compiled by PricewaterhouseCoopers, suggested that climate change fails to top the list of threats for business leaders at Davos. However, at least 50 per cent of those CEOs said that it is a key threat to their business about climate change. Some businesses can reduce their carbon footprint and their costs to improve their work-life balance for their employees by encouraging them to work from home. I was previously a home worker and I know the benefits that that can bring. However, it is about networks as well. I remember on one project that I worked at in virtual meetings. I was in Dundee. Colleagues were in London. There was another colleague in Baltimore in America and another colleague in Santiago and Chile. The carbon, if we all met in one location, would be massive, but it would be able to connect up. That is one of the benefits of the new trying to diversify our economy and looking at the knowledge economy. However, it is about thinking back about the climate. We need to be changing our behaviour and be mindful that small changes can have a positive impact, whether it is reusing, recycling or reducing our consumption. Scotland is making improvements on recycling rates, cutting emissions and making our air cleaner, but the official targets have been repeatedly missed. Deputy Presiding Officer, I believe that the labour movement and the environmental movement are natural allies. Our goal is the same. We want a society that is in run in our collective interests in the interests of protecting our planet. There has been a lot of talk about creating a vibrant low economy with green enterprise at its heart, but especially now with the following agreement secured in Paris, the pace of change needs to increase in order to tackle climate change and to grow the economy. As Lord Stern stated, tackling climate change and growing the economy are not mutually exclusive. They are mutually dependent and I could not agree more. We need to ensure that tackling climate change is fully implemented and delivers jobs and the skills to do those new jobs. I suppose that is where we are, making sure that there is enough capacity in the college sector. Jobs associated with tackling climate change raised recently about flood prevention, making sure that we have that investment for flood prevention, improving efficiency, energy efficiency in homes and buildings, and to generate knowledge to improve renewable energy technologies. New jobs are needed and they need to be delivered to boost our sluggish local and national economies. With respect to Dundee, Mr Salmond promised 700 renewable jobs, energy jobs, following the signing of the memorandum of understanding in December 2011. Sadly, never appeared. The people of Scotland want us to work together to find solutions and to implement them. I look forward to working with the people across the chamber over the next nine weeks to meet those challenges. Thank you very much. Now, Colin, check brody to be followed by Liam McArthur. Up to six minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. May I, in following that speech, congratulate Lesley on her first contribution? I'm sure that there will be many others. I welcome the debate today and I fully appreciate the intent and the feelings and the principles behind the Greens' motion today. However, I have to say that I feel that it is a bit reckless, but it takes those in a rush to invent a new narrative. Time and patience are required to make it credible. It sets aspirations, ultimately laudable aspirations, though it may seem to be devoid of meaningful analytical facts. It is therefore in danger of propelling its aims and objectives, creating an immediate element of fear as it pursues the aspiration, no matter how well-being that aspiration may be. The position is that the Government is building a sustainable low-carbon economy, sustainable economically and environmentally. The position is clear. The oil industry, though current times are difficult, will recover, and I will come to that later. We are already three quarters of the way towards meeting our goal of carbon emission targets, and we want, over time, to develop a structured balance between our obligation to the environment, to the economy and to jobs, to the planet and to recognise the achievable balance of natural resources and fossil fuels that are required to meet not just the Scottish economy and jobs but our contribution, indeed, to the global economy on both these fronts. The first point—no, time is very limited—is welcoming the parish initiative. You cannot plan a transition away from Scotland's reliance on fossil fuels in the short term or in a period of huge global political volatility. Oil, petrochemical and hydrocarbons are indeed a major ingredient of day-to-day products. Therefore, the need for downstream jobs across not just transport or domestic industrial energy but ingredients, medical equipment and many drugs, domestic industrial appliances and industries such as retail are dependent upon input from hydrocarbons. Let us analyse the green's view of the oil industry in Scotland without fear or favour. The motion talks of job losses and dramatic oil price fluctuations. I accept, Presiding Officer, that these are difficult times for the industry. However, let us see what the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, of which Mr Harvey, as a member, said in its very recent short inquiry report on the oil and gas industry. It said, our report is a snapshot in time, and I will come back to that. It also said that no one can predict with any certainty what the oil price will be in 12 months. We know that because of overproduction and sluggish demand in this very volatile global economy. There is downward pressure on the oil market, but we have been here before. The price today—the price per barrel is higher than it was in 2005 or indeed in parts of 2009. The international agency, only last week, in its very comprehensive oil price outlook report, considered all the current and future international and global political and economic scenarios. In its current economic scenario, it said that the price of oil would grow progressively to $150 a barrel by 2040, or in the lowest scenario, it said that it might grow progressively rise to $95 a barrel by 2040. In addition to that input, Presiding Officer, the STUC in our inquiry recognised that oil prices were bound to a level where investment and, therefore, jobs in the continent shelf looked much more attractive. However, it was right of the motion to raise the concern that, in the short term, the skills base might be undermined, leading to constraints when higher investment returns. That has to be part of the overall question. When the motion says that the STUC commented that we have to be planning, quote, for the North Sea to have a shorter lifespan than previously thought, my repost would be that we have not even considered, as the Oil and Gas Authority said at the committee—I would say this, wouldn't I?—oil and gas off the west of Shetland, Rockall, the Atlantic margins and indeed the Inner Clyde. A scale of employment currently is threatened, but I believe that we will recover quite substantially. Am I too cavalier with regard to oil and gas production? No. Do I dismiss the absolute needs to consider all appropriate actions? I repeat all appropriate actions to support the Paris objectives. No, but I do ask that we exercise proper and not unreasonable approaches to seek the balance of resources and our environmental objectives. Within that balance, oil in the North Sea and the west will have a very significant part to play in the future. Oil and gas production on the UK continent on your shelf, as I mentioned earlier, has increased for the first time in the past year. Yes, we want to secure a sustainable environmental economy for the workers of today and the future, but facts like those have to be considered in any long-term plan. Action is being taken. Inherent action. Part of its achievement, no doubt, due to some pressures such as those from the Greens. Recognise that from the renewable targets and emissions. There is already a focus, I believe, on what the Greens seek, but that is part of an inherent strategy. Some might say that it is part of an unwritten plan. Many thanks. I now call Liam McArthur to be followed by Sandra White and Advise the Chamber, being incredibly tight for time. I warmly congratulate Leslie Brennan on her maiden speech. It is difficult enough to become an MSP, but when it comes out of the blue as it has, I think that it must be all the more difficult and I also wish Richard Baker all the best in his new post. I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution and congratulate Patrick Harvie and his colleagues on bringing this debate to the chamber. It is unfortunate, however, that the first debate on oil and gas in almost a year is based on the premise that it is unambiguous in calling for an acceleration of the sector's demise. Those working in the sector across Scotland, those who may have recently lost their jobs and indeed the wider public, who realise the continued importance of oil and gas production to our economy will form their own views on the Green Party's motion. Yet they will also rightly ask why it is the Scottish Government appears to have been so reluctant for so long to debate the issues facing the sector. One statement last September is scant reflection either of the sector's importance or the scale of the challenges it faces. Those who are facing the threat of losing their jobs and indeed those who have already lost them need to hear ministers and this Parliament voicing our support, our confidence, in the future of this sector, as they have this afternoon. Fergus Ewing deserves genuine credit for his efforts, but at times it does seem as if he has been plowing a lonely ministerial furrow. When the oil price first started plummeting, it was striking how long it took the newly installed First Minister to visit Aberdeen to meet with industry representatives. This reticence did not go unnoticed and comparisons were inevitably made with the likely reaction of her predecessor. In the face of what no one now disputes is a crisis facing the oil and gas sector, the First Minister's failure to meet with the head of her energy jobs task force in over six months is astonishing, although more so given what has happened to oil prices, jobs and confidence over that period. In his more private moments, I suspect that the energy minister agrees. That is part of a pattern. Just over a year ago, there was a similar reluctance from the Scottish Government to give this Parliament a chance to properly debate the future of the wave sector amidst an almost existential crisis. That is not good enough. Yes, Opposition parties can bring forward