 I remind members of the Covid-related measures that are in place and that face coverings should be worn when moving around the chamber and across the Holywood campus. The next item of business is a debate on motion 2429 in the name of Richard Lochhead on delivering a just transition to net zero and climate resilience for Scotland. I would invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to please press the request to speak buttons now and a call on Richard Lochhead Minister to speak to and to move the motion up to seven minutes please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Scotland's journey to net zero in 2045, when we aim to end our contribution to global warming, will transform how we live and work and our economy and society. Climate change is quite rightly viewed as a threat to Scotland and the world, but how we respond is important as it can also be a window of opportunity to a better country and improve the quality of life for our people. We also have to face up to the concerns that many people in businesses and communities will be feeling at the current time. Going forward, we need to reassure our people that they will benefit from good green jobs and that no one will be left behind or be expected to carry a disproportionate burden in terms of who pays for net zero, and that is why a just transition is so important. All of us have a duty to debate those matters seriously in the times ahead and work constructively, together, hopefully, where possible, and just transition matters to the entire country and its full range of jobs and people, from energy to farming, retail to construction and so on. There can be a tendency to focus on specific challenges for individual sectors and regions, but we will only deliver a just transition if it is a truly national endeavour. At COP26 in Glasgow, I heard delegates from all over the world showing great interest in the approach that we have taken here in Scotland, where we are planning to manage the transition to net zero in an orderly manner in line with the recommendation of our just transition commission. That is not about simple and easy on and off switches for any particular sector or industry. The emphasis must be on the need to transition over the coming decades, and I recognise the need to ramp up delivery of where to meet our ambitions. That is very much the message that I took from the climate change committee's progress report that was published just today. As well as the challenges, they note that there has been significant advancements in the Scottish climate policy ambition over the last year and their focus and leadership on just transition as well. A cornerstone of—I will take it if I can get my time added on, yeah? I am very grateful to the member for taking on the intervention. Would he also, except from the report this morning that they were asking for the Government to be more transparent in how those policies will actually deliver the targets that you have set? We have been and will continue to be transparent, but of course we will listen to the recommendations in the report today and respond in due course. A cornerstone of a just transition is creating good green jobs and new industries. In the next decade, we will see the jobs available and the skills required begin to look very different. That is one reason why we have committed the Government to developing a skills guarantee for workers in carbon-intensive sectors, but there is also an opportunity to improve the quality of jobs available to people. To give one example of how all that aligns, we have committed to invest £1.8 billion in heat and energy efficiency over the course of this Parliament, and through that investment, we will seek to apply fair work conditions, ensuring that new green jobs, created as a result of that, are good for both people and the planet. The transition clearly impacts on livelihoods, but it also impacts on communities as well, and we know all too well the legacy of poorly managed industrial transitions in Scotland. Many have drawn parallels with the future of the north-east today, home to our oil and gas industry. This Government will not stand by and allow the mistakes of the past to be repeated. Communities across the country will see a fair transition to net zero. I want to say that anyone who thinks that we can switch off our use of fossil fuels for instance overnight does not live in the real world. Likewise, anyone who thinks that change is too difficult and we should continue with business as usual also does not live in the real world, the real world that is endangered by global warming. There is understandably much focus on Scotland's offshore sector, and I believe that the industry has an essential role to play in our transition to net zero. The pioneering spirit, the innovation, the investment, the experience are all essential for the transition to renewables and low-carbon technologies, and we have to harness that. Most of all, the people that work in the industry are pivotal and must have a voice. We must harness their skills and listen to them and listen to their knowledge and work with them to drive our net zero transition forward. That is again one reason why we have committed to a 10-year £500 million just transition fund for the north-east in Moray, and why our first just transition plan will have an energy focus. I thought that that might attract some interventions. If time is added on, yes. Minister, which member are you taking in? Apologies, I'll take a test. Thank you minister. Will the minister welcome the UK Government's investment in tidal energy? I welcome any investments in renewable opportunities, but the member will be aware that there was massive disappointment that it was not a much greater investment that should be required to move forward at a faster pace. I hope that she will take that message to the UK Government, because the UK Government has to play its role here as well. It can start not only by addressing that issue but also by reversing the illogical decision that is taken to overlook the Scottish carbon capture utilisation and storage cluster for track 1 status, which would have supported over 15,000 green jobs alone from next year, while utilising the skills of our oil and gas sector as demonstrated by a report by Scottish Enterprise that has just been released today. I will add on a bit of time for the interventions. Very grateful. Is the minister aware that the selection of the carbon capture was done on objective criteria, because he does not appear to be? What I am aware of is that Sir Ian Wood and others said that it is environmentally and economically at the wrong decision, and it is like leaving your best player on a subs bench when you are playing a football match. The whole of the north-east is united against the decision that the UK Government took, and it is united in calling for the UK Government to reverse that decision so that we can get on with creating those green jobs and going towards our net zero targets. Presiding Officer, our net zero ambitions will generate a green jobs bonanza. In fact, it is already happening and at pace. Just last week, Pricewaterhouse Cooper released a report that plays Scotland as the top performer in the UK in terms of green jobs created. From climate savvy gin production in St Boswell to sustainable food packaging made from seaweed in Oban, our economy is changing, and we have seen of course Scottish-based firms such as SSE, which alone is proposing private investment of over £12 billion over the next five years to accelerate our net zero journey, creating thousands of green jobs across the nation. I am sure that we will want to welcome last week's news of the Port of Nigwinter factory, which is expected to create more than 400 jobs at the site. Another example of how our existing capabilities can be directed towards the net zero transition. I can also confirm today that our public investment through the green jobs fund has seen £12.3 million awarded so far this year and is expected to create and safeguard over 850 green jobs as well. As numerous recent reports have highlighted, we have the potential to create hundreds of thousands of new green jobs from hydrogen to offshore wind to decarbonising heating in our buildings. We are on the cusp of a truly astonishing green jobs revolution in every corner of Scotland. I can also announce that the new year will publish our work towards and Scottish definition of green jobs, which will help to guide our activity going forward. Just to finish, I want to provide a quick update on the new Just Transition Commission. The remit of the new commission was announced earlier in the year, and it is asked to provide both advice and scrutiny on the Government's approach to co-designing just transition plans for sectors and regions. I have already confirmed that Professor Jim Skea will continue in his role as chair. We have now approached members for the new commission and I will be announcing the full membership next week. I can confirm that we will take a dual approach to the commission with some members appointed for the full parliamentary term and others on a fixed-term basis to bring their expertise to a particular plan. We must ensure in closing that our climate action is used wherever possible to support our broader