 I think that we are all now in position, so the next item of business is a statement by Julian Martin on vision for Scotland's future energy system. The minister will take questions at the end of her statement, and so there should be no interventions or interruptions, and I call on Minister Julian Martin up to 10 minutes, please, Ms Martin. I would like to update Parliament on the steps that we are taking to set out our vision for the future net zero energy system. Earlier this year we consulted on the draft energy strategy and just transition plan. Today we are publishing the responses to the consultation in the draft, along with the independent analysis report that was commissioned to examine the responses received. This report confirms broad support for our net zero vision and highlights the importance of providing policy certainty to enable the required investment in skills, infrastructure and technologies. The analysis report also shows the need to reach the net zero in a way that fairly spreads the benefits and costs of decarbonisation across society. That is why our commitment to a just transition is so important. We are making available funding of almost £5 billion over this Parliament in net zero energy transformation, costing £1.8 billion to accelerate heat decarbonisation, with at least £465 million to support those least able to pay for the transition. We are already making excellent progress in transforming our energy sector. Last week I was delighted to launch the onshore wind sector deal. That is a great example of a shared commitment between Government and industry that will bring forward investment in skills and the supply chain. The sector deal is a key part of the Bute House agreement. Over the past two years, the parties of Government have been working together to grow the renewable sector and to create economic opportunity and sustainable green jobs across Scotland. There is still work to be done, though. While we are pleased with the result for onshore wind in Scotland in the recent contracts for different auctions, the absence of offshore wind signals that the UK Government has failed to recognise the current market challenges that that sector faces. We urge the UK Government to address this disastrous outcome in time for the next allocation round. As we have set out in the ESJTP, we believe that any new extraction of fossil fuels must be subject to very strict climate compatibility tests. Our focus must be on meeting our energy security needs, reducing emissions, delivering affordable energy supplies, while ensuring a just transition for our oil and gas workforce as North Sea resources decline. To achieve that, we need to harness the skills, talent and experience that are located in the north-east to support the build-out of net zero technologies in Scotland. We are already acting, for example, through a 10-year £500 million just transition fund, but the UK Government needs to play its part to enable that transition, too. The electricity network will be critical to delivering the ambitions that are set out in the energy strategy and just transition plan. High levels of investment in electricity transmission infrastructure in Scotland and the wider GB electricity grid are required to ensure clean, affordable renewable electricity is available where it is needed. A significant amount of renewable generation in Scotland is currently constrained, as there is not enough space on the electricity network to transport the power. Annual constraints across GB could reach up to £3 billion worth by the late 2020s. Those costs are paid for in large part by consumers across GB. Many of the network projects that are proposed in Scotland are aimed at lowering those constraint costs, as the cost of infrastructure will be less than the potential costs of constraints. While network build is vital, it must be delivered with lasting benefits for our economy and for the people of Scotland. Scotland's natural endowment makes it an extremely attractive place to site renewable generation. We must translate that huge potential into sustainable jobs, community benefit, skills and local economic development. Investment in networks will play a crucial role in creating long-term, high-quality green jobs that will attract and retain talent in the communities across Scotland. I am aware that communities in areas that may be impacted by proposed electricity network developments may have concerns about network infrastructure. As established in the national planning framework 4, which was approved by the Scottish Parliament earlier this year, the views of local communities are of the utmost importance. It is vital that everyone has the opportunity to engage in decisions about future development. That engagement must happen as early as possible and should be effective, collaborative and meaningful. The MPF4 also ensures that appropriate checks and balances are in place and that potential impacts on our environment and our natural heritage are fully assessed. I can assure Parliament that the potential impacts on communities, nature, landscape and other valued natural assets are very important consideration when determining applications for consent. Despite the powers to mandate community benefits from renewable energy and grid infrastructure developments being reserved to the UK Government, we are continuing to work with communities in a wide range of energy businesses to maximise community benefit from existing and new developments. Some developers are already leading the way and as part of the onshore wind sector deal, developers have committed to meet or exceed the national benchmark set out in the Scottish Government's good