motions, but parliamentary time is dominated by the Government. There is no lack of issues to debate. Yes, we need to develop a strategy for how we transition to a low-carbon economy. Oil and gas is a finite resource, and I have no difficulty in acknowledging that some of the resource will need to be left in the ground. I agree with Scottish renewables that our chances of achieving our goals are not helped by a UK Tory Government, apparently hell-bent on dismantling much of the good work done under the previous coalition Government, including in relation to CCR. Moreover, I firmly believe that many of the technical and engineering solutions being sought by the marine energy sector, for example, are to be found within the oil and gas supply chain. However, I also firmly believe that Serene Wood is right when he cautions against panic reactions or premature decisions to decommission assets. Whatever our renewables future and I am still confident that it is a bright one, oil and gas will remain an integral part of our energy mix for decades to come, so rather than heed the council of those who are intent on shutting the sector down forthwith. We need to seriously look at what can be done to support the sector and those within it at this difficult time. The tax regime appears now more broadly supportive, with recent investment allowances viewed positively by those that I have spoken to in the sector. Questions about removing, for example, the supplementary charge remain and should be kept under consideration. Similarly, with the energy bill going through Westminster at present, there is an opportunity to invest the oil and gas authority with the powers and resources that it needs to continue making a positive difference. For this, as I am sure that Fergus Ewing would agree, my Liberal Democrat colleague and former energy secretary, Ed David, deserves credit. His foresight in paving away for the OGA by establishing Serene Wood's review is worthy of acknowledgment. No one can predict back then what would happen to oil prices, but without that preparatory work, the situation would be measurably worse. Even before the passing of the energy bill, the OGA is having an effect. It is approving the evidence on which Government decisions are taking. It is already invested in seismic studies to the benefit of the sector. Looking ahead, the OGA will help to ensure that companies are not sitting on licences that they are not using. I apologise, Mr MacArthur, but it was not your final minute. I have not caught speeches to five minutes just yet. With new sanctions and powers to access company data, the OGA will also have scope to challenge individual businesses on performance, helping to improve the overall efficiency of the sector. Many of the solutions can only come from within the sector. Each business will be looking carefully and seriously at its cost structures and seeing where efficiencies can be made. That cannot and absolutely must not come at the expense of safety. More joint learning is also essential. To help this, the Scottish Government can be doing more. Having set up the energy skills task force, we need to see the work moving ahead with some urgency. Its conclusions undoubtedly will be helpful in feeding in to the coherent economic and energy strategy referred to in Lewis MacDonald's amendment. That needs the First Minister to be more fully and actively engaged symbolically, as well as at a practical level. The reality is that this is a sector that touches most parts of the country in terms of jobs and its contribution to our economy. It is a sector that remains a key part of our energy mix over the coming decades. It is a sector for the foreseeable future that we need to help safeguard, not sabotage, for those reasons, and notwithstanding an overly self-congratulatory tone with regard to meeting climate change targets. We will be supporting the Government's amendment at this isn't time this evening. Thank you very much. I now call Sandra White to be followed by John Wilson. Speeches of less than six minutes would be helpful. First of all, I apologise for my mobile phone getting off earlier on. I assure you that it won't happen again. I congratulate Leslie Brennan on her maiden speech and look forward to working with her. I would like to start by welcoming the motion put forward by the Greens and independence. It certainly gives us an opportunity to discuss, as the motion states, jobs in Scotland's new economy. However, we have to be realistic and I say this in the best way possible. It will not happen overnight. Those jobs will not materialise overnight. We have to be realistic and realise that. We must ensure that the workforce is behind us. We speak to the workforce as well. We work alongside the workforce. We must ensure that, when we look at a new energy system fit for the future, the workforce from the oil and gas industry is spoken to and met with as well. We must dialogue with it to deliver the skills that will deliver a new renewable energy system for Scotland. That is an important part. We have to look at planning and implementing a concentrated plan and vision for a much more renewable source of energy. I am grateful for the member for taking an intervention on the point. Perhaps the member cited on the unwritten plan that Mr Brody referred to. What time frame are you considering is appropriate for the just transition to a low-carbon economy? I haven't saw the plan that Mr Brody is talking about either. Perhaps you could answer the same question that you asked me. As I said earlier in my first contribution, we need to speak to the workforce. We need to ensure that people are trained in the skills to go over to a different type of renewable energy. I am not a crystal ball. I cannot say into the future, but I would assume that it would not be in the two-distant future. However, I think that you have to be realistic and make sure that people work together. It is sustainable. That is what I would say to Mr Finnie and others. We have to look to the future, but we need to be realistic in that as well. Many have mentioned the economic argument, but it is not just an economic argument as far as I am concerned. It is to build a more sustainable future and combat the effects of global warming. I believe that Scotland is making great progress towards that. My colleague, Mark McDonald, in his contribution has certainly cited many projects that are going ahead at the moment. I think that we have made positive steps in both recognising and combating climate change in recent years. Of course, more needs to be done. However, I believe that the recent Paris climate change, which is mentioned in the Greens in Independence motion, offers us hope for the future. It was a monumental task to get so many nations to sign up to the agreement. I hope that that will be the start of that. I also hope that Scotland can lead a way in demonstrating what is possible and how to achieve it. Indeed, when the First Minister attended the COP21 global climate summit in Paris, she spoke at the largest business-focused event held during COP21, where Scotland was praised for its actions by the head of the UN climate body, Christiana Figueres. The First Minister also spoke to the climate group, which Scotland became a member of the climate group's compact of states and regions, and the international reporting platform, which represents 12.5 per cent of global GDP and more than 325 million people worldwide. That demonstrates the collective impact of all states and regional governments that can have in tackling climate change. I clearly demonstrate the Scottish Government's ambitions. As I have said before, more needs to be done. I also think that we should welcome those initiatives and build upon them, because it is only through those initiatives and the international and collective action that we will move forward together just to sustain a global future. We also need to remember that. I also highlighted in this summit that world records were also broken. Then we had to set a new world record for wind production in 2014. 39.1 per cent of its overall electricity from the clean energy source. Scotland was also mentioned having had a massive year for renewables. Wind turbines alone provided along 1,279 megawatt-hours of electricity to the national grid, enough to supply the electrical needs of 164 per cent of Scottish households, or 3.96 million homes. I think that that is something that we should certainly be proud of. The important past bit of the Scottish Government's approach that I would like to highlight is its pioneering climate justice approach. Nobody has mentioned this one before, which puts people on human rights, which I think is really important as well, at the heart of our action on climate change and in supporting fair and sustainable global development. I thought I had more time, but I do not. I am sorry. I had hoped to solely look at the positive that I have mentioned. Today, Scotland is a world in many new and innovative technologies that is abundant in national resources. However, we are being held back because we can do more. I was disappointed that it has been mentioned already that the carbon capture plant was rejected and that funding for renewables has been cut. I think that that leads to a very strong argument for energy policy to be devolved to Scotland. I would hope that we would all agree on that. Would the other Opposition parties join along with us in petitioning the UK Government to support the carbon capture plant and the devolution of energy policy? I am afraid that we are already over time for this debate, so I will ask members later in the debate to review their speech notes for timings. I call John Wilson to be followed by John Mason. Firstly, I would like to declare an interest as a member of Unite the Union. I would also like to welcome Leslie Brennan to the chamber and look forward to her contributions at the committee and within the chamber. I thank the members who have taken the time to read the motion and discuss the issues raised within the motion, particularly to the future of Scotland and the planet. The motion highlights our commitment and our need to tackle our growing dependence on fossil fuels. As a country and as a planet, we cannot continue burning fossil fuels at the rate that we are. There are two concerns in that regard. Firstly, climate change and global warming are happening around us. Just recently across the UK, we have seen drastic weather and flooding on mass scale, causing incredible and lasting damage to hundreds of homes. Flooding represents the greatest threat from climate change facing the UK. Flooding is a real and present danger, and we need only to look at the recent weather conditions to see the scale of the damage and disruption that can cause to