 Ysb�wysgwyd, mae angen i osu'r regwm ar gyfer, chi ddatud yn ddau o gw coronavirusach? Rydw i fan hyn ydy, byddai y problemau i gyfnodigfawr yn gyfnodigfawr. Rydw i ddigwydd ar hyn, mae gwoundeidd sy'n gyffredinol i chi ddweud ar y gwir allw. Dwi'n gwn i gael mwy wneud o aglant o waith iawn i gyd ac yn fwy ffeist. Wrth hyn yn ddangos, dwyf yn gweld i chi wedi'r àful aethau hynny. Felly, efallais i hoffio cyhoedd y cymryd i ddulliant yr ymdilegu i fynd i ddifelwyd gan'r ddweud cymoeddon ni'n defnyddio imates o'r ddulliant i dweud o'r hoffio sy'n Murdoff. Dw i'n credu llywysau i chi amser iddo i ddymiannol o'r arweinyddau i ddifelwyd ymdilegu i dddymiannol oherwydd hynny, i defeillu'r ddulliant. Rwy'n cael i chi gydweithio honno am diemiannol amser, Liam McArthur, o bobl ni. GRISTHAILER REGENT for trying to maximise the online viewing ratings for my speech, I will try not to disappoint. Cylwyd y sensef o Groundhog Day, we seem to been having this debate in some guys on a weekly basis, one way or another. I certainly don't begrudge that given the urgency of the climate emergency, and I do the importance of ensuring a just transition, one that is my amendment and is called a Smith. Set out in his speech. But in my amendment to this debate sought i gymryd felly o bwysigwyr y gweithredu'r straff iawn i gael mwy oes yn cymdeithasol i gyddiadol sydd wedi gwylo'r rhai fiam. Felly y gallwn ei tesonion i Gwبةiddol mewn cais i dda little i gyfer ei hwn, rwyaf, phoeddwn i gael i gweithredu a wneud yn awdraed i gael i chi'n gwithgrifat yma'r droses maen nhw'n eu cynghwil i ddweudio mewn wneud i gael eich gwylo at y cwmniadau oes yn ei gweithredu i gweithredu i gael, oherwydd o falle yn bwysigwyr i gyddiadol i gael o'r cwrnod i gael y sectorio iawn, gyda'r ôl i'r gwaith, yn ddau i ddau'r gwaith, ac yn ddau i ddau i ddau i ddau i ddau i ddau i gael eich gwaith. Mae'r flasig oedd yn gweithio'r clandd, ac yn ddigonol, mae'n ddigonol i gael eich gwaith o'r sgol yng Nghaerdydd, oedd yn gweithio'r gwaith o'r llwythau, i ddigonol i gael eich gwaith o'r llwythau i ddau i ddau i gael i gael eich gwaith. The UK Climate Change Committee, as the uncaring knowledge, all of their scenarios anticipate oil and gas accounting for up to or around 50 per cent of total cumulative energy demand up to 2050. This may reflect a marked reduction on where we are now, but it remains significant. It also underlines the need both to bear down on demand as well as avoid simply displacing domestic production with imports of higher environmentally impactful and more problematic security supplies. At the same time, those working in the oil and gas sector do recognise the need for an energy transition. Recent polling indeed appears to suggest that there's a real appetite amongst those working in the sector to see that transition take place. I think the importance on government and for its agencies is to make that as easy as possible. There's an obvious read across to the needs of the renewable energy sector, but I think it would be overly simplistic to simply say that that's where the transition will go. There will be many other sectors that can take advantage of the skills of those within the oil and gas sector. As I say, it's incumbent upon government and agencies to do more, both to raise awareness of options, but also to make that transfer, including any retraining or skills development needed as smooth as possible. We'll happily support the amendment in Colin Smith's name. I'm slightly more reluctant in relation to Michael Matheson's amendment. For the record, Scottish Liberal Democrats certainly do not at this stage welcome the Scottish budget, not just because it clowers local authorities across the country. It also falls short of helping us to meet our climate objectives. The questions have already been raised about what the £500 million energy transition fund is actually made up of and whether that will turn out to be more smoke and mirrors. It would be helpful in that context, perhaps, if the Minister or the Cabinet Secretary might be able to set out the year one objectives for the £20 million referred to. I think that many workers will actually benefit from what the predicted investments are in future years. In the context of the UK climate change committee's recent criticism of the Scottish Government over the lack of detail on plans to achieve net zero, I think that those and other questions become ever more crucial and ever more central. As I've said in the context of previous debates, key to a just transition is the creation of new green jobs. We've had the promises before, but we cannot afford to leave people and communities behind. However, achieving that will require those plans to be both radical but also credible. We need to bring people with us and that, I think, will rest heavily on credibility, including those who are in the oil and gas sector. The change is unavoidable, but only with detailed plans and proper resourcing can there be any hope of achieving that in a managed way. We need a new age of prosperity for Scotland. Decommissioning will play a central role, with up to £50 billion invested in the North Sea by 2040. The potential is there to support thousands of jobs, either directly or through supply chains. Jobs that oil and gas workers are well placed to fill, given their highly transferable skill sets. It is the greatest circular economy to properly tap that potential. For example, why scrap a pipeline when it is worth five times as much in the construction sector? Together, improved reuse, better re-manufacturing and higher value recycling could increase the value of assets such as steel, valves, vessels and tanks by as much as 25 per cent. Alongside a digital tracking system for new or replacement assets, through QR codes, we can ensure that we extract as much of that value as possible. We should also be capitalising on the huge steel smelting potential. Typically, 94 per cent of oil and gas platforms' steel is smelted, so an electric arc furnace in Scotland makes perfect sense to help recycle the estimated 5.5 million tonnes of steel available on the UK. It would create skilled jobs, reduce carbon impacts and lower constraint payments. Once again, I urge the Government to explore that opportunity. All that requires close co-operation with the oil and gas sector. It makes sense that we do, because even the UK Committee on Climate Change forecasts that oil and gas will continue to provide up to 50 per cent of our energy demand out to 2050. So, the sensible approach is ensuring that industry has the minimal impact possible on the environment. That is why the North Sea transition deal is focused on reducing production