 The next item of business is a debate in motion 1, 2, 3, 8, 8, in the name of Douglas Lumsden on backing Scotland's oil and gas sector. I would invite those members who would wish to speak in the debate. Please press the request to speak buttons, and I call on Douglas Lumsden to speak to and to move the motion up to several minutes, please, Mr Lumsden. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Oil and gas continues to be one of the most important issues in Scottish politics today, and rightly so. Tens of thousands of jobs depend on it, thousands of communities rely on it, and hundreds of businesses are based in Scotland because of it. The Scottish Conservatives remain the only party that believes in the contribution that this sector makes to our economy and has committed to supporting it for a long time to come. Will Mr Lumsden give way? Yes, please, I will. Kevin Stewart? I wonder if Mr Lumsden would care to comment in the extension of the windfall tax on the oil and gas industry, which will damage the north-east of Scotland, and how is he going to respond to his Tory masters in London to get shot of it? Douglas Lumsden? I will gladly respond to Kevin Stewart, because I am disappointed that the windfall tax has been extended, but let's have a think at what the other parties are doing. The SNP, for example, is in favour of a windfall tax, but more than that, it has a presumption against oil and gas. It would devastate the oil and gas industry. Let's look at the other parties. Labour, with red-ed, has no new licences and a windfall tax on steroids that would ramp up the rate and scrap the re-investment allowance, and greens, while least they are consistent, would shut down the industry tomorrow. Back to the point that I was making. That does not mean that our green credentials are any less far from it. It does not mean that we are turning our backs on an ambition to meet net zero far from it, but we do believe that the oil and gas sector has a huge role to play in our energy transition. We are committed to working with our workers, communities and businesses to ensure that, as we move forward towards our net zero targets and as we transition away from oil and gas and towards greener technologies, we are doing so in a way that is protecting jobs and livelihoods across Scotland and, in particular, the north-east. We are the only party committed to continuing to support the exploration of oil and gas while we still have a demand in this country. 78 per cent of Scotland's current energy needs are met from oil and gas. That figure rises to 92 per cent when we look at the percentage of heat demand provided by hydrocarbons. While we still have a demand for oil and gas, it is better for the environment, better for our economy and better for our jobs that we use our own resource as opposed to rely on imports from elsewhere. To cut off this supply via the SNP's presumption against new oil and gas will leave all of us worse off and will throw thousands of livelihoods on the scrap peak. I am grateful to Douglas Lambson for giving me a minute. Since he is so keen on economic growth, what does it say about his Government's performance that we have had seven quarters of decline in GDP per head? Why was it that in the last auction round we had no one competing for offshore oil? What does that say about your economic record and your credibility on renewables? We need to speak through the chair, Douglas Lambson. I will come on to GVA later, because I will highlight the importance of the oil and gas industry, something that the Labour Party would turn its back on and turn off the taps. The oil and gas industry accounted for more than 20 billion of Scotland's GVA in 2020-20. That was nearly 11 per cent of Scotland's total GVA. Your economic impact of losing the oil and gas sector cannot be underestimated. The Scottish Government's own figures put it at a loss of 7 billion by 2050, and that will not be replaced by green jobs. They are less well-paid and are of a lower GVA than the jobs in the oil and gas sector. Again, those are the Government's own figures. It is now time for this devolved Government to be honest with the people and to tell us how this money will be replaced within the Scottish economy and how this gap will be filled. On the SNP's presumption against oil and gas reform, Scotland stated that it would be a ridiculous position for Scotland to find itself if it ends up having to import fossil fuels for a period while simultaneously boasting about a decline in domestic production, all the while losing skilled workers. I have to agree that it is ridiculous. It is absolute bunkers. The loss of skilled workers is a huge area of concern. The energy sector workers survey found that there are too many barriers for oil and gas workers to move into green jobs. I have also found that more information was needed and that the support and help for those in the industry looking for a new opportunity simply is not there yet. The First Minister recently made a visit to the North East. While he may have had sound bites on how important oil and gas is, we all know that words are cheap. It is actions that count. The First Minister is not pulling the wool over anyone's eyes in the North East. He was there not to try and save offshore workers' jobs, but to try and save one job and one job only—that of Stephen Flynn. In fact, the First Minister sits on the fence so often that his backside must be full of splinters. He mascarades as a friend of the oil and gas industry, but we all know that it is the grubby deal with the greens that he values the most. While the Bute House agreement exists, the oil and gas industry will always be demonised by this devolved Government, and that, Presiding Officer, is driving away investment. We know what the priorities of the SNP Green devolved Government are, and they are not our priorities. While they are talking about independence, we are talking about jobs, prosperity, economic growth, investing in our industries, supporting our oil and gas industry and investing in new technologies. The SNP is against Aberdeenbyn, Europe's oil and gas capital. It is against Rosebank and the £8 billion investment that it brings. It is against Campbell and it is against new licences in the North East. However, as our motion points out, the Labour Party is no better on this topic. Labour has also confirmed that it would block any requests for new licences. It has said that it would cut the oil and gas investment allowance, a move that the United Kingdom said would lead to 42,000 job losses and 26 billion of economic value being wiped out. To conclude, there is only one party in here that supports new oil and gas licences. That is the Scottish Conservatives. There is only one party in here that understands the economic importance of the oil and gas industry, and that is the Scottish Conservatives. There is only one party in here that will stand up for thousands of workers in the oil and gas industry, and that is the Scottish Conservatives. I move the motion in my name. I am delighted to contribute to this important debate on the future of Scotland's oil and gas sector, a sector that is central to the Government's plans for a transition to a new and greener economy. Let us start by dispensing with some of the myths that we have heard from Douglas Lumsden and focus on simple facts. First, oil and gas will remain part of Scotland's energy mix for some time to come. There is no transition to net zero that sees the immediate end of oil and gas, and we are clear that there is no route to net zero except in partnership with business, especially in respect of skills and investment. Secondly, there is a global climate emergency, an unequivocal scientific evidence of an urgent need to reduce reliance on fossil fuels in a sec. Thirdly, our North Sea oil and gas basin is a geologically mature basin and will inevitably decline over the coming decades. Those are not questions of politics but of science, and it is in this