people's lives and their livelihoods. I doubt that anyone in the chamber would deny that climate change is real. That presents a threat to our livelihoods and that we have as a nation a responsibility to tackle it however we can. Secondly, fossil fuels are a finite resource. They cannot and will not last forever. That is a simple fact and one that must be addressed. To not do so and to continue our dependence on fossil fuels is dangerous and irresponsible. Those are important points, and I hope that members of the chamber can agree not only that our consistent use of fossil fuels is harmful to the environment but that it is unsustainable not just because of the damage that it causes but because it simply will not last. The real point of the motion is to highlight the need for an immediate just transition from work that is dependent on adwindling oil and gas to renewables and other progressive industries. We have heard today already the job losses that have been caused, and we have heard also in the report from the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee the jobs—one example where 6,000 jobs have been lost in the platforms which equates to almost 30,000 jobs in the communities around Scotland. To quote the First Minister, the North Sea oil industry is in crisis. Oil prices have fallen to below $30 a barrel and Petrifac have just announced 100 job losses alongside BP's 600 jobs. All those job losses will impact on workers who are employed in the North Sea oil industry and have a knock-on effect, as Leslie Brennan said, for the families and communities of those workers. From my own region, I have seen the devastation to employees, the families and local communities that the closure of steelworks has caused. The Scottish Government has a responsibility to ensure that such wide-scale job losses and industry closures are in future handled effectively and properly, ensuring that there is a just transition of workers and resources. At the annual address to the STC highlighted its expectation that 35,000 North Sea oil related jobs will be lost over the next five years. That motion specifically calls on the Scottish Government to work with the trade unions in planning and implementing the transition from a fossil fuel dependent to a fossil free society. The STC further highlighted, in its annual address, the need for a just transition, a framework created by various trade union organisations that highlights the need and the importance of a transition towards a low-carbon and climate resilient economy that maximises the benefits of climate action while minimising the hardship for workers and their communities. The role of the trade unions in the transition is vital. We have a responsibility here in the Scottish Parliament to listen to those we represent. I do not just mean geographically. When we discuss transitions such as those and the workforce of the future, we have a responsibility to listen to the workers and the trade unions. We have a responsibility to hear their voice in all of that. The people's best place to discuss what is best for Scottish workers and the Scottish workforce is those workers themselves. I wonder then if he would acknowledge the voice of Jake Malloy of the RMT union, who has called for specific measures to support the oil and gas industry, including measures of taxation support from Westminster. John Millsons. The Jake Malloy and other unions have supported the just transition policy, and they also support moving away from the dependency that currently exists at the present time on the oil and gas industry and to create sustainable economic policies that actually take us away from the threat of the ever-flocutating job security that currently exists in the oil and gas industry. The redundancies that were heard of and the actions that are being taken at the present moment clearly show that the workforce who are dependent on the oil and gas industry are in flux. They do not know what is happening from one week to the next, and we heard earlier from Lewis MacDonald that the terms and conditions are being eroded and the wages are being cut. I do not deny that the industry oil plays an important part in the economy. In fact, it is for that reason that this just transition is needed. Securing our economy, the rights and welfare of workers, the families and local communities and a future that is unpredictable but clearly not fossil fuel dependent is crucial. I urge my colleagues in this chamber to join me in supporting this motion. Rejective amendments have been submitted. This motion supports workers in Scotland, highlights the need for a just transition to alternative work, greater training and skills education, funding to support workers, and a future fossil-free Scottish economy. We have an opportunity to show leadership in leading the way forward to get the transition strategy that benefits the workforce and communities of Scotland and put those in place as quickly as possible. I am afraid that I can only give the next two members up to six minutes thereafter. I have to reduce to five-minute speeches. I apologise for that. I am grateful to speak in this debate. I am glad that the Greens and the Independence have raised it. I also congratulate Leslie Brennan on her maiden speech and welcome her both to the finance and DPLR committees. We will see if she is smiling quite as much once she has been at about the two of them. I hope that we can all agree that encouraging renewable energy is absolutely the right way to go. If there is a difference between us, it is probably that the Greens and the Independence want us to go further and faster than we are at present. I notice that on page 83 of the Scottish Government draft budget for 2016-17 is the announcement that it intends to end business rates relief for renewable energy projects unless they are 100 per cent community-owned. Is that a way of encouraging renewable energy? As the member knows, his Government has cut the Government's budget, so I think that there are issues. I am more than happy that the finance committee should look at that in due course. I shall comment later on some of the issues that I think that the Greens and Independence motion arises. First of all, I would like to challenge those who oppose the renewable movement, because there are people out there who do that, and in particular people who are opposed to wind farms. Firstly, using wind power is hardly a new phenomenon. People have been doing that for hundreds of years, and the modern turbines are an update of traditional windmills, which I think that most people would find acceptable. I have to say that I also think that modern wind farms do look beautiful. They can be an attraction in their own right, and we do not want them covering all of our land. I accept that. However, travelling along the M8 from Glasgow to Edinburgh, or down the M74 to Carlyle, I consider that the scenery is greatly improved by having some of those turbines along the way. Eagleshire Moor was a pretty dull and dreary area in the past, but I consider the whitely wind farm to be a great attraction. I am more keen to go out there for a walk now on the 130 kilometres of trails among the 215 turbines that can produce some 539 megawatts. At this stage, I would like to say that I think that highly of the John Muir trust and their work to protect wild land, however, sometimes their opposition to wind farms has been a little bit over the top. Some of our wild land should be inhabited, and we need to find ways of encouraging people to move back there. However, I would like to comment also on some of the issues that I would have with the green independent motion. First, the phrase current over reliance on fossil fuels. I have to say that I am not totally convinced about that. We have relied on fossil fuels for a very long time, be that coal, oil or gas, and clearly they are not going to last forever, and we need to find alternatives. However, I think that neither do we need to panic and try to move away from them overnight. There are big challenges to be addressed before we can do that, including how to store electricity better for when we need it. We are seeing improvements in that, and I was impressed recently when a friend took me for a run in his electric car, but it still has a limited mileage before it needs recharging, and the recharging process itself takes quite a lot of time. On a larger scale, we have pump storage such as at Cruichan, which can effectively store electricity at off-peak times and re-provide it at peak times. However, my understanding is that the efficiency there is 75 to 80 per cent, and we lose a bit along the way, so that needs to improve very quickly. I do not agree that if we were to invest more wholeheartedly in renewables, and that is at a UK level too, rather than in some of the most expensive electricity on the planet, we might start to be able to invest in getting this technology off the ground faster. John Mason. I am not yet a minister and probably unlikely to be, but I do agree with her that that is a priority for investment, and I would absolutely support any investment that we and the universities and others can do in that area. Secondly, the whole question of the North Sea having a shorter lifespan than previously thought—I wonder if that is the case and it might be the opposite—if there are an estimated 22 billion barrels of oil remaining, surely we are not going to walk away from that. If it is too expensive to get that oil out of the North Sea at the moment, perhaps once the price goes back up, we can expect to do more of that. It should be remembered, as others have said, that the oil price is very volatile. In 1998, it was below $20 and rose in 10 years to more than $100. Thirdly, the whole concept of failing to produce a plan for transition is a puzzling statement. The whole tone of this Government from what I can hear is to invest and push on with the transition to renewable energy. Of course, there have been disappointments along the way, perhaps with wave and tidal, but any innovation has disappointments along the way. The tone from Westminster tends to be very negative in comparison to the tone from Holyrood. As with other decisions that we need to make in this Parliament, there is a balance to be struck between a variety of objectives. We want a strong economy and we want a healthy environment, and we need to maximise tax revenues for the taxes that people pay for the public services that we all want to see improved and expanded. I congratulate Leslie Brannan on her first speech in the chamber and on her analysis of the climate change imperative and how we can address this together. I am pleased to make a contribution to this debate as well this afternoon. I have long been fighting for future proofing of our jobs market