The next item of business is a debate on motion 17425 in the name of Richard Leonard on build them at BiFab. I can ask those members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons now. I call on Richard Leonard to speak to and move the motion. Mr Leonard, please. Deputy Presiding Officer, let me begin by declaring an interest. I am a proud member of both of the trade unions that represent the workers employed at the BiFab yards in Fife and at Arnish Point. Let me declare another interest at the very start. I have been privileged in my life to work for the Scottish trade union and labour movement representing working people across Scotland. They have taught me a lot. It has been a great education and they are the people who drive me on when the going gets tough in politics because there is so much that can be achieved by working women and men through industrial organisation and industrial action but so much more that can be achieved through political organisation and political action, which is why we have brought this debate to Parliament today. Let me make it abundantly clear that Scottish Labour stands shoulder to shoulder with the Fife workers at those construction yards in Meffel and Burnt Island. That Scottish Labour fully backs the Fife ready for renewal campaign, calling for the work that was promised to the Fife yards to be delivered to the Fife yards. I first visited the yard at Meffel when it was owned by RGC over 25 years ago. In those days, it was bidding for oil and gas contracts in the North Sea. The union convener was the late and much-missed Joc Kilbane. It was an industry beset by famine and feast, full order books one year, empty order books the next. It was also a yard in dire need of investment. When I went back to visit the yard 18 months ago, I was shocked to see that in the intervening quarter of a century, there had been little capital investment. That whilst now the contracts sought were in the emergent offshore renewable energy industry rather than in the hydrocarbon energy industry, it was still a tale of famine and feast. That the industrious workforce caught in this market failure, this failure to plan, were enduring a prolonged period of famine. They deserve so much better than this. Just as in the oil years, still bidding for contracts on the UK continental shelf and in Scottish inland waters, but still seeing the work going to yards overseas, it is as though we have learned nothing. We used to lobby the UK energy minister for intervention to act to correct the uneven playing field, and the unions are doing that again with Claire Perry, but we should not have to keep fighting the same battles over and over again. It is as though we have learned nothing. Of course, we have this Parliament and an opportunity to not simply protest but to govern, not simply to lobby about the economy but to plan the economy, not simply to pass motions but to take action. If ever there was a case to prove the need for a Scottish industrial strategy made in Scotland, this is it. Here we have millions of pounds of public expenditure through subsidies and through levies invested from consumers in renewable energy in order to harness a natural resource, yet there is no public accountability and all too often too little economic benefit. Our economy should not be a democratic free zone. Companies like EDF should not be exempted from responsibility, promises made should be kept and communities like Fife should benefit directly from the jobs dividend that renewable energy should bring. I tell you that there is no point in having a green industrial revolution. There is no point in a green new deal if the new deal is the same as the old deal, if the outcomes of the new deal are the same as the outcomes of the old deal. If the revolution, this green industrial revolution, ends up simply being driven by the market in which transnational corporations can sell out working people in Scotland and offshore jobs to the Far East. If on the other hand the green revolution, this green industrial revolution means an interventionist state acting on behalf of the people and acting on behalf of our industrial communities so that we go beyond the market, then I declare myself a revolutionary. If it is simply a revolution of the market of more laissez-faire economics all over again, then I declare myself to be a counter-revolutionary because it will be nothing short of a betrayal. If the work on EDFs offshore windfarm, Nashna Goya, worth up to £2 billion, located just 10 miles off the Fife coast, if that work is sent around the world to Indonesia, this is work that has the potential to create a thousand green jobs for Fife, fulfilling the promise to the hundreds of those former BiFab workers, skilled workers, who stand ready to work. For EDFs to send those jobs elsewhere would not only be a betrayal of those workers, it would be a betrayal of an entire community and a betrayal too of Scotland's commitments on climate change. As I have stated before in this Parliament, the Scottish TUC put it well, the transportation of those structures from south-east Asia back to Scotland would generate emissions equivalent to an extra 35 million cars on the road. What does that do for the climate emergency? In the midst of this climate crisis we must send a clear message to EDFs that if it wishes to be part of Scotland's renewable energy future it must stand by the promises made to the communities and workers of Fife, because meeting the challenge of the climate emergency requires more than words, we must match our ambition with action. The driving force of change when it comes to our response to the climate emergency is first and foremost determined by who owns and controls our economy, and so we have to ask, is our economy, our systems for producing energy, our transport system, our use of land and agriculture operated purely for profit or are they planned for the common good? That is the fundamental question that we must ask and it should be central in the consideration of the award of all renewable energy job contracts, because we will not secure the transformative change that we need to see by leaving it all to market forces, and for those who need further convincing, go and read the hard-hitting report entitled Broken Promises and Offshore Jobs, presented to the Scottish TUC in Dundee at its congress just last month, and let me quote the opening pages of that report. The STUC is absolutely committed to building a low-carbon economy and meeting climate change targets. However, we are criticising the failure of industrial policy to ensure that workers, businesses and Government in Scotland benefit from Scotland's natural resources. Scottish Labour is clear that it is not just a failure of industrial policy but a complete failure of Governments, British and Scottish to develop an industrial strategy in the first place. The BiFab workers are now feeling all too keenly the effects of what happens when we do not as a nation make every effort to ensure that it is the people who benefit from our natural resources rather than private profit. The owners of the NMJ contract are EDF, the French state-owned energy company and nuclear giant. EDF is one of the world's largest producers of energy, and in 2018 its revenues were around £60 billion. EDF promotes their better plan, better plan for sustainable and responsible energy, and building stronger communities. The EDF renewables website says that we also use companies local to a wind farm during the development of a site whenever possible to ensure the local economy benefits from its build-to. Unfortunately, in this case for the BiFab workers, it seems that EDF are all talk. We cannot repurpose the Scottish economy and deliver the green new deal that is needed without a serious step-changing how we do things. Old ideas about rolling back the state, about privatisation simply no longer cut it when it comes to how we plan our economy and how we meet our climate targets. If we are serious about climate change, why would we accept the construction of turbine jackets for renewable energy wind farms that are only 10 miles off the coast of Fife should be shipped around the world when there is a skilled local workforce unemployed but ready and willing to take up the task? Making that a reality involves an innovative state. It means that the Scottish Government is using its powers of procurement and planning to make sure that low-carbon developments, just like the EDF project, which could benefit thousands of people in Fife, bring economic benefit to local communities. There is a growing restlessness across all generations and a rising determination that this Parliament must reflect on the need for urgent action to tackle the climate change challenges that face us. I am optimistic that we can achieve the transformative change that is required, but achieving a planned and just transition to green jobs requires us to take action now, today, and ensure that those jobs are here for tomorrow and the future. That is why, today, we unequivocally back the Fife ready for renewal campaign and why a Scottish Labour Government would ensure full trade union involvement in economic and industrial planning. We back the calls for a review of the contracts and the supply chain process of the offshore wind sector deal to ensure that it brings significant work to the fife yards during the construction phase of all those projects. That is why I urge the Scottish Government today to join us in calling on EDF to rethink its decision, to invest in the communities, in the workforce and in the people of Fife, to invest in those skills, to invest in a future for those yards. Let us make sure that those contracts, that these jackets are fabricated, are built at BiFab. I move the motion in my name. I move the amendment in my name, and I welcome the opportunity to publicly discuss support for Scotland's offshore wind sector and the action that we are taking to maximise Scottish supply chain content. I also welcome the constructive approach of the Labour Party and the STUC to the debate. I will try to maintain that consensus throughout, but I refer all members to our energy strategy, which includes ambitions around supply chain and local content. It is important today that we do not let developers off the hook because I believe that they are watching. I believe that that is therefore a timely opportunity to, as a united Parliament, send a strong message to the sector on the subject of fabrication and industrial jobs as we have this just transition. We all know the opportunity. The waters around the UK currently have the largest installed capacity of offshore wind anywhere in the world. The offshore wind sector deal sets out an ambition to see offshore wind contributing up to 30 gigawatts of capacity by 2030. A committee on climate change stated that the UK may need up to 7,500 offshore wind turbines by 2050 in a net zero world. Therefore, we agree with the view that the UK and Scotland has not been securing the levels of economic benefits and jobs from those projects that we deserve. However, despite key powers lying out with our control, we, as a Government, are determined to maximise the job opportunities and economic benefits in Fife and across Scotland. That is exactly why I chaired a supply chain summit at the start of this month, bringing together Governments so that I was disappointed that the energy minister was not in attendance from the UK Government, despite her assurance that she would be. Nonetheless, I brought together the Governments, unions, offshore wind developers and supply chain representatives where I made the position of the Scottish Government very clear. I shall return to my proposed action shortly, but first I wish to turn specifically to BiFab. The Scottish Government's on-going commitment has given BiFab the best possible chance of winning contracts and securing new work. We have provided strong support to DF Barns since her acquisition of BiFab, however, we have been clear from the outset that there remained hard work ahead to securing a long-term future of the company. BiFab is a competitive yard with a highly skilled workforce. I thank the cabinet secretary for taking an invention. The Scottish Enterprise has invested in the yard over a number of years. Will he advise whether the Scottish Enterprise will continue to invest in the yard to modernise and upgrade fabrication facilities? There are meetings that will be held with a range of stakeholders and partners to try to allow further investment into the yards. Of course, it has to be stated and compliant, as long as we are compliant with those rules as part of the EU. However, I am looking for every possible opportunity to allow further investment by the Scottish Enterprise into the yard. We will continue to explore those opportunities and seize them as and when they arise. What I am concerned about particularly is reports of low-tender bids from outside the UK that suggest that they, alongside other supply chain companies in the sector, have not been afforded that level playing field that we are trying to comply with during those processes. I have repeatedly engaged industry stakeholders, including EDPR, EDF renewables, SSE and tier 1 contractors, to emphasise the importance of utilising the Scottish supply chain, and I will continue to do so. I remain cautiously confident that contracts will be secured for BiFab, which will see work not only return to Arnish but also to Methyl and Burn Island. However, I repeat the pledge that this Government will do everything possible to support those yards. Returning directly to the summit, members of the offshore wind sector have committed to undertaking strategic capability assessment of fabrication in the UK to ensure that we fully understand the actions that are required by all parties to overcome the key barriers that are faced by the supply chain. The issues that they say are difficult. However, in relation to Scottish content, I believe that the sector has let us down and I will not be simply hoping for improvement. That is why the Scottish Government is exploring a range of potential regulatory instruments, levers and powers that we will seek to use. Scottish ministers are working with Crown Estates Scotland to explore ways by which the new Scotland leasing round can incentivise use of Scottish supply chain. Alongside that, we are building on new powers, which are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, of course. Can I thank him for giving way? Can he explain why that measure was not put in place with previous rounds? Why are we not seeing Crown and State leases reflecting the need for local content? Because the powers have just been devolved to the Scottish Parliament and therefore we are using those new devolved powers that we did not have previously when previous contracts and consents were awarded. We now have those powers and are proposing to explore their use to achieve the outcome that, hopefully, we are uniting on as a Parliament today. It is now the ability to do those things that we did not have before that I am using for that outcome. Proposing to use requires further exploration, but I think that there is a willingness to use those powers in that fashion. However, we are also reviewing the process for submission and approval of offshore wind decommissioning programmes. Once a decommissioning programme has been received by Marine Scotland, certain securities for decommissioning over £2.5 million require approval by the Finance and Constitution Committee of the Scottish Parliament. If the committee is consent with the financial liability and the measures in place to reduce that liability, it can approve the decommissioning programme, which will then be submitted to Scottish ministers for final approval. However, I am determined to ensure that both the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament have clear sight on the overall costs and benefits to the public purse, including those in the supply chain, when considering the financial liability, the Scottish taxpayer may ultimately carry it. In other words, if the Scottish taxpayer is going to provide financial guarantees, we expect that developers deliver for the Scottish economy in return. That demonstrates their commitment to explore all those policy levers that are disposal to increase local content from energy projects in Scotland—a real just transition. However, the UK Government must also act, given our lack of devolved powers in this area. The UK Government's contract for difference CFD supply chain process provides an ideal opportunity to hold developers to account and provide clear assurances to the UK supply chain. That will be essential if the 60 per cent UK content by 2030, committed to in the offshore wind sector deal, is to be achieved, but to show the path to get to that policy ambition with the levers that it has. The UK Government must look at the current and future CFD allocation rounds to ensure that the project owners, developers deliver and, if not, there should be repercussions. The CFD process should also be reviewed to ensure that it delivers value for money for the whole economy. Although the competitive process has driven ever lower prices for electricity, it has encouraged a race to the bottom that will inevitably see work go to yards outside the UK. That is not acceptable. Supply chain companies themselves have a role to play in. I can commit to Scottish Enterprise support to allow them to up their game as well as to collaborate and focus on the opportunities to give. I hope that members are assured of the new steps that we are taking to ensure the success of BiFab and the wider supply chain in Fife and right across the country, enabling them to take full advantage of the opportunities that are presented by the offshore wind industry in Scotland and beyond. If we unite as a Parliament, I am sure that the industry will be watching and responding accordingly. I will let you make up time to take interventions until I run out of time. That speaks for itself. I call on Dean Lockhart to speak to and move amendment 17425.2. Let me start by referring to my register of interests in relation to a smart meter company that is based in England. That is an important debate on the future of BiFab and renewable energy projects in Scotland. We will be voting today for both the Labour motion and the SNP amendment, and we are firmly supporting the STUC's campaign that Fife is ready for renewables. The Scottish Conservatives share the real concerns of the STUC, BiFab and other stakeholders that the sponsor of the NNG project, EDF, plans to subcontract the manufacturing of wind turbine jackets overseas rather than place this work with yards in Fife. Those concerns come at a critical time for the project. It is a project worth more than £2 billion, located less than 10 miles from the coast of Fife and which will generate enough electricity to power a city the size of Edinburgh. The Scottish Conservatives are clear that there are compelling reasons to bring these jobs and investment to Fife. The yards and metal in Burn Island are ready for the work that could create up to 1,000 jobs, unlocking much-needed growth and investment in the Fife region. The workers in Fife have the proven skills and the experience to deliver on this project, and DF Barnes, the owner of BiFab, has the global experience to deliver. Another vital consideration is the carbon emission involved in having these turbine jackets shipped overseas 7,000 miles to Scotland instead of being built just 10 miles from the wind farm. For those reasons, the Scottish Conservatives agree with calls across the chamber, and we will join the other parties in calling for the manufacturing of these turbine jackets to be placed in Fife. We also call on the Scottish Government to follow through on the undertakings that it gave following the supply chain summit on 2 May. At the summit, the cabinet secretary said that he would use every labour at his disposal, every power, to ensure that Scotland's renewable supply chain will benefit from the expansion of offshore wind in Scottish waters. That could include attaching supply chain conditions and incentives to procurement contracts, to leases and other project approvals that are granted by the Scottish Government. In his opening statement, the cabinet secretary did not really go into specific actions that he would take now to secure the work to be placed at the five yards and how the Scottish Government will change its policy going forward. I will now second how the Scottish Government will change its policy going forward to secure more Scottish content, including changing procurement practice and policies in Scotland. I look forward to hearing more concrete actions from the cabinet secretary, but he looks like he is about to explain how he is going to assure that more work is given to the yards in five yards at the same time. Can I just say a little formal thing? Do not both be standing at the same time. Cabinet secretary, I am calling you now. I am just particularly eager, Presiding Officer. It does not matter if you are eager, you do not do it. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Two key issues that I have raised today in exploring exhaustively all the powers that we could use. The new elements are around decommissioning specifically what has to be put to Parliament and also use of the Crown estate, which has been devolved to Scotland. I cannot use some of the other areas that have been suggested, but I am determined within our competencies to use those, and I would seek the consensus of Parliament to progress with them as we explore them to make that culture of expectation about investment in Scotland real and meaningful and not just wait for the sector to deliver those two key areas of outline today. Cabinet secretary, we will work together with you on those areas. I appreciate that some of those powers have come to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government recently, but it begs the question in terms of the powers that have been with the Scottish Government for a long term what you have been doing in the past to secure more work using those powers. Let me also make it clear that responsibility for securing more work in the supply chain lies also with the UK Government. Today, we are also calling on the UK Government to take steps to encourage EDF to award work to the five yards and elsewhere in Scotland, and I have written to the UK minister to meet with her to explore what actions can be taken. I would like to make a bit of progress, but I will give way a bit later. The risk that the turbine jackets will be built overseas is the latest example of how the Scottish Government has really failed to realise the potential in the renewable sector. We heard earlier about the GMB report that sets out a history of broken promises to the renewables industry in Scotland. The report shows that, over the past decade, there have been many promises of jobs and manufacturing bonanza in the sector. In 2010, the SNP's low-carbon economic strategy promised 130,000 jobs in renewables by 2020. Alex Salmond proclaimed that Scotland would become the Saudi Arabia of renewable energy. In reality, according to the latest ons figures, there are just over 21,000 full-time jobs in renewable energy in Scotland. That is less than 20 per cent of the amount of jobs that were promised—I am sorry, I have only got seven minutes. We also have a negative balance of trade in the low-carbon and renewable sector in Scotland. We import £230 million more than we export in this sector, showing that the manufacturing base in Scotland is not benefiting from the growth in renewable energy. That failure to realise Scotland's potential in renewables has also been evident in the Scottish Government's track record of investments in the sector. In 2014-2015, we saw the failure of tidal wave companies, Palamas and Aquamarine, with the loss of more than £40 million of taxpayer money. Those failures show—I think that other members have highlighted that—that the Scottish Government lacks a clear long-term strategy for the renewable sector in Scotland. The most productive action that the Scottish Government can now take is to work together with the UK Government under the industrial strategy, the clean growth strategy and the offshore win sector deal to maximise opportunities for the sector in Scotland. According to DF Barnes, the owner of BiFab, the UK Government sector deal, is a laudable commitment. It welcomes the commitment to achieve 60 per cent of UK content in projects. The UK sector deal also provides visibility on future contracts for difference auctions, with support of up to more than £1.5 billion in the next auction to come on stream later this month. That is in addition to subsidies provided by the UK Government totaling some £52 billion since 2010 for the renewable sector. The UK sector deal also commits to increasing UK content to 60 per cent, increasing exports fivefold to £2.6 billion by 2030, and increasing the representation of women in the sector to a third by 2030. Would Dean Lockhart support the position that conditionality should be attached to contracts for difference to ensure that supply chain content, local content, is absolutely guaranteed, rather than just hoped for as part of the win sector deal? The UK minister has made it clear that each CFD has to be looked at on its own merits. I do not think that he can put in place a blanket system of conditionality. That is not the way the sector works. The cabinet secretary knows well that that is not how the sector works. I have to wrap up. The renewable sector in Scotland has benefited from the financial support, significant support from the UK Government and billions of pounds in subsidies through CFDs. However, as we have heard, that has not translated into the jobs, manufacturing opportunities and the investment that is promised by the SNP. That is because, as we saw clearly earlier today, this is a Government with only one priority and it is not the renewable sector in Scotland. I move the amendment in my name. I thank the Labour Party for bringing this debate forward today, because this is Scotland's climate emergency. It is where rhetoric meets reality. It is where communities and workers are either left behind in the fossil age or are the leaders of the renewables revolution under a green new deal. We all know the lessons of history, the decimation caused by the closure of the coal mines in the 80s and the alienation of communities, so crudely parasitised by the Brexiteers in the EU referendum. Communities in Fife are now crying out for a just transition to a bright future, whether that is phasing out Mossmorran, reconnecting with rail in forgotten towns or ramping up low-carbon manufacturing. The Greens back the Fife ready for a new campaign and it would be an utter scandal if EDF constructed a wind farm just a few miles off the Fife coast in sight of metal, where former skilled workers at BiFab have to walk past a moth-bould yard every day on their way to try and find new work. Where is the climate justice in that? Where is the just transition in that? If EDF cannot support jobs in the very communities that host their developments, then we should hit them where it hurts, including through divestment campaigns. Two years ago, we were hopeful that the pipeline of wind farms on the horizon was going to deliver jobs at BiFab. It was just a matter of bridging the gap for six months, keeping finances afloat during a traumatic few years for the company and then contracts would flow once again. However, what we have seen is a level of co-ordination and manipulation of procurement rules by state-backed contractors to lock BiFab out of the work. Those companies are acting against the spirit and detail of their energy consents that demand local content and demand local jobs. To find a way to resolve that betrayal, the role of the Crown Estate Scotland as a landlord is critical alongside those of the consenting bodies. I am pleased that the recent offshore wind summit zeroed in on the Crown Estate's role and very much welcomed the comments of the cabinet secretary and his desire for ministerial direction in that regard. We need to learn the lessons here because state-backed companies will always find it easier to accept financial guarantee risks. They are able to accept losses with a strategic eye to longer-term growth in markets and they can bear the risks to jump on the back of new markets such as floating wind. We also need a state that can create new markets and invest and share in the rewards of investment, taking the lead and crowding in finance from the private sector. The state needs to carry the risk, especially in the early development of new technology, in a second, but not to fall into the trap of socialising all that risk, only to step back and watch the rewards become wholly privatised. I thank the member for giving way. I am conscious of the fact that the Arnish Yard in my constituency has had some more positive news, but does the member agree that to ensure the future for that and the other yards, we need to maximise apprenticeships and other training opportunities into the long term? Absolutely. That is critical to the green new deal that we need to create in Scotland, linking in education, linking in apprenticeships. That is very much the case in Fife, where I know that I have met so many exciting young people coming through Fife College looking to get into renewable energy industry, but simply not finding the apprenticeships there to carry them into their careers. The great Labour pioneer Tom Johnston would be spinning in his grave to see the dismantling of the state as the thinker, researcher, planner, financier, builder and operator of our energy infrastructure in the UK. The legacy of his revolutionary hydroboard, established under Churchill's government, was deregulated and flogged off. However, it is clear that the future is wind and the deployment of offshore wind will need to grow at least doubling the project pipeline by 2030. Wind will provide the lion's share of the energy that we need to heat, travel and power our society within 10 years, and we need to plan out exactly what that means at the granularity that can deliver investor confidence. However, it is no good Scotland being the Saudi Arabia of this renewables revolution if the Kit to Parrot is being built in Saudi Arabia. There are still issues that need to be resolved in the offshore wind supply chain. Like Richard Leonard, I first visited the methyl yard some time ago back in 2004, and I remember being handed a tatty, photocopied Scottish Enterprise marketing leaflet about the site and the investment potential. The reality is that the level of Scottish Enterprise investment in simple things, like providing a concrete hard standing in a paint shop, has not happened. Our yards should not be oil and gas museums. They need facilities that are capable of producing at a bigger scale 24x7, 365 days a year. The investment at CS Wind in Campbelltown and the doubling of production there should give us the confidence to bash on with the ambitious investment that is needed in all parts of the renewable sector, because the role of the courageous state is to make things happen that otherwise would not. There are so many opportunities that lie ahead. I will pick one. The UK Climate Change Committee said that it was a no-brainer to move the ban on the sale of new fossil cars forward to 2030, and even Michael Gove indicated to me in committee recently that the UK's target date is under review. Are we acting fully on the opportunities that will come from that? Are we focusing on developing the next