context that the right approach—the approach of a responsible Government, the response that the SNP has consistently taken—is one that pursues the prosperity of our people, of our economy and this planet. That means a just transition that is fair and in line with our climate commitments. I will take Douglas Lumsden. I want to talk about prosperity. Does the cabinet secretary support the award of Rosebank and the over £8 billion investment that will bring to Scotland and the protection of thousands of jobs in the north-east of Scotland? I have already been quite clear that I did not think that the Rosebank was the right decision to have taken. We have many concerns in the Scottish Government about the proportion of that that will be exported overseas and therefore not contribute to our energy security among other issues. What is abundantly clear is that the UK Government and the Tories' approach to oil and glass licensing demonstrates that it is not serious about the climate crisis. As Douglas Lumsden speaks flippantly of a climate emergency, whether he truly appreciates what that means, whether he has considered the plight of millions around the world already feeling its first and worst impacts, losing everything up to and including their lives, I wonder if he has noticed that 2023 was the hottest year ever recorded, or whether he has considered closer to home the destruction to our infrastructure and the destruction to our communities from our recent storm season. I will. I am very grateful. Can the cabinet secretary remind the chamber how many more in proportion are emissions from imported oil and gas than that is sourced locally? I do not deny that. In fact, I opened my contribution with an acknowledgement of the importance currently of oil and gas to Scotland's energy mix. We also know that about 80 per cent of what is extracted from the UK continental shelf is exported overseas, not therefore contributing necessarily to energy security in the UK. All of that means that the Tories are utterly reckless on climate change, and that recklessness reminds us of what I think is an intolerable fact that Scotland's north sea oil and gas, its licensing and the associated regulatory and fiscal regimes remain reserved to a remote UK Government. Through our draft energy strategy and just transition plan, which we consulted on last year—I am afraid that I do not have a great deal of time—we have set out a responsible and a balanced set of proposals for an approach to future licensing. We are currently finalising that strategy, and I hope that the UK Government will pay attention. As part of that work, we have consulted on a presumption against licensing for entirely new oil and gas exploration activity. To be clear and returning to my point about the importance of evidence-led policy development, we have never proposed no further north sea licensing at all. That would be wrong. It could destroy the very skills and the very investment that we urgently need to transition to a low-carbon economy. Instead, our draft strategy consults on fields already identified, but not yet in production, being subject to a robust climate compatibility checkpoint. The proposals in our strategy represent a focus on meeting Scotland's energy security needs, reducing emissions and ensuring a just transition for our oil and gas workforce. To be clear on the first of those, the north sea will continue to provide Scotland with an important level of energy security over the coming years. A key aspect of all that, and paramount in Scottish ministers' considerations, is the issue of skills. We need to harness our skills, talent and experience to support the build-out of low-carbon technologies in Scotland. The infrastructure of the north sea, its skills and expertise, will be a huge asset in helping us to achieve net zero and become a world leader in renewables in areas such as offshore wind, hydrogen and CCUS. The cabinet secretary should be starting to conclude her remarks. I cannot give way. I will conclude, but it is worth noting before I do so that the UK budgets earlier today have extended the windfall tax regime for north sea oil and gas. That demonstrates, among many other things, pertinent to this debate just how little influence the leader of the Scottish Tory has when it comes to his leadership in London. I understand he made personal representations and he must be utterly embarrassed that he has been ignored. Presiding Officer, in conclusion, the future of the north sea, the future of the tens of thousands of jobs on which it relies is too important to be the subject of misrepresentation and myth-making of the Conservative motion. Instead, our approach will be covered by the science and Scotland's interests and a cast-iron guarantee to the workforce. This is what the Scottish Government proposes and is what we are working to deliver, and I urge members to support our amendment. I now call on Daniel Johnson to speak to and to move amendment 12388.1 up to five minutes. I move amendment 12388.1 up to five minutes. I move amendment 12388.1 in my name. When the Conservatives tabled the motion last week, it is clear what they wanted. They wanted a big bust-up, big debate, big dividing lines, but let me try and strike a note of consensus. I think that we can all agree on one thing in the chamber this afternoon. Douglas Lumsden desperately needs Jeremy Hunt's phone number. One text message—that's all that it would have taken. Should I table this message at motion? Is it a good idea? It would have spared the blushes and the rather awkward argument that we heard in the opening speech this afternoon. Of course, Douglas Ross doesn't need Jeremy Hunt's mobile phone number. He just communicates with the leadership via letters from the whips office if he reports the fact that he is going to vote against his own Government's budget are true. The reality is that, although Douglas Lumsden tries to talk about economic growth, the simple truth is that, through the mini-budget, enthusiastically backed by the Scottish Conservatives, what did we get? Market kiosk, the pound tumbling, interest rates soaring, the biggest ever one-day drop in 30-year guilts, half of mortgage products pulled and culminated in the Bank of England intervening to prevent the collapse of pension markets, chaos and incompetence. That is the true hallmark of economic governance under this Conservative Government, 14 years of erratic economic decision making. Is it any wonder that the UK is blighted by low growth and high inequality? That is what the resolution foundation described as a stagnation nation, with the UK undergoing 15 years of economic decline. Since the Conservatives entered government, the UK GDP growth has been in the bottom third of the OECD countries. If the UK had grown at just the OECD average, our economy would be 140 billion pounds bigger. That has real-world consequences. It is equivalent of £5,000 per household every single year. That is the real cost of economic chaos under this Conservative Government. Mr Whittle, happy to give way. Brian Whittle? A very good rant. I wonder what the member would say to the fact that the OBR has said since 2010 that Britain has had the highest GDP growth of all the G7 countries, including Japan, Germany and France. We have had seven quarters of economic decline in terms of GDP per head. If Mr Whittle wants to choose a partial statistic, that is because the reality is that we have flat growth, investment down, taxes up, and if Mr Whittle wants to call this a rant, fair enough. The reality is that working people pay the price for that incompetence. I am happy to give way to Mr Kerr. Stephen Kerr, is Daniel Johnson going to talk about all this stuff that he is talking about? Or is he going to talk about the stuff in the motion? Is he going to talk about what Labour's policy is on oil and gas, or is he embarrassed about it because he should be? Daniel Johnson. It is the same thing. It is the Conservatives that want to base this on