emissions, which will get a boost from UK plans to quadruple offshore wind generation, making electrification of oil and gas platforms easier by tying them to that offshore generation. Set against our sensible and sustainable vision is the extreme position that the Greens are pushing. They want North Sea oil and gas shutdown as quickly as possible. One of their ministers called for a shutdown to start next year. Meanwhile, the other openly celebrates Scottish oil and gas jobs being put at risk. It is the stuff of student politics, treating the oil and gas sector as an enemy and their workers as an afterthought. The SNP seems happy to go along with that approach. They show no sign of putting in the work needed. Still, no circular economy bill years late. No industrial road map, which is critical for CCS, and no word on Scottish offshore floating wind getting the sport. They need to compete. The Scottish Government has set an arbitrary limit of 100 megawatts for Scottish projects, and they are expecting that to compete with the 300 megawatt projects throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. However, the failures are mounting even further. Emissions targets failed, recycling targets failed, green jobs target failed and they cannot even deliver a 1990s deposit return scheme after working on it for a decade. So let's remember that 100,000 jobs depend on the oil and gas sector. Those workers need certainty for the future and I know which of our two visions they trust to deliver it. I now call Paul MacLennan to be followed by Michael Marra up to four minutes please Mr MacLennan. Thank you Deputy Presiding Officer. This morning I held a joint meeting with the Scottish Renewables and the Scottish Cluster. At that meeting we looked at the opportunities for both sectors regarding the supply chain, encouraging local supply chain development, manufacturing opportunities and developing a skilled workforce, working with local skills agencies, colleges and universities. I also know that, following discussions with Oil and Gas UK, they are keen to engage with both the Scottish Cluster and the Renewables sector in this regard. The costs of retrofitting properties in Scotland are also estimated to be around about £33 billion, according to us today by Glasgow University. With our 2 per cent population share in my years old and constituent that would be around about £750 million alone in that sector. Last week in the Scottish Government next year debate I touched on a recent meeting with Scottish Renewables with the SNP colleagues where we heard of the opportunities of Renewables sector in delivering an additional 17,000 jobs with an additional £33 billion of GVA by 2030. In that same debate I mentioned in a recent report by Robert Gordon University stated that 90 per cent of oil and gas industry jobs have medium to high transferability and to grain and net zero industries. I've only got four minutes so I want to get through the speech of points to make, not I want to make, I want to get through. There are opportunities to work with all sectors together. The Scottish Cluster also recently published the key findings of a report on the employment impact of the Scottish Cluster in Scotland. The report was commissioned by Storega, the lead developer of the ACORN project on behalf of the Scottish Cluster. The Scottish Cluster found out that it could support an average of 15,100 jobs between 2022 and 2050, compromising 6,200 direct jobs and 8,900 supply chain jobs. Today, total Scottish Cluster jobs were expected to peak at 20,600 in 2031. If the UK Government had accepted project as track 1, that would have started supporting jobs as early as 2022. No, I'm sorry, I've got time to get through. I've only got four minutes. The initial project bold phase would have supported 15,000 jobs straight away. So I asked this question, who's letting the Northeast down now? That would have been bad enough, but the consumer, no I'm sorry, no I'm sorry. That would have been bad enough, but the Conservatives' shambolic handling of the Peterhead CCS project in 2015 just adds insult to injury. No, only this week, Professor. Excuse me, gentlemen. I think that the member has indicated now quite a few times that he's not giving way and it's up to each member, as you know, to decide whether they're taking intervention or not. Please resume us, Mr Clinton. I think that the truth is making an impact dear, Presiding Officer. Only this week, Professor Stuart Heslidane, carbon capture and storage export at the University of Edinburgh, said that there is no advantage in the project selection as a reserved bidder. No advantage. Sorry, I'm no. He also said that carbon capture projects are fundamental to Scotland meeting its net zero targets by 2045. He also stated that it just means that you have to go to a lot of meetings where there's very little chance of one of the other bidders being declared void, so you're effectively being asked to run on the spot with very little or no funding, and that's a direct quote. I'll ask again who's letting the north-east down, the Tories. No, I'm sorry, I'm not taking any interventions. The Scottish Government is investing heavily in the area. 62 million pounds of energy transition fund will support energy sector in the north-east, help makes significant process in energy transition, as we move towards a net zero society by 2045. The £500 million energy transition fund will protect existing jobs and create new jobs in the north-east and across Scotland by opening up opportunities for energy transition and harnessing private sector funding. The Scottish Government has already announced 26 million for the energy transition zone, 16.5 million for the NZTTP, 6.5 million for the global underwater hub and 4.65 million for the Aberdeen hydrogen hub. In conclusion, that isn't a discussion. We can manage a just transition working with all sectors. The Tories need to move on from that narrative. The Scottish Government is wholly committed to ending Scotland's contribution to climate change by 2045 and to ensuring that we do that in a way that is just and leaves no one behind. The Scottish Government is committed to supporting the north-east of Scotland and is determined to secure a just transition for the region and all its workers. The Scottish Government will not allow the mistakes of the past to be repeated. Indeed, far from the deserting sector, the Scottish Government is already investing in its net zero transformation. I now call Michael Marra to be followed by Mark Ruskell up to four minutes, please, Mr Marra. There is no greater issue of importance to the people I represent in the future of the economy of the north-east