practice principles from onshore renewable energy developments. I want to see network companies take similar steps and I have strongly encouraged the network companies to bring forward tangible benefits to communities where infrastructure is proposed. That includes measures that can have a positive impact on household fuel costs. I have urged the network companies to be creative in these solutions and work closely with communities to tailor them. I welcome recent initiatives in Spain and hope to see yet more innovation and good community engagement on how community benefit can be best deployed in a way that meets communities' own needs. We remain committed to a net zero future and we will use every power at our disposal to support sustainable economic growth and maximise the opportunities of the green economy. That includes ensuring that electricity network infrastructure comes with economic and social benefits for Scotland. By publishing the analysis report on the draft energy strategy and just transition plan today, we are demonstrating the open and transparent approach that is central to a just transition. As set out in the programme for government, we will continue to engage with a range of stakeholders across Scotland, including the Just Transition Commission and the Scottish Energy Advisory Board, as we work towards the final publication by summer 2024. The minister will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement and I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business, and it would be helpful if those members who wish to ask a question were to press the request to speak buttons now. I thank the minister for advance sight of the statement that rightly highlights the need for a transition, but not much else. The recent report by the Robert Gordon University states that retaining the offshore oil and gas supply chain, its workforce and associated skills over the next five years will be crucial to the UK's successful transition to renewable energies. That is because there is limited capacity for the UK offshore renewable sector to take on board the amount of skilled oil and gas workers impacted by the predicted decline in the hydrocarbon sector until later this decade. Approval of Rosebank is helping to manage that decline until more green jobs are available for the workforce to transition to. If we apply the bakes too quickly, the workforce will be lost and we will not have the people or skills to make the transition. The First Minister has condemned the approval of Rosebank and wants to turn his back on £8 billion of investment and turn his back on over 1,000 jobs in his latest betrayal of the north-east. Can the minister tell us if she supports the First Minister's position and would she also like to see the back of thousands of jobs many in her constituency? I refute some of the language that Douglas Lumsden has used in his question to me. No one is suggesting that any bakes be put on oil and gas. I am hugely supported of our world-class oil and gas industry and agree that we should be harnessing the substantial skills of the workers in that industry to take us to a net zero energy future. I am concentrating my efforts in making sure that oil and gas workers can see a sustainable future that takes us well beyond north-sea oil and gas. When a Government does not have plans for a long-term sustainable future, this is what happens. Minister, please resume your seat a second. I do not need constant questioning from a sedentary position. The member has posed his questions and the minister is responding. Let us please hear the minister. I am very appreciative of that. When a Government does not have plans for a long-term sustainable future, this is what happens. The next generation has no job prospects. Communities are hollowed out. Physical and mental health of those communities has a huge negative impact and generational poverty becomes endemic. How do I know that? That is what Mr Lumsden's party's lack of just transition and short-term ideological thinking did to the communities of Clydeside, Lanarkshire, Fife, Ayrshire, Tynside, Liverpool, Yorkshire, South Wales and more. Yes, there will be jobs associated with Rosebank and, as a northeaster, I recognise that. My job as energy minister for Scotland is to ensure that there is life and jobs in the energy industry beyond the North Sea as it declines. The future is in the energy mix and everything that the UK Government led by the Tories signals that they are neglecting to nurture the economic opportunities for the north-east and beyond that will rise from that. I thank the minister for advance sight of her statement but say that it tells us nothing about how the Scottish Government's targets will be delivered. The minister mentioned household fuel costs and that she hoped to see more innovation and community benefit but hope doesn't deliver. We need a route map to deliver now so how many homes will be retrofitted by this year and by the end of the parliamentary term, how many new jobs will be created across Scotland and given the £40 million cuts to unis and colleges, how will the new training be delivered in our communities? Can she tell us why funding for households to access solar has been ended and what new funding will the Scottish Government provide to councils and communities so that they can deliver the engagement, the community and co-operatively owned heat and renewables networks that deliver investment to our communities and crucially will tackle the fuel poverty that 38 per cent of our households now face? I disagree that the statement that I have just given says nothing on that. It makes mention of a very significant development