and welcome the chance to debate it with colleagues. The energy sector faces challenges today that are really indisputable and my thoughts go out to those thousands affected by job losses and we must address that issue in an immediate sense. This afternoon, though I want to speak about planned changes as an opportunity, not something to shy away from, in the face of a changing climate and the commitments in Paris and the traditional fuel industry challenges, the greatest threat to our economy is not to plan for the future. There are fantastic examples of low-carbon jobs in Scotland today. It is important to shout these successes out to give people the confidence to plan for the future. The Scottish Renewables briefing for this debate reminds us that across the UK there are now 21,000 jobs in renewables and £1 billion investment in Scotland in 2014. Looking to the future, education must be at the heart of a strategy for a just transition. By introducing green themes to children in nursery and primary schools, we can inspire future contributions to the low-carbon economy, and this threat should weave throughout every level of education. Will the Scottish Government support programmes such as heat-wise, where pupils used to be involved in designing renewables technologies and consider putting money into this sort of initiative? Eco-school should be commended for the robust awareness-raising work that they do. Development of high school courses, which focus on new green skills, is also vital. The college sector must be highly commended for the role that it plays already in providing people with training, skills and opportunities for the new economy. In South Scotland there is a plethora of opportunities for full-time courses in a wide range of renewable and clean technologies. Theoretical courses combined with practical training facilities and short courses up to upskill those already in work. Borders College has recently launched the UK's first heat recovery system using the local wastewater network, which now provides around 95 per cent of the heat to the Gala campus. Airshire College delivers a wind turbine technician course that is growing in popularity, as well as courses in a huge range of renewables technologies and energy efficiency. The spread of courses in emerging technologies is an extremely positive step. Businesses small and large, co-operatives and communities and unions are also engaging in the transition, and investing in transferable skills should benefit from continued government support. Unison promotes the recommendations in green colonisation, a TUC green-piece document, and GMB has called for a link between vision and action for the green shift, particularly taking into account the needs of workers. Our future economy should also be based on the principle of circularity, reusing materials and keeping them in the system. Innovative product design needs to be supported as the nature of our resources becomes increasingly apparent and the fact that it is not finite. For example, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation recently produced a report on the future of the plastics industry. To make plastics at present, we need oil and gas, but it is estimated that plastic production uses the same oil consumption as global aviation. If we continue at this rate, the plastic sector will account for 20 per cent of total oil consumption by 2050. Furthermore, by 2050, the world's oceans are estimated in this report to be expected to contain more plastics as waste than fish by weight. We need to decouple plastics in the longer term from the fossil fuel feed stocks and focus on developing new skills and ideas with government support for a circular economy. We cannot ignore and we must not pretend that change is not vital, but we must plan in a staged and strategic way and take workers along with us in this journey. Scotland has been the birthplace of globally influential innovations throughout the last centuries, and this is an opportunity to again be trailblazers for innovation and creativity in a new economy and society. As Lewis MacDonald said, it is very important that we have a just transition for workers and we also respect the needs of workers in the fossil fuel industries today, as well as planning for the future, so that we have a vibrant energy sector, a wider vibrant economy and we protect our planet in the future. We cannot delay any longer. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I, too, like my colleagues in the chamber, congratulate Leslie Brennan on her maiden speech. It took me back probably to my own and, if her knees were shaking just like mine were at the time, I have every sympathy with her. The motion before us today is one that is not surprising coming from the Greens, but I am not sure that it acknowledges where we are currently today. Where we are today was reflected in the report from the EET Committee, which the convener, Mordor Fraser, mentioned earlier on. I think that it was a well-balanced report because it spoke to the sector, it spoke to Oil and Gas UK, it spoke with the OGA, it was speaking with the trade unions, it was listening, the committee took on board the fears, the aspirations but also it took on board the fact that the industry at the moment was in a situation that was unsustainable. One of the things that I always want to say when I come to a debate like this is that, as a constituency MSP in Aberdeenshire West, which has a significant number of oil and gas companies and subsea companies as well as renewables, it is not just those companies that are out there in the North Sea or those that populate the buildings within West Hill in Aberdeenshire, but it is all those within the supply chain as well. Quite often, when we are talking about the industry, we do not give much attention to that supply chain. I think that with the redundancies that we have had within Aberdeenshire and that wider community, we have got to acknowledge that it is not just the men and women from the platforms and there is over 6,000, but it is those other workers within the sector. Some have come from the administration side but some have come from that supply chain too, perhaps maybe up to 30,000 and that has impacted on our hotel industry and many of our small businesses. When we are addressing the situation within the north-east at the moment, we have got to look at not just the energy task force but the wider aspect of the impact on that broader community. It is true that it was unsustainable in terms of the number and workforce. Oil and gas UK in the industry reflected that many years ago. In fact, they reflected it before the oil price was in decline and they were looking towards efficiency then and they were looking towards more collaboration and co-operation within the industry. That in itself would have probably resulted in some job losses but certainly not to the extent that we have had now. However, I have got a plea to the industry and this plea is to think carefully about when we get to the level of sustainability and recovery. Think carefully, do you have, will you have, the skilled workforce to extract the oil and gas that we need for the future? There are 22 billion barrels of oil and gas left and I know that this is where Patrick Harvie and the Greens would move away from the fact that they would like to see it left in the ground but I believe that if we are careful and it is about stewardship, and the minister said about careful stewardship, we have got to take what is in terms of the resources at the moment but we are working towards a low-carbon community and I do regret, sincerely regret that we do not have the carbon capture at Peterhead and I think that that was wrong of the UK Government to walk away from that because when we have been looking at the oil and gas industries we have been trying to encourage them to invest in research and development for the future, in that low-carbon future and they have been putting money into that and Shell put an enormous amount of money into the carbon sector. There is much more to be said but what I would like to say in conclusion is that it is about working together and the sector, the unions, the politicians whether it be local or here at Holyrood or at Westminster need to do the all we can to sustain the industry that is there that is at the heart of our economy for now and in the future. Many thanks. I now call Jean-Arcout to be followed by Rhoda Grant. Five minute speeches please. Thank you Presiding Officer. Unlike the previous member Dennis Robertson I'd suggest that Patrick Harvie's motion does indeed reflect the reality of the present situation regarding jobs in Scotland's new economy and indeed if we were not to recognise that the oil is not infinite then we should be making the plan now. Politicians and Governments are generally charged with short termism and this seems to me that everything that we've heard today that is not supporting this motion is just that. Of course it's concerned with people's work, of course it's concerned with the jobs, of course it's concerned with an industry that has given the United Kingdom Government a great deal in income tax, it's also been an industry that has taken a great deal of tax money and investment as well but if we look at the current situation globally on the radio this morning the two economists were in agreement that the Chinese economy is probably is likely to be much worse than is acknowledged by their Government just as the improvement in the United States economy is probably overstated. They've also agreed that the price of a barrel of oil is political. The United States and Saudi Arabia while setting or agreeing the price may consider Russia but they certainly don't consider this Scotland's economy. Quote below $20 a barrel becomes untenable. There's a glut of oil stocks albeit that the drop in price is out of our control out of our control and that's part of the problem. If we are to continue to run our industry renewable industry in the way that we've run the oil industry then God help us and when we say that there's 22 trillion barrels of oil left in the North Sea then let's look at a long term plan. There's an example of a small town and I just want to cite this in the north of Sweden called Kiruna where 22,000 people live in a town that's built on a mine and there's subsidence and other problems so instead of moving everybody which people didn't want to do they set about a 100 year plan for the people who work there and the people who live there and over the next 40 years they will move that town street by street and rebuild the whole thing in exactly the same area but not in the same place and out of danger and I think this is a kind of planning that Scotland needs to do if we are to make that transitional