and the livelihoods that depend upon it. This is about jobs, wages and our taxes. The deeply worrying income tax receipts presented by the finance secretary last week can be in part traced to the low oil price and the decline of North Sea exploration, so it is the public finances and our public services too. The Scottish Labour believes that only viable transition is the job's first transition where opportunity remains for our communities. We believe that the skills and infrastructure in the north-east will be vital to any realistic transition to a low-carbon economy, but we do not underestimate the scale of the challenge. If there is a good example where such a fundamental change has been achieved since the industrial revolution without significant pain, I am still to see it. When I read words from colleagues in other parties in recent days about jobs' rich future, I have to say that I am sceptical and that is on the basis that I am afraid of experience. Alex Salmond and the SNP ministers were the royal family of the Saudi Arabia of hyperbole rather than anything to do with renewable energy. The debate so far that we have had is really about the clash between very warm and grandiose words and the reality that is on the ground. Colin Smyth has highlighted the divergence between the huge promises that were made a decade ago and the challenge for this Government in this debate today and more generally is to convince the public that they have a sound vision that is pursuable and that it is not just those grand promises. We are still here after 14 years in the climate emergency worsening by the day and all that time wasted on grand words and little work. We are being asked to believe that now that the coalition partners in the Greens who cannot produce or run a bottle return scheme are going to be the difference in making that transition work. Frankly, I think that that stretches the credibility even further. If Scotland is to successfully transition to that low-carbon economy, we have to have a clear industrial plan built with experts, investors, trade unions and workers, and particularly from the oil and gas sector. My position as a member for North East Scotland is that I regularly meet businesses keen to assist and to create jobs and to make profits in those new industries. Floating offshore wind offers real opportunities for the north-east. However, for reasons that I find genuinely difficult to understand, the Scottish Government is putting Scotland at a serious disadvantage in the evolution of an offshore wind supply chain by limiting innovation or stepping stone projects in the North Sea to 100 megawatts, which they have been told quite specifically by the industry will be unfinancible. The contrast in the competition is with English and Welsh waters of the Celtic Sea, where innovation projects up to 300 megawatts are able to come forward. I am asking ministers for assurance today that they will look at the intog plan and think again on the limits. Unless the 100 megawatt cap is raised to 300 million in one second, I will. Unless the 100 megawatt cap is raised to 300 megawatts for innovation as well as oil and gas linked projects, Scotland will struggle to compete with activity elsewhere in the UK. The member raises an important point in relation to the intog. It is an issue that we are actively considering at the present moment. However, he will be aware that the purpose behind the cap is to help to generate innovation and to drive new technology in this particular sector. The danger is that, in lifting the cap to a much greater level, you do not drive that innovation and that new technology. That is part of the reason and part of the thinking that is going on in trying to strike the right balance in the sector. I certainly understand the intent from the minister on the scale and the need in his view for a cap. If the 100 megawatt projects are unfinancible and unrealistic, the kind of innovation that he hopes for will not happen. He has to engage in that. When we see the revision to the intog guidelines, which I believe are under way, I hope that it will reflect the actual reality of making those projects happen. For far too long, it is the rhetoric about the grand promises that we have had. If we do not develop the stepping stone projects to build the supply chain in advance of Scotland, otherwise we will be into the same old cycle of work going overseas. The decision to raise the intog innovation cap is not a matter for Westminster, it rests with the Scottish Government alone. I hope that, at least, that is a practical innovation, a step that can be taken by this Government coming out of this debate today. Here we are again, a Groundhog Day motion on all and gas coming from the Tories. It does seem that they are having trouble keeping up with the changing world and the changing nature of this debate. Let's rewind a bit for the sake of Mr Kerr and go back to what the world was saying all those months ago in the run-up to COP26. The UN Secretary General said that countries should, and I quote, end all new fossil fuel exploration and production and shift fossil fuel subsidies into renewable energy. That, Mr Kerr, is about getting real. The International Energy Agency said that if Governments are serious about the climate crisis, there can be no new investments in oil, gas and coal from now, from this year. That is about getting real. Lord Dieben, who is chair of the UK climate change committee, told Mr Kerr in this very Parliament that the justification for any new oil and gas exploration or production has to be very strong indeed, and I cannot say that I have seen that so far. That is also about getting real. In September, the UK Secretary of State for Energy, Equality and Quieting said that the way forward was to build a strong home-grown renewable energy sector to further reduce our reliance on fossil fuels in response to the recent gas price crisis. That was also about getting real. If there is time in hand, I will give way to Mr Kerr or to Mr Carson. When you are talking about getting real, do you welcome the fact that the UK might have to import oil and gas from abroad with a larger footprint to ensure that we have a just transition? That is exactly the point of what the Scottish Government is now doing to assess what our domestic energy requirements are and how that relates to the fields that we have in the North Sea, the six billion barrels of oil and gas that we have in the North Sea, some of which could meet our domestic energy needs. If I can take Mr Kerr to November, the COP26 and Glasgow agreement, in the text of that agreement, there was a welcome recognition of the need for just