that will tackle quite a lot. There are quite a lot of questions there in Sayer Boyack's question to me but if I can point to the onshore wind strategic leadership group who were absolutely vital in taking forward the policy aspirations and the development of a non-shore wind sector deal that was published last week, signed last week. It will create pathways for long-term sustainable energy jobs, it has commitments along skills provision is there, it has commitments for community benefits, it has commitments in helping to tackle fuel poverty across Scotland and there are many more initiatives like that where government is working with industry to be delivering on all the aims that are going to help us to get to net zero. I would also point to the fact that we have heat and energy efficiency Scotland and the impact that that is going to make will actually help householders with their fuel bills on delivering energy efficiency measures in homes and buildings and developing heat networks as so many of our Nordic neighbours have. We are going to be building on the initial work that has been done there and actually making that a reality for a lot of households across the whole of Scotland. We will now move to backbench contributions so to speak and I would advise that we need to speed things up a little bit so could I please have succinct questions and minister succinct answers. I call John Mason to be followed by Grim Simpson. Mr Mason. The minister said in her statement that we believe that any new extraction of fossil fuels must be subject to very strict climate compatibility tests. Does she think that the UK Government has done this when they approved Rosebank? Mr Mason asks a question that I asked yesterday and he may have heard me in some of the media interviews that I was doing. I don't have any analysis that is from the UK government on what climate and indeed energy security conditions were met by applicants on proposed amendment. If I did have that, I would be very interested to see exactly what they were. I would also be able to be interested to see what details the developers will be doing and I am happy to engage with those developers. I have spoken to the developers in the past about what they might be doing above and beyond those conditions because I feel very optimistic that, with Equinor and Ithaca, they have got the licence, they now have a job to do to prove to, I suppose, Civic Scotland and the wider UK that they are recognising some of the criticism that has come yesterday. I am interested to see what they are doing to reduce their production emissions. The majority of what is going to be extracted from Rosebank is that everyone recognises that it will go overseas at 82 per cent oil. I really need to encourage more to think questions. Thank you very much, minister. I appreciate that a number of points are always put and so forth, but we do have a number of members to get through. Thank you for your co-operation. I call Graeme Simpson to be followed by Alasrall and Mr Simpson. Thank you very much. We need a base load and nuclear should form part of the mix across the UK. The minister has not mentioned nuclear at all. What lessons has she learned from the German nuclear phase out, which sees that country burning more coal than anyone else in Europe? I would refer Graeme Simpson if he maybe looks at the official report yesterday, but I gave a full answer to his colleague Sandesh Gilhane about just why this Government does not believe in nuclear energy. In that answer, I was able to tell Dr Gilhane about the actual price differential between nuclear energy and offshore wind. I was also able to list a raft of European countries who have decided to turn their back on nuclear energy in favour of renewables. With an interconnector due to being in place for 2030, the western aisles are set to host significant renewables developments over the next decade. Considering my constituency as the highest level of fuel poverty, does the minister agree that a just transition must mean that those communities see substantial benefits from hosting such developments? That is one of the asks. We are working with the sector on the onshore sector deal. I was very clear that one of our asks of the industry and the sector was to improve and exceed the type of community benefits that they were putting forward. I would extend that ask of all energy sectors wherever possible. Dr Allan will be interested to know that I not only made suggestions similar to what was included in his question about working closely with communities to develop tangible benefits that would improve the situation of householders with regard to fuel poverty. I also raised the suggestion of investment in local housing stock to keep young people in the area who have significant issues with young people leaving. After all, it will be the young people of rural Scotland who will be potentially delivering on some of those energy infrastructure projects. As Dr Allan knows all too well, housing is a real issue for those areas. Alex Salmond told us in 2010 that Scotland would be the Saudi Arabia of renewables with 130,000 green jobs by 2020, and less than a fifth were created. No one of the STUC consultation reply said that workers had little faith or livelihoods will be protected. Can the minister tell us exactly how many green jobs will be created as a result of the Government's energy plan and how many will be in Scotland and not offshore to overseas firms, such as most of the Scotland leases? I thank the member for the opportunity to outline our projected model on this. With the right support, we believe that the number of low-carbon jobs has modelled to rise