change. There can be no doubt that we see and I represent the Highlands and Islands that the Highlands and Islands is seen as a kind of powerhouse. Alex Salmond himself said that the Pentland first could be seen as a kind of potential Saudi Arabia in terms of energy but let's look at some of the reality of what we've done so far with renewable energy. We've built wind farms largely to the benefit of private companies and private landowners. There have been small community benefit and I mean small, very small community benefit and very selective. The member would have heard me highlighting my speech that a target that was set for community renewables for 2020 was achieved in 2015. That surely demonstrates that the Scottish Government is showing support and leadership to community renewable schemes. I don't doubt that there are some and I can cite very good examples of community-owned energy schemes but we have to be realistic that the targets are not being met by community renewables and the economic driver of renewables is not in local communities. I think that what we have to see is a plan for a low-carbon economy and it's clearly long overdue. In Paris, the Minister for Climate Change and our First Minister declared that they would embed in our budget funding for renewables and to deal with climate change. Now, nobody in the last few months can be unaware of the damage that climate changes. It's not something that's going to happen, it's something that's happening now. You have to close, I'm afraid. It's the best time to plant a tree was 30 years ago and the second best time is today. I think that we support this motion and start our 100-year plan today. Thank you. Thank you now, co-road to Grant, Joan McAlpine. Stick, five minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I, like others, congratulate Leslie Brennan on her first speech? It was an excellent speech in a very important debate. Presiding Officer, oil and gas jobs are not only concentrated in Aberdeen. Many of my constituents through the highlands and islands are dependent on those jobs, travelling from as far away as the western isles to go offshore. Indeed, those jobs are based in some of our more remote and small communities and the loss of those jobs will have a knock-on effect to the economies of those already fragile communities. Shetland has an economy largely based around oil and gas, and a turn down in the industry will have an enormous impact on them. That emphasises, if we need reminding, the global economy that we live in. Decisions taken halfway around the world have catastrophic impacts on our constituents at home. Can I first make a plea? Yes, margins are tight in the oil and gas industry. Yes, cuts are being made. However, if those cuts lead to cuts in safety in the industry, it is totally unacceptable. Changes and shift patterns are dangerous in themselves. Forcing people to work three weeks without a break is unsafe. You need a workforce that is rested and switched on, otherwise they will make mistakes. Those shift patterns will also impact on their home life, their relationships and their families. When dealing with substances as volatile as oil and gas, no corners can be cut with regard to safety. We cannot simply write off an industry without consideration of the workforce and their future. We know indeed that reserves will run out, but we need to plan the managed withdrawal from those energy supplies. It is sad to say that I see no planning going on. There are, of course, opportunities with regard to renewables. Onshore renewables have been developed on the mainland and, in some cases, have provided a valuable income stream for communities. However, there are missed opportunities in making more of those developments. Communities that are wholly owned by the public and their members would have had much better return if they had been able to manage those developments in their entirety. Community-owned estates would have been able to develop huge income streams going forward. Some of them luckily have, but not that many. However, there are many areas that I have not enjoyed those benefits at all. Without an interconnector, the Western Isles cannot develop their full potential for renewable energy, either on or offshore. Given the economic situation in those areas, investment would be a game changer not only in income but in the jobs created and the spin-off investment of that wealth by community landowners investing in jobs and diversification in their own communities. The waters in the north and west of Scotland are the most energetic in Europe. The ability to harness this energy would bring much-needed benefits in jobs and investment and provide a source of dependable renewable energy to the whole country. Sadly, investment in wave and tidal energy has been pulled back. We have seen developers go out of business or cut their research and development in that area. We talked about the potential for years, but the Scottish Government must invest in research and development because the market is failing to do so. In Orkney, we have a great deal of expertise. We need to keep those people in the area and working on the innovative technology that can capture wave and tidal energy. If we let that go, we will lose that industry to Scotland because the expertise will be snapped up elsewhere. If that happens, we will end up buying in from other countries that we are with all to extract our natural resources. This happened with onshore wind. We cannot afford to let it happen with wave and tidal as well. We need to ensure that there is sufficient interconnector capacity from the islands back to the mainland to allow us to benefit from this energy when it is available. In the highlands and islands, we also have the highest level of poverty in Scotland. For the most part, that is because we are off-gas grid, which means that alternatives are very expensive. We need a step change in insulation, of course, but we also need people to be able to install micro renewables. That would cut the cost of energy removing them from fuel poverty and create jobs in those areas. People in fuel poverty cannot really invest in micro renewables in their own homes. They need support and help in developing those alternatives. It would also create jobs in small businesses, but some of those renewable jobs seldom go to small businesses because of the bureaucracy involved in the registration of installers. The registration needs to be done in a way that ensures that small businesses benefit. We need a clear policy going forward. We need to prepare for a time when we no longer have oil and gas, and we need to manage that transition. I have sympathy for the points that Patrick Harvie makes and the consistency of his position, but he is in a difficult position with regard to timing. I agree that there are transferrable skills between the oil and gas industry and the renewable industry, obviously in engineering, fabrication, financing and the myriad of skills that cascade down the supply chain into the wider economy. However, just at the time when oil workers could be looking at alternative careers in renewable energy, that sector is being undermined catastrophically by the policies of the UK Government. My colleague Mark McDonald pointed to the briefing from Scottish Renewables, which commended the leadership of the Scottish Government in promoting renewables, but more of that briefing is taken up by what it calls the barriers to future growth emanating from the policies of the UK Government. To quote the report, cuts to and closures of support schemes at UK level have significant questions about the future development of renewable energy. It is worth reminding ourselves of the extent of those cuts that include the renewable obligation. The main driver of growth in renewable capacity since 2002. The UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has announced that the renewable obligation would close to onshore wind a year earlier than expected on 31 March this year. Contracts for difference is the only policy lever to support large-scale green generation. There is currently no certainty over the budget for or timescales of the next allocation of contracts for difference at present. Scottish Renewables says, I am sorry, I have no time. It says that this delay could fatally undermine the timeline for the projects in Scotland's main island groups and raises serious questions about whether the proposed offshore wind project can make the 2020 deadline. The UK Government has also made it clear that it will not allocate future subsidy to offshore wind, as I have said, and it will not form part of the next CFD allocation. Our energy committee has heard how contracts for difference are unsuitable for energy storage projects, hence holding up major pump storage initiatives and, of course, the development of interesting alternative storage technologies. There is also uncertainty around the renewable heat incentive, which, although it is continuing, is having its budget reduced and moved still to hear exactly how it is planned to work in future. That affects small businesses all over Scotland who have invested in training staff to install the devices that enable renewable heat. To that we should add, of course, as others have, the abandoning of the carbon capture project. Even if we could affect a smooth transition between oil and gas and renewables, I believe that now is not the time to be rushing into things. It might give a sense of moral superiority to those advocating a radical and abrupt change of direction, but it does not, at this point, offer workers a certainty that they need to make that change. During our evidence-gathering session in committee, we looked at the Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce oil and gas survey, which was conducted in collaboration with Strathclyde University. Obviously, there were aspects of it that were pessimistic, but there were positives. For individuals, they said that there were still jobs available for companies and that labour market conditions had eased, and they were finding it easier to recruit and retain core staff. Over the next three years, employment growth is expected by contractors. For that reason, we need to be careful, too, about being too hasty at moving towards decommissioning. To quote the same report, Ushtine Vass, the Bondikinson oil and gas legal expert, made a very vivid comment. He said that there was a significant short-term increase in decommissioning activity while inevitably herald a more rapid decline in offshore exploration and production, since the industry will feed on the body of infrastructure that supports it. In effect, the industry will be eating away at its own bones. That is a very vivid illustration of what we face, and to go down that road