generation of charging technology here in Scotland? What about the vital role that EVs and home battery usage will have in feeding back into the grid during peak demand? There are technologies and energy services to be developed that can spin out of academia even though venture capital and markets may be cautious to invest in new areas at the beginning. The strategic thinking, the detailed planning and co-ordination has to come through a Green New Deal for Scotland to maximise all of those opportunities, and the climate emergency demands a level of transformative ambition never seen before, but it must come with hope, a just transition and livelihoods for the workers at BiFam. Natanagoch will be 10 miles off the coast of my constituency. At the other end, we will have the methyl and burnt island shipyards. That is important to Fife and Scotland as well. Andy Kinsella, who was the chief executive officer of mainstream renewable power, applied for Natanagoch. For the wind farm permission, he said that the contracts for difference after they were awarded, we can finally focus on delivering the very significant benefits that the project brings to the Scottish economy and its environment. Mainstream had an economic breakdown of the project and estimated 500 jobs will be created in the three-year build phase, and at least £550 million of the total project cost will be spent in the Scottish supply chain. The company also anticipated that a further £1.8 billion will be spent operating and maintaining the array over the projected 25-year lifetime, and around 100 roles will be created. They set up the Natanagoch coalition, a group of about 60 organisations supporting the development. Alan Duncan, the spokesman for the coalition, said that that means that the only major infrastructure project that is ready to build in Scotland next year can now go ahead, creating 2,000 jobs for each year of its four-year construction process, as well as hundreds of long-term permanent jobs. Mainstream then went on and commissioned a Fraser of Allander institute report, which estimated that the NNG would contribute 0.6 per cent of GDP—£827 million to the Scottish economy—over the project's lifetime, creating thousands of jobs during the construction phase and over 230 operations and maintenance jobs for the 25-year lifetime of the wind farm. The carrots were dangled. Local people were encouraged to speak up. There were adverts in the local and national newspapers. Local politicians, such as I, were put under pressure. We were quoted. Ministers were put under considerable pressure to support the NNG scheme. Now is the time for the new owners to deliver for Scotland. The obligation, the promises made by mainstream, were inherited by EDF. Deliver now as we were promised. If that does not happen, it will be a huge mistake for EDF, but also for the wider industry, because it will send a message very loud and clear that your promise means mean absolutely nothing. EDF is now rumoured to be awarding the contract for constructing the jackets for those huge turbines to Sapien, an Italian industrial giant. They would manufacture the jackets in Indonesia, the other side of the planet. The environmental footprint alone of shipping those massive structures, and they are massive, right way round the world, would be significant. That is supposed to be an environmental project. Why on earth would we construct them this far away and committing so much energy to get them here in the first place? I thank the member for giving way. He talks about EDF and is he relying on their good will in all of that, or does he feel that there should be more pressure put on them? It should be a contractual commitment to do these things? There should be a contractual commitment, and it is a mistake not to have a contractual commitment. It has been seen in other contracts in other parts of the energy sector. Why on earth it has not been done for this, I simply do not understand. The loss to the local economy would be significant as well. Of course, the yards at methyl need to be upgraded, and investment is required as well. They need to improve efficiency and capacity so that they can cope with the demands of the new NNG contract. Change is required to ensure that they are ready not just for this contract, but for other contracts as well in the future. Gary Smith speaks with great clarity on the issue. Before the latest problem that has occurred, he said that promises made by politicians a decade ago over Scotland's renewable industries will amount to nothing more than a puddle of snake oil. We do not have a Saudi Arabia of renewables, we were promised. That is really important. The taxpayers pour billions of pounds of subsidies into an industry that lines the pockets of other countries and private financiers instead of redistributing wealth into our own communities. If that happens, if that goes ahead and if that contract goes abroad, there will be real anger felt in the communities of Fife. The real disconnect is real. How do we make sure that Scotland does not lose out again? If investors and developers are currently planning to invest in Scotland and are watching and listening to the debate, would Willie Rennie agree with me that it would be easier, it would make their life easier if they would just invest in Scotland and they would not be getting the berating that they are getting this afternoon? You are moving into your last minute, Mr Rennie. I think that that is right, and I think that they should listen very carefully. They should not make bold promises, put adverts in newspapers right across Scotland, encourage the support of ordinary working people in their communities to back their plans and then ship the jobs abroad. They should never ever do that if they want those contracts in the future. It is a big lesson for them to learn. That is why we support the Fife ready for renewal campaign. The work should be awarded to Fife and Scotland because that is what we were promised. I have very much welcomed this afternoon's debate. The future of the Fife construction yards in Methl and Burntisland is very important to me, and I have had a relationship with the workforce and the trade unions since I was elected to my first term in Parliament. My first regional office was in Methl, just along Wellesley road from the Fife energy park where BiFab is located. I first visited BiFab at a time of prosperity for the company with the then MP Lindsay Roy and the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Ed Miliband. Over the years, I have witnessed the ups and downs of that business, the struggle with the global competitiveness of the renewables manufacturing sector, the tenacity of a company that was determined to compete at a challenging level to secure work for those yards. There have been strongly mounted campaigns over the years and there have been times when the workforce has been greatly reduced. During that time, I have worked with GMB and Unite Members at Methl to apply any political pressure and to garner any political sport that I could working with my fellow MSPs and Scottish ministers. For me, that was not to save a company for its shareholders or to increase its profits or its company profile. My involvement and commitment to those yards is for the excellent workforce, for the importance of its employment to Methl, Leven Mouth and Fife and to providing a cornerstone for a positive economic future for that area. If any area in Scotland should benefit from the growth of the renewable sector, this area, which has a proud history of manufacturing, a strong industrial heritage, a skilled workforce but is too often hampered by under-employment, by in-work poverty and the lack of opportunity, this is it. The march on Parliament, when BiFab was on the brink of collapse in November 2017, was a powerful demonstration of the passion and the commitment of the workforce, its families and its community. I recognise the role that the Scottish Government played in the company continuing to operate and able to complete its work for the Beatrice contract, which was vitally important for the reputation of the company and the workforce. The rescue package enabled the takeover of the company by DF Barnes, and I very much welcome the positive relationships that are reported by the trade unions with the new owners. I recognise their commitment to making a success of the business and securing work for the five yards, but it is hugely frustrating and damaging for the local economy that the yards are sitting empty. The work that has been secured at Arnish is welcome and demonstrates the ability of the company to gain work, but there is capacity to take more at this yard, and crucially we need to see employment in the five yards. I will briefly mention Scottish Enterprise. BiFab leased the yard from Scottish Enterprise, and there is a need for investment into the infrastructure of the yard. Over the years, there have been discussions over that, and I understand the commercial relationship that there is, but there is an opportunity here to add value, and there is a workforce capable of delivering the yard improvements if the Scottish Government through Scottish Enterprise would commission work. I recognise the recent summit that was held by the Scottish Government and the round table held by the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee. Our motion today calls on the Scottish and the UK Government to review the contracts for difference and supply chain process as part of the offshore wind sector deal to ensure that it will bring significant work to the five yards during the construction phase of all projects. Concerns have been raised over the weaknesses of the deal. If the deal is to deliver, not just for reducing emissions but also for our communities, it needs to set conditions to secure work in the UK, and in particular supporting the Scottish market, where we are seeing growth and a pipeline of projects. I again make the point that CFD is reserved to Westminster. Consenting is, for us, we cannot attach conditionality consenting, but conditionality could be attached to CFD. That might come at some cost, but that would be welcome for Scottish investment. Would the Labour Party then join us in calling upon the UK Government to allow that conditionality on contract for difference, which could be absolutely impivotol in ensuring work for Scotland? I accept the points that the cabinet secretary made and recognise the role of the UK Government in that. However, the summit that he held brought together the UK Government with the Scottish Government. I asked the Scottish Government to apply any pressure that it can to make this a better sector for the Scottish companies to compete with it. I think that we need to show greater ambition for expansion in the sector and ensure that our skilled manufacturing base can see the benefit of that. We cannot continue to see companies taking advantage of Scotland's natural resources but not investing into the people of Scotland and our communities. The economy committee session outlined the problems that are being faced by BiFab by competing in what is often described as a tangled mess of contracts and payments. Witnesses were clear about their concerns over the abuse of state aid rules and the lack of our level playing field. Serious questions were asked about the status of consent letters from Marine Scotland and the subsequent failure to see the conditions that were described as expected and unlikely to be realised. As the Government has explained, the Crown estate devolution powers presents us with opportunities and we need to make the best use of those. The bitter disappointment of losing out on the concardant and moray contracts means that the yards in Fife are lying unused. Workers have not been in the yard for a year, yards that have been mothballed and become a symbol of missed opportunity and still potential. However, that has not dampened the commitment of the workforce and their trade unions. The launch of the Fife ready for renewal campaign deserves the support of all of us. The idea that EDF will award the contracts for wind turbine jackets for the NNG offshore wind farm sitting off the course of Fife to Indonesia to then be shipped thousands of miles to Scotland is just not acceptable. That people in Fife will see this farm from their windows to get none of the economic benefit while they are paying into the project is completely unacceptable. I am urging EDF to do the right thing, to honour commitments that they have given to local investment, to support the Scottish industry and in return they will receive a highly skilled committed workforce and be able to demonstrate a commitment to reducing our carbon footprint and prove their green credentials. There is a significant majority in Parliament to recognise that around the globe we are facing a climate emergency and we in Scotland have an important role to play in tackling climate change. Changing our economy and reducing our use of oil and fossil fuel is critical to that. We support a zero-carbon economy and our renewable output is a huge factor in achieving that. However, our communities and our workforce have not been feeling the benefit of that transition. When the Fife energy park opened, there was optimism and promises of future well-paid, highly skilled jobs that we would energise, leave and mouth and Fife. As the STUC report, broken promises show that less than a third of the jobs that were promised in Scotland have been delivered. That is a poor legacy for the industry so far. We need to all take responsibility for doing business differently and EDF could take a lead on this and ensure that those valuable green jobs come to Fife. I urge them to do so. Thank you very much. I now call Annabelle Ewing to be followed by Alexander Burnett. Ms Ewing, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to have been called to speak in this important debate this afternoon and at the outset I would wish to say as the MSP for Cout and Beath constituency that I am 100 per cent behind the BiFab workers whose skills are second to none. I am also very pleased to note that the Scottish Government has once again reiterated its commitment to stand by BiFab and to strain every sinew to secure a long-term future for the yards. Indeed, Presiding Officer, in addition to the extraordinarily impressive fight by the BiFab workers themselves, it is precisely because of the intervention by the Scottish Government that BiFab still exists. For Presiding Officer, I would submit that the Scottish Government is no mere bystander as far as workers are concerned and indeed has the backs of workers in Scotland. Whereas the UK Government is now entirely engulfed in its Brexit chaos and Tory party leadership machinations, fortunately we in Scotland have a Government that is getting on with the job and the job that it is doing in connection with BiFab is to fight for this work, to fight for these jobs and to fight for this growing industry in Scotland. In this context, the recently launched BiFab campaign, entitled Fife Ready for Renew, launched by the GMB Unite and the STUC as a whole, is to be applauded for. It is vital that supply and chain work comes to BiFab. Of key importance in this regard, in the short to medium term future, as has been mentioned, is the EDF energy offshore wind farm to be located just 10 miles off the Fife coast, and it would surely be as nonsensical as it would be an absolute travesty if BiFab did not receive the work for the wind turbine jackets for this significant infrastructure project. Indeed, much has been made of the environmental costs of transporting the jackets from Indonesia, rumoured to be in the mix with the contract, back to 10 miles off the Fife coast. Surely those environmental costs must be factored in to the overall total cost of the project over its lifetime. I wrote