from 19,000 in 2019 to 77,000 by 2050 as a result of the just energy transition, delivering a net gain in jobs across the energy production sector overall, and, of course, we want the vast, vast majority of those jobs to be for Scottish workers. Recently, we saw the UK Government's latest contract for a different round, which received no bids for offshore wind projects, and now Rishi Sunak has pulled the rug from under the net zero ambitions of the UK in Scotland. All the evidence tells us that we can protect and create jobs in Scotland if we ensure that we get the energy transition right, helping to cut energy bills and emissions at the same time. What are the biggest barriers holding back this massive potential and preventing our energy future from delivering to the people of Scotland? I thank Mairi McNeill for outlining that, because the absence of offshore wind from the latest contracts for difference round signals that the UK Government has failed to recognise the current market conditions in the renewable energy space. The offshore wind sector is, of course, asking for a more realistic strike price. The outcome raises serious questions about the UK Government's approach to safeguarding energy security, breaking our reliance on imported energy and critically doing everything possible to ensure that the energy sector can capitalise on enormous, so economic and societal opportunities. We have got an ambition in Scotland—the Scotland alone—for 28 gigawatts of renewable electricity going into our grid. If, without any kind of certainty from the UK Government and without recognising that this has to be nurtured and the conditions have to be right for those bids, we are really running the risk that a lot of the developers will walk away from offshore wind projects across the whole of the UK and not just Scotland. I have faith because I have been speaking to UK Government ministers about and I actually do have faith because the sector is saying exactly the same thing as I am that the UK Government will look at what has happened in the AR5 as being a mistake and when AR6 comes around that it will rectify that situation. I call Liam McArthur to be followed by Mark Ruskell. Dr Allan rightly pointed to the huge offshore wind potential of the Northern and the Western Isles. It is a huge opportunity but questions remain how best to realise this and who will benefit. At present, island communities boasting local experience and expert supply chains feel they have been excluded by those planning this energy revolution. Will the minister agree to work with island supply chain experts, such as Ocney Renewable Energy Forum in the European Marine Energy Centre, to bring essential local knowledge and expertise to the table and ensure that our islands are not denied the full benefit of their world-leading renewables potential? That is a very easy question to answer because I absolutely want to work with the organisations that Liam McArthur has just outlined. I am, as they say, champing it a bit to get myself up to Orkney to visit EMIC and all the other organisations. My cabinet secretary was of course there in the summer. I did not have the opportunity to go up in the summer, so as is usual, when I end up visiting Orkney and indeed Shetland, it will probably be the winter months when I am able to do that. If that is an invitation, I am absolutely up for taking it. I call Mark Ruskell to be followed by Emma Harper. Thanks. I welcome the statement and welcome in particular the onshore wind sector deal, which the minister has already alluded to, is at the heart of the Bute House agreement. It looks like through that onshore wind sector deal, we are going to see a doubling of onshore wind capacity in Scotland. That is going to mean that many of our existing wind farms will need to be repowered or extended. That could provide the opportunity to renegotiate community benefit payments, which for many existing wind farms are at quite a low level. They are only at about £1,000 a megawatt with many wind farms in my constituency. Does the minister see opportunities there for how we can maximise the renegotiation of those community benefit payments so that we can get the transformative investment in communities in housing, for example, which she has already mentioned, Dr Allan, that we really need to see coming from renewable energy developments across Scotland? That is a really good suggestion. I genuinely think that the sector will be up for negotiating on that point. I think that one of the issues that we have had with onshore wind is the older iteration of the developments. What community benefits may be weren't as substantial as they could have been. We are seeing across communities that that reputation from that initial development has not been so great. I have absolute faith, with the onshore wind sector deal, that that will change. We are absolutely clear that renewable energy must benefit people across Scotland. Over £25 million of community benefits and renewable projects have been committed to Scottish communities over the last year, and that is going to continue to rise. One of the things that I was saying to the sector time and time again is that the nature of the community benefits and the sort of offer that are made communities have to be engaged very, very early in what they should be, and it should be tangible benefits that impact on householders. Last week, I spoke at a conference at Dynamic Earth to discuss the importance of anaerobic digestion to produce clean energy of which there is a huge potential to achieve from agriculture. Given that the Scottish Government has committed to exploring increasing energy output from innovation