is far too risky in moving away from what is obviously an important job creator in Scotland. Many thanks. That brings us to the closing speeches. I call on Mary Scanlon's six minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I register an interest. My son is a civil engineer working in the wind farm industry. I just say to John Mason that I am not against wind farms, but I do like them to be in the right place. I congratulate Leslie Brennan, another feisty woman from Dundee, on her contribution to this debate. We look forward to working with her in future. I would like to thank the Greens and independence for selecting this topic for debate today. It took me back to where I left school in Matrose in the 1960s. There was no North Sea oil industry then, and opportunities for young people were very different to those of today. I cast my mind back to the day that I left school, and my three options were bus conductor, selling cakes in the local frost bakers or a weaver in Paton's mill, Duke mill in Montrose. That is very different to what is on offer today, thankfully. I agree with Sir Ian Wood when he said that there are generations out there who have always taken the oil industry for granted and who have become very dependent on the oil and gas industry. That way of thinking needs to change, pointing to the way forward positively, with the right kind of plan, the right kind of people, working with local authorities, the Scottish and the UK Governments. I think that many contributions today have been positive rather than negative in looking forward, because I certainly do not see the oil and gas industry in the past tense. I am also pleased to note that there is more realism and honesty about North Sea oil revenue, and that the SNP and Greens are not claiming unrealistic oil revenues for decades to come and decrying anyone who dared to think or state differently. When OBR forecast oil revenues of £3.3 billion for 2016-17 during the referendum campaign, they were absolutely ridiculed, but today it is a fact that Brent crude is $28 a barrel, over $100 lower than the SNP forecast for economic independence, and given the lifting of sanctions from Iran, there is no doubt that that will bring more oil to the market, and it will affect future predictions on the price. In the early days of North Sea oil construction, many thought that this would be an industry for 25 to 30 years. The high oil price has allowed many of the marginal fields to be exploited, given that that price covered the increased costs of extraction. Now that some of the eggs are coming to the end of their working life and more than a third are over 30 years old, the costs are increasing and revenue decreasing, so it is an opportune time to have this debate. Where I agree with Patrick Harvie is undoubtedly on the opportunities for decommissioning, and we have been slow off the mark to ensure that our fair share of decommissioning comes to Scotland. Many of the earlier projects went to Norway and they went to the northeast of England, and whilst I welcome the investment into the infrastructure in Lerwick, Scotland still needs, as Rhoda Grant said, to ensure that these opportunities are available to Scottish arts and Scottish workers. Scotland and the UK are pioneers of North Sea oil exploration, and we continue to export this expertise with oil workers trained in Scotland working around the globe. We now have the potential opportunity to become a global leader in decommissioning skills, skills that will also be needed around the world, with £17 billion forecast to be spent on scrapping 79 platforms and plugging 1200 wells over the next 10 years, and a decommissioning budget of £47 billion up to 2050. That should be seen as an opportunity for developing skills and jobs. As Murdo Fraser said, we very much welcome the Energy Jobs Task Force, which was announced a year ago, and we hope that that will address the skills shortages elsewhere in our workforce. However, I think that we should be aware of the wage differences between the North Sea and working on a wind farm. The average salary in the North Sea is £64,000 compared to the average salary for a technician building a wind farm of 25, and, if you get a two-year contract of work on a wind farm, you are very lucky, and you have to wonder about what comes next. In the long term, the only jobs on the wind farms are for routine maintenance or call-out, if any problems arise. Another point that is worth making that Patrick Harvie should also be aware of is that 70 per cent of the cost of any wind farm in Scotland goes out of the country to pay for the turbines and the towers. I congratulate the Energy, Enterprise and Tourism Committee. I think that this is an excellent report. I appreciate it short. I appreciate it's a snapshot in time, but I think that it's an excellent contribution going forward. I now call on Jackie Baillie up to six minutes. Please, Ms Baillie. I start by commending Leslie Brennan on her maiden speech. She pointed out that growth is indeed sluggish. Our rate of growth is also slower than the rest of the UK. Unemployment is, in percentage terms, greater than the rest of the UK. Our employment growth is not as fast. The jobs that we are generating tend to be low-paid, temporary and part-time. It is in that context that Lewis MacDonald is absolutely right to talk about the importance of oil—not a bonus, not an optional extra, but central to our economy and accounting for billions, including something like 200,000 jobs and well-paid jobs at that. Estimates of oil at $113 a barrel in the white paper appear a distant memory when you set that against the price of a barrel of oil today at $28 a barrel. The world has changed. It's down 18 per cent since even the new year, down a staggering 70 per cent in 18 months. We know that global oil demand ground to a halt in November. It fell in December for the first time in 13 months. The big oil producers, the Saudis, are not about to change their policy. A range of expert industry forecasters have predicted even lower prices coming in the months ahead, whether it is Barclays revising their estimates downwards or, indeed, Morgan Stanley joining that growing number of voices warning that oil prices could slide down to $20 a barrel. It is devastating. It is devastating not just for our public finances or indeed for the economy. It is devastating for jobs in particular in the north-east and across Scotland. The Scottish Government needs, with all due respect, to recognise the seriousness of the problem and the fact that it is deepened dramatically in a very short space of time. I absolutely agree that we should be doing all that we can to sustain this important industry, which is why, from the very start, Labour has been calling for regular oil and gas bulletins. You need to understand what is happening in a minute and, specifically, the impact on jobs and the economy because that helps in ensuring that the action that you take is right. I welcome the member's statement that everything that can be done should be done. Does she agree, then, that exploration tax credits, which I have said would not just help in terms of the companies themselves, but also the supply chain, would be welcome and is something that the chancellor should bring forward in his budget? Jackie Baillie strikes me. There is no point in having a tax credit if you are not actually paying tax, but we would support any effort to invest in exploration, and we would wish to do so through the OGA because we think that they know how best to do it. Oil used to account for about 13 per cent of Scottish GDP. Regretfully, that is not the case now. Thousands of jobs have already been lost. Oil and gas UK suggests something like 65,000 direct and indirect jobs. BP, as we have heard from many members around the chamber, is cutting 4,000 jobs globally. 600 from the North Sea. Petrofarch said 160 UK jobs. We could have a role call of oil companies, but it is also their supply chain as well, and it is businesses in the north-east businesses across Scotland. The FSB told us this week that confidence among small businesses was at its lowest level for three years, specifically because of fears about an oil industry crisis, so small local suppliers just as affected. Our focus needs to be as well on those individuals who have already lost their jobs. Helping them into alternative employment, retaining their skills and ensuring that our economy can benefit from their knowledge in future will be important. I listen carefully to the minister. Of course, we support the positive work in the oil and gas industry, making the industry more efficient, working with the supply chain and indeed the workforce, and we welcome the energy jobs task force, but it last reported in September. We do not know how many people have been helped into other jobs or helped into retraining, because the Government does not know. What we do know as a result of a newspaper's FOIs is that neither the First Minister or indeed any other minister, including the one here today, met with the chair of the task force since June. That is hugely disappointing. I expected a greater sense of urgency. We need a new oil and gas bulletin. In fact, we need a regular one. The last one was published in June on the very last day of term. When will we see that update, and can the minister promise to publish before Parliament rises in March? Others have made the case for renewables, Presiding Officer. I will not repeat some of their arguments. Suffice to say, I believe that we need a mixed energy supply. Of course, we will need to consider decommissioning and transition in due course, but there is still much opportunity in the North Sea. It was Murdo Fraser who mentioned by farb. Here is a good example of a company that does both decommissioning and an offshore wind fabrication, which I commend to the Government. There are those who say that this is not a problem. It is all wonderful. That is a degree of complacency that fails to understand the challenge to the economy. There are those who say that we should decommission everything now, and I think that that misses the potential of what lies in the North Sea. Frankly, to those who say, let's devolve it, I simply fail to understand what they are talking about and find it, frankly, quite bizarre. We should be exploiting all of the opportunities before us. In closing, we will not be supporting the SNP amendment because it pre-empts the Labour amendment, but also because we believe that the Scottish Government can do more. It can urgently review the impact on jobs and support for the industry, and perhaps it would do so and start by publishing an updated oil and gas bulletin. Leslie Brennan finished on a very good point, namely that this Parliament is a place where we together