economic growth, and that is exactly what I am doing. Let us come back to the notion, because I am equally confused by the SNP. At least the Conservatives have had the good grace to chop and change their position over the course of a week. In the space of the day, we have had Stephen Flynn arguing against a windfall tax, only to have a motion in front of us arguing for it. Which is it? Frankly, we have the unconscionable and unfathomable position from the SNP that they oppose a tax against energy giants, making billions of pounds worth of profit, while they are asking Scots earning just £28,000 or more to pay more tax in the rest of the UK. That is the simple choice that we have. A choice of either helping Scots with struggling bills or helping energy giants. I am happy to give way to Daniel Johnson. It has been said by his party colleagues that a windfall tax would be supporting new nuclear in the rest of the UK. Does Daniel Johnson agree that it should be diverted to support renewables growth in Scotland? Could he commit to that? In closing, Mr Johnson. Let me explain. GB Energy will create 50,000 clean power jobs in Scotland, investment in great wealth, investment in ports. It will set up GB Energy headquartered here in Scotland. That is the investment ring-fenced and the windfall tax time limited. The simple reality is this. We have had five Prime Ministers, seven chancellers, 11 economic growth plans and three different positions on a windfall tax on the Conservatives. It is time for change. Safe to say that this debate has not panned out quite as Douglas Lumsden and Douglas Ross had intended. Jeremy Hunt and Rishi Sunack are now safely on the circulation list for the Scottish Conservatives media grid and, indeed, Hollywood's business bulletin. Notwithstanding the exquisite shard and froida of watching the proposers of today's motion hoisted by their own pitard over windfall taxes, I start, as is customary, in thanking Douglas Lumsden for allowing this brief debate. Of course, it is the latest in many such debates this session, focusing on the oil and gas sector, our future energy needs and how Scotland and the wider UK make the just transition to a decarbonised energy system. The motion rightly acknowledges the vital role oil and gas plays in Scotland's energy mix, as well as the jobs and economic benefit it supports. It is a role that it will continue to play going forward, but our reliance on oil and gas needs to come down for environmental reasons, certainly, but for economic reasons, too. The OBR, already mentioned in this debate last year, concluded that the UK is, quote, one of the most gas-dependent countries in Europe, with 78 per cent of our energy needs met through fossil fuels. This dependence has left us more exposed to fuel price shocks, such as the one that followed Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine, causing hardship and damage to households and businesses across the country. As the UK Parliament's environmental audit committee recently concluded, quote, accelerating the transition away from fossil fuels will enhance the UK's energy security and also help to protect households from volatile fossil fuel prices permanently. Talking about the costs of action ignores the even greater financial costs of inaction or inadequate action. Whatever the sound and fury of this short debate, the transition is inevitable. The North Sea basin is winding down. That is a matter of geology, not policy or politics. For all the grandstanding, as Chris Stark told a meeting of party leaders in Bute House recently, the Tories in the Greens are arguing about whether the North Sea production declines by 95 per cent by 2050 or 97 per cent. However, how that transition happens matters. It matters to all of us, of course, but it matters in particular to those directly affected and who will make the transition. That will require both Scotland's Governments to co-operate and collaborate, a consistent message from the UK climate change committee. We cannot afford bad faith actors, either in Downing Street or in Bute House, with ministers hunting out division or grievance for political gain rather than acting in the interests of the country, our economy and the wider environment. We know that there is an appetite within the oil and gas sector to transition, but help, as Douglas London said, is needed from advice to schools development to support to reorientate business. His substantial investment in infrastructure from grid to ports is also needed to support the delivery of renewables, projects and storage technologies. Resourcing is needed, too, in our planning and consenting regimes, if the transition to cleaner energy is to take place within the challenging timeframes that we have set. To be a just transition, however, people and communities cannot be left behind, even if some activities and businesses may inevitably be. That will require people and communities to be fully involved in and at the heart of the decisions being taken. None of this will be easy. All the easy stuff has already been done, but it will be made harder, costlier and more painful if we pretend that it does not need to happen or can be delayed. Today's debate was not really supposed to be about how we make a just transition. It was not even about the interests of those in the oil and gas sector. It was an attempt to use climate change as a wedge issue. While I do not have an awful lot to thank Jeremy Hunt for, I thank him for shooting Douglas London's fox. We move to the open debate. I call Tess White to be followed by Ivan McKee. There is no denying that the past decade has been exceptionally challenging for the energy sector. The downturn in oil and gas, the Covid-19 pandemic, Putin's war in Ukraine and the global energy crisis are not forgetting the massive supply chain disruption caused by the conflict. Many companies throughout the supply chain in Scotland have battled to stay afloat and livelihoods have been lost. Just as there is an upswing for the industry, more uncertainty strikes. The North Sea became a bargaining chip in the disastrous Bute House agreement, with Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater castigating the industry and the thousands of people in my region who rely on it for work. Only those on the hard right support oil and gas extraction ludicrously proclaimed Patrick Harvie. The SNP's draft energy strategy includes a presumption against new exploration for oil and gas. They don't want cambo, jack door or as we've seen and it's been reinforced today Rosebank. They don't care about the UK's energy security, north-east workers or the environmental impact of importing fossil fuels. The Scottish Conservatives recognise the importance of a fair, careful and well-managed move to renewables. We know we need an energy supply that's more secure and more sustainable. The north-east, with its unrival technical knowledge and know-how, is perfectly placed to become a world leader on net zero. Propped up by the Scottish Greens, the SNP wants to turn off the taps and go for the fastest possible just transition. It's a cliff edge, plain and simple. The moment Nicola Sturgeon signed on the dotted line with the Scottish Greens, she betrayed the north-east, because the SNP's green government values virtue signalling over 90,000 highly skilled jobs. I'll give way to Gillian Martin, thank you. Would the test white not agree that we have an opportunity to have a second energy wave in the north-east if we accept the fact that the North Sea is a declining basin, which everyone does accept, and that we prepare for the future by investing in renewables? That is the thing that is going to protect jobs in the energy sector in the north-east. I agree with Gillian Martin on investment, and it is a declining basin. I have worked in the energy sector for decades, and we both understand that. However, it needs to be a managed, programmed, proper transition, not a rushed and enforced transition, which is what the SNP's