transition and a recognition of the need to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, but the failure of the agreement to commit to a global phase out of coal was largely due to there being no matching commitment from richer countries to phase out our oil and gas, and it is quite clear that what the world now has to do to keep 1.5 alive. The only responsible way forward globally is a managed transition and phase out of oil and gas over time rather than a sudden and deferred collapse in the future. Colin Smyth is right to remind the Tories of the unjust transition of coal mining communities in the 1980s, which has left so many generations on the scrap heap. A managed transition is the only way that we can ensure oil and gas workers are not left behind, yet it is disappointing to hear the industry continue to make the case for licensing of new reserves. Mr Kerr has heard yesterday all in gas UK speaking in the net zero committee about how it wanted to upscale from six billion barrels in the North Sea to 18 billion barrels in the years ahead and how maximum economic recovery of this is somehow consistent with both the just transition and the goal of 1.5 degrees. It is no wonder that public polling shows a distrust in the industry to lead its own transition because we need to see that strategic leadership coming from Governments to protect the climate and protect the workers. We need to work within our planetary limits. There should not be a barrier to innovation and growth of business opportunities because it is the catalyst that we need for change, to create new markets, to crowd in investment and deliver long-term, stable and fair jobs for the future. That is the debate that we will be having in this chamber. It just looks like the Tories are not interested in having it. I now call Tess White to be followed by Jim Fairlie. In the north-east, the region that I represent, the offshore oil and gas sector is worth more than £18 billion to the local economy. It supports 65,600 jobs. It may feel like Groundhog Day to Mr Ruskell, but a fair and managed transition to net zero is critical to these communities. It is critical to these communities and their economic and emotional wellbeing. The SNP Green Coalition spends a lot of time talking about just transition. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that it simply does not understand what it means. We need to see a responsible transition to net zero that takes existing energy demand into account, protects our energy security and safeguards the jobs of workers in carbon-intensive industries. Last week, Patrick Harvie suggested that it was extreme to keep expanding oil and gas exploration in the north sea. He seems to have succumbed to the fallacy, that cutting off domestic supply somehow means that the demand for fossil fuels will disappear and NOAA won't take an intervention. It won't instead. We'll rely increasingly on imports from countries like Russia and Qatar, losing thousands of jobs for no environmental gain. An odd position for the so-called Greens when outsourcing oil and gas production overseas ignores the huge carbon footprint of doing so. You might smile at me, Mr Ruskell, but it's not funny. LNG imports from abroad are far more carbon-intensive than domestic energy production, more than twice as much. Let's be clear. In all UK climate change committee scenarios, oil and gas accounts for between 47 per cent and 54 per cent of total cumulative energy demand between 2020 and 2050. All of those scenarios are net zero compatible. Let's not forget that the SNP made a second oil boom a central pillar of their economic policies for independence just a few years ago. It's Scotland's oil, they said, and that's your narrative. Now they've cost us the cambo project and the 1,000 jobs that went with it. Astonishingly, the First Minister told MSPs that the new oil field shouldn't be given the green light even before the Scottish Government has completed a programme of work and analysis to understand Scotland's energy requirements. How is that credible? This isn't a just transition. For a couple of headlines, the SNP and Greens are recklessly pushing the oil and gas industry over a cliff edge, risking taking countless communities in the northeast with it, and it's shameful. Labour would be wise to listen to the GMB's general secretary's scathing criticism of the cheerleaders for the cambo shutdown, saying that they aren't just throwing energy workers under the bus, but also our security of energy supply for gas that we will still need on the road to 2050. That was the GMB, Presiding Officer. No, I mean the last few minutes. All of us need to recognise that we must take action on climate change. We all recognise that. The energy sector isn't just alive to the climate crisis. It is at the forefront of the low-carbon energy transition. More than ever, we need the skills, expertise and innovation of this sector to help us to achieve net zero. Yet, this SNP-Green coalition, complicit with Labour, is determined to target it. Meanwhile, thousands of hard-working people in the energy sector are getting on with the diversification to renewables that we need for net zero. It's high time that the SNP and the north-east instead of their cosy coalition partners. I've written a speech already for this debate that was forward-looking, focused and positive. I then read the Tory motion. It's a phrase that gets bandied about a lot these days. It's like the newest buzzword that proves that you're just not cool if you don't use it. It started off as a genuine phrase with meaning and depth, and it's now just become a political football when kicked around all over the place. I suppose in politics it were ever thus. I'm old enough to remember, as are most of the people sitting in this chamber, another time when Scotland was promised a new dawn with opportunities in every corner of Britain for those who were prepared to grab them. Then, Ravenscraig's towers came down, the ships stopped being built, the pits were closed and we stopped making cars. The political choices of Thatcher's lears led waste to huge swathes of communities right across the industrial heartlands of Scotland, all the promises of jam tomorrow. Those communities are still waiting for the jam that will never be delivered by the Tories. In fact, their current Westminster leader actually joked about Thatcher being ahead of her time in reaching net zero by closing the coal mines. She may well have been, but her motivation had nothing to do with climate change. It was just another Tory Prime Minister who cared not a job for the people of Scotland. Those hard-working communities were utterly decimated and