can work together for the people of Scotland, so I welcome her maiden contribution in this chamber. We can maximise by working together the opportunities that we have in Scotland to create a secure and resilient energy mix. Scotland has set world-leading targets that provide a strong contribution to required global emission reductions. We are on track to meet and exceed our 2020 target for a 42 per cent reduction in emissions. Renewable energy is one of our most important industries, creating jobs and investment opportunities, while delivering secure, low-carbon and cost-effective energy supplies. Indeed, in the last 10 years, renewable electricity output has more than doubled and now supplies half of the electricity consumed in Scotland, beating our target by, I think, a year—our provisional target. We are also leading the way across the UK in how we support local and community ownership of renewable energy, having met our 220 target of 500 megawatts of community and locally-owned renewable generation capacity five years early. We have much more work to do. Of course, we accept that. Earlier today, I met Star Refrigeration, which is a leading company in the field of renewable heat through heat pumps. It has delivered projects in places such as Dramon in Norway through companies such as Sunamp, which are world leaders in providing methods of storage of electricity. We need more storage generally, a point that was made by a number of speakers—a pump storage—but also at distribution and at household level. That is extremely important. We need, as Rhoda Grant pointed out, the islands to be connected. My top priority is not A but D. That is why I have been working with the UK Government, first with Ed Davies and now with Amber Rudd, to try to achieve that. I am still, as an optimist, hopeful that we may get there. That would achieve great things for the islands for the reasons that have been stated. However, I want to say a little bit about some of the measures. Murdo Fraser said that, in response to, I think, points from Mark McDonald about the need for measures to encourage exploration, that tax is not something that the industry has focused on or mentioned greatly. It is true to say that it is perhaps not the main focus of many companies that are focused on survival, quite frankly. Let's not beat about the bush. I recognise that. However, at the same time, there are teams of people in Aberdeen whose work is almost entirely based on exploration. If there is no work for them to do, the risk is that we lose those skills. That was the point that Dennis Robertson rightly made. If we lose skills of people because there is no work for them to do, we may not be able to bring them back—a point well-made by Mr Robertson. It is fair to say that Pharaoh Petroleum drilled several wells for, in the Norwegian sector this year. That is because Norway offers 78 per cent exploration tax credit measures, so you get four for one. It is like going to Tesco and you get four for the price of one from Asda. Plainly, that is an important measure. I would like specifically to praise Mark McDonald. I wonder if the minister also agrees that the impact on the supply chain of exploration is extremely important. As I cited, one supply company who told me that for every rig that is outperforming exploration is worth £250,000 to that company. Absolutely right. The point is that the prices of hiring rigs and exploration gear are not expensive at the moment because of supply and demand, and therefore it is a great time. I would like specifically to say that we work very closely with Orlingas UK, with the Orlingas Authority, and the Samuel is doing a great job. I have worked very closely with him. I do not think that that is really accepted by all main parties anyway that support the Orlingas industry. They are doing work to encourage new fields such as Lancaster or Bentley, small pools, late-life extension and a technology centre. We have set up OJIC, which is funded to the tune of several million pounds, which does great work. There are lots of positives going on. Apache and TACA have made recent discoveries. Lewis MacDonald. I am very grateful to the minister. Will he agree with me that the Orlingas Authority directly spending money on exploration, as it spends £20 million on that in recent months, is the most effective way to enable the kind of exploration that we want to see offshore? I think that it is effective. I would doubt that it is the most effective, and there is no sign that the UK is going to repeat that £20 million in this year's budget. It was good work. We supported it. Incidentally, I think that Scottish universities at post-grad level can be put to use to analyse the data from that seismic work. I know that they can, and I have encouraged Andy Samuel to do just that for Scottish universities, but I do think that that needs to be supplemented, so I agree with some of that. In the time that I have left, I do think that it would be useful really, despite the ideological divide between the authors of this debate and almost all of the rest of us, to answer a fairly simple question. I mentioned in my opening speech that Claire, Kraken, Mariner, E-Tap, Quad, Calzine—they are all going ahead. The simple question is this. Do the Greens support those projects going ahead, or are they saying that, for their analysis, they think that those projects should be scrapped? I would be very interested to know if they will answer that question directly. I am grateful for the opportunity. We have consistently and include published proposals during the referendum campaign under the auspices of the green yes campaign, making it clear that the focus must shift from maximum extraction to maximum revenue generation in the shorter term, so that we invest the revenue—as Norway, for example, gets far more revenue for a barrel of oil than the UK does—invest the revenue in the transition. Unless we do that, then we are going to be left high and dry when the transition arrives, whether we like it or not. If that was the answer to my question, I think that everyone else will be as mystified as I am. I think that the truth is, as I close, that the Greens, for their reasons, want to essentially shut down the oil and gas industry. If they do not, they can make it clear whether they think that those new projects, which will sustain tens of thousands of jobs and which are great news for Scotland, should or should not go ahead. However, I welcome the opportunity to have this debate today. For my part, working with David Mundell, whom I will meet next Thursday, with the oil and gas industry visiting Aberdeen as I shall be next Monday and Tuesday, we will continue to demonstrate our support for the industry, not just by words but by deeds and do everything that we possibly can, working with others and all parties to help people through those times of the most severe challenges that the industry arguably has ever faced and do absolutely everything within our power to continue to do so, to help those people to continue in work and to do such a great job for this country. Thank you minister. I now call on Alison Johnstone to wind up the debate, please. 10 minutes, Ms Johnstone. I would like to start by thanking Leslie Brennan for choosing to make her first contribution to Parliament in this debate. Leslie Brennan said that at the heart of this motion is the economy and of course at the heart of the economy are people. This debate is about securing a prosperous future for Scotland and to do that we need to think ahead of the game to be open to change and be bold in our ambition for what we can achieve. Of course bold ambitions are admirable but they'll come to nothing without a serious and credible plan. We know that we're over-reliant on fossil fuels with all the financial, social and environmental risks that entails. Patrick Harvey, John Wilson and Jeane Irker have set out those risks well. Claudia Beamish spoke well of the opportunities that a low-carbon economy can bring and all colleagues have focused rightly on job losses, though we disagree on how best to secure those jobs in the long term. We know that the North Sea Oil and Gas industry is vitally important, but it can't sustain the jobs that it currently does forever. Today's job loss situation brings this into sharp focus. We must help people left out of work and it would be a reckless gamble on people's jobs not to plan alternatives, a transition that secures people's jobs and livelihoods and guarantees jobs in the new economy. Sandra White spoke of the need to involve workers. Absolutely, but let's not have constant post-redundancy action for those who work in oil and gas but be proactive ensuring job matching and reskilling now. We need a prosperous economy to drive investment into low-carbon jobs because nobody benefits from economic turbulence and unemployment. The Scottish Greens new economy report on what a transition could look like is clear that any response to climate change must be a job creator and a community rebuilder. Built on conservative estimates of the jobs required for an ambitious energy transition, the report shows how the new economy can employ thousands more than the old. Our 200,000 estimate is for direct jobs, high-paid and high-skilled jobs. We did not count so-called induced jobs, though those are a vital part of the picture, too, as Dennis Robertson and other colleagues have highlighted. I agree, too, with Dennis Robertson that we must all work together for a sustainable future. The Scottish Parliament can lead, but it can't do this alone. John Wilson highlighted the role of the trade unions in a just transition. It is clear that to deliver the low-carbon jobs and infrastructure that we need will require a whole-scale change of UK economic policy away from austerity towards investment. Today's debate showed that there is some consensus on the need for change. Lewis MacDonald was right to say that a transition driven by crisis would not be just, and our motion recognises that. Yet the big question remains. We know that we can't burn even half the world's fossil fuel reserves if we are to have a chance at avoiding catastrophic climate change, but every other party in this chamber advocates plowing on. Several members have spoken of the need for further exploration. The Bank of England warns of repricing risks. What that means is the risk that oil companies are holding billions of pounds of stranded assets and are significantly overvalued as a result. Some national pension schemes are beginning to recognise the potential and are divesting from fossil fuels now—they have already done so. I would be grateful if Alison Johnstone could answer the question that Mr Harvey did not answer, namely, do the Greens favour that the projects that I mentioned and the new