Government want to do. A rushed, premature transition serves no one, as I've just said, nor does it serve Scotland's economy, with offshore energies UK, warning that the region will be £6 billion a year poorer by 2030 as a result. I think that that does matter to Gillian Martin's constituents as well. Humza Yousaf, who last year stood up and announced that Scotland would stop being the oil and gas capital of Europe, has suddenly now decided he's the saviour of North Sea workers. There must be a general election on the horizon. What an insult to the intelligence of the thousands of people who rely on the North Sea for their livelihoods. The SNP can pivot all they want. The north-east has not forgotten the depth of betrayal perpetrated by Nicola Sturgeon. I see Labour laughing, but Daniel Johnson's speech did not even mention oil and gas once. I think that was an interesting, different debate. The Scottish Conservatives, in closing, will be the ones who stand up for our oil and gas industry. We support new oil and gas licences. We will not abandon it or the workers who rely on its continued survival, and we will not allow the industry to shut down. Scotland has been blessed with not one but two energy jackpots over our history. It has transformed the north-east of Scotland over past decades, made Aberdeen a global energy hub, built Scottish businesses and created jobs and wealth across our country. However, more than £300 billion of the revenues that have flowed in to public coffers as a consequence have gone south, subsidising the factory economic experiment and continuing to bolster UK public finances to this day. Oil and gas, as we all know, is always going to be a finite resource, and our modern understanding of climate change drivers making even more so. On those benches, it was clear that, had we had the power to do what Norway has done since the 1970s, an independent Scotland would now be one of the richest countries in the world. Remember, Norway was poorer than Scotland in the 1960s, but having made that mistake once, now we have the opportunity to do it right the second time around. Scotland, like someone who bought the winning lottery ticket, lost it and then bought the winning lottery ticket again the next week, we need to take advantage of that opportunity that we have been presented with. The renewable energy revolution finds Scotland at its heart not only with vast, natural resources but also with expertise in deep work technology, a global reputation and energy, a highly skilled workforce and investment from this Government to make sure that we have that technology taken for and developed to maximise the opportunities for renewable energy development in our country. I do not have much time but I am very brief. How much of the £80 million that the Scottish Government promised to Acorn has actually been invested so far? The Scottish Government has committed a £500 million investment, as you should know, and I am sure that the Cabinet Secretary of State will give you the latest data on exactly where we are, unlike the UK Government that has not put their money where their mouth is. If I might stop you for a moment, Mr McKee, I am aware of colleagues having conversations back and forth across the chamber, and I know that both colleagues know that that is inappropriate. I am grateful if you could resist any temptation. Mr McKee. The transition needs to move as fast as it can while recognising that investment is needed from the energy sector running into many tens of billions and beyond. The sector knows that its future viability relies on making that transition as quickly as possible to secure advantages in the future of energy in Scotland's renewables. Everyone recognises that, but that needs to be a just transition to balancing the needs of workers, communities and local businesses that are coming with it. I have seen Scottish supply chain companies in my time as Minister around the world making that transition from 90 per cent to supporting the oil and gas sector down to 50 per cent or more supporting the renewable sector. That is a transition that businesses understand the oil majors and the supply chain businesses, and the Scottish Government continues to support that. The most important point is to recognise that the way to end fuel poverty in an energy-rich Scotland and the way to ensure that investment takes place in infrastructure and to ensure that transition is a just transition is not to make the same mistakes that were made in the 1970s but to ensure that Scotland has the power to deliver the benefit of that vast and enduring renewables potential, the powers of a normal independent country. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you, and I call Martin Whitfield to be followed by Bob Doris. I'm very grateful, Presiding Officer. It's a pleasure always to follow Ivan McKee, although I don't agree with all of his contents. I would point out to Mr McKee, there's also the question of the provision of coal here in Scotland before the oil and the tragedies that took those communities under the that's right closer of the coal mines. Because our history tells us time and time again that the providers of the energy sources are often dealt so badly, which is why rightly both in this chamber and elsewhere there are strong discussions about why the transition and inevitable transition matters to a green energy net zero energy manufacturing. And it is right and understandable that those communities that at the minute support the oil and gas offshore are concerned. But I also don't think it helps to use some of the language that we hear, some of the tone that we hear of absolute failure or absolute success, because those people know of the need for transition. They look to their children and don't want them working off in the North Sea. They don't want them in the physically demanding, physically dangerous jobs. They want the skills, they want the technology to be used in better greener technologies that are available, and it is an obligation not just on the Scottish Government, but I think here on the Scottish Parliament and in the UK to make sure this is a transition from one form of fuel to another. And it is not one that is going to take place instantaneously. It is one that is going to take decades. It is one that is going to have to be constantly revisited and renewed, looked at and supported to make sure for once perhaps in Scotland and indeed the UK and possibly indeed the world's history that we can make a transition for our communities that allow them to remain communities, allow them their young people to be skilled, allow them to work from where they grow up in an industry and, as Ivan McKee says, perhaps see the next great bonus here in Scotland from our renewables. I know there's been an intervention with regard to nuclear power and I'm never one to let the opportunity go by, not to say the importance of that net zero energy to us and in particular to the very thorny question of how we ensure that the grid, both the current grid but more importantly the next generation of the grid, can be base loaded and sustained so that we can draw on the new and not so new renewable technologies to keep the lights on on our house because it is still the case that when we speak to constituents, when we knock on the door and I welcome test whites looking forward to the general election, let's hope it's sooner rather than later but when we knock on those doors it is still the fear of those fuel bills, it is still the fear of a wage that doesn't make it to the end of the week let alone the end of the month with young people being distressed by the fact that their parents are making really really challenging decisions and that's why we need a new and improved idea about how we do it which is why the whole concept of GB energy, state owned publicly owned energy company allows for the imaginative explosive ideas that we need to transition properly to support our communities and above all to pay back