will still live with the aftermath of the poverty, alcohol abuse, drug abuse and three generations of people who were left to rot. A Tory motion talking about defending jobs and protecting an industry that doesn't ring through, the hypocrisy is utterly dripping from every word. In fact, the hypocrisy is something that there is plenty of from the Tories in here. There is hypocrisy in wanting to suck out every last drop of oil that is left in Scotland's seas, something that simply does not chime with the global reality of our need to stop burning fossil fuels, let alone the Government's own targets, the UK Government's own targets of reaching net zero by 2050. If the Tories' motivation for wanting to drain every last dollar of oil at the North Sea was really to protect the fabulous workforce and use the revenue for direct benefit for the people of Scotland, I could have some sympathy with the motion, but it's not. It's about bleeding our natural resources dry and siphoning off them when they have to be swallowed up by Westminster's own vanity projects, while at the same time completely bypassing the democratically elected Parliament right here in Scotland. Had there been an oil fund established, as Norway did, for the direct use of this Scottish Government—oh boy, we could be doing with such a fund right now, because let's face it, the Norwegian fund is now up to one and a half trillion dollars—then again, I could possibly have sympathy with this motion. However, alas, there is nothing. Instead, Westminster won't even talk to the Scottish Government about devolved borrowing powers, so we can make the decisions about how we fund what this Government needs to manage the devastation of Covid, let alone reduce our carbon emissions, while maintaining world-class workforce and meaningful well-paid long-term jobs. When we are talking about how the vast wealth that has been taken from our seas, what have we actually got to show for it? We've got a fantastic workforce in the north-east, but there had to be, because the oil was based off our coast. We have an infrastructure that can see us into the next stage of the real opportunities to harness the energy from nature. Again, there had to be, because it was needed to get access to our resources. However, the most advanced carbon capture project that is in the UK right now does not necessarily have to be in the north-east, so guess what? It's not. Sit down. That has been rejected by the UK Government in favour of far less advanced projects in England, buying up redwall votes that it gained in the last election, so much for this Tory motion supposed to be commitment to the folk of the north-east. Acorn has been buried, and the only way that that project is going to grow at its full potential is when Scotland is an independent country with all the powers that we need to absolutely maximise every opportunity that our vast wealth and resources offer us. Only then will the people of Scotland get the true benefit of all of Scotland's natural resources. We have talked in Parliament code about the three-lined whips. Today's motion from the Tories is nothing more than a whinge, and that is probably the biggest let-down to the north-east energy sector of the lot. They are offering nothing, they are suggesting nothing, and frankly, they don't want to change anything. The Government's amendment on the other hand talks in detail about the challenges that we face, the number of workers that need to be supported, the timescales that are involved and the amount of money—almost £500 million—that will form an actual just transition for the north-east and money. I know where I'll be voting today. I'm finished. I now call Jackie Dunbar, who will be the last speaker in the open debate, up to four minutes. I'm pleased to have the opportunity again to speak to this motion. I feel a bit like Deja Vu, because I kind of spoke about this last week in the just transition debate. I'm probably going to use some of my words from last week, Presiding Officers, so please forgive me. It's no surprise that the north-east has relied on the oil and gas industry for many years to provide vital jobs and investments in the region, and as a result it has flourished. My own family has been brought up with the money that has been earned through the oil and gas industry. My other half has worked in it most of his life, and my daughter is now an OT engineer who spends an awful lot of time on the oil rigs doing her work. I quite ask me exactly what it is that she does, because she's a lot brainier in what I ever will be. Yes, I'll take an intervention, Mr L�ll. Douglas Lumson? I thank the member for giving way. Obviously, she understands the importance of the oil and gas industry, so does she not agree with me that projects like Campbell need to go ahead for the prosperity of the north-east? The kibosh on Campbell is my understanding, but what I do find—and it's a pity that we can't agree that what we're trying to do here, Presiding Officer, through you is to actually protect the jobs in the north-east, and that is what I am doing instead of trying to make shameful statements, to try and scare the folk of the north-east into believing that we are shutting down the oil rigs tomorrow. That is just an absolute disgrace, and I am getting sick and tired of hearing it every day. We at the NZ Committee yesterday heard from Professor Hazel Dean, who was absolutely brilliant. He was discussing with us why Acorn was not selected, and some of it, I thought, was just absolutely spot-on, and it might actually come as a surprise to some. I'm going to read a paragraph, if you don't mind, Presiding Officer, from him. Acorn has long been recognised as being the best investigated and most mature of all the UK decarbonisation clusters. It is also low risk because the pipelines exist. The storage site is very well investigated and minimal new infrastructure is needed. Acorn also opens up access to 80 per cent of the geological storage around the UK, of many diverse geological types, providing the highest chance of developing secure storage geology—sorry, my teeth need to be put back in—and Acorn can rapidly develop supplies of CO2 by shipping from sources across the UK. That was not taken into the factor when they were looking at the contracts. The Acorn development is huge for us, and it is huge for going forward for the just transition. For the UK Government to put it on reserve, to make sure that that means that the companies who are developing the stuff in the Acorn—I am no expert, but I was told yesterday that they are having to carry on investigating the new technologies and the new ways of doing things, but I'm sorry, I'm just a wait to finish, I've got 20 seconds, and they've got no way of getting recompensed for that money because it's on a reserve list and there is no guarantee that Acorn is going to come on board. That is what is shameful, Presiding Officer. Thank you. We will now move to closing speeches, and I call on Michael Marra to wind up for labour up to four minutes, please, Mr Marra. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Talk about deja vu here I am again. We have had versions of this debate, I think, over recent weeks, and I actually don't share some of the members of the chamber's regret about that. I see there's no more important economic issue that this country faces, and we should be discussing this time and again in this chamber. We should be talking about practical interventions that the Government should be taking, and I'd be happy to talk about it as often as we possibly can, because there's nothing as I began my own speech by saying more important to my region, and frankly I believe the whole country in doing something about this transition and doing it properly. I'm afraid that, in this short debate, the Government has maintained the position of being heavy on rhetoric and light on realistic and reality-based solutions. We have to have a Government that's engaged less in the issues of grievance than trying to bring forward solutions, working with other Governments both in this country and abroad to try and help to deal with this situation and to bring opportunity to the country. When the minister is keen to highlight the Acorn project, I'm afraid, as various SNP members on the benches have done, it's very much in a tone of grievance, but we know that carbon capture is absolutely vital to the statutory targets that we've been set in this Parliament that was voted through by and is meant to be adopted by this Government. If there isn't a solution on the table right now from the current process, then it's up to this Government to find a different way of creating a process, finding capital on international markets, finding investors, working with partners to actually make this happen. I absolutely agree in terms of how the setback, the refusal of the track 1 status for the carbon capture project in the north-east, has been, but the reality is that a solution has to be found. When I asked the minister a few weeks ago how many times he had met with the UK Government to actually pursue this issue, he told me at that time that he'd met with them at least two or three times. It turns out that he's actually not met them at all to pursue this. I'm afraid of information requests from your diary. He's absolutely confirmed that no such meetings took place, and I can provide. I certainly can. Cabinet Secretary, of the top of my head, the very day before the UK Government made its announcement, I had a call with Greg Hans and raised the very issue of the Scottish cluster and whether, when he announced the net zero strategy, he would announce the outcome of that, given the importance of it to the Scottish economy. There's one very good example of exactly when I discuss the matter with the UK Government. Michael Marra, I get to reintroduce you to the debate. Michael Marra, thank you. Thank you. I apologize, Prime Officer. I'd be very happy to provide the freedom of information request to the minister that actually details his diary over that period, that shows that no such meetings, as he detailed, were in the diary. I'm assuming that there will be notes available from those meetings if he believes that they actually took place. We actually need a Government that's going to be able to walk the walk, rather than just talk the talk. This Parliament has to be, in the words when Paul McClennan said, who is letting Scotland down. It's the job of this Government and this Parliament to lift Scotland up and to find solutions, rather than finding conflict at every turn. I think that we do have to get practical. When the practical things introduced from those benches and talking about lifting the cap on offshore wind innovation projects, what could be done about that? I'd like to hear a response from the minister on his closing speech on that. Perhaps I'll move to monthly auctions for offshore wind licences to build the pipeline and stimulate more companies that can develop different products. By yearly auctions on offshore licences isn't actually stimulating the throughput in the pipeline. Port directors around Scotland have highlighted that to me in recent weeks. We also need to look at increasing domestic content. The UK Government introduced a contract this week, which had no requirements for domestic content, whereas the US Government is introducing 55 per cent limits on that. There are lots that we can all do. We need to get real about that, and we need to get deeply practical. The more times we can discuss it, the more times we can move away from, frankly, the conflict and rhetoric that is brought to the chamber by lots of members, the better, because the jobs in the north-east and the future of the Scottish economy depend on it. I now call on Michael Matheson, cabinet secretary, to wind up the Scottish Government. Up to five minutes, please, cabinet secretary. I very much welcome a debate that is on such an important sector to the Scottish economy. Given the important role that it will play in helping to support and sustain an economic transition and an energy transition in Scotland, my view is that in the Scottish Government's view, the skills and assets of our oil and gas sector in Scotland are a strength in that transition, helping to support the move towards low-carbon energies, which will serve us in the years ahead. Colin Smyth was right in his contribution when he said that we are operating on borrowed time. A backdrop to all this debate is that it is in the face of the twin crisis of a climate crisis and biodiversity crisis that we need to make sure that the actions that we take on energy policy in the years ahead are reflective of the global climate change challenge that we all face. There may be different views in the chamber on how we should do that, the pace of which it should be taken forward and the manner in which it should be taken forward. However, I believe that there is no one in this chamber that does not recognise that we need to deliver a just transition for those who are employed in our oil and gas sector and those who are dependent on our oil and gas sector. Those of us in this chamber who are old enough to have lived through the economic and social and community disaster that was created by the closure of our mining communities and our pits and by the closure of our steel mills given the