last week to the chief executive of EDF making these very points, and I also stressed that the BiFab yards at Methwyr and Bruntiland were ready and able to take on the work, and I also highlighted the importance of that work for the Fife economy. I also took that up with the cabinet secretary. For it is, in my mind, imperative that people in Scotland actually see the maximum benefit from the new generation of renewable energy technologies that are now coming on stream. It cannot be the case that we miss out on what should be a major boost in the case of the NNG project, the Fife economy and for other contracts for Scotland as a whole. It is certainly the case that the supply chain must work hard to seek opportunities by, for example, making strategic investments and considering appropriate collaborations when putting in tenders for contracts. I am pleased to note that the Scottish Government is committed to maximising the sector and that its recently convened special summit involving key developers and suppliers was also a success. It is a pity that the UK Government energy minister was not able to attend, but I know that the trade unions were there. I understand that industry has agreed that collective action is needed to ensure supply chain companies are well positioned to benefit from upcoming offshore wind projects, and I understand that industry accepts that a bit of a sea change is needed in order to meet the ambitious 60 per cent local content targets that the UK Government has set in its offshore wind sector deal. On that key point, of course—and it is a very pertinent question that the cabinet secretary has posed both to the Conservatives and to the Labour Party—without conditionality in the contract for difference process—how on earth are we going to get these large companies to do this? This is not a game that we are playing. These are people's livelihoods. We must have conditionality in this process. It is nonsensical not to have this, and I am disappointed in particular that the Tories have just disregarded that proposition. As far as the Scottish Government is concerned, it is absolutely essential that they continue to work with the trade unions and others and, of course, the UK Government to ensure that Scotland gets our fair share of the renewables manufacturing bonanza that we all wish to see. I understand that, although the UK Government is to further to that summit, we have a look again at the contract for difference and supply chain process. As I say, it is essential that conditionality is ensured. Indeed, it is such a pity that this Parliament does not have that power, because what a difference we could make to driving the industry forward. I commend the unstinting efforts of the GMB, Unite and the SUC, and I commend the BiFab workers themselves, whose skills, commitment and, indeed, impressive dignity are, I would argue, the best adverts for the future of the yard. The contract is vital for the workers, for the company and for Fife. I know that the Scottish Government will continue to do everything that it can to secure this work, and I welcome the cabinet secretary's pledge to that effect, stated again this afternoon. Today, our Parliament here in Scotland is sending a message, a strong message, EDF honour the promises made and bring this vital work to Fife. Thank you. I call Alexander Burnett to be followed by Alec Neal. Mr Burnett, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I thank members for my register of interests in renewable energy and manufacturing. Considering the SNP recently announced that it is stepping up its action to combat climate change, I am sure that the Scottish Government will be keen to implement actions that support our renewable energy sector as much as possible. I welcome the opportunity to talk in this debate today to promoting our offshore wind sector and the importance that our renewable energy industry has to contribute towards the Scottish and UK economy. It is important that skilled workers, such as those at BiFab, are employed so that we can boost our local economy and, importantly, retain skilled workers in Scotland. However, disappointingly, the SNP Government is still dragging their feet, and whilst it will tell every media release that it intends to invest in climate change and our renewable industry, the action is lacking. Just looking at the fuel poverty and climate change bill shows that both are simply not going far enough in their ambitions. In the case of a Fife ready for renewable campaign, we cannot escape the fact that constructing parts for Scotland's offshore wind farms halfway around the world and transporting them here has a carbon cost. Transport emissions are barely falling and are made up a third of Scotland's overall emissions in 2016. However, we need to take bigger steps by ensuring that local companies are awarded contracts to reduce our impact on the climate. Not only that, we need to help to boost our local economy and provide jobs for skilled workers. The sector is shrunk every quarter for the past two years, the last quarter alone is shrinking by 3.5 per cent, and the largest fall on record. I spoke in a debate last year on apprenticeship week, where I noted the importance to encourage people in the sector. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I am chairing the meeting. We will soon reach a shortage of workers with more than half of those in the industry reaching retirement age. As we will hear from many members today, this is about more than just one firm. It is about the wider environment for businesses and how we need to be better in supporting that. Scottish Renewables noted that offshore wind expansion will provide huge potential for hundreds of supply chain companies, ports and communities that all feed into those offshore projects. The offshore wind sector is one to be very excited about for Scotland and the UK and is likely to reach an expected target of 50 per cent UK content by 2020. With it currently at 48 per cent of UK content, a 5 per cent increase on 2012, it shows that it is moving in the right direction. Earlier this year, the UK Energy Minister announced the offshore wind sector deal, which will further reduce emissions and protect the environment. This is a landmark agreement between the UK Government and the offshore wind sector, with suggestions that the UK could reach 30 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030. There are workers upstairs in the gallery today who have been competing against companies, state-owned companies, for overseas. There is not a level playing field and there is a view that, whilst they have been trying, the UK Government has been sitting on its hands. Will he push the UK Government to intervene, to put the resources in and to create a level playing field? I think that we are all aware that there are state-owned restrictions on investment, and maybe after Brexit there will be opportunities to give support. Cabinet Secretary, passion, yes, excuse me, please sit down. I am just warning you to keep a lid on it a bit. Thank you very much, Mr Burnett. So not only will we see investment of up to £250 million in building a stronger UK supply chain but also social equality commitments, such as increasing the representation of women to at least a third. With an expected increase in the number of green jobs in the industry from 7,000 today to 27,000 by 2030, this is a great deal for the UK. Importantly, a significant number of those jobs are expected to be in Scotland. We need the SNP to show their commitment to the renewable energy sector, to support businesses such as BiFab to gain contracts, to encourage companies such as EDF to recognise their environmental impact and to take bigger steps in their ambitions to combat climate change in Scotland. Scotland currently has the lowest economic growth of any country in the EU, the lowest jobs growth of any region or nation in the UK, and there has been no improvement on our productivity level since 2007. So we as a country have so much to offer, but right now we are not showing it. However, we have the tools to make these statistics change, and I truly believe that Scotland can be back on top. Now, thanks to the UK Government, Scotland's budget is increasing by £521 million in real terms in 1920, with a block grant rising by 1.7 per cent. So there can be no excuse that the SNP does not have the resources to help. So to the SNP Government, I say, invest in our climate change economy and use this extra cash to stick to your commitment to maintain Scotland's reputation as a global leader on tackling climate change. So I am disappointed but not surprised, but so far it has been all talk but no action. But I hope that they are determined to tackle the climate emergency that our generation faces and we can work together to achieve ambitious climate change targets. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I do not want to get involved in party politics on this, but I have to say that the speeches from the Tory benches have been absolutely appalling this afternoon and show absolutely no commitment to Scotland whatsoever. I am not taking any interventions from the Tory benches, Presiding Officer. Yet again, here we are in Scotland having to beg multinational companies to get some control over our own resources. This is not the first time we have been here. In terms of the North Sea, 30 and 40 years ago, we again were in the same situation with North Sea oil, where the Scottish people did not benefit from the great wealth from the oil in the North Sea. Not just in terms of the revenue but in terms of the jobs, in terms of the technology, in terms of the order book, we never ever got our fair share. To be fair to the Labour Government of Harold Wilson and Jim Callaghan, they tried to rectify that by creating an offshore supplies office and the British National Oil Corporation, not to go and beg but to take ownership of our resource and turn it into a wealth creation for Scotland and, indeed, other parts of the United Kingdom. What was one of the first things that the Thatcher Government did when it came to power? They sold off BNOC and they get rid of the offshore supplies office, and the consequence of that is that we have never realised our full potential from oil. Here we are again, history repeating itself, where this massive asset in the North Sea, as the cabinet secretary said, with huge potential for wind power generation. We are not reaping the benefit of that because we do not have the power to impose conditionality. If this Parliament had the power, we would have a clear majority to impose conditionality, and that would almost solve the bi-fab problem overnight. However, we do not have that power, so we have to look at other ways until we get the power of addressing that situation. That falls into two categories. First of all, we have got to fight ideally on a united front for the bi-fab workers and their families. If that means, in the meantime, we have to beg EDF, we have to beg them, we have to persuade them, we have to try to get the energy minister in London to exercise her power, as well as maximise the use of our power. We should do all that, and I think that at least most of us in this chamber are agreed with this. However, the second thing that we have to do in this chamber is to make sure that Scotland never gets into this position again. If you look back at our history, if you look at hydro power, the huge resource concentrated in the north of Scotland, as Mark Ruskell said, we did not wait for some EDF from another country to come along to manage and develop our hydro resource. We did it. Tom Johnson set up the north of Scotland hydro electricity board during the war at the most difficult time to get the money to do it. I say to the Scottish Government, if we are not going to get the powers that we need, then let us look at repeating the model of the hydro board, set up a Scottish national renewable energy company, and get it not just to bid for contracts from big multinationals, but to develop the wind farms onshore and offshore and take control of the whole process and use that power to buy in the resources of BiFab, to give BiFab and other Scottish companies their orders, to build up an export industry in wind farm development in terms of the technology and all the rest of it, to mobilise our resources. We have vast pension funds in the public sector in Scotland. Get them to invest in that kind of dynamic process in a new company, a national company, to manage, own and develop our wind power capability. Then we do not need to go and beg. The other thing that we should do, and I would suggest to the Government, in addition to all the excellent work that the Scottish Government has already done in relation to BiFab and the general development of renewables, in addition to that, to review every power, review your planning powers, review your legislation in relation to emission controls, review your environmental powers, review your financial powers, to look at every possible way in the meantime to secure the work for BiFab, but in the longer term to make sure that we are never treated like this ever again. Our people are entitled to benefit from our own natural resources. Let us unite behind our practical programme to make that happen. I call Alex Rowley to follow by David Torrance. Mr Rowley, please. I would have to agree with the majority what Comrade Neil had to say. For, as the windiest country in Europe, we should be angry and embarrassed that every single turbine around us has been imported. Those are the words of the former UK energy minister, Brian Wilson, and he is right. We should be angry, angry that we have empty yards here in Scotland, yards that are very able to produce and deliver the platforms of offshore renewable projects being built off the coast of Scotland, yet we have seen contracts to provide those platforms being placed with companies in Belgium, in Spain and in the United Arab Emirates, whilst Scottish yards lie empty and Scottish workers struggle to find jobs. Unite and the GMB simply say that they want a level playing field. The trade unions both unite and the GMB have previously criticised the failure to deliver renewable supply chain benefits to the Scottish yards and Scottish workers. They have said that the jobs of the future that are critical to delivering the green energy revolution and a sustainable planet are being carved up by big business who do not care about Scottish workers, do not care about Scottish communities and do not care about Scotland's future. They are right. That is why this Parliament must unite behind ensuring that the next big Scottish renewable project, an offshore wind farm worth a staggering £2 billion, located less than 10 miles from the coast of Fife, brings the jobs to Scotland, brings the jobs to Fife. It would seem, as others have said, that the owners of this site, EDF, the French state-owned energy company, have a preference to award the contract to build the platforms at the other side of the world in Indonesia. This would seem to be madness, given as Richard Leonard has pointed out again and again. It is estimated that bringing those structures from Indonesia would take over 300 journeys and could generate emissions the equivalent of 35 million cars on the road. Surely that makes a mockery of any claims to be focused on tackling the climate emergency, and that hypocrisy must not only be exposed but must be brought to an end. We cannot have a situation where workers are told that they have to pay the price for a greener climate, while the speculators, the multinationals and the state-owned foreign companies rake in the profits. Let us be clear that Scottish firms are not benefiting fully from the opportunities available in the renewable energy sector, as Richard Leonard said, in the report from the STUC, Broken Promises. That