to those communities that in the past have paid so dearly for these changes with a supply chain that's based here in Scotland and are not around the world most importantly to see the reforms that we need to the national grid so that it can actually support an energy policy in any energy manufacturing that allows the whole of the united kingdom to benefit from the skills that we have developed. I'm grateful Presiding Officer. Thank you and I call Bob Dorris to be fooled by Stephen Kerr. Presiding Officer, as tempting as it is to dwell on the Scottish Conservatives' embarrassment on the topic of windfall taxes, I'm going to resist for the time being and I'll concentrate on the Labour Party for the moment. It takes some doing for me to still get surprised at the sheer hypocrisy of the UK Labour Party here at Holyrood. However, let me congratulate them, they've succeeded in surprising me. To use a debate on North Sea oil and gas to suggest that the SNP has exacerbated the UK's cost of living crisis is quite something. Again, letting the Tories off the hook. That's a UK Labour Party whose position on Scottish independence has saw Scotland left to the ravages of successive UK Governments over many years. A UK Labour Party who has been happy to see huge profits from North Sea oil and gas float a UK Treasury over decades, often to fund tax cuts for the very wealthy people, particularly in London and the southeast. No thank you, sir. £300 billion that has flown to the UK Treasury from North Sea oil since the 1970s. What an audacity Labour has. Labour linked any further tax on North Sea oil and gas profits to specifically fund investment in nuclear energy in England. A bare-faced cheek. Labour is the party who has been new turning on all kinds of social policy protections, citing costs, yet they have been happy to sign up to ending the cap on bankers' bonuses. Labour has no underlying principles and they have no credibility. No thank you, sir. More generally, I support windfall taxes as required, although, to be fair, it shouldn't take a windfall tax to ensure that large, highly profitable companies are taxed appropriately. I would much rather the levers of over any taxation regime and tax incentives sat here in Holyrood. Additional revenue accruing from any excess profits, so to speak, from Scottish oil and gas can be used to support households through the cost of living crisis. It can be used to support our oil and gas sector, its workers and communities in Scotland, particularly in the north-east, through a just transition from fossil fuels, but not to prop up the nuclear industry in England. It also needs to be a wider debate more generally about ensuring that the taxation regime for highly profitable businesses is fit for purpose and that it offers them certainty. It also needs to ensure that all sectors are considered, not just one. Now let me turn to the Conservative motion. One of blind opportunism will blind certainly as far as the UK budget was conserved, where the Scottish Conservatives had no scooby what was coming up at that statement, but also blind to the need to secure net zero and to see a meaningful just transition away from fossil fuels. However, the Tories are at least consistent. They consistently seek to vote down any substantial measures that are planned to tackle the climate emergency. One thing is clear with the Conservatives. They will continue to use north-sea oil and gas as a cash cow, irrespective of the climate impact. When that cash cow has stopped giving, they will see the community of the north-east decimated in the same way that Scotland's coal mining communities were a few generations earlier. Is this Glasgow MSP to communities in the north-east of Scotland? We have your back. We will not let that happen. Far more a balanced, planned and managed approach away from oil and gas, one that works with the sector in our planning for a just transition, one that allows the highly impressive expertise of both oil and gas companies and their highly skilled workforce to pivot towards the opportunities of that just transition. I firmly believe that that is what our Scottish Government is trying to achieve. It will not always be easy, and sometimes it will mean taking actions that will not always be popular, but they may be necessary. However, whatever we do, it will prioritise a socially just approach to supporting our communities, currently relying on the oil and gas sector. It will not shirk away from the various challenges that are presented by the climate emergency. I call Stephen Kerr to be followed by Mark Ruskell. I am proud to stand and support this motion in the name of Douglas Lumson. I would just take the time to remind Bob Doris. When it comes to embarrassment, Bob Doris is representing the party that campaigned for two decades on a slogan, it is Scotland's oil. Now they are embarrassed by the very idea that we should have a thriving oil and gas sector. To Martin Whitfield, I would say that Labour closed more coal mines than Mrs Thatcher ever did, but then Mrs Thatcher built more ferries than the SNP ever built. Let's just be clear. If it was left to the perpetrators of the Bute House agreement, there would be no future for North Sea oil and gas. Humza Yousaf stated in his ambition just recently that Scotland should no longer be the oil and gas capital of Europe. What a signal to send to investors for, as I will, but be very brief because I have no time. Humza Yousaf said at our Aberdeen conference that he wanted to make Aberdeen the global renewable capital, recognising that we require a just transition and that Aberdeen's skills are still up there. Does Mr Kerr recognise that Aberdeen should lead the way and should be the global renewables capital? I believe that our country should be world-leading in every respect, oil and gas and renewables. It isn't a choice. We can have both. Yes, that might seem to be cakeism to the member, but I'm all in favour of having your cake and eating it. We can have that in Scotland because of the strategic strengths that our country has. For as long as the SNP goes on setting their programme for government by the strictures of the Bute House agreement, they cannot expect the oil and gas sector to take them seriously. The SNP is against new licensing, new activity and new investment. That's what we heard from the Cabinet Secretary. Someone shouts no. Reservations about everything to do with the development of oil and gas. Let's be frank, they even voted against the offshore petroleum licensing bill that is against reading. Mind you, there were only 27 of them that voted against it, because presumably the rest were already taking Keith Brown's advice not to bother turning up for work, but the SNP truthfully need to ditch the Scottish Greens and end the Bute House agreement. There are wise heads in the SNP ranks that know this only too well. Some of them may even be in the chamber right now. For Scottish Labour, they couldn't care less about the voters of the north-east of Scotland. They've given up on the north-east of Scotland. Look at their policy on the levy. Daniel Johnson didn't want to talk about this, and I can understand why, because they not only want to extend it for a whole Parliament, unlike the Conservatives. Of course we're disappointed that it's been extended for a year, one year. The Labour Party wants to extend it for a whole Parliament, and it would also remove the investment relief. They too are against new oil and gas licensing. By the way, if I've got that wrong—if I've got that wrong—that isn't today's policy, because it's the Labour Party and you never know where they stand on anything, I'm happy for Michael Marra to tell me if it's a change. Is this the policy or not, Michael Marra? Michael Marra—I don't think that he's got much grim to stand on in terms of the change in policy. Is he not fatally undermined by the fact that, for all the screaming and shouting from his benches, the Conservative Chancellor believes that a windfall tax is the right thing to do? Why can't he agree with his own party on that? In conclusion, Stephen Kerr. Oh, that's a shame. I'm disappointed to be having you close. Disappointed, of course, in that aspect of the budget, but take the budget as a whole. It's a great budget for this country, a great budget for workers, a great budget for growth and, hopefully, a great budget to re-elect a Conservative Government. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We're now over two years on from COP26, a summit where the world did not dare mention oil and gas despite all the warning signs. It was the year that the international energy agency and the United Nations called for no new oil and gas fields to be developed to keep 1.5 alive. Since then, we've seen why holding down every fraction of a degree of global warming is absolutely critical, because the planet has burned and flooded and we have stood by helplessly counting the cost. Finally, last year in Dubai, at a COP summit hosted by a petrol estate, a breakthrough of sorts the world adding oil and gas into an agreement for the very first time. The world is beginning a new consensus on oil and gas, and it is time for the UK Government to abandon its reckless drill-baby-drill approach. The choice before the UK Government is to either enable every last drop of oil and gas to be extracted, leading the industry to a deferred cliff-edge collapse, or to start managing that decline now and put in place a transition that leaves no workers behind. It is an inconvenient truth that North Sea oil and gas is in decline and everyone in this chamber knows it, but that's why it was so important for the Scottish Government to move away from supporting maximum economic recovery and to start the conversation about a presumption against new oil and gas development. We need to be aware of bogus arguments and where they are originating from. The United Nations, in its production gap report, warned us that private fossil fuel firms are, and I quote, highly politically organised, investing considerable resources into lobbying, campaign finance, public relations and think tank sponsorship, and that they exert influence through what the UN has described as a revolving door between business and government. I don't have time to take interventions. I'm asking the whole chamber to call out bogus arguments for more oil to deliver energy security for the UK when we know that 80 per cent of North Sea oil is exported on to global markets. I'm asking members to recognise that exploration licences that are granted today may not even produce oil until 2050—five years beyond our net zero target date. I'm asking members, including Liam Kerr, to rise up about false comparisons between the climate impact of North Sea gas and imported LNG when we know that the lowest carbon gas comes from our nearest neighbours in Norway. Members also need to consider, critically, the assertion that a 3 per cent increase in a windfall tax would suddenly lead to the collapse of an entire industry overnight. The fact is that the energy profits levy came with a super tanker-sized loophole, a tax relief of up to 91 per cent for investment in more oil and gas, investment that was most likely going to happen anyway. Closing that loophole could have brought in billions to solve a cost of living crisis that was destroying ordinary people's lives. The UK Government could have even chosen to make those tax reliefs available for renewable investments to create the jobs of the future today, but it chose not to do that. Tax allowances and reduced tax rates have allowed the Treasury to give more money to oil companies than it takes from them. In 2020, Shell were paid £80 million in negative tax, while the CEO pocketed £5.5 million and the shareholders saw record dividends. At the same time that was happening, Shell made redundant 330 of its workers in the North Sea. Absolutely shameful. Where were the Tories in the northeast condemning that when that happened? Presiding officer, the real traitors will be the ones who understand perfectly well what needed to be done but willfully stood by, did nothing and condemned future generations to climate chaos and an unjust transition. It is time for responsibility and action, and I look forward to this Scottish Government leading the way. Thank you. I call Ben Macpherson, the final speaker, in the open debate. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I absolutely first want to recognise the importance of those issues to colleagues who represent the northeast, but also that those issues are significant to all of us, both nationally and of course internationally, because globally the climate crisis is the most serious problem that we have ever faced. I think that it is important to recognise that. As humanity, it has to be at the forefront of all our agendas. Yes, we must be honest and humble that Scotland and the UK cannot solve this problem alone, but we have the know-how and we have the renewable resources, substantial renewable resources that are not available to other countries, to make a significant contribution to addressing this global challenge, and we have an obligation to humanity, including ourselves, to play our active part. Nationally, as others have said, one of the most serious issues that we face is consideration about energy security. That is an on-going consideration, but we must also keep in mind that that is based on global markets, and it is a fact to say that we have a declining basin in the North Sea. Yes, the energy industry as a whole, including oil and gas, is one of the most significant sectors and industries in our country, and we should celebrate that and recognise that and appreciate the points that have been made today in that space. Those are highly skilled jobs, well-paid jobs, and we must keep that in consideration as we transition to net zero. Just for clarity, I have full admiration for those who work in the oil and gas industry, for their technical knowledge and for what they do week in, week out, particularly those who are on rigs in the North Sea. I think that it is important that we put that on record. For my brief time working in the renewables sector, I also know how many people from the oil and gas sector are passionate about moving into the net zero space. In fact, most of our renewables companies are populated by those from the oil and gas industry, and they are making a huge contribution. In order to allow folk to make that shift from oil and gas into renewables, investment has to be made, and that is why the Scottish Government has invested £500 million in the Just Transition Fund. Does Mr MacPherson think that the UK Government should match that fund in order to get that Just Transition Fund? I think that it is important that there is public investment, as has just been stated. I also think that it is important that we have consistency in terms of policymaking and direction. Investors are seeking to put money into net zero. Net zero is the future for social and economic benefit, as well as in terms of the global context of trying to tackle climate change. UK Government's chopping and changing has confused the considerations for investors, whereas the Scottish Government's commitment to renewables and net zero is realised and recognised, and that is important. The Scottish Government, I know, is in the process of finalising its energy strategy and just transition plan. That will be a crucial document, and I look forward to engaging in it at committee and here in the chamber. In conclusion, Presiding offers, I want to touch on something that my colleague Ivan McKee rightly raised, which is the fact to use his phrase again, that Scotland has hit the energy jackpot a number of times now. As much as I enjoy being in the north-east when I am there, it is objectively fair to say that the infrastructure investment that the north-east should have given the oil and gas sector's success is not what it should be. If we compare the