impact that they had, which is now intergenerational, we cannot and no government should allow that to be repeated. One thing that this Government will not do is stand aside and allow such a repeat of failure in terms of government to actually do so. I will give way to Mr Kerr. Liam Kerr, I am very grateful. Last week, Gary Smith of the GMB said that workers have been lied to because the Scottish Government had been talking about and promising tens of thousands of jobs in the renewables sector, and those jobs have never materialised. Was he right? No, I do not think that he is, but I understand that he has a view on energy policy, which is not consistent with that of the Scottish Government. For example, his view on nuclear energy is not consistent with the Scottish Government. He would like to see more nuclear energy and we are not supportive of that. However, I recognise that there is more that we need to do in order to grow and to develop our renewable energy sector. I made reference to a very good example of that just in the course of the last week with the new factory that has been developed at Nigg, a very good practical example of a facility that has largely been used for oil and gas purposes, being converted and becoming and transitioning towards an important facility in helping to support the transition to renewable energy. I want to pick up on the point that a number of members have made in terms of growing and developing our offshore energy sector, particularly in the renewable energy elements of it. The member will be aware that, in particular Colin Smyth's contribution, we are presently going through the Scotland round process, which is looking at the leasing of seabed in a number of different parts across Scottish waters. Within that, for the first time—this is the first time we have had a leasing programme previously—it was a matter that was controlled by the Crown Estate at a UK Government level. However, now that we have devolved competence on it, we are making sure that we are embedded in that process that there is a clear statement of intent on how those who secure leases will be able to support the domestic supply chain. I believe that we are starting to see that materialising in the decision that was announced in NIG just last week. However, do we need to develop that and grow that further? Absolutely, and we need to make sure that we capitalise on that. I want to pick up on Michael Marra's point about the in-tog process. It is out to consultation, but it is important that we do not let the oil and gas industry off the hook and those who are in innovative businesses that are looking to develop technology that could help to decarbonise oil and gas facilities at sea through the use of renewable energy by simply lifting the cap to a level that compromises the ability to do that. I hear those in the industry who would say that we should just do what the UK Government is doing. There may be merit in doing that, but I am not ruling that out. However, I also do not want to simply remove the challenge to the oil and gas sector and to those who are in the renewables sector to make sure that we are supporting innovation but also making sure that they decarbonise their operations. I think that we need to make sure that we listen to those views but that we do not simply back away from challenging them as well in this process. However, we will take those views into account and I will undertake to write to Mr Marra with more details about how we are going to consider that as part of the consultation if that would be helpful to him. I can also turn finally to the issue around the importance of the Scottish cluster. No one should be in any doubt about the absolute critical importance that the Scottish cluster plays to not just the decarbonisation of key parts of the Scottish industry within oil and gas but also to meeting our climate change targets. The UK Government will not be able to achieve its own climate change targets without the Scottish cluster. The reality is that if we are to deliver a just transition for our oil and gas industry, all Governments need to play their part. That includes the UK Government playing their part in supporting the cluster and moving it into track 1. In doing that, they will start to demonstrate the ambition and the leadership that is necessary to make sure that we deliver for the north-east of Scotland for the oil and gas sector and in dealing with their climate change targets. I believe that there is a good future for our oil and gas sector here in Scotland and also in supporting us moving to low-carbon energies and that the Scottish Government will be doing everything in its control in order to make sure that we deliver on that vision in the future. I now call Douglas Lumson to wind up the debate for the Conservatives. I would say that you would have seven minutes in light of the fact that the cabinet secretary had six. It is telling when it comes to defending the thousands of jobs in the north-east that it is the Scottish Conservatives who bring forward this debate, because every other party seems to have abandoned the energy industry. I offer no apologies to Mike Ruskell or Jackie Dunbar for bringing this debate again today, because we will bring this forward any time to defend the thousands of jobs that are at stake in the north-east. The Conservative group is 100 per cent behind a transition towards net zero. There is no doubt and no question about that commitment, but we believe in just that, a transition, no cliff edge, no immediate stop to oil and gas production, no uncertainty for workers and a coherent plan to protect the north-east. At the moment, the SNP Green coalition has no plan. It is creating a huge amount of anxiety in my area and is threatening the oil and gas industry with a cliff edge that could harm us all. Their approach has put in tens of thousands of north-east jobs at risk and will have a devastating impact on the economy of not just the north-east, but Scotland as a whole. That brings me on to some of the contributions that we have heard today. Liam Kerr rightly mentioned that Russia, Qatar and Norway will be looking on gleefully as the First Minister shoots herself in the foot and strengthens jobs and the economy in those areas. Paul McClellan asked twice who is supporting Acorn. I can tell him, because he would not take an intervention, but the UK is supporting Acorn to the tune of £31 million so far. Jackie Dunbar, that is real support. Nothing, I believe, from the Scottish Government. I also heard from the cabinet secretary. He spoke once again about the £500 million transition fund. In the budget last week, we heard £20 million of