such as anaerobic digestion, can the minister comment on how that will be achieved and whether she will work with our agricultural sector to achieve this huge potential for clean energy? Thank Emma Harper for that question. Indeed, I met one of the colleagues from that event the next day when we were talking about that. Waste resources can be produced process through anaerobic digestion and it can be used as replacement for fossil fuels. Biomethine for gas grid injection is becoming increasingly common, providing 920 gigawatt-hours in 2022. It is the second-larger contributor to renewable heat output as well. To deliver an ambition to set out the Scottish Government's vision for agriculture, we will have a support framework that delivers high-quality food production, climate mitigation and adaptation. I see anaerobic digestion as part of that as well in producing biogas and biomethine to help in that ambition. The minister is aware that SSCN intends to construct a substation in the mines and to install new overhead lines. There are huge implications for farming tourism property and wildlife habitats in the area. Does the minister agree with me that new energy infrastructure projects must always be completed with the consent of residents? Will the minister confirm that no attempt will be made to override the concerns of local communities in Scotland following the SNP's failed attempt to amend the UK Government's energy bill? Tess White will understand that, as minister who has responsibilities for consens, I cannot talk about individual applications. However, she makes a very good point. It is in the interests of developers to engage with communities early. That is what the onshore, when sector deal does with regard to onshore development, but of course that also applies for electricity infrastructure. The developers are doing themselves a disservice if they do not engage thoroughly and very early with the communities that may be affected by that infrastructure. Chamberlain knows that Scotland has an abundance of water and there is more potential for more small-scale hydro schemes. What actions will the Scottish Government undertake to assist with the delivery of more of these small-scale schemes? Hydro power has the potential to play a significantly greater role in the energy transition, both at small-scale incorporation with local communities as part of resilient energy supplies in remote parts of Scotland and in the larger scale, providing flexibility services to the grid. Stuart McMillan will be interested to know that I went to Scotland's oldest hydro power station in Crogan over the summer and very much enjoyed hearing from them how the part that hydro plays in any kind of intermittent supply and indeed emergency gap-filling supply that there would be in the electricity grid. I think that there has not been enough done, certainly from the UK Government, to support this particular energy sector, which is absolutely crucial to that security of supply. I would say that there needs to be enough, a lot more assistance, but there is also a great deal of potential in the small-scale ones, and that is why we have, through our community and renewable energy schemes, support for communities who want to do their own hydro schemes. I call Liam Kerr and then I propose to call Steve Kerr if I could have brief and succinct questions and answers with regard to both. I am very grateful, Presiding Officer. The minister said yesterday that the reason AR5 fell to get any offshore windbids was because it underpriced the CFD at £44 per megawatt hour, but she went on to suggest that such wind power could be produced in Scotland for only £37 per megawatt hour. Those statements cannot both be true, so could she clarify and what CFD price would she set? I am not going to put a value on a CFD price. In general terms, at the moment, in AR5, developers stayed away from the offer that the UK Government was giving them. They now have to work with those developers to make sure that in AR6 that they have people wanting to apply for those licenses and contracts for difference. As Liam Kerr has shown such an interest in that, if he can maybe use any influence that he has with the UK Government and stand beside me and indeed the sector in making that reality. The minister has just shown how difficult it is to set such a price, but I was also heartened to hear her say—I presume that this is a Government statement of policy—that she has no willingness to put brakes on oil and gas. Does she agree, then, that it is actually pointless to oppose or object to the Rosebank oilfield licence, as our party colleague Dave Duggan said yesterday on the BBC? I have listened to quite a lot of Scottish Tories over the last couple of days talking about this, and I would point to the fact that what has been very helpful is listening to the interviews that the media has been undertaking with Scottish Tories, where they have been called out in a lot of the ridiculous and mythical claims about what Rosebank will give the UK and Scotland in terms of energy security in particular. I would point to a journalist, Alex Thomson, from Channel 4, who said that he cannot ignore any politicians who say that Rosebank will give the energy self-reliance unless the Government nationalises the oil, developed by Norway in this case. It just gets sold on the global market, makes zero difference to your energy bill, unlike home-developed renewables. It is also a myth that it will bring down fuel bills. The taxpayer bill that Alex Thomson said for developing the oil field will be around £4 billion, and that cash would insulate and provide heat pumps for an awful lot of British homes.