north-east, for example, with Dubai, the evidence is there to see. We need to make the most of this opportunity in net zero. Therefore, particularly Scottish Conservatives today, I am sure that we can come to a position whatever the final destination of Scotland's constitutional future that this Parliament should have powers over energy regulation and taxation. Thank you. We move to winding up speeches. I call on Michael Marra up to four minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Scottish Labour absolutely recognises that our energy industry is utterly vital to the workers and their families and the wider economy, not just in the north-east but across the whole of Scotland. A genuine just transition must be provided that protects the livelihoods of workers in the North Sea, and that is absolutely essential. We are absolutely clear that oil and gas will be part of our energy mix for decades to come. Government must work with the energy industry to manage that transition to clean energy in the coming years. However, doing that job is not easy. It is a moral as well as an economic challenge, as various members have set out this afternoon. It will require careful analysis, reliance on the science that is highlighted by the minister, and a genuine partnership with industry. As Liam McArthur, I thought very well set out collaboration and co-operation between Governments across the islands, which is far too short supply. I would say that we have to have a full-scale rejection of the hyperbole, like that on display from the Conservative colleagues today. Heroic and voluble, though the attempts from Stephen Kerr were in particular on that point. Leader Douglas Ross has been hung out to dry by the Chancellor today. It certainly will. I understand that Michael Marra might not want to listen to those benches, but will he at least listen to people from the United Kingdom who say that, under the Labour's plans to remove the reinvestment allowance, 42,000 jobs will be lost, 26 billion of economic value lost. Even former Labour councillors like Bernie Crockett and Aberdeen have disowned the Labour Party over this. I have to say to Mr Lumson that we work very closely, as closely as we can, with the oil and gas industry, to talk about their concerns over this. Clearly, there is a challenging process to get from the current situation that we have in oil and gas production to a clean energy system, and that is what I am trying to set out. It is not an easy pathway and it is one that we have to work on in collaboration and partnership to make happen. We would say that, as part of that, we do, and we would stand up absolutely, just as his Chancellor did today, for a continued and improved windfall tax in the North Sea to make sure that we can pay for the transition that has to happen. I would say that I will make some progressor. With the SNP, what we have instead is tax cuts for energy giants and tax rises for ordinary working people in Scotland—our nurses, teachers and police officers—and all during a cost-of-living crisis when people are struggling to make ends meet. Bob Doris was asking about what the windfall tax was designed to do. I can tell him that it is designed to deliver 50,000 jobs in Scotland, to have cheaper bills in Scotland and to deliver GB Energy to be HQ'd in Scotland, investment in Grangemouth, investment in the fourth, investment in the Tay, and centres to develop new energy products, a revolutionised national grid, and, in short, a plan to deliver that transition. Daniel Johnson was absolutely right to set out—no, sir, I am coming to my conclusion—to tell the chamber that this was about economic reality and the economic reality that the Tories do not want to face up to. The OBR told us today that GDP per person across the UK will be lower in 2028 than it is today. Every single person, poorer because of this Tory Government, is the plan that is in front of us as a result. Oil and gas is integral to that question for Scotland and our Scottish economy, and that transition is vital to our Scottish economy tomorrow. We have to reject the hyperbole of the Tories who have been holed below the waterline by their own party on those issues, and we have to support the amendment in Daniel Johnson's name. I thank members for their contributions today. I welcome the opportunity, as I always do, to stand up for energy workers, particularly those in the north-east that I represent, and I represent the future energy workers, where we would have, if we harnessed the opportunities ahead of us, the prosperity that the north-east has been so fortunate to have over many decades will be spread across Scotland. That is something that is worth working towards. The role of the oil and gas sector has played and will continue to play a huge part in Scotland's energy future. That workforce, that supply chain, is the envy of our European partners, and I see that everywhere I go, as energy minister, out with the UK speaking to them, they realise that we are best placed to capitalise on a renewables future. It is that skills base and that supply chain that is going to get us there, and we support them wholeheartedly. We are absolutely committed to such a transition, and working in partnership with industry to develop it. Even if there wasn't a climate emergency, we know that we need to plan for the future in which it is going to become more expensive and more difficult to extract oil and gas from the north-east. It will be an economic decision, a business decision that is made by companies to go elsewhere in the world to extract oil and gas. We cannot put our heads in the sand on that. We will be foolish not to prepare for that inevitability. What is left in the North Sea will get harder and more expensive to recover, and we must replace those jobs with renewable jobs. I will take Liam Kerr now. I am very grateful to Gillian Martin. On the transition point, Kevin Stewart earlier said that £500 million had been invested in the Just Transition Fund. I had to force the First Minister to correct the record last time he misled the chamber to avoid embarrassment for Kevin Stewart. Could the minister say how much has actually been invested in the Just Transition Fund to date? I am always here to spare any embarrassment from my colleagues. The total support for offshore wind in Scotland next year is £87 million that has been committed as part of that £500 million. If Mr Kerr had taken my intervention, I would have been able to get that sorted out earlier. In all my meetings with industry, I have had very positive conversations on the challenges that we have set collectively as a Government, but also as a society on the North Sea operators on their own Just Transition planning. They are making business decisions to invest in renewables. You just have to look at the collaborations that are coming together on the Scotland-Win licence options to see that oil and gas companies are working hand-in-hand with other energy producers to deliver on projects in floating offshore wind. I will mention the £15 million strategic investment that has been mentioned in the anchor supply chain. That is a supply chain that has supported oil and gas, has grown up with oil and gas. It is already pivoting to support renewables and will pivot even more as that trajectory continues upwards. Our Just Transition Fund, which in the first two years has committed £5.5 million to help energy workers to reskill and build confidence in the potential for a Just Transition. It is a fund that I imagine that the industry would have been delighted to see matched by the UK Government today. It is a shame that that did not happen in the budget earlier. I want to mention some of the contributions. I was very pleased when Labour said that they were going to invest £28 billion in green investment. I have to be honest, I was probably as disappointed as my Labour colleagues would have been when that was taken off the table. It was dropped, and I really think that that is a big mistake