economic and social objectives. That is what the Just Transition is all about, avoiding past mistakes and making sure that we are planning in an orderly fashion the way forward to deliver a net zero Scotland. The Scottish Conservatives believe in a fair and well-managed transition to net zero. It is critical to safeguarding jobs in the energy sector. It is critical to protecting the UK's energy security. It is critical to a green recovery. Decarbonising our economy does not mean shutting down the oil and gas industry as soon as possible. You simply cannot turn off the taps and you cannot ignore demand, which is set to continue until at least 2050. Instead, decarbonising our economy requires careful planning and collaboration between governments, businesses, workers, investors and civil society. The Just Transition commission, which was reported in March this year, has helped to focus minds in this regard. However, as the Scottish Conservatives amendment emphasises, talk of a Just Transition must lead to meaningful action. Professor Jim Sgear, the commission's chair, said this morning that the big message is that we really need to get on with it. The climate change committee's latest report on Scotland's climate change plan is clear. Most of the key policy levers are now in the hands of the Scottish Government, but promises have not yet turned into action. In this new Parliament, consultations and strategies must turn decisively to implementation. The UK Government's landmark North Sea transition deal, developed in partnership with industry, body oil and gas UK, is the first of its kind by any G7 country. It contains more than 50 actions to meet the UK's climate targets by harnessing the expertise of the North Sea sector. That is not about managing the industry's decline, but managing its diversification to greener and more sustainable energy sources so that it can thrive for decades to come. We know that many businesses in the energy sector are already diversifying beyond oil and gas, but that they are experiencing difficulties recruiting the right technical skills. That is why implementing the people and skills plan in the North Sea transition deal is so important. We know that workers in the sector have skills and knowledge that will transition well to renewables. Research from Robert Gordon University shows that this applies to more than 90 per cent of the UK's oil and gas workforce. The loss of their expertise would be a massive blow to our net zero ambitions. As an MSP for the north-east, those families and communities supported by the oil and gas sector are at the forefront of my mind today. Yesterday, I met representatives from Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce, who were optimistic about the region's resilience and recovery, yet they emphasised that there is still a long way to go. Even before the coronavirus outbreak, the north-east had to contend with the oil price collapse and a significant downturn in the industry. Analysis from the Fraser of Allander Institute suggests that, while other areas of Scotland have recovered pretty well, the north-east is lagging behind every other region. Against that background, energy sector workers have listened to language about oil and gas from this SNP-green coalition Government with alarm. Will you take the intervention? I thank Tess White for taking the intervention, but Tess White agrees with me that standing up for 100,000 jobs in the north-east and standing up for energy security is not, in the words of a Scottish Government Minister, a far-right position. I agree with the member for Patrick Harvie, a Scottish Government Minister who is not here today, with a ministerial car and a salary to match, to suggest that only those on the hard right support oil and gas extraction, and that is quite frankly insulting to the workers in the sector. Patrick Harvie should try to tell the engineer who bought a house for his family in Ellen only to be laid off. He cannot now afford to pay his mortgage, to gloat about an exploration project hitting the skids when that project could create a thousand jobs is disgraceful. It is typical of the shortsightedness of the Scottish Greens who would prefer us to import oil from abroad which has a much higher carbon footprint than meat demand domestically. It is dangerous to demonise an industry, particularly when the financial and emotional wellbeing of workers and communities in my region is at risk. To live with the constant threat and worry of whether they will have a job next month or next year is exhausting. The oil and gas industry is not a villain. As SNP MP Stephen Flynn said last week, it should not be denigrated. Sir Ian Ward has warned politicians risk creating an adverse investment environment for the sector. There is nothing just or fair about that. Let us not forget that it is the energy companies who are investing their money, their time and just in my final few paragraphs, minister. Let us not forget that it is the energy companies who are investing their money, time and technical expertise in renewable energy sources. We all agree that we must work towards a more sustainable future, but our economy must be to secure a fair and managed transition to net zero for those people who rely on the energy sector for their livelihoods. At decision time today, the Scottish Conservatives will support the SNP motion. We are sympathetic to the Labour amendment, but its successful passage would remove our own call for meaningful action. Given the findings of the climate change committee's report today, we feel that it is important to press this point, and as such we will not support the Labour amendment today. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We know that the clock is ticking if we were to stop the climate emergency from becoming a climate catastrophe. We know that COP26 barely kept 1.5 degrees alive, and if Governments do not turn their warm words and agreement into practical actions on the ground, it will be the death nail for an ambition that is already disastrous for many islands. We know that here in Scotland we may have challenging targets, but we still do not have a clear plan that comes close to delivering net zero by 2045 and arguably more challenging than a 75 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030. Scotland continues to consistently miss our emissions reduction targets despite significant deindustrialisation in recent years, and the longer we take to put in place a proper plan to meet those targets, the less likely any transition will be a just one. Labour welcomes the commitment to a more long-term just transmission commission, and we believe that it should have a statutory back-end, and we commend the work of the previous commission. The Government's response to its recommendations was too timid. It has become the norm that the rhetoric is not matched by the reality, but there is still no plan to prevent the weight of climate change landing on the shoulders of the poor. Transport, for example, remains the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions responsible for more than a third, with levels barely below 1990, yet we have a green SMP coalition hiking up rail fares in a few weeks and axing 300 trains a day from May. That is 100,000 a year compared to pre-pandemic levels, and we still have not given councils the powers that are secured in the transport bill to run their own local bus services at a time. Our bus network is being dismantled route by route, and fares rise and rise and rise, in fact, 50 per cent under this government. That is not a just transition. Agriculture is five years since the Brexit vote, and now just three years until the end of the transition period for a sector. That, by definition, needs time to plan, but where emissions are still flatlining yet, there are still no details from the Government on how future farm and rural payments will deliver any managed transition, never mind a just one. On heating and buildings, the minister referred to an investment of £1.8 billion, but we know that the bill is £33 billion, £5 billion alone for councils to refit council homes. It is not clear that the costs will not land on the backs of rent payers. We all remember Alex Salmond's promise that Scotland would be the Saudi Arabia of renewables, but a decade on from the SMP pledging 130,000 green jobs by 2020, the number directly employed in the low-carbon and renewable economy is just 21,400, the lowest since 2014. I will take an intervention yet. Does the member agree that the Scottish Labour position on cambo has jeopardised 1,000 jobs in the energy sector? The reality is that people in the energy sector are already losing their jobs and they are getting very little support, I have to say, from the UK Government at a time that oil prices are falling, particularly given the fact that there are no proposals or plans from the UK Government to support those workers in a just transition. It is little wonder that when it comes to Governments, either UK or Scottish, delivering a just transition, there is scepticism even from members of the Scottish Government's own just transition commission. As Richard Hardy, the Scottish Secretary of Prospect Union said of the Government's response to the commission's recommendations, it lacks any