projects should go ahead or not? Alison Johnstone? I think that Mr Harvey answered that question very fully. The Greens are not suggesting for under seconds that the oil industry should cease tomorrow. We are speaking on a just transition, one that will protect the thousands of jobs that have been lost and will continue to be lost in this industry, while the Scottish Government does not come forward with a credible plan. As I was saying, there are very big systemic risks with very real-world consequences for people, like those job losses, which other parties are intent on blindly ignoring. A healthy economy is vital for jobs, prosperity and for investment in the low-carbon economy. A disordered reduction in the fossil fuel industry is in no-one's interests. We need to plan for it. The SNP Government claimed that it is planning for the transition and credit where it is due. The Scottish Government has made considerable efforts to expand renewables, but it is just as fair to say that they are not passionately committed to reducing the burning of fossil fuels. On Monday in Westminster, Green MP Caroline Lucas spoke up again against the UK Government, which seems intent on pulling the rug from the renewables industry and throwing the crown jewels at Hinkley Point C nuclear reactor. In this debate, she spoke off the entrepreneur's call to climate action, a joint statement from 121 CEOs with international operations. They said that 100% fossil free solutions already exist, as opposed to a slightly better version of an already existing polluting alternative, so businesses in many cases are ahead of politicians. John McAlpine spoke of the need for greater devolved powers, and I agree, but if others are developing the skills in decommissioning, it is really important that we do that, too. Think of all the jobs that will exist in decommissioning, the opportunities there. If we are not decommissioning, other countries will be decommissioning on our behalf. I am grateful to the member for his introduction. Does the member agree with me, then, that we should try and ensure that our young workforce of the future is given the diverse skills that they can work in either industry, whether it be continuing the oil and gas, or indeed the renewables, such as AIS in West Elin Aberdeen? I certainly think that we should be skilling our young workforce as well as we possibly can, but it is certainly the case that renewables has a far greater, more sustainable future ahead of us, as is demonstrated by what is happening in the oil and gas industry at the moment. Murdo Fraser and the Minister demonstrated that there is no recognition of the real-world risk that Mark Carney tries to get us to recognise. That is the need for a reduction in fossil fuels, coupled with an increase in low-carbon jobs, both sides of the same coin. Half our electricity now comes from renewables. We are halfway to the 100 per cent target, and that is great progress. However, there are so many more opportunities. Only 15 per cent of total energy needs were met by renewables in 2015, and Scottish renewables predict that that will rise to 28 per cent by 2020. To keep us on the right track, they propose a 50 per cent renewable target for 2030. To grow our renewables output, we need to harness the skills and experience of those currently working in the North Sea—subsea engineers, machine operators, helicopter pilots, surveyors, welders and many others—to build and maintain offshore energy infrastructure. We need thousands of workers to make the transition to a healthy, sustainable and climate-safe society and economy, and we have the skills and expertise to do it. In 2014, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills published a report complaining and comparing the supply chain needed for offshore wind to existing industries and supply chains. There are many synergies. There are high synergies for surveys, subsea array cables for wind farm design, building substations, monopole foundations and so on. For 75 per cent of the offshore wind supply chain, there are existing expertise in the oil industry that has been applied to wind. What that means is that people directly and indirectly employed by North Sea oil are extremely well placed to build Scotland's offshore renewable infrastructure. We don't have all the skills for the transition, but our existing industries give us an incredible kickstart, but we need to plan and invest to deliver the rest. We need that massive increase in apprenticeships, coupled with a focus on breaking down the gender segregation, which is so evident in our modern apprenticeships. Skills gaps hinder progress. Even in London, they were stymied when they tried to increase building retrofitting by a lack of workers with appropriate skills, but the oil and renewable industries already face a shortage of skilled offshore workers. Without a good depth of skills and companies able to deliver infrastructure, prices can shoot up, and this is already a concern when we look at flood defence mechanisms in this country. None of this means an end for oil and gas in Scotland. We have to adapt, but we have no doubt that the North Sea and its oil and gas still have an important role to play in our economic future. From school rulers to roofing tiles, from pipes to paint, from ink to contact lenses, the raw materials come from the North Sea. Vitally important ingredients for medicines are found here, too. Surely we should seek to lengthen the longevity of uses like this. In 20 years time, people may look back and wonder why we burnt such valuable, irreplaceable resources, such as oil and gas, long after we became aware of alternatives. Scotland can deliver a safer and more stable economy with stronger communities and secure employment. We can do that by securing jobs today, planning the transition and being bold in our ambition for jobs of tomorrow. I commend the green motion. Thank you. That concludes the debate on jobs in Scotland. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am sorry for not raising this to your attention in advance. You frequently remind members who have taken part in debates that they should be present in the chamber, not just present but present, to listen to the closing speeches. I wonder if that principle also applies to a minister representing the Government in this debate today, who chose to spend time wondering about the back of the chamber during both the opening and closing speeches from the party bringing the debate. I do, with respect in response to that judgment, point out that I have been in the chamber for one comfort break throughout the whole debate. I have consulted with civil servants at the back intermittently and I have listened to all members, I hope, with courtesy and respect. As I have not been present for most of the day myself, then I have no further comment to make on it. The next item of business is consideration of business motion number 15370 in the name of Jo Fitzpatrick on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a business programme. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press a request to speak now. I call on Jo Fitzpatrick to move motion number 15370. No member has asked to speak against the motion, therefore I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion number 15370 in the name of Jo Fitzpatrick be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next item of business is consideration of business motion number 15368 in the name of Jo Fitzpatrick, set now on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a stage one timetable. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press a request to speak now. I call on Jo Fitzpatrick to move motion number 15368. No member has asked to speak against the motion, therefore I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion number 15368 in the name of Jo Fitzpatrick be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next item of business is consideration of business motion number 15369 in the name of Jo Fitzpatrick on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a stage two timetable. Any member wishes to speak against the motion should press a request to speak button now. I call on Jo Fitzpatrick to move motion number 15369. No member has asked to speak against the motion, therefore I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion number 15369 in the name of Jo Fitzpatrick be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next item of business is consideration of four parliamentary bureau motions. I would ask Jo Fitzpatrick to move motion number 15373 to 15375 on approval of SSIs on block and motion number 15372 on substitution on committees. Moved on block. The question is on these motions. We will put a decision time to which we now come. There are six questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is amendment number 15356.2.1 in the name of Murdo Fraser, which seeks to amend amendment number 15356.2 in the name of Fergus Ewing on jobs in Scotland's new economy be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed to move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 15356.2.1 in the name of Murdo Fraser is as follows. Yes, 12. No, 70. There were 29 abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I now remind members that if the amendment in the name of Fergus Ewing is agreed, the amendment in the name of Lewis MacDonald falls. The next question is amendment number 15356.2 in the name of Fergus Ewing, which seeks to amend motion number 15356 in the name of Patrick Harvey on jobs in Scotland's new economy be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 15356.2 in the name of Fergus Ewing is yes, 76. No, 35. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed to. The amendment in the name of Lewis MacDonald falls. Is it motion number 15356 in the name of Patrick Harvey as amended on jobs in Scotland's new economy be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 15356. In the name of Patrick Harvey as amended is as follows, yes, 104. No, six. There were no abstentions. The motion as amended is therefore agreed to. I propose to ask a single question on motions number 15373 to 15375 on approval of SFSIs. If any member objects to a single question, please say so now. No member has objected to a single question being put there for the question is that motions number 15373 to 15375 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on approval of SFSIs be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is that motion number 15372 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on substitution on committees be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. That concludes decision time. We now move to members business. Members to leave the chamber should do so quickly and quietly.