report highlighted that fewer than a third of the jobs that were promised in Scotland's renewable energy sector have been delivered. The trade unions are working with communities in Fife and across Scotland, and the message is clear that we have our own better plan for EDF, one that works for Fife, for Scotland and for the planet. It is really simple to build those turbine jackets in Fife. The yards here are ready and waiting to get started on work that could create jobs for over 1,000 people, unlocking much-needed investment in growth in our future. That would be good news for local communities, and it would be good news for our economy. If the bulk of the winter turbine jackets are built in yards just 10 miles from the wind farm, it would mean less shipping and significantly less carbon emissions over a lifespan of this project. That is more good news for our environment and for the future of our planet. Fife is ready for renewal, and the NNG project is the opportunity that we need. We have the yards, we have the skills and we have the communities ready to play their part in tackling the climate emergency. EDF must think again and do what is right for Fife, what is right for Scotland and what is right for our environment. To all the parties in this Parliament, I would say that what we need is a proper manufacturing strategy for Scotland, where the state plays a key role in securing the aims that we supposedly agree upon, a just transition. There is no reason that we cannot have a local and regional benefits agreement model in place for the Scottish energy sector, such as it does in Canada, and even here in Scotland through the community benefit clauses and local government procurement contracts. In conclusion, I would quite simply reiterate that the plan that was put forward by Unite and the GMB, a plan that helps secure jobs in Fife and in Scotland and is better for our planet, is the right plan that this Parliament should support. Build those new turbine jackets in Fife. Let's find a way to properly jumpstart the renewable supply chain in Scotland and reap the benefits for a new generation of a new green industrial revolution. I welcome today's motion by a Labour Party this afternoon, asking that Parliament support the Scottish trade union congress, Fife's ready for a new campaign, and I am fully supportive of that campaign. I also welcome the cabinet secretary's commitment to BiFab this afternoon and the support that the Scottish Government has given and will continue to give to both the company's meffel and burnt island yards, which are within my constituency. Ready for a new campaign highlights the benefits of securing contracts in the renewable sector that we would have on BiFab, its staff, the local communities of meffel and burnt island. I would like to thank the Scottish trade union congress, Unite and the GMB for their continued work with the Scottish Government and BiFab's owners, Canadian fabrication company DF Barns, to help to secure the future of the BiFab yards. Their continued message of positivity through difficult times for the company and its workforce has helped to keep momentum and focus on the Fife fabrication sector. The need for a new contract to revitalise these yards has been felt deeply across my constituency and has impacted on the local economy in the area greatly, particularly in the community around BiFab's meffel yard, where 41 per cent of the individuals live in one of the most 20 per cent of the most deprived areas in Scotland. That is more than double the figure for a Fife as a whole. The yard is vital to creating local employment and providing employees with highly sought-after skills. More importantly, by bringing local young people into modern apprenticeship schemes and a skill sector that is transferrable to engineering sectors across Scotland and even the global manufacturing industry. I have visited the yard on a number of occasions over the course of my term in office, and I have learned firsthand from the employees of each yards the importance of this employer to the local area and the difference that employment in the high-skilled and well-paid positions makes to the lives of those living in an area of multiple deprivation. The sooner that BiFab's 1,200 strong workforce can return to a yard's meffel and burnt out into better. The knock-on effect on the lack of contracts also affects many local businesses that serve yards from suppliers and transportation services to local accommodation and plant hire. Those businesses have all missed out on revenue due to the lack of contracts and employment. Newborn projects such as the £2 billion energy offshore wind farm, which, once constructed, will generate enough energy power a year for a whole of Edinburgh, only adds to manufacturing an important role that the Scottish economy and contracts such as the energy wind farm will ensure and continue to support and enhance the Scottish manufacturing and fabrication sector. This in turn would create highly skilled jobs and would boost both the local area economy and the Scottish economy as a whole. Scotland is a world leader in the new year by energy and we have the most ambitious emission reduction targets of any other nation. I will expect them to compete with companies—oh, sorry, I turned off too many pages—but there is no sense of striving for greatness in these areas and not capitalising on the opportunities that they create. They have the potential to benefit entire Scottish manufacturing and supply chain, breathe life back into yards like BiFab and give hope back to communities that they support. The Scottish Government, along with the UK Government, must use all of its powers available to recognise the ability of Scottish companies such as BiFab to benefit from contracts being awarded in the renewable sectors. My question to many of my constituents asks me, why is BiFab not winning contracts? Will the answer be a simple one? How can we expect a company to compete with companies such as Navanacea, which are allowed to run uplosses by its Spanish Government owners and can therefore offer prices far below what a Scottish company strives to at very least break even by producing a high quality work carried out by well-paid employees? We cannot expect BiFab to tend our winning contracts when they are not competing on a level playing field. The Scottish Government's strong support for BiFab is the reason why we are able to debate this topic today. Without the Government's intervention in the company and the commitment to BiFab sustainability, there would not be the same hope or future for a company that there is today. By becoming a minority shareholder, the Government has brought the company back from the brink of closure. Additional investment from the well-established DF Barnes has revitalised the vision for a burnt island in Meffo Yars to maintain consistent contracts and to become a stable employer, if they once were. The First Minister has personally visited the Yard and the people on the ground fighting to keep the fabrication industry alive. The Government has repeatedly demonstrated the commitment to the Yards and I, as well as a large number of my constituents appreciate its continued support. I am aware of that investment that the Scottish Enterprise has put into Meffo Yard to modernise it and update its facilities to keep up the demands of modern fabrication. What BiFab needs now is for that support to resolve new opportunities for fabrication and construction in the marine, renewable and energy sector in Scotland, not only because it is in the Scottish taxpayers' best interest but because the people of Meffo and burnt island desperately need the moral boost and if the newly awarded contract will bring. In conclusion, the Scottish manufacturing supply chain must see the benefit of the Government's commitment to renewable energy and emissions reductions and the billions of pounds of contracts that this commitment will bring. The sector's highly skilled workforce must be given the opportunity to contribute to that cause and benefit from creating a better, more sustainable Scotland. Employment for renewable sector will not only benefit BiFab Yards in Meffo and burnt island but the wider manufacturing and fabrication sector across Scotland. EDF energy has a moral duty to support the Scottish supply chain and grant the economic benefit of production of the energy wind farm to the very area that it will call home. After all, once the energy wind farm is completed, EDF will make billions of pounds worth of profit over the course of the site's lifespan. I believe that it would be a shameful mark with Scotland's industrial history if BiFab received no work as a result of the country's commitment to carbon neutrality and investment in renewable energy. Thank you very much. I call Bill Bowman to be followed by Stuart McMillan. Mr Bowman, please. I refer to my register of interest via fund with energy industry holdings. Today's debate comes as Scotland builds its renewable energy in on and offshore wind, solar and hydropower. Many of those energy initiatives are realised through competitive international contracts and it is through a spirit of collaboration that the industry has seen huge development over the years. However, our economy is struggling. The Government's Labour productivity statistics show that Scotland has not improved its productivity on global league tables since 2007 and our growth is forecast to be slower than the UK as a whole from 2020 up to 2023. Add to this the threat to BiFab in Fife and you could be forgiven for thinking that this is simply another example of a sector trying to grow under tough economic conditions. However, the Parliament was made aware last week that less than a third of the jobs that were promised by this SNP Government in Scotland's renewable energy sector have been delivered. Nonetheless, Scotland's renewable energy sector has strong support from a number of industries and corporate bodies who are committed to seeing this country continue to lead the way in creating a greener and more energy efficient world. Scotland's growing capacity for renewables has translated into a significant increase in renewable electricity output, which has more than tripled from 2007 to 2018. The turnover from renewable energy activity in 2017 was about £5.5 billion and, perhaps more significantly, the renewable energy sector accounts for 17,000 jobs across Scotland. That growth is supported by industry bodies, including Scottish Renewables and initiatives such as the offshore wind sector deal that is implemented by the UK Government. That deal pledges to drive the transformation of offshore wind generation, boosting the productivity and competitiveness of the UK supply chain. Despite the Scottish Government's pledge to help our renewable energy sector, could Mr Bowman, who appreciates the intervention, name a single legal measure that we could have taken that we haven't taken that would have secured work for BiFab or any other yard? Bill Bowman? I think that proving negative is a difficult exercise. I think that the issue is that you have to work with the UK Government to find the areas where you can implement those measures. We are seeing the consequences of a lack of structural investment in industry foresight, which leaves our Scottish renewable industries at a disadvantage compared with European competitors. For the more, there is not just the workforce that is affected. Local businesses feel the squeeze, too, which makes the example of BiFab about more than just one firm. It is about the wider environment for businesses and the SNP Government's filing approach to the economy. The example of BiFab is depressing on many fronts. The overlooked yards are a devastating situation for the local economy. They are ready and waiting to get started on work that could create jobs for over 1,000 people and looking much-needed investment in growth for the region's future. The Parliament shares the concerns of the STUC who understand that little of the work of fabricating jackets for wind turbines will come to five. It is encouraging to see the efforts of Scottish Enterprise, who have invested in hard-standing infrastructure and piling works at the five-key side, and GMB Scotland and Unite, who have launched the Ready for Renew campaign. Those efforts will help to ensure that construction of parts for Scotland's offshore wind farms do not happen halfway round the world. Our renewable energy sector is crying out for help to fulfil the demands that we place on it. Feedback given to the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee highlighted a lack of industrial strategy for offshore wind and, more broadly, for the whole renewable sector. It is crucial that we start to grow our economy and put infrastructure in place to allow the renewable energy sector to reach its potential. However, that can only be achieved through a change in mindset. The motion focuses on five, but the offshore wind farms are in range of the fourth and Tate ports. In my region, Dandian Wontrose has the credentials to be considered for oil and gas decommissioning work and the construction and maintenance of these wind farms. We need to include such facilities in a joined-up approach to supply chain management. Dundee's council leader last year said that he hoped to bring 1.8 billion investment to the city to build 54 turbines. However, the First Minister admitted to the STUC conference last month that this Government had not been as successful in winning contracts as it had hoped. It is a long time since the Tate was home to many of the finest wood, iron and steel shipbuilding workshops in the world, but the strategic position of Dundee, along with the need for high-quality construction jobs in the wake of difficulties elsewhere, makes an ideal place to build and decommission renewables. We want to see Scotland at the forefront of new jobs and renewables, but the sense and peace government's muddled approach to supporting businesses put that at risk. We and the Conservative benches are proud to be part of a UK that is reducing emissions faster than any other G20 country by 29 per cent in the last decade alone. Presiding Officer, Scotland was once of the workshop of the world. With more involved direction and financial support, we can continue to lead the way as a renewable energy innovator of the world. Thank you very much. I call Stuart McMillan to be followed by Lewis MacDonald. Mr McMillan, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I start by offering my support from everyone in Inverclyde to our friends in Fife. We are wholeheartedly supporting the campaign to get that work and get those jobs in Fife. It is so important for Scotland's industrial strategy and for Scotland's industrial future as well. I am saying this because, in my community in the Greenwich and Inverclyde constituency, we have went through a huge amount of change over the years, as colleagues will know. Certainly in 2014, Ferguson Shipbuilders and Port Glass will close down. It was because of the support of the Scottish Government that brought that shipyard back to life. I know that I am talking to people in my constituency who absolutely understand the importance of manufacturing for Scotland's economy, but also for manufacturing for Scotland's future. Part of the motion in front of us from the Labour Party highlights the aspect regarding the emissions being generated by transporting the final product from potentially from Indonesia to 10 miles off the coast of Fife. That is a similar situation that has been raised by the heritage rail sector in the UK as well. Very much on a smaller scale, because coal has shipped from Colombia over to the UK to go into that particular sector. Thankfully, there is a reduced level of coal that has been shipped, because the sector is reducing the amount of coal that has