clear strategy for creating new high-quality jobs. He added that it is very disappointing and unions argued long and hard in the commission for a more interventionist approach on this key issue. That is exactly what we need. If the transition to a low-carbon economy is left largely to market forces as the Conservatives want, we will repeat the devastating social and economic impact experienced by our communities when the coal mines closed. That will need more than a Government motion that pats itself on the back for a framework that, frankly, has not even yet been published. It will need a relentless focus on how a climate recovery will support those unemployed as a result of the current economic crisis and the transition that we face. It will need a bold industrial strategy that lays out how domestic manufacturing capacity must evolve to ensure the growth in domestic renewable energy production actually translates into new jobs in Scotland. It will need a jobs first transition, which is why Labour has established its own energy transition commission, focused on as we move to net zero how we can protect jobs and also deliver energy security. It will need a partnership approach with those workers who are most affected, particularly oil and gas workers. They are not the hard right. They are not criminals that deserve to be purished. They are ordinary workers, often working in the most trying conditions to meet Scotland's energy needs with invaluable skills that will continue to do so in the energy sector of the future. Meeting with them and their employers is not something for Government ministers to slag off. Frankly, it is something that shows that you respect the fact that workers understand their industry and they have the right to plan and shape their futures. I am therefore happy to move the amendment in my name. It makes it absolutely clear that a transition can only be just when workers have a say in the future of their livelihoods, their communities and their climate. It is time for a transition to a modern low-carbon economy, but it is a just one that genuinely puts protecting workers' livelihoods at its very heart. The purpose of this short debate is perhaps a little hard to discern, but if it provides the chance for Parliament to restate our collective commitment to a just transition that puts workers and citizens first, one that ensures a resilient economy built on green jobs, then it may yet be an hour well spent. Yet the motion itself is rather self-congratulatory. Of course, ministers like to talk of this Parliament having passed world-leading climate legislation, and I am certainly proud of the role my party played in pushing the Government to be more ambitious on the interim targets for 2030. The truth is, though, that target setting is easy. Developing detailed plans, committing necessary resources, in short, delivery is the hard but crucial part, and as today's report by the Climate Change Committee shows, once again, the Scottish Government's plans are heavy on promises but light on action. The committee criticises what it sees as a lack of detail in ministers' plans for how Scotland's targets are to be achieved if we are to make it to net zero by 2045. That is against the backdrop of Scotland having already missed its emissions targets again and again over recent years. In some areas such as heat, we are actually going backwards. As for the Green Jobs revolution, we have been promised for almost 15 years dating back to Alex Salmond's time as First Minister, while that is a top that has never been properly walked. Given the lack of progress made in key areas over recent years, given the urgency of the climate emergency and the importance of securing a meaningful just transition, the Government cannot continue, as it has been doing, making bold pronouncements and finding someone else to blame when things are not delivered. Key to a just transition is the creation of new green jobs. We cannot afford, nor would it be right, to leave people and communities behind, as Colin Smith rightly emphasised. To achieve that, however, will require plans that are both radical and credible. That is why the Scottish Liberal Democrats want to see home insulation declare the national strategic priority with a target set to have all areas of the country covered by 2030. That must be matched by budgets to meet the ambition, including a doubling of fuel poverty funding and incentives for householders to take early action. An initial five-year programme could see improvements made to 80,000 homes per year and a name to switch a million homes from polluting men's gas to heat pumps by 2030. All in all, that has the potential to create an estimated 34,000 new jobs in energy efficiency. We also want to see the expertise of those in the oil and gas sector put to good use in the just transition. The sector's technical and engineering expertise will be vital in delivering our plans for warmer homes, new heat networks and hydrogen power. We support the development of a centre of excellence for carbon capture and efficient energy generation. We would involve the construction and renewables industries, along with utilities companies, in partnership with colleges, universities and planners to ensure that every opportunity is taken to create an economy that is fit for the future. The potential of such partnerships can already be seen in my own Orkney constituency, where proposals have been put forward to redevelop flota terminal into one of the world's first large-scale green hydrogen hubs. I had the pleasure of meeting some of those involved in the project yesterday, and the potential is certainly exciting, both in a local, national and indeed international context. Further enhancing Orkney's reputation is being at the forefront of renewable energy innovation. Scotland's targets for net zero are bold, ambitious and are the right thing to do. However, we need Government to pick up the pace and start walking its world-leading talk if we have any chance of making those ambitions a reality. In 1904, the Orkbank oil company built the Nidrycastle oilworks at Winchborough in my constituency. The irony is that far along before the electrification of the nearby Edinburgh to Glasgow railway line, the works were connected to the shale mines in the area by an electric narrow gauge tramway. For several decades in the 19th century, Scotland was the leading oil producer in the world. West Lothian has many former coal mining communities, strong towns and villages and people, but are brutalised by the unjust transition of the abrupt and political end of coal mining. The consequences of generational mass unemployment can run deep and long, and despite the resilience and capability of the county, the impact can still be felt. It is not the first time that our workers and communities have faced industrial transition. Yes, the British Leyland car plant in Bathgate got replaced by Inwood investment with a motorola plant in 3,000 houses. Yes, Whitburn, Polkemets smoking bing is now the heartlands estate, but not everyone was helped and not always with skilled work and good wages. As the Just Transition Commission reports states, the transition needs to be a national mission with social justice at its heart, something that is achieved by the people of Scotland, not done to the people of Scotland. A just transition with skills and training that helps to secure good high-value jobs in green industries, job security for those in industries that will play the biggest part in the transition and with costs that do not burden those that are least able to pay. However, you cannot have detailed just transition if you do not have detailed climate change plans, and the criticism today from the UK climate committee must be addressed by ministers. Government cannot and will not do that by themselves. It needs industry, investors, energy companies, unions and public sector working together. The £110 million facility proposed for NIG with a prospect of 400 jobs in an offshore wind factory is a major step in the right direction. However, Scotland will be running on the dual fuel model of carbon and renewable energy for some time, and we need to have a sensible, collective, joined-up solution for transition. The workers involved need to be reskilled along that journey and job opportunities and investments identified. Oil and gas companies and their workers are and must be part of that just transition. From COP26, paragraph 85 of the Glasgow climate pact has, for the first time, a reference to just transition. How we do that is of great interest to others and other Governments. In the recent report by PWC, Scotland scored 62 out of 100 in the green jobs barometer. It was the top-ranked part of the UK, and for every one green job that was created in Scotland, an additional three jobs are created elsewhere in the economy. However, in a world where international investments can go anywhere, we need to anchor our transition with Scottish-owned, not just based companies, and we need to build in the sustainability of the whole supply chain and procurement activity. As we know from West Lothian transitions, inward investment is mobile and can leave. No Government in the world has done enough to introduce the changes needed, but there is no country in the world quite like