politically for them. I really hope that, if the Labour Government does—there is a Labour Government after the next general election—that they will look at that again. I think that it is owed to the people of Scotland in particular that there is that investment, not withstanding some of the points that have been made by Labour colleagues today. Liam McArthur makes the point that he needs substantial investment in the grid and I fully agree with him as well. However, I think that McKee and Bob Doris point out that the elephant in the room is that the revenue that oil and gas in Scotland has been wasted by successive UK Governments. I will end because I feel slightly sorry for Douglas Lums in today. Not only did the wind fall out of his sails around midday today when he realised that he was going to have to front up a debate on oil and gas when his London masters decided to continue to use oil and gas as a cash cow, where there are so many other sectors and companies making a scene of profits that are left off the hook. Scotland funds the UK project once again, but, devastatingly, he has also left in no doubt that the Scottish Conservatives have no influence with the UK leadership. I accept that the UK Conservatives ignore the Scottish Government. We are used to it, but, to ignore the Scottish Conservatives, my goodness, that must really sting. I call on Maurice Golden to wind up. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As we have heard today, our oil and gas sector is one of Scotland's key economic engines. A point well made by my colleague Douglas Lumsden, who spoke about working for the workers, Tess White, who highlighted energy security, as well as a well managed transition to renewables, and Stephen Kerr, who has ever spoke visiferously about the importance of investment. Listening to the debate today, I believe that almost everyone understands how important oil and gas is to Scotland. We all agree that the North Sea is a mature basin and there must be a transition to renewables, but that only makes it all the more difficult to understand the position of the party's opposite. The SNP happily supports a presumption against new exploration, while Labour has come out and said that it will not grant new licences, and perhaps Daniel Johnson can clarify that specific point. Be clear that we will honour existing licences. Furthermore, is it not better if you continue with the windfall tax to use that money to fund a transition rather than use it for a tax giveaway, because you are desperate and rather concerned about the next election? We have heard it today. No new licences according to the Labour Party, and that is a dereliction of duty in terms of the north-east and the rest of Scotland. Meanwhile, the Greens, ever the most extreme voices in Parliament, have actually boasted of wanting to end Scotland's oil and gas industry altogether. What those parties do not seem to understand or perhaps do not want to admit is that those policies set up a false proposition. We know from the Scottish Government's just transition review of the Scottish energy sector that North Sea production is declining faster than required to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees, so new licences will have a minor negligible even impact on our net zero efforts. Yes, fossil fuels are the largest source of global carbon emissions, and yes, we must tackle them if we are going to reach net zero. We cannot stick our heads in the sand and pretend that oil and gas is not going to be a key part of our economy for many years to come, especially given that the SNP and Greens are nowhere near achieving their target of 50 per cent of energy consumption coming from renewables by 2030. Clearly, we need better effort to reduce long-term demand. Whilst that is going on, we should also ensure that our supply is as low carbon as possible. As it happens, the carbon intensity of North Sea production is below the global average. In fact, natural gas from the UK continental shelf produces less than half the emissions of imported liquefied natural gas, so sourcing supply from the North Sea should be the first choice for Scotland. Moreover, the public is happy to. We want to support existing production by the intog round, which is helping to further decarbonise the production of oil and gas that is currently being produced. Maurice Golden There are lots of benefits to intog, but it has been held up by Scottish Government delays in planning, and that is something that needs to be looked at urgently in order to ensure that we have the supply chain that builds up in advance of Scotland. However, the public agrees with the support for oil and gas. A poll last year found that overwhelming majority of Scots, some 75 per cent, want demand met from domestic supply. The alternative is to increase imports potentially from higher-emission sources and, in turn, potentially driving demand for those higher-emission basins. Given the SNP has failed eight out of its last 12 legal emissions targets, it would think that it would want to avoid causing further environmental damage, but there is also an economic and social impact of demand reduction to consider. Something that those of us with the privilege to represent the North East communities are acutely aware of—a rapid shutdown such as what the Greens suggest—can only inflict unnecessary suffering on those communities, potentially costing everyone in Scotland as much as £1,100 each by 2030. Managing demand reduction over the long term provides the opportunity to ensure a just transition for oil and gas workers. I notice that, in the motion, there is no mention of the increasing cost of extracting oil and gas, which the minister referred to in her contribution. I am just interested in what the member's message would be to the sector facing that proposition. Maurice Golden, in conclusion, please. Unlike Audrey Nicholl, my message to the sector and to the world is that the North East and Scotland are open for business, and we want your jobs and your investment here. Overall, what we need is a pragmatic approach to oil and gas, one that is rooted in the real world, which is the best place to get it to net zero while protecting Scottish jobs and growing our economy. We can only hope that the Scottish Government pays heed instead of being dragged to further extremes by the Greens. That concludes the debate on backing Scotland's oil and gas sector. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of business motion 12397, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a business programme. I call on George Adam to move the motion. No member has asked to speak on the motion. Therefore, the question is that motion 12397 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is consideration of business motions 12398 on a stage 1 timetable for a bill and 12399 on a stage 2 timetable for a bill. I ask any member who wishes to speak against the motions to press their request to speak buttons. I call on George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau to move the motions. No member has asked to speak against the motions. Therefore, the question is that motions 12398 and 12399 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is consideration of five parliamentary bureau motions. I ask George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau to move motions 12400 and 12401 on approval of SSIs, 12402 on committee membership, 12403 on committee substitutes and 12404 on designation of lead committee. Thank you minister. The question on those motions will be put at decision time. There are seven questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first is the amendment 12389.2 in the name of Jenny Gilruth, which seeks to amend motion 12389 in the name of Liam Kerr on ending violence in Scottish schools be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. Therefore, we will move to vote and there will be a shorter suspension until our members to access the digital voting system.