been used in rail engines. However, it is a similar idea and situation. I cannot understand the whole aspect of potentially shipping the jackets over to Scotland, because the emissions generated certainly flies in the face of the final product of what those turbines are supposed to be doing in terms of helping the environment. A second point that Richard Leonard spoke in his comments earlier on regarding a once interventionist state. If it was not for the Scottish Government, then Farragas and Smarine, which was shipped by Farragas in 2014, would not have come back into being. Liberty Steel would not be operating in Lanarkshire, and I just think that there have been many examples of where the Scottish Government has helped to either bring an industry back or to save an industry. One other example is my constituency to go for it. I will let you in, and that is in Texas Instruments in Greenock. That was through the task force that was set up, joint working between the Scottish Government and the Inverclyde Council that helped to bring some type of solution to that particular issue. We applaud the defensive rescues that have been mounted by the Scottish Government in steel, Ferguson's, Alliuminium and so on, but does he accept that there is a need for a proactive, forward-looking industrial strategy that is not simply defensive and reactive but proactive? That is exactly one of the things that the Scottish Government has been doing in recent years about planning ahead. I do not know if Mr Leonard saw this earlier on, but on the same page, we do not have to fight on this, was the announcement regarding the advancing manufacturing challenge fund, a £40 million fund, and that is money that is supported by the European regional development fund. The Scottish Government is actually doing what Mr Leonard is asking him to do. Another point that I want to touch upon is Dean Lockhart and Bill Bowman. I was generally disappointed by their contributions. If that was them attempting to have a team-scotland approach, I do not know what they are like when they are trying to be oppositionist. On one moment, I was really surprised, because Mr Lockhart stated that his party was going to support the motion and the amendment by the Scottish Government. However, they went on to actually thank the Scottish Government for its contributions, and that genuinely was really disappointing. To me, as someone who grew up in Port Glasgow, as someone who witnessed the decline of the shipbuilding industry and most of the industrial industry in my community as a child, and someone who was affected by it like many other thousands of kids in my community, it was really disgusting to hear some of the comments. I will take Mr Lockhart's intervention. Will you ring your last minutes? That might be a short intervention. Very quickly. Just to clarify, most of our comments were based on the GMB report called Broken Promises and Offshore Jobs. They weren't comments from us, but they were reflecting stakeholders' views on the failures of the Scottish Government in the renewable sector. Mr McMillan. Thank you. Once again, selective comments from the Conservative Party. Very much selective comments from the Conservative Party, but I am conscious of time, Presiding Officer. I know that I speak for my community, that my community and my constituents will want that work to come to Fife. It is a good thing for Fife, Scotland and Scotland's industrial future. I am sure that every single person, even the Tories, should agree on that today. Thank you. I call Lewis Macdonald. We fall by Gillian Martin. Mr Macdonald, please. Thank you very much. The power of the wind could stand for more than just a way of generating electricity. It could become a symbol of energy transition too, if the operators of the wind farm in the 4th of 4th chose to make it so. Those operators are EDF electricity in de France. As we have heard, a state enterprise from another European country, unlike Equinor from Norway and Vattenfall from Sweden, is now playing a major role in offshore wind here in Scotland. Of course, Nier, Snegau is not the only interest of EDF in Scottish renewables. The company has onshore wind farms in operation from Sutherland to Galloway among a total of 35 sites across the UK. In the Isle of Lewis, EDF has developed plans for major onshore wind farms, one taking forward with the community landowner, Stornoway Trust, through Lewis Wind Power and Ocean Nation, which is now being taken forward by the owners of the Eskinny state. Lewis Wind Power applied only last week for a new consent for the Stornoway wind farm, precisely in order to make it more able to compete with offshore wind farms such as Nier, Snegau and the North Sea. The Isle of Lewis is particularly relevant here for two reasons. First, the planned site of the Stornoway wind farm is a near neighbour of the Arnish fabrication yard, operated by BiFab, and so EDF is already well aware of BiFab from a Lewis as well as a Fife perspective. Secondly, the success of Lewis Wind Power and all other renewable developers in the islands depends on being able to sell power to customers right across the British mainland, which is only going to happen when Lewis is connected to the GB national grid. I met EDF last year to discuss the strategic importance of island's wind in meeting renewable energy targets for Scotland, the UK and the European Union. I have made representations to Ofgem on behalf of Scottish Labour, and I know that the Scottish Government and others have done precisely the same. We all agree that the regulator Ofgem needs to be more ambitious in supporting renewable energy development in the western isles, and it needs to endorse plans for an interconnector from Lewis to the mainland, which can carry 600 megawatts rather than just 450 megawatts of renewable electricity. Now, we have argued for a larger capacity interconnector because we want to stimulate and encourage more renewable energy in the islands, not just large-scale onshore wind, but potentially wave energy and community renewables as well. EDF wants that too. Of course, they also have a commercial interest in securing the means for carrying future additional power to the mainland. There is nothing wrong with that commercial interest, but arying commercial interests with policy objectives cannot be a one-way street. EDF is itself a state-owned enterprise. It wants to work with Governments and political parties on taking forward policy objectives that converge with its own commercial interests. That is fine, but it also needs to use its commercial clout in support of wider policy objectives, which will benefit the renewable energy sector as a whole. That is what we are calling on EDF and other renewable energy developers to do today. As the STUC put it last week, a company that has benefited from development consents and seeks political support on policy issues also needs to be a company that does the right thing. The right thing in this context is to maximise the economic benefits of renewable energy by placing major fabrication contracts with Scottish yards, and in the case of Nears and the Guy, that means the BiFab yards at Methill and Burnt Island. As Richard Leonard reminded us, Burnt Island fabricators in Fife and Lewis Offshore at Arnish have been major suppliers over many years of infrastructure offshore for the oil and gas industry. Those days are gone. When Lewis Offshore ran out of work, it was bought out by BiFab, and when BiFab ran out of trouble, it was bought out by DF Barnes. DF Barnes is also a company with years of experience in oil and gas fabrication in Atlantic Canada and elsewhere, which has made a conscious decision to diversify here in Europe into offshore renewables. That is a choice that deserves support. Even more than the company, the workers at BiFab deserve support, not just from government, but also from the renewables energy sector itself. That is to start with EDF at Nears and the Guy, and with tier 1 contractors such as Cypem, who have also been mentioned today. It is difficult to see how transporting offshore production jackets from East Asia to the First and Fourth could be more profitable than fabrication here in Scotland, unless the terms and conditions of the workers in Indonesia are truly dire and workplace safety non-existent. That can hardly be the right thing to do. If production in East Asia on that basis really is price competitive, that will only undermine other fabrication yards that do the right thing, not just in Britain but across the European Union. I hope that ministers are seeking to co-operate on those issues, not just with the UK Government, but also with the EU, because there is an interest in preventing the undermining of commonly accepted working conditions. Ministers in the Scottish and UK Governments have real clout in the relationships with offshore wind developers as licensing authorities in short and offshore. I was pleased to hear much of what Derek Mackay had to say. Governments need to work together in order to develop a shared strategy for offshore wind, which requires not just warm words about local content but actual delivery. If ministers in both Governments, in spite of some of the things that we have heard today, can take a joined up approach, and if EDF, as a result, chooses to do the right thing, then Nierst Nygau can also be Nierst Ersanma, the power of the wind, and a force for good as well. Thank you very much, Ms McDonnell. I call Jerry Martin. He is called by Alexander Stewart. Ms Martin, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Scotland is a country of engineering and innovation. The engineering and manufacturing past with Scotland was the bedrock of employment for generations of people. From the bridges that have built all over the world to the ships that have built which have sailed all over the world, to the oil and gas platforms that give so much work to the people in my constituency and beyond and have engendered the experience that we have exported all over the world. Now that we are on the next wave of engineering and innovation, with our pressing need to create more renewable energy, it is estimated that as we address the climate emergency, we will need to stop burning hydrocarbons and heat our homes and power transport with clean energy. So the demand for clean electricity will double at least and we are committed to that power coming from renewables. I fully support the Fife ready for a renewal campaign and I fully agree with the calls for the manufacturing work associated with that to be produced in the Inchcape and Sea Green offshore wind farms to be won by local firms like BiFab. Of course, my constituency has the Aberdeen offshore wind farm which is currently producing enough clean electricity to power hundreds of thousands of homes. I think that 70 per cent of the needs of Aberdeen city every day. But it's been well documented that the wind turbines and subsea structures that make up the wind farm were produced elsewhere. It would be a great shame if the workers and people of Fife were to find themselves unable to benefit directly from the projects off their coastline as well. I wholeheartedly agree that the import of hardware from across the world is completely at odds with our efforts to reduce the various emissions we want to avoid as we move towards a low-carbon future powered by that hardware. We should be doing everything in our power to squeeze every last drop of economic activity out of large infrastructure projects for local workforces. And where we don't have the power we should be campaigning together to get it devolved to this Parliament and, in the meantime, working together to get the UK Government to do the right thing. And I'm delighted to hear that the Scottish Government is going to use the powers that are now in place with the recently passed Crown the State Bill to incentivise the supply chain for such projects to be in Scotland. But the ability to harness the economic potential of the renewable energy revolution over onshore windfram subsidy, contracts for difference, contract conditionality and energy taxation they all lie with Westminster. And the cabinet secretary has outlined the implications of the management of these powers at UK level for Scottish manufacturers and, in so doing, schooled Dean Lockhart on these matters. I share Stuart McMillan's frustration at the Tory speeches. He might be disappointed. I'm just completely bored of it. And I am in a position, same generation of Stuart McMillan that my parents were at the very sharp end of what the Tory Government in the 1980s did to manufacturing in Clydebank. I want to pay tribute to the work of energy journalist Dick Winchester who writes in the energy voice. He's long been a campaigner to get the manufacture of renewables infrastructure to be based in Scotland. And in many ways, what's happened with BiFab is a watershed moment. If things don't change, local companies will lose out time and time again. As we fulfil the wind infrastructure and needs of the future, conditionality is not completely in our gift but maybe it should be for all our sakes. As well as lamenting the missed manufacturing opportunities of the Aberdeen offshore wind farm, Dick Winchester has pointed to the development of projects such as Batwind, which involves a battery-based energy system. That system comes from Unicots, a German-American technology company. He points out that there are companies in Caithness that could have won that. Areas across Scotland should be able to share in that potential. However, heaven would help us if that were left to the Tories. Now that the Scottish Government is welcome and speedy commitment to reducing the emissions that have caused the climate emergency, they provoke mixed feelings in my part of Scotland. I have to be honest about that. I am on record in this chamber of talking about the potential economic and social implications. A transitional way from burning oil and gas could have to the hundreds of thousands of north-east people who make their living from the exploration and production of hydrocarbons or who are in the supply chain. That transition must be just, it must be managed and it must be invested in. That is both Governments that have to do that. The establishment of the Just Transition Commission by the Scottish Government is of huge importance to the north-east of Scotland. I cannot overstate how important it is that the very relevant skills that our people, not just in the north-east but in Fife as well, are harnessed in that transition to renewables and serious efforts are made to ensure that we transition justly and fairly. The prizes are there. There are massive opportunities where we do not want them leaking out of Scotland. Presiding Officer, I have got very short. Mark Ruskell. Giving way, I share the importance of the Just Transition Commission with you. Do you think that it is important that it is put on a statutory basis to stop the Tories decommissioning it and getting rid of it if they ever come into Government in Scotland? Gillian Martin. Mark Ruskell knows my feelings on this because, obviously, I sit in the committee alongside him. I am not completely convinced that it would make much difference. I would like Government to be held account for what happens in the Just Transition Commission. Presiding Officer, before I sit down, I would also gently suggest to Labour that they be mindful of this as well. The Aberdeen windfarm was awarded 40 million euros of funding from the European Union. With a hard Brexit on the horizon, the loss of funding like this could mean that large renewable projects are in jeopardy and the jobs that come with them. Let's work together to avoid that situation too, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Alexander Stewart. We are followed by John Mason. Alexander Stewart. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate of Fife Ready for Renewable campaign, which seeks to secure contract production of wind turbine parts at BiFab. We recognise the need for more renewable energy to help us to cut emissions as part of our balance mix of energy sources. We are clear that the central to that is ensuring the security and supply affordability and de-compensation. The right out of the investment in the innovation at the cutting edge of technology within our renewable energy sector, we can ensure that we meet our renewable energy targets while creating jobs. That is the vital important part that we are discussing here today, Presiding Officer. It's jobs, it's the economy and it's the livelihood of this location in Fife that is being talked about and other parts. So I pay tribute to the workforce for BiFab for what they've done in supporting that economy across Fife and other regions. When we are seeking to tackle climate change, it does seem rather ironic to build many of the parts of a renewable energy source, like an offshore wind farm, halfway round the world and then transport it back to Fife. That makes no sense to anybody and we've heard from many speakers today about that nonsensical situation that we're finding ourselves in. And transport emissions have remained high and we're up to one third overall back in 2016. When we have a company like BiFab here in Scotland that has the capability and has the capacity to build parts of wind power binds while supporting local jobs and supporting local community, it is completely mad for us to even consider having that take place. And a wind farm that will be located just 12, 10 miles off the coast of Fife. As we have heard today, some fears are without this contract that the survival of the area and the associated jobs in and around the location it will be lost. To that end, we support the calls for BiFab to be awarded the contract for the wind turbine parts and they will be built closer. And it's important that we encourage the EDF renewables and have discussions with both Governments, the UK Government and the Scottish Government to consider the ability to ensure that offshore wind farm in Scotland is practical, is possible and is encouraged. And it is encouraging to see that the campaign that's been built up includes community groups, it includes the workforce, it has elected representatives across the council, across the Parliament and across Parliament's other places and environmental as well. By also pay tribute to the trade unions who've worked together to put on this pressure and they have made a massive impact and we have to acknowledge that because we've worked alongside them all of us to try and ensure that that takes place. And pressure must be put on to EDF renewables to make sure that they consider going forward. The Scottish Government has a role in this campaign and we've heard today from the Cabinet Secretary that that role is being taken seriously and rightly it should be. But we also have a stake in BiFab. The Scottish Government put a stake in BiFab so the taxpayer has a stake in BiFab and it's important that we acknowledge that and we recognise that. So the Scottish Government has an obligation to ensure that BiFab can be secured and we have an obligation as politicians to do all we can and I say that that includes having discussions with UK ministers and the UK Government about what can take place to ensure that happens. I would... It would also be naive of us to think that this debate is just about one single firm because it's not. There is a wider economic environment and that is being presided across by the Government here in Holyrood. And we've already heard today about the difficulties and the decline that's taken place in some locations and some parts and that has caused continual disruption across many sectors. Our growth is forecast to be slower than other parts of the UK up until 2023 and we already have the country's lowest within the European Union. Over the last decade, we've heard and seen the job growth and the regions across the UK and we have the smallest job growth in the UK. There have been some worrying trends and some worrying economies for the Scottish Government and in particular the Government has failed in the past to ensure that we had the reasonable... No, I want to make some progress. Back in 2010, the then First Minister claimed that the offshore renewable industry would create 20,000 jobs in Scotland over the course of the following 10 years, but that did not materialise. They have also claimed to support renewable energy but we have seen some companies that, for example, went into administration because the Scottish Government removed all the public funding back in 2014. And we've also heard from situations and companies that had to see their workforce reduced. So we all have to acknowledge that not everybody is getting this right. So there are faults on both sides and we need to work for the communities that we represent and everyone who is working together. The UK Government is committed to going further and we have seen the offshore wind sector deal which is bringing 250 million into the situation and that deal will forecast for us to quadruple the number of jobs in the sector and increase global by fivefold. So, we have and we will continue to support and we in the Scottish Conservatives support the efforts that have taken place within our energy mix to ensure that our economy offshore wind farms are a vital component. So in conclusion, when trying to reduce emissions and quite simply does not make sense for, as I've said, commissioning parts of wind farm developments from halfway round the world and therefore it's up to all of us to support by fab to ensure that the yards, the jobs and the communities which they depend on are looked after and, as I said, I contribute to the GMB and Unite unions for all they've done and we must do all we can to support and secure Fife and its economy and that is both the UK Government and the Scottish Government playing the apart. Thank you. Thank you and I call John Mason before we move to closing speeches. John Mason. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer and I would add my voice to the many we've already had supporting specifically by fab but also local businesses in general to get as much work as they possibly can. I agree with a number of the things that Richard Leonard said in his speech talking about the failure to plan by the various owners over the years of the by fab facility and suggesting, as I agree with, that profit has been so much of a driving factor rather than the common good. I would also agree with a number of the points that Derek Mackay made encouraging that the Government is exploring powers, for example, using the Crown Estate in which we now have some control over and that if there is to be Scottish guarantees, if there are to be Scottish guarantees in the future, then there absolutely must be benefits to the local economy. But as he said, it is the UK Government that has more levers of the power for example in relation to CFD. The economy committee of which I am vice convener had a round table on by fab on the 23rd of April and there certainly were strong suggestions at that meeting that some overseas operators are effectively being allowed to a run at a loss every single year, potentially with 35 per cent of their turnover being in the form of a loss according to the claims that were made. And so obviously if that is the case, it's not surprising that our businesses are unable to compete and certainly that is stated by my understanding of the term. Now it has been suggested that if other countries can bend the rules, then so should we. And I agree that we should not be naive or particularly legalistic in our approach if other people are perhaps ignoring some of the rules or at least interpreting them in a more relaxed fashion. However, I would also argue that the rules are there for a good reason and the best solution is surely that everyone does follow the rules and that the EU or whoever it is should be ensuring that there is conformity to them. As Scottish Renewables said in their briefing for today's debate, quote, the procurement processes are tightly governed by UK and European legislation and are focused on providing the best possible value for money for Scottish and UK energy consumers, end of quote. Now I did ask at committee if it was not the role partly of Scottish Enterprise to follow up and potentially complain if state aid rules were being broken in other countries and I have to say the answer I got back on that particular day did seem to be a bit on the vague side. DF Barnes, who were represented at the round table, made the point that in countries like Canada there are penalties and if local benefits are not delivered as promised then somebody has to pay for that. However, in this country there does seem to be very little comeback if local organisations and individuals do not get the benefits they were promised. That's where I would point out and some of the things I was a bit disappointed particularly on Dean Lockhart's comments that he said if I got him correctly that the UK Government should quote encourage EDF and I have to say that and then he was intervened on I think by the cabinet secretary and again he avoided that there should be a commitment and that UK Government should force a commitment. So that is somewhat disappointing. I think Willie Rennie agreed that there should be binding conditions when I intervened on him although Clare Baker suggested urging EDF and again I would say we want to do a little bit more than just urging EDF if we have the power. I thought Alec Neill's points many of them were very good but he did make it very clear that we just do not have the power at the moment to impose any of these conditions. The EU regulations are there to protect decent businesses from unfair competition and to protect taxpayers from paying over the odds for contracts for someone else's cronies. We can all think of times in the past when both in this country and in other countries contracts were wrongly awarded not because it was the cheapest price or even best value but because there was an unhealthy close link between those awarding and those are being awarded the contracts. So whatever happens with Brexit we must not throw the baby out of the bathwater and go back to these times. We need to get a right balance between fair competition and value for money on the one hand but absolutely supporting local businesses and jobs on the other and the points that Lewis MacDonald made are relevant there that the workforce pay and conditions in other countries have to be a factor in that. We also need to focus as I think we are agreed on as what we are best at. It's been often said that we cannot compete in mass producing the cheapest products be that food or engineering products or anything else but we can compete at the top end and that's what we believe by FAB and others can do with the best innovation and the most specialised high quality products. Again, in Scottish Renewables briefing they gave the specific example of CS Wind in Campbellton where a £27 million investment in 2016 has upscaled the workforce and the equipment. There now have the ability to produce best in class turbine towers for the UK and Europe and have doubled their productivity between 2017 and 2018. I was disappointed in some of the things Bill Bowman said. He failed to suggest when intervened on what steps the Scottish Government could or should have taken to do more in all of this. I would suggest that it is his party's commitment to unrestricted free market that has caused a lot of these current problems. And so, for example, Scottish Power was privatised which could have been a state-owned player in this whole question. So in conclusion, Presiding Officer, there's a lot of agreement today. Hopefully we will stay in the EU and be part of the single market. But perhaps we need to look more closely at what our competitor countries are doing and either challenge their behaviour or learn from what they are doing. Thank you. Thank you very much. And we'll move now to closing speeches. Colin, Jamie Halcro Johnston to wind up for the Conservative Party. Thank you, Presiding Officer. From across the chamber, it's clear that the level of involvement or lack of involvement in the Scotland's businesses in Scotland's renewable supply chain is a matter of real concern and anger. As we've seen in today's debate, the issues faced by BiFab are set within a wider context of problems with how we support the energy sector. Problems that go beyond those detailed in Labour's motion. As Scotland's onshore wind sector grew, with significant support from the public sector, it became clear that much of the work was not falling to businesses here at home. And people are rightly concerned that we risk seeing the same thing happening again in relation to offshore. So as we look to the future, the worry is quite clear that Scotland serves as a base for renewables, that it is a Scottish research that makes great strides in developing the energy technologies of the future, but that the businesses here simply do not benefit as they should. Now, it will be foolish to ignore that we operate in a global marketplace. Competition is healthy, it helps to drive down the wholesale cost of energy and provides benefits that can carry over to the consumer. But when major projects are taking place in our own backyard, people will quite reasonably ask why much of the manufacturing work and the jobs that are created are overseas. We have heard of the expertise that exists here in Scotland. I would like to make some progress, much of the legacy of our oil and gas industry, an industry that has been reasonably successful in creating skills, jobs and industry in several parts of the country. And it appears that we can all find agreement that Scottish businesses should be able to win these contracts, build up local supply chains, create jobs and provide benefit to their communities. Yet it seems, despite assurances, that yards are lying empty while work begins elsewhere. While this is not a committee debate, the work of the economy, energy and fair work committee is significant in relation to today's discussion. Other speakers have touched on some of our activities, but I think that it is important to reflect on what the committee has done to bring together representatives from across the sector. Meeting with them, we heard a number of issues. There was confusion over the application of state aid rules in the industry. The businesses felt that some competitors were not compliant with the rules as they understood them, and it seems as enterprise agencies understood them. Where additional support is being given elsewhere, an unlevel playing field, as the cabinet secretary rightly called it, risks being created with undue commercial advantage. Equally, while panellists acknowledged that there was a responsibility to challenge breaches, there did not seem to be a great deal of clarity over how and who. The committee was also provided with a written update from the cabinet secretary on the supply chain and fabrication work that was identified by the Scottish Government following the offshore wind summit at the beginning of the month. That is welcome, particularly the need for a collaborative approach by the Scottish Government and the UK Government, as both the cabinet secretary and Dean Lockhart mentioned. However, those commitments must be matched with detail and action. While specific problems exist within BiFab, the Scottish Government's approach to supporting business clearly has a far wider impact on our economy. It is not only in renewables that we are seeing skills and the capacity to go to waste, but it is in the renewables sector that we are seeing those opportunities to build a