Scotland with our experience from shale, to coal, to cars, to electric hydro and nuclear, to oil and gas, to wind, wave and tidal, and now with a focus and drive to hydrogen. Yes, we will debate, question and scrutinise the steps on the way, but let us stand today, united and committed, to adjust transition and to make it happen for our communities, our country and our climate. Cross-party agreement in this Parliament about the need to transition to net zero in a fair and managed fashion. I agree with many of the headline policies that the Scottish Government has announced to address the climate crisis, and I agree with a number of the remarks just made by Fiona Hyslop. However, I have genuine concerns about how the headline policies are being implemented, the lack of resource, personnel and budgets being dedicated. Frankly, I have a genuine question about whether this Government is more interested in headlines than delivering the real transformation that is required. Those exact same concerns were expressed today by the independent UK climate change committee in its progress report. It expressed real doubts as to whether Scotland would reach the 2030 interim targets, because of what it highlighted as a concern over clarity and transparency on policy, that there is little detail to support the delivery of that policy and implementation has been lacking. In the spirit of co-operation, let me try to help the minister here and provide some recent examples of what the climate change committee is referring to in its concerns. In 2017, the First Minister announced the headline policy of a publicly-owned energy company that would tackle fuel poverty, reduce energy prices and help meet climate targets. That remained a key Scottish Government policy for the best part of four years, with half a million pounds of taxpayers' money spent on feasibility studies, but that policy was quietly airbrushed away during summer recess and replaced with the new headline policy of a national public energy agency, announced with the ambitious objectives of decarbonising homes and buildings and reducing fuel poverty so far so good. That sounds like a good policy, but again, on closer inspection, it turns out just to be a headline, with the cabinet secretary confirming to the net zero committee that this virtual agency will be no more than a website with no additional resource, budget or staffing. In other words, a headline policy with no substance has been replaced with another headline policy with no substance. That minister is something that I have genuine concerns about. The policy intention, I think, is good, but the delivery is failing. If we look at the Scottish Government motion today, we see the same approach being taken, proclaiming that this is the first Government in the world to commit to a just transition planning framework. I thank the member for giving way. He has referred to the Climate Change Committee's report, published this morning a number of times. One of the references in that report is that, if our carbon capture storage projects do not get the go-ahead in Scotland, we will have to up the commitments to other measures in Scotland, which the members have said are very challenging at the moment. Does it not make sense for the UK Government to give the go-ahead to the one project that is ready to go, the ACORN project, so that we can get on with achieving our net zero targets and creating those good green jobs? I am glad to know that the Scottish cluster is in the first reserve list and continues to get significant support from the UK Government, including £31 million to date. I am pretty sure that it has a healthy future backed by UK Government financing, which I believe that it has not received any financing from the Scottish Government. My question to the minister and perhaps he could address this is in relation to the policy framework referred to in the Scottish Government motion today. What does it mean? How will it be financed? I do not see any targets or any meaningful way that this policy can be measured or delivered against. On the subject to retraining and creating new jobs, there is real concern over the green jobs academy policy, how it will operate and the resources involved behind it. Again, the net zero committee heard evidence that the green jobs academy is just a website setting out a list of jobs with the STUC telling the committee that it will not change any of the fundamentals of job creation or the skills required. They go on to say that what is required and said is a far more fundamental policy change to deliver on jobs and a just transition. Let me conclude again by quoting the climate change committee today. Although it says that a broad set of policies and proposals have been announced by the Scottish Government, there is little detail on exactly how emissions will be reduced in practice and, most concerningly, they go on to say that the credibility of the Scottish climate framework is in jeopardy. I will use the short time available to me to outline some concerns about the failure to date to take the steps that we need to ensure that we are creating the green jobs that we need, despite ambitious targets. Despite previous ambitious targets, jobs have not been created in the numbers and on the terms and conditions that are required to make a just transition possible, and unless we see seismic change, there will be no just transition. There is no doubt that we need a jobs and a workers-led transition with the trade unions at the heart of this debate in all sectors. However, as has been said previously, the latest figures from the ONS show that an estimated 21,400 direct full-time equivalent jobs were created in the low-carbon and renewable energy economy in 2019, the last year that we have figures, and that that was a fall from 23,100 the previous year and the lowest direct employment since 2014. The Scottish Government promised 130,000 green jobs by 2020, but the number of people directly employed in the low-carbon and renewable energy economy, as has been said, is 21,400 the lowest level since 2014. My concern is that we really do not have a strategy presented today as to how we will create those new high-quality jobs. The Conservative Party amendment welcomes the UK Government's North Sea transition deal, which includes a commitment to work with employers to secure joint investment of £16 billion to retrain their workforces. However, that deal fails to recognise the nature of the workforce, much of which are contractors and therefore will not benefit from that deal. The recent debate on offshore training passports outlined the transferable skills that many oil and gas workers have. The Robert Gordon University work found that more than 90 per cent of the UK's oil and gas workforce have medium top-level skills transferability and were placed to work in adjacent energy sectors. That report projected that 100,000 in that sector are likely to be in jobs that have transferred from existing oil and gas to offshore renewable roles. Of course, that is only approximately half of the workforce that we are talking about. The announcement on Campbell makes clear that change is coming. Green well-paid jobs, however, are not currently being created in the numbers that are required, and much more needs to be done by both Governments to make them a reality. Of course, Scotland has huge potential to lead the way in renewable energy, but our history is one of innovation and invention but of failing to turn that into mass production. Of course, that is what has happened in the renewable sector in recent decades. We need an industrial strategy that lays out how domestic industrial capacity will ensure the growth in renewable energy production and new jobs in Scotland. As a first step, we need to create a publicly owned energy company, but we also need to look at municipal energy production such as the solar energy farms that are being created by North Asia Council. The model of public energy provision is mainstream in many other parts of the world, including Germany and the United States. I welcome the debate on all sides, but I have to say that, to deliver a just transition, we need to be more radical. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. A just transition is key as we move from fossil fuels over the next number of years. Yesterday, I, along with other SNP colleagues, met with the Scottish Renewables, and we heard of the opportunities of the renewable sector in Scotland, delivering an additional 17,000 jobs with an additional 33 billion of GBA by 2030. We also heard from Eileen MacArthur earlier on about the opportunities around 34,000 jobs in retrofin. As Tess White and Kate Clark mentioned, there was also the recent report by Robert Gordon University stating that 90 per cent of oil and gas industry jobs have medium to high transferability into green and net zero industries, and there lies the opportunities for us. On planning for a managed transition, we need this period of change to be shaped proactively. It has been mentioned before that I read about the new Just Transmission Commission being recently announced, and it is led by Professor Jim Schia. Obviously, he has a group co-chair of the United Nations IPCC. That is an important point, and it has been brought up by a few people as well. The commission will provide scrutiny and advice on the on-going development of the Scottish Government-led transition plans, and that is quite right. Every Government should be held to account, including the application of the Just Transition Planning framework. It will also advise on the most suitable approaches to monitoring and evaluation. I look forward to debating that when it comes forward next year. The commission will also undertake engagement with those most likely to be impacted by the transition, hearing from a broad range of representative voices. I think that Katie Clark mentioned it about the unions that are vital and important, as we look at them. As I said before, there will be an annual report to reflect on the progress, and, of course, held to account. That was mentioned in the CCC call for transparency this morning. The initial Just Transition Report was organised into four overarching themes, planning for a managed transition, quickening people with knowledge and skills, involving those who impacted through co-design and calibration, and spreading the benefits of the transition widely. In my short time, I want to focus on two. One is planning for a managed transition to net zero that maximises the economic and social opportunities while managing the risks. Secondly, people in Scotland will be equipped with knowledge and skills that they need to engage with and benefit from the net zero transition. We are putting in place safety nets so that no one is left behind. On managing the transition and maximising economic benefit, we need to continue to set just transition plans for high-emitting industrial sectors of the Scottish economy. We need to continue to set out clear milestones out to 2045, working with industry, unions and local communities to consult needs on the best way to develop and implement these. The public sector must be more strategic in its use of funding streams to build strong and resilient local supply chains, ensuring maximum economic benefit. I am already undertaking work with my local authority in this regard. Scotland's wind opportunities now and in the future must be utilised to secure new opportunities for the Scottish supply chain. The recent Scottish offshore wind energy council strategic investment analysis support looked at the opportunities for Scottish companies in the developing market and benefit from a growing global market. On skills, in Scotland, we need to ensure that we are equipped with knowledge and skills to ensure that we are in a position to engage with and benefit from the net zero transition, ensuring that no one is left behind. A just transmission will demand a steady adaptation of skills and workforce practices in a way that will protect jobs and meet employer demand, contributing to tackle in equality. The climate change emergency skills action plan CSAP, published at the end of 2020, set out an overarching approach for managing the skills transition. The CSAP implementation plan outlines an ambitious, cohesive approach to green skills and green jobs. The initial Just Transmission Commission recommended the creation of such a skills guarantee for workers in carbon intensive sectors who may find demand for their skills decline or even disappear as economy changes. To conclude, the renewables opportunities present great opportunity. We need to maximise the benefits for Scottish companies with a highly skilled workforce and strong supply chain. We also need to ensure that there is a safety net to support the transition of workers and ensure that their skills and experience, built up of where many years are retained within the Scottish economy. Post COP26 is a critical time to be doubling down on the climate science while ramping up action on a just transition. The oil and gas corporations have, for decades, funded climate denial. It is no wonder that recent polling shows that the majority of the public do not trust them to lead the just transition. However, the oil and gas workers deserve our respect, our support and solidarity for the huge contribution that they have made to our energy needs since the 1970s. They should be the ones leading the just transition. However, for years, they have faced uncertainty in a boom and bust sector. Despite an eye-watering £13.6 billion of tax subsidy donated to the oil and gas sector by the UK Government since the Paris agreement was signed, there continue to be major job losses. Over 10,000 job losses in the oil and gas sector over the past year, in a sector that employs directly just over 30,000, with nearly three quarters of workers now employed ad hoc as contractors. It is no wonder that over 80 per cent of oil and gas workers in a recent survey said that they would consider moving to a different sector with over half of those interested in renewables and offshore wind. Job security was cited as the biggest factor in that survey. However, the UK policy of maximum economic recovery of oil and gas does not help with that just transition. It postpones action, it drags investment away from renewables and creates a future cliff edge for workers. It also critically undermines the global UN climate negotiations, making it impossible to ask countries to adopt the language of phasing out coal when we will not phase out our own oil and gas. The policy of maximum economic recovery could lead to a future sudden collapse in jobs where climate impacts lead to a high carbon price, shutting down production. If we can learn anything from the Tory's brutal dismantling of the coal industry in the 1980s, it is that sudden collapses like that punish communities for generations. I have time, unfortunately, but it is absurd to say that stopping cambo would mean turning off the taps on North Sea oil and gas, leading to that kind of unmanaged collapse. There are already 6.5 billion barrels of oil in over 200 fields already licensed in the North Sea, enough to see us through years and years of energy transition. It is clear that cambo would be disastrous. The emissions from burning all 800 million barrels of oil in the field would be 10 times the annual emissions of Scotland, lasting well beyond 2045 when we are meant to be a net zero country. Where would the jobs go? Sicker point energy has said that the engineering construction work would be outsourced to a firm based in Singapore. The whole operation is designed to need just 100 to 150 staff who could end up being drafted in from anywhere in the world. Calling a halt to cambo and other new fields is the start of a managed transition rather than a future based on the economic chaos of stranded assets that we cannot afford to burn. There have been years of warnings from Mark Carney to the IEA of exactly this scenario. The announcement of the turbine tower factory at Niglas week was a hugely important step. It needs to be the first of many more announcements that build a high-value supply chain in Scotland with quality, fair jobs. The just transition must follow the climate science, but it must also be designed by the women and men whose livelihoods depend on its success rather than listening wholly to corporate boardrooms that have continually let workers and our climate down for many years. We are having this debate against a backdrop of COP26 having just been held, and Patrick Harvie rejoising in the potential loss of nearly 100,000 energy jobs in Scotland. The same Mr Harvie who insists on giving cyclists a bad name every time he gets on his bike, whether it be for a ministerial photo call or not. It is transport that I want to focus my comments on because it is our biggest emitter of greenhouse gases. We need to decarbonise aviation as much as possible, our ferries, which should not involve buying second hand diesel boats, our trains, buses, lorries and cars. There is a lot to do. We also need to get more people making those very small local journeys under their own steam where possible, so that is cycling, walking and wheeling. The Government motion refers to the just transition commission report and the Government's response to it. On transport, the response says the ambition is that public transport and active modes of travel are the norm, supplemented by zero emissions vehicles where needed, which is all fine. The challenge is how to get there. If we want to get more people on to public transport then the services have to be there for them to use and they need to be at fares that are affordable, so cutting train services is not the way, as Colin Smith noted. Having public transport deserts, as we do in some places, is not the way. We need to move to a fully integrated system and we are a long way from having that. Public transport is nowhere near being the norm. We have yet to see significant reform of the bus system. We do not yet know what the Scottish Government has planned for our railways and we are months away from it being nationalised, and we know that the way the ferries are run is in dire need of a shake-up. We just need the Government to accept that. Active travel also is not the norm, but it is affordable for many and low carbon. In order to encourage more people to take up cycling, we need safe cycling infrastructure, and that usually means segregated. I was at the COP26 rally in Glasgow. I cycled there in the rain and the message from my fellow cyclists was that our machines fight climate change. Mark Ruskell was there as well. Investment in cycling is good value for money and investment in cycling infrastructure and cycling projects create new green jobs. Cycling can be part of a just transition to net zero, which also means tackling transport poverty. People in low-income households are far more likely than richer households to use public transport rather than owning a car. 60 per cent of households with an income of less than £10,000 do not have access to a car. 55 per cent of households in north-east Glasgow have no access to a car. Using a bike is as much more affordable option for many on low incomes than e-vehicle ownership. 