capital funding, but as yet we do not know if companies have to bid in as their projects in the pipeline. Absolutely no details whatsoever. Liam McArthur rightly points out that the importance of jobs and retraining, but he once again mentioned the lack of details on the transition fund. It is not just here that the debate has taken place. Others are having a say outside this chamber. Former SNP First Minister Alex Salmond said at the weekend that the SNP has kicked the north-east in the teeth. He gets it. Union leaders get it. John Boland from United and Jake Malloy of RMT all spoke of their fears after hearing the news that Shell had withdrawn from Campbell. They are right to be worried. I sit on the finance committee and witness after witness gives evidence that shows that our economy is in serious trouble. Much of it is driven by this coalition with the Greens pulling the strings. Our tax intake per person is lower than the rest of the UK, and getting worse. Our welfare bill is rising faster than the rest of the UK. Our working population is falling compared to the rest of the UK. Economic growth is lower than the rest of the UK. Recovery is slower than the rest of the UK. Complete incompetence by this devolved Scottish Government is an absolute disgrace. We cannot simply throw this industry over the cliff edge and expect our economy to weather it. It won't. There are significant consequences that this devolved Government and the coalition partners fail to acknowledge our address. Transition means just that—a steady and progressive move from the large-scale production in the north-east to a more balanced picture between renewables and oil and gas, but we have to be realistic and take account of all our responsibilities. As a Parliament, we have to consider all aspects of the transition from oil and gas, whether the oil and gas that we still need and we need to know where it comes from. We cannot simply import from other countries that have weaker environmental standards than we do. That would be counterproductive. That would be irresponsible. A transition has to include ensuring that we have adequate resources at home to ensure that our citizens can stay warm without relying on imported oil and gas, increase costs to our pockets, our workforce and to our global environment. A transition means moving towards renewables quickly, but in a managed and structured way, protecting jobs, livelihoods and the economy. Some of the statements from the SNP Green Coalition are being very disturbing. Liam Kerr mentioned it earlier, and Sir Ian Wood also commented last week, saying that politicians should reflect carefully on their public statements on oil and gas. How embarrassed must the SNP be that they bring the Green Minister into this chamber to listen to the debate? We do not let him speak. It is probably a good thing that we do not hear him speak, but I am glad that he is here, because I want him to address something later in my speech. I am grateful to the member for giving way. How embarrassed must the Conservatives be that they still, not necessarily here but at Westminster, still select as candidates, as politicians, outright climate deniers? People who have now moved on from supporting Brexit to opposing lockdown are now forming the net zero scrutiny group to try and oppose climate action UK-wide. How embarrassed are the Tories about that? I think that the most embarrassing thing is that we have a Scottish minister with langwers like that and being put in charge of unbelievable. As Ian Wood also commented last week, saying that politicians should reflect carefully on their public statements on oil and gas and the impact they have on the investment in the industry. Maybe something that the minister should take note of. He added that we must not create an adverse investment environment at this crucial moment in our energy transition journey. The future prosperity of our region and the country's ability to meet net zero depends on it. I draw attention to the comments of the Green Minister, Patrick Harvie, joining us today, calling supporters of oil and gas in the north-east far right. Those were shocking statements, Presiding Officer, and call into question his ability to serve as a Government minister. Only a few hours later— Mr Lumsden, sorry. Point of order, Mr Harvie. Patrick Harvie. I'm very grateful, Presiding Officer. I suspect that the member knows that I did not use the words far right. I suspect that he's very well aware that he's misleading the chamber. If my suspicion is wrong, I will apologise for that, but if he's aware that he's using words that I didn't use and that I use the words hard right to describe him and his party, not anybody else, then I suspect that he should withdraw his comments. Mr Harvie will be aware that the content of member's contributions is not a matter for me and therefore is not a point of order, but that mechanism exists by which members can correct their contributions. Only a few hours later, my constituency office was vandalised with swastikas spray-painted on the door and windows. The police are treating this as a hate crime, and I'm not trying to tell the police how to do their job, but maybe they should be considering that it was maybe a member of this Parliament that instigated that attack. Mr Lumsden, can I ask you to please conclude your remarks as we're over time? It is shameful—your language is shameful. This debate is an opportunity for all parties to agree that we need to transition away from oil and gas in a sensible and sustainable way, but without throwing thousands of north-east jobs under the bus. The damage being caused by the comments from the police is heartbroken. This debate today is our opportunity to send the message that the north-east of Scotland is open for business. That concludes the debate on backing the north-east economy. It's now time to move on to the next item of business. Given the technical problems that surround the use of blue jeans today and the decision to perhaps defer votes to another day, particularly tomorrow, can the Presiding Officer shed some light on when exactly those votes might be held during the course of tomorrow's business? I cannot at this moment—the situation is currently being further investigated and I will update the chamber as soon as possible. Grateful, Presiding Officer. Due to the technical difficulties that have already been referred to, one of the speeches from those benches would have come remotely, and I would ask for your indulgence to allow me to submit that speech on behalf of Clare Baker MSP during this debate. I take this moment to 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 Holyrood campus.