strong domestic supply chain lost time and time again through a lack of preparation and joined-up thinking. I will let the member who asked me to go first. If that is right. Stuart McMillan I thank Jamie Halcro Johnston for taking that intervention. Just on that particular point, surely he has got to agree that when government policy ensures that there is a vast reduction in training such as apprenticeships, as was the case in the 1980s, surely you will have a shortage in the workforce when the economy is going to change and when there is going to be more opportunity to build in the manufacturing sector. Jamie Halcro Johnston The responsibility for apprenticeship in skills and training has been with this Parliament here since 1999. Are you suggesting that somehow... Can you clarify that point? I do not want to misrepresent you. Stuart McMillan I thank you once again. Very briefly, in the 1980s, when government policy changed and apprenticeships were scrapped and youth training scheme was brought in, but a training scheme that was nowhere near the quality of apprenticeships, then how can you go and build ships? How can you go and build these jackets if there was a shortage of the workforce to actually go and do the job? Jamie Halcro Johnston I am sorry, but I think that you are arguing that we lost that 40 years ago and that 40 years period since. That is a nonsensical position. S&P speakers today have focused on what they can't do and nothing about what they can do. No, I won't. No, we have heard a lot from the cabinet secretary speaking from a sedentary position. I would like to get on. You should be speaking from a sedentary position, because I am still standing. In his speech, my colleague Dean Lockhart noted the concerns with various stakeholders over the Nershnegola project off the coast of Fife. The compelling role of the cabinet secretary and the compelling reasons for bringing jobs and investment to his region. The economic impact would indeed be transformative. The skills are there and the environmental case is clear. Looking wider, Alexander Burnett spoke about the pressing need to support the renewable sector to combat climate change. He also rightly highlighted the need to build the skills that are required for the future if we are to have a successful industry in Scotland, a point heard by the economy committee. Looking at others, Willie Rennie and others highlighted the situation where, to supply green energy machines in this country, parts of those machines are now being shipped from the other side of the world. Both Claire Baker and Alexander Stewart spoke passionately about the impact of those decisions in their area, and they talked about—I think that Claire Baker talked about—a visit to the site. It is a site that I visited myself many, many years ago with former Mid-Scotland and Fife MSP Ted Brocklebank, and it was just after, or not that long after, the converter yard had closed and the impact of that was still being very much felt then. As I said, there has been no shortage of SNP speakers today, but it was left rather to Alex Neil, and I think a little bit from John Mason, to actually talk about some of some ideas, rather than just the limitations. Scotland has the potential for billions of pounds worth of investment in renewables, stretching forward for decades to come. In my own region, we have Orkney and Shetland looking not simply at wind energy as part of the changes around remote island wind, but also into the future with innovations in wave and tidal energy. Both communities have shown how previously the oil and gas sector can play a significant difference to our remote communities. And now communities across the Highlands and Islands stand ready to take advantage of the potential opportunities for renewables. And it is rightly these communities benefit that direct and supply chain jobs accompany renewable energy. That by taking advantage of the superb facilities across Scotland, particularly those in the Highlands and Islands where former oil and gas yards are ready for use for manufacturing, fabrication and for servicing offshore renewables, that by taking advantage of these facilities we can help to rebalance the central belt focus of Scotland's economy. It will be disappointing if the Scottish Government cannot work to seize these opportunities, that we see another industry based in Scotland but not built in Scotland. If we are to lose out on future investment, sustainable jobs and the chance to boost some of those communities in Scotland that need it most, that really will be a tragedy. Thank you. Annette Collin, Paul Wheelhouse to close with the Scottish Government. Thank you, Presiding Officer. That has been for the most part a valuable and timely debate highlighting the importance this Parliament places on harnessing Scotland's tremendous offshore wind resource to decarbonise our energy system in line with Scotland's energy strategy. But also the strength clearly at the resolve across this chamber to achieve a fair share of the economic benefit of the construction and operations of offshore wind installations. My colleague Derek Mackay has outlined the routes that the Scottish ministers Crown Estate Scotland and Marine Scotland are exploring to further support the Scottish offshore wind supply chain. I do not know whether Jamie Halcro Johnston just switched off or was out of the chamber. We clearly have not been listening to the cabinet secretary's speech. I want to close by discussing the work being undertaken through our reinvigorated industry working group. Before that, I want to emphasise our view that the UK Government must show greater leadership in areas where powers are reserved, such as securing local content through the contracts for difference mechanism, which is the main route to market for offshore wind, both fixed and floating, and which is also reserved power, the power of the UK Government in our respect. The offshore wind sector deal is welcome, and I will speak more about that in a moment. However, I would also gently point out to all the Conservative speakers that energy policy is fully reserved. It is the UK Government's role that has led to the axing of rocks, the renewable obligation certificates, the axing of Scotland's ability to set Scottish rocks, the removal of the feed-in tariff regime, the axing of the minima promised by David Cameron for the marine energy sector, axed by Theresa May without a general election, and the recent restriction on RHI and renewable heats will take no lessons from the Conservatives on this part of the House about the support for the renewable energy sector. Mr Burnett talked of the inaction, but I will not take intervention in the Conservatives. You have refused to take an intervention from me, Mr Lockhart, so please sit down. Mr Burnett talked of inaction, but Scotland has generated, in 2018, 74.6 per cent of our electricity from renewables, while the UK has generated less than 30 per cent. So who is showing leadership on renewables, Mr Lockhart and Mr Burnett? Of course, as John Mason highlighted, and Bill Bowman was not able to identify one clear step that we could take to have done more to secure procurement of the Scottish supply chain in the powers that we had prior to Crown Estate being devolved. The cabinet secretary has already outlined that we are now using those powers to our advantage. We are ensuring that the Scottish industry is able to take full advantage of the opportunities presented by the sector deal to restructuring what was previously known as the offshore wind industry group to get more strategically focused, Scottish offshore wind energy council, which I now co-chair alongside Brian McFarlane of SSE. That group provides a forum for representatives from all areas of the sector to lead key work streams. That will ensure that the work of SOEC is aligned to the deal itself and to ensure that Scotland's strong existing and potential supply chain offering is recognised. The supply chain element of SOEC will champion the two Scottish supply chain clusters and explore ways of strengthening and expanding our supply chain to increase local content in future offshore wind projects. Although SOEC is largely shaped around the sector deal ambitions, it can of course also react to any other industry issues as and when they arise. Conservative members seem to have taken a total disconnect from the process of the CFD. The CFD support mechanism run by the UK Government, and remind them of that, theoretically, it offers significant opportunities for our talented workforce and supply chain companies, such as at BiFab, CS Wind, which we have heard about, a global energy group in NIG and others, with three Scottish offshore projects due to bid into the imminent CFD round. UK ministers have created a policy environment though through CFD that encourages rapid cost reduction, which may be welcome, but the commercial risk has been pushed down into the lower tiers of the supply chain. With no measures to protect those SMEs worst affected, Scotland has a pipeline of over four gigawatts of offshore wind consented in our waters, with further licensing opportunities being considered by Crown Estate Scotland. However, by focusing so clearly on price alone, we believe that UK ministers are failing the wider economic interest with CFD. It's absolutely vital that UK ministers utilise the powers that they have to ensure greater weight is given than at present to supply chain plans that they collect as part of the process when allocating CFD contracts and attached conditionality, as the cabinet secretary and others have said, at present, maximum weight is placed in the price per megawatt hour, which has reached a low of £57.50 per megawatt hour. At a time when far more generous funding of £92.50 has been provided as a strike price for new nuclear power in summer set. There is a clear inconsistency in how UK ministers approach technologies and far greater emphasis on the total value added to the UK economy could be achieved if supply chain plans were reflected and conditionality attached as part of rebalancing between price per megawatt hour and the quality of the bids that are received. As we have heard, the sector deal launched by UK ministers sets an industry-agreed 60 per cent UK content target by 2030, a key finding of Martin Whitmarsh's supply chain review. While we welcome the sector deal, we recognise that it will take significant collaborative effort from industry and governments to ensure its results in meaningful improvement. However, it is absolutely essential that developers uphold their commitment under the sector deal to deliver target levels of local content and we expect to see substantial increases, particularly in the capital expenditure phase of those projects. Supply chain investment under the aligned offshore wind growth partnership is welcome but insufficient in of itself to achieve what we need to achieve. However, and the Tories should listen to this also. The review also recommended that UK ministers should deliver twice the quantum of financial support for offshore wind with visibility of auctions out to 2030. And given more recent committee and climate change advice to the effect that the UK now needs up to 75 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2050, I will not, Mr Lockhart. Supporting the supply chain now could net the Scottish and UK economies a far greater return over the longer term. Regrettably, Bays have applied a mere six gigawatt cat to an ex-CFD auction, making it unlikely that the full £60 million budget will be accessible to industry. And I would also say to the Tories, more investment now can mitigate the impact of anticipated slippage in the delivery of Hinkley Sea. Without the CFD mechanism, delivering a strong and visible pipeline of work at the necessary volume, the offshore wind supply chain will struggle to maintain momentum and increase competitiveness, and that would be a missed opportunity to deploy and develop a supply chain that can compete globally. The UK Government controls that pipeline. I hope that we have made clear today that there is a role for the Scottish Government but there is also a role for the UK Government. And the Scottish Government is using all the levers at our disposal to support this important sector and we will ensure platforms such as the supply chain summit that the cabinet secretary chaired and SOEC deliver the fundamental changes required to strengthen our supply chain and secure the just transition that we are all wanting to seek. However, importantly, UK ministers should take the action necessary to address the weaknesses in the CFD process, review the process and I hope that we can unite in that today. Thank you very much. Thank you very much minister. I now call on Claudia Beamish to close the debate and wind up for the Labour Party. Thank you Presiding Officer. The swelling support for climate change action lately has been heartening. I welcome the Scottish Government shifting to the responsible net zero target for the climate change bill. It is exciting to see the growing acceptance from all parties for the need to justify any policy in any portfolio against the climate imperative. I pay respect to the school strikers and young people across the world who are driving forward the public backing for this work and further focusing the minds of politicians. It is a climate and environment emergency and that message is getting through. But Scottish Labour cannot emphasise enough that a just transition must be the ultimate driver. Scotland's pathway to the net zero economy must be paved by the Labour movement. Safeguarding workers and communities and securing the real new opportunities for the benefit of our new economy across all sectors. My party is clear on these terms. That is why it has been a year since Scottish Labour set a net zero greenhouse gas emissions target which the SNP at that point refused. And inextricably linked, it has also been a year since we were calling for a statutory just transition commission to serve us well into the future. The just transition partnership formed by Friends of the Earth and the Scottish Trade Union Congress and joined by others has worked tirelessly to push this message and to make sure that we design industrial policies to this effect. But the Scottish Government somehow remains unclear as to the need, despite considering the merit of a commission being on the face of the climate change bill. The current lifespan and footing of the commission fundamentally misunderstands the concerns of workers and the requirements for a resilient future economy. I was relieved when the Government agreed to consider a statutory commission but as stage 2 of the climate bill draws closer I am concerned that that concession might be wavering and waning. Workers and communities must not be thrown to the wind. A short-term arrangement can only be a short-term strategy setter and is not fit for purpose. We need vision and direction setting for the long term and all future governments need to be held to account until we reach net zero emissions across all sectors and we need clever policy design and support mechanisms so that we come out to the other side with a fairer society. Scottish Labour supports Fife ready for renewal campaign by the GMB and Unite supported by the STUC and this Parliament is as we've heard today united in backing them. Along with Richard Leonard and other Labour MSPs and those from other parties I met with the unions today shop stewards from Unite and GMB and the STUC. The workforce stands ready and determined to work on this contract. Claire Baker who has worked closely with the Fife yards over the years has made clear the importance of jobs for Fife and that promises must be delivered and I welcome her analysis today. So, here is a test for the Scottish Government it is also a test for us all a