81 per cent of people say that they would be motivated to cycle if there were more cycle lanes, traffic free routes and off-road cycle paths because they currently feel unsafe on the roads. I will be looking very carefully at what is announced in the budget this week. We will need action on electric vehicles, buses, trains, ferries and active travel, as well as on improving existing roads. They are all compatible and they must happen, so this week can be a key test of whether we are serious about change or if it is all hot air. I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this motion today, an issue that is so important not just to me but also my constituents in Aberdeen, Donside and to the wider north-east economy. It is no surprise that the north-east has relied on the oil and gas industry for many years to provide vital jobs and investment in the region, and as a result it has flourished. Everyone in my constituency is either involved in or know someone in the industry, whether that be directly employed by an oil and gas firm or in the supply chain. A hard shutdown with no alternative jobs and investment is not an option. Similar to the closure of the mines in the 80s, an entire region would just collapse. We cannot go down that road. We must ensure that jobs are put in place to support the 100,000 people who work within the industry. It must be done in a fair and just way that leaves no one behind, providing sustainable, well-paid jobs for years to come. The UK Government has already deserted the north-east on carbon capture. The opportunities that came with the carbon capture utilisation and storage in the Acorn project could have been transformational for the region. While members opposite have highlighted that this is a site on the reserve list for funding, if one of the other projects falls through, it provides little assurance for my constituents and the wider north-east who do not need empty promises and reserve status. They require solid opportunities and funding to achieve a just transition in net zero. Sorry, I do not have time today, thank you. There can be no just transition without taking the north-east along with us and at the moment we are being left behind by the UK Government. The transition away from oil and gas is required to meet our climate change targets. We have a responsibility to play our part in tackling the climate emergency. Inaction is simply not an option. Of that, I think that we can all agree. I have focused mainly to this point on the job aspect of the need to transition, but climate change presents a massive opportunity to strive for high-quality, zero-carbon housing and tackling inequality. Social justice can also be at the heart of our just transition. In addition to funding the buildings of thousands of new homes, the Scottish Government is rightly increasing investment in home energy efficiency measures. The majority of buildings in Scotland are going to continue to be used in the future, so we have to retrofit what we have if we are serious about getting our buildings to net zero. On that note, I am pleased to see that £1.8 billion is to be invested over this parliamentary session, allowing us to accelerate energy efficiency upgrades and renewable heating deployment, creating new jobs and supply chain opportunities across Scotland. The transition must be just, and it must protect the jobs of those already in the industry. The Just Transition Commission will be key to ensuring that no one is left behind. The commission will engage with those likely to be impacted by the transition and support and scrutinise the Scottish Government's plans for that transition. I was pleased to see the Scottish Government commitment of £500 million over 10 years to support people's jobs and livelihoods in the north-east and to accelerate the plans for a just transition in the region. The energy transition fund also provides £62 million to support our vital energy sector and promote sustainable, inclusive growth as we move towards net zero by 2045. I understand and sympathise with those in the north-east of Scotland who may fear the transition and may not be able to imagine an Aberdein without oil and gas. I welcome the establishment of the Just Transition Commission, who will work to ensure that no one is left behind. This is a good first step to be working towards. We must continue to work together to achieve net zero. I will now move to winding up speeches. I remind members that there is no time in hand and that any interventions must be absorbed. I call on Mercedes Vialba to wind up for Labour. As we have heard this afternoon, the Scottish Government's response to the Just Transition Commission's report was not bold enough. In particular, there are four key areas that are crucial to delivering a just transition. That is skills transferability, public transport, fair work and support for consumers with energy costs. On skills transferability, we heard from Katie Clark that the Scottish Government must do more, particularly in the offshore energy sector. Offshore oil and gas workers are being prevented from transitioning into greener jobs because of training costs and a lack of common training standards in the offshore energy sector. I have been working with trade unions such as the RMT and climate campaigners such as Friends of the Earth Scotland to highlight the need for an offshore training passport. When I first raised the issue back in September, the First Minister welcomed it as a constructive proposal, but the follow-up letter that I received from the Just Transition Minister offered no new ideas. When I raised the issue again in October, the Minister for Green Skills said that she would be delighted to meet to discuss the issue, but that meeting has never materialised. Perhaps today's Minister can clarify the Scottish Government's position. The Energy Skills Alliance, the ESA, is currently developing an all-energy apprenticeship. That will benefit new entrants to the industry, but it is not going to help the existing workforce. I would like to ask the Minister to address in his closing remarks whether the Scottish Government will commit to exploring all options for the introduction of an offshore training passport, including through the ESA. We heard from Graham Simpson that, on public transport, the Scottish Government must do more. They say that they will commission a fair, fairs review to look at an integrated approach to transport fares, but many will be wondering why integrated fares could be delivered for COP26 delegates, but now it requires a review before it can be rolled out to ordinary passengers. The Scottish Government is also committed to introducing free bus travel for the under-22s, but that does not go far enough. Yesterday, my colleague Paul Sweeney launched his campaign to extend free bus travel to asylum seekers. It would use just 0.0005 per cent of the Scottish budget. For such small change, it would make a huge difference. Another crucial omission from the Scottish Government's response is the key role that councils could play in providing affordable, accessible and sustainable public transport. Councils now have the power, but not the cash, to implement that. I would like to ask the minister if he will commit to looking at all options, including providing start-up capital through the Scottish National Investment Bank, to empower councils to set up municipal bus services. On fair work, there are fundamental barriers such as low pay, insecure work and poor working conditions, which often prevent workers transitioning into green jobs. To ensure that our transition away from carbon-intensive sectors is worker-led, we must ensure that new green jobs are well paid on secure contracts with excellent terms and conditions. The Scottish Government has committed to introducing a new just transition commission. That new commission must act in the interests of workers. That leads me to my third ask of the minister. Will he look at instructing the new commission to plan for a just transition framework that extends trade union recognition and collective bargaining rights for workers in all green sectors of the economy? Finally, on public energy, yesterday, a poll for citizens advice Scotland revealed that more than one in three Scots are struggling to pay their energy bills. Last week, after two years of waiting, the Scottish Government finally released the outline business case for a publicly owned energy company, which found that it would produce annual savings for consumers. However, despite so many struggling with energy costs, the Scottish Government appears to be abandoning its pledge to deliver a publicly owned energy company, as raised by Dean Lockhart in the debate. Will the Scottish Government fulfil that pledge, or will it be just another empty promise? What is absolutely clear from the motion, the amendments and the contributions this afternoon is the importance of achieving alongside our net zero ambitions a just transition. Tess White put it well, saying that a just transition is critical to safeguarding jobs in the energy sector, to protecting the UK's energy security and to a green recovery. Liam McArthur hit the nail on the head when he said that there needs to be credibility. The Government benches have little of it. Graham Simpson picked up the shameful comments of a Government minister describing those who support a managed and fair transition for the oil and gas industry as the hard right, and members of the Green Party celebrating moves that risk up to 100,000 jobs while threatening to quote, seize assets and prosecute executives. The usually sensible Mark Ruskell doubled down on those comments in some disappointingly ill-informed remarks. It is that sort of tone that undermines Government credibility in this area. The SNP's credibility isn't enhanced when senior Government ministers argue that the future of the planet depends on Scottish independence. Several contributors raised the climate change committee's report. It warns that credibility will be undermined if there is a widening of the gap between targets and achievement, yet members will recall John Swinney's boast in 2010 that offshore wind energy would create 28,000 posts by 2020. It has delivered fewer than 2,000. Colin Smyth pointed out that there have been around 22,000 renewable energy jobs created in Scotland, yet in response to a parliamentary question last week, the minister conceded that no data is available to provide geographic breakdowns below Scotland level. The Scottish Government does not even bother to interrogate the data to find out whether job creation is happening in areas such as the north-east, where job losses are greatest. Credibility is further damaged by Jackie Dunbar's reference to a just transition fund and calls for the UK Government to match it. I remind her that the minister's copy-and-paste responses to my parliamentary questions show that there are no details about when, where to whom, from whom or for what it will be paid. We do not even know which budget it is coming from, and there will not be until spring 2022. What a contrast to the UK's £16 billion North Sea transition deal that matches the just transition fund's 32 times over, which will deliver 40,000 jobs and is happening now. We have heard that achieving a just transition requires that we take a rational approach to this debate and do not demonise particular industries and companies. My north-east Conservative colleagues and I met with BP last Friday to discuss efforts that they are making to utilise their skills, leadership and workforce to affect a genuinely fair and managed transition. Most oil and gas companies in the UK are doing similar. Then ask who is going to finance the bulk of the 70 to 100 trillion dollar costs of global transition? It will have to be private sources, sovereign wealth, pension and hedge funds, asset management companies, investment trusts and energy companies. I know that some members do not like to hear that, but we have to start talking sensibly, scientifically and rationally about the industries that we are transitioning from and to and how. Dean Lockhart pointed out that the Scottish Government specialises in headline policies with no substance. Yesterday, Russell Borthwick at the Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce said, we need just transition to become a meaningful programme of action, not just a glib phrase. They are both right. I say to the minister that we will vote for his motions warm words, but he must move away from the sound bites and the virtue signalling, acknowledge our demand for meaningful action and vote for our amendment today. I now call on Minister Richard Lockhart to wind up for the Scottish Government up to six minutes, please. It is pretty clear that from today's debate, which is an important debate and I am sure that we will have many more debates like this in the coming years, it is clear that we all approach this agenda from different perspectives and viewpoints, but there is broad consensus and urgent need to tackle climate change and to do so in a way that is fair and brings households, businesses and communities with us. I know that many across this chamber have that shared ambition and there is opportunity, hopefully, for us to work together to ensure that we get this right in the coming years. Although there will always be disagreements over policies and priorities, I believe that there is a lot of consensus on the importance of delivering a just transition. That will not stop me picking up on some of the inherent contradictions, particularly from the Scottish Conservative party's benches. On the one hand, we are hearing from Tess White and others that there should be unlimited extraction of fossil fuels, but on the other hand, they are complaining that the Scottish Government's transition is not going fast enough. That does not make sense and it does not square. The situation is that, I think that Graham Simpson actually said that he took part in the rally in the protest at COP26, because clearly he thought that there is an urgent need for action to save the planet. Yet, he is willing to talk the talk when it comes to walk the walk and the cold reality of taking difficult decisions, he is full of double standards and hypocrisy. I can tell the minister that I have got no double standards in me. I have been fighting for cycling for years and that is why I went to that rally and that is why I still beside fellow cyclists who are saying that cycling can save the planet. That is not double standards. The other issue over the hypocrisy from the Scottish Conservatives today is the non-stop complaining about the lack of action to create green jobs as alternative employment opportunities for those working in carbon intensive industries. Yet, this is the party and this is the UK Government who just rejected the Acorn project, the best project for carbon storage in the whole of the UK that would have created 15,000 green jobs mainly in the north-east of Scotland. The UK Government has put in £31 million so far to that project. How much has this minister's government put in? 15,000 green jobs, that is what you have turned down at the same time as you are complaining to the Scottish Government for not creating enough green jobs for your constituents in north-east Scotland. I am afraid that that is more hypocrisy, that is more double standards than the Conservative party's benches. There were many references to the climate change committee's report that was out today, which of course poses a number of challenges to the Scottish Government that we have to take seriously because no one has all the answers at this point in time to many of the questions and the changes that we have to implement in society and how that will be done in the fairest possible way and where all the solutions will come from. Chris Stark, the chief executive of the climate change committee, said this morning that there are some really positive aspects of the Scottish plans. The focus on a just transition and the clear steps to integrate net zero into ministerial portfolios across the Scottish Government are great and it is also good to see ambition raised in other areas such as agriculture. I will take one more if I am permitted. Mr Whittle? You will also know that, as I said earlier on, Chris Stark said that there is no direct policy of transparency that shows how the Scottish Government will reach the targets that it has set. That is exactly the same as the intervention that you made earlier on in the debate that I answered at the time. The COP26, and this is the difference between what we are hearing from some of the members of this Parliament today and what we hear from the rest of the world, is the rest of the world that we are looking at Scotland and the leadership that we are showing when it comes to implementing the just transition. It is the leadership that Scotland is showing that is leading to many green jobs being created in our country at the moment. The Labour Party lamented the lack of action over green jobs and I said that the latest tranche of awards in the green jobs fund today is creating over 800 green jobs in Scotland. However, the private sector is creating tens of thousands of green jobs that are being pledged due to leadership at the Scottish Government. Indeed, Scotland is showing in terms of going towards our net zero target. Many people refer to global energy groups proposals for NIC, which will create 400 long-term direct jobs and more than 1,000 indirect jobs. We have got heat pump manufacturing jobs and heating and building jobs. 16,400 jobs will be created green jobs by 2030. The hydrogen policy statement says that up to 300,000 green jobs could be supported by 2045. Of course, Robert Gordon University said that there is potential for up to 300,000 jobs offshore in Scotland and throughout the UK. Of course, the ACORN project, which has been rejected by the Conservative UK Government, has created 15,000 green jobs as well, not in 10 years, not in 20 years, but from next year onwards 15,000 green jobs. Let that sink in. Remember, there are 70,000 oil and gas jobs in Scotland, so that 15,000 jobs is over 20 per cent alone of what we have in the whole of the oil and gas sector in Scotland, yet the Conservative party turned down that opportunity. I want to say that the just transition is about learning from past mistakes. We are going to stand by jobs in Scotland that are working in carbon intensive sectors just now and work with them and make sure that workers and citizens have a voice in their own future and in Scotland's future. We are going to use the challenge of climate change as a window of opportunity to tackle embedded inequalities in society, as well as create those green jobs, not just green jobs but good green jobs as well. It is this Government, this Parliament, this country that can make a contribution to tackling global warming, but at the same time improve the quality of life that people live in their own country. That concludes the debate on delivering a just transition to net zero and climate resilience for Scotland. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of a legislative consent motion. I ask Jamie Hepburn to move motion number 2430 on advanced research and invention agency bill UK legislation. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 2457, in the name of George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out changes to business this week, I call on George Adam to move the motion. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move the amendment to the business motion in my name, which will extend business by 30 minutes on Thursday with decision time being at 5.30 p.m. There is no parliamentary event more important than the budget and there is no year that the budget has been more important than this year. The people of Scotland who we represent need this budget to be a budget for real recovery, a budget that sets Scotland on a path for a brighter and better 2022 and to help to make the lives of the people that we represent better. I sincerely hope that it can do so, and we in the Scottish Labour Party are determined to play our part in scrutinising Government and asking questions on behalf of our communities. The Government is perfectly entitled to bring forward a ministerial statement on supporting culture in Scotland on Thursday. I do not know what will be in that statement, but I know that it is not one of the number of statements that the Opposition has requested. However, one thing is clear—we must also have additional time in Parliament for more questions on the budget, too. Currently, the Labour Party is only permitted to have five questions to scrutinise this budget. The Government parties, the SNP and Greens will combine to have 15. That may be good enough for them, but we have many more than five questions to ask on behalf of our constituents, on jobs, hospitals, schools, buses, housing, the environment, our high streets and many, many more issues. If the Scottish Government does not agree, then it begs the question, what do they have to fear from scrutiny? This budget needs to be a budget for real recovery and a budget for jobs. Presiding officer, we need to do our job, and if it means staying an extra half an hour on Thursday to do it, then so be it. The Scottish Labour, therefore, is calling on Parliament to back our amendment. We do so in the hope that this budget truly can be made to kick-start recovery and to make a difference for the people of Scotland. I move the amendment. As you know, I have been in touch with bureau members over the past few weeks regarding the budget statement on Thursday. Initially, the Government planned for the budget statement to last one hour, 20 minutes for the statement itself and only 40 minutes for questions. While it is true that the statement was extended from 60 minutes to 90 minutes, realistically, that merely brought it in line with the last few years' budget statements and was therefore not an extension or indeed any kind of a compromise at all. There is now, as we have heard, to be a statement on culture on Thursday, and I am sure that, as he did at bureau, Mr Adam, the Minister for Parliamentary Business, is about to take umbridge and pretend that my objection is an insult to culture, such nonsense indeed drivel. The real insult to culture is that it is being used in such a shoddy way to be shoehorned in when it was suggested that the time in hand after the budget could be used to provide more MSPs with the opportunity to ask a question. The inescapable conclusion from all the programming shenanigans is that the prime reason for this statement being added in at the last minute is to protect Ms Forbes from answering questions. I certainly have confidence that the cabinet secretary would be up to answering backbench questions. Why doesn't he? Mr Adam refused my reasonable suggestion in bureau to move the culture statement to next Tuesday, when it would not be overshadowed by the budget. That stands in stark contrast to his failure to allocate time for his statement on the circular economy during COP26, because at the time that he maintained, it would be overshadowed by the international event. Where is that concern now? This is about protecting ministers from the scrutiny of this Scottish Parliament. What this shows more than anything else is a culture of contempt in this Government for the openness and oversight that the Scottish Parliament brings. It seems that it has no appetite for accountability. It would rather deflect and obscure what is going on in the public finances and in any other area of public policy. More time for more questions and discussion on the budget is needed. How can it ever be a bad thing in the Scottish Parliament to ask questions of the executive? I conclude that there is a growing danger that the more the Scottish Government tramples over the Scottish Parliament's business schedule, the more accustomed to it we all become. Backbenchers deserve to have their questions answered. The desires and concerns of our constituents deserve to be heard in this chamber. It is the job of the Scottish Parliament to hold the Scottish Government to account the people of Scotland deserve no less. Therefore, I urge members to reject the programme motion in favour of the amended motion. I call on George Adam to respond on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau up to five minutes. I have known Kate Forbes for many years. Kate Forbes does not need me to hide behind in any shape or form, but the important point of what we are discussing here is that I sometimes wonder whether the big daff boy Fifeiggy seems to be the one that is controlling the whole Scottish Parliament according to Mr Kerr, as opposed to ourselves working together in the bureau to create the business of Parliament. However, just after having the pantomime that we have just recently had, it is time to talk about the actual facts. The statement on the Scottish Government coming this Thursday is scheduled for 95 minutes. That is 95 minutes, allowing for 65 minutes of questioning. It is not my fault that I cannot do anything about the Conservatives' questions and the fact that they cannot ask questions that might give Ms Forbes any difficulty, but that is not my problem. However, at the end of the day, that is an increase. That is an increase, Presiding Officer, on the average of 58 minutes in the last four years, which Stephen Kerr pointed out to me in an email last week. That 95-minute statement is in addition to stage 1 debate due to take place in the end of January, a stage 2 debate at committee at the beginning of February and a stage 3 debate in mid-Febru. I can assure members that the adequate time will be given to the budget and that there will be no limiting of scrutiny being proposed by anyone here at all. Thursday's proposed business includes a statement on supporting culture in Scotland, because culture is a key economic sector. In 2019, the creative industries contributed around £4.5 billion to the economy and employed over 127,000 people. I heard earlier on today at the bureau that it was hinted at here today that this was some kind of buffering using culture to use up parliamentary time. That, Presiding Officer, is an absolute disgrace. That is an industry that is extremely important to Scotland and to our economy. After the year that we have had, after the 18 to 20 months that we have had, it is important that we discuss what is happening in culture now and what we are doing for the future. The pandemic hit the culture sector harder than almost any other. It continues to face challenging conditions. We continue to hear that businesses are still fighting for survival and it is essential that we allow parliamentary time to consider how we best support this vital sector in Scotland. It is down to this Parliament, Presiding Officer, to discuss the business that involves the people of Scotland, not some flight of fantasy of the Conservative Party. Thank you. The question is that amendment 2457.1 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to vote and there will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.