The next item of business is a statement by Michael Matheson on Scotland's energy strategy and just transition plan. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on Michael Matheson up to 15 minutes, please. I am pleased to inform Parliament today that the Scottish Government is publishing its draft energy strategy and just transition plan. The draft strategy maps out the future of our energy sector and sets out an ambitious suite of actions for the Scottish Government along with actions for industry, the regulator and the UK Government to realise that bright future over the next decade. We are at a pivotal point in Scotland's transition to net zero and this strategy charts a clear course for the transformation of the energy sector, one of Scotland's most important industries to 2030 and beyond. This transition must be achieved in a way that delivers for the people of Scotland to enable us to embrace the opportunities of a green economy. This is a time of unprecedented uncertainty in global and national energy markets. High energy prices are impacting people, communities and businesses across Scotland. Those uncertainties bring even more impetus to the need to deliver a decarbonised, affordable and secure energy system. Scotland already has an enviable track record in renewables. The success of the Scotland Leasing Round, the world's largest floating offshore leasing round and our long-standing commitment to offshore wind, are strong foundations on which to grow our renewable capabilities even further. Wind power is one of the lowest-cost forms of electricity and the Scottish Government is clear that this is where we should focus, reducing costs in the long-term and addressing vulnerability to future energy cost crises. This strategy builds on that success with three overarching objectives. First, to significantly scale up renewable energy production, helping to secure a just transition away from fossil fuels as part of the transition, overall energy demand will also reduce. Second, to secure continued and increased investment in net zero energy economy. The delivery of this strategy will mean more jobs, a growing supply chain, new manufacturing capabilities, new skills, new export opportunities and thriving communities. Third, to deliver a fairer, more secure energy system that is no longer relying on volatile international commodity markets and delivers lower costs for consumers. That requires stronger, more targeted action from the UK Government to reform the energy market in a way that is fair and to create the right conditions for the investment needed in infrastructure to support the expansion of renewables. The draft strategy sets out the very significant opportunities for Scotland in transforming our energy system. Scotland already has 13.4 gigawatts of renewable electricity generation capacity. It is our ambition to deliver at least 20 gigawatts of additional low-cost renewable electricity capacity by 2030, which could generate the equivalent of about 50% of Scotland's current total energy demand. Scotland's rich renewable resources mean that we can not only generate enough cheap green electricity to power Scotland's economy, but we can also generate a surplus and open up new economic opportunities for export. We must make those changes to our energy system in a way that is just. The transition must maximise economic benefits, ensure a fair distribution of opportunities and risks and do so through a process that is inclusive. The oil and gas industry has played an important role in our economy and has been part of our national identity for decades. However, our previous policy position of maximum economic recovery is no longer appropriate. The strategy explores the challenges of moving away from oil and gas and the ability of low-carbon and net zero energy generation to not just replace but to build on the employment opportunities that people, particularly in the north-east, have come to rely on. Within the strategy are the first results of the independent research announced in 2021 and scrutinised by a panel of experts on the future role of North Sea oil and gas in Scotland's energy system and economy. This work shows that, as an increasingly mature basin, production in the North Sea is expected to be around a third of 1999 levels by 2035 and less than 3 per cent of the 1999 peak by 2050. That projection takes account of the remaining potential development in the North Sea and is without any political decision to reduce consumption due to the climate emergency. That means that domestic production will effectively end in the next 20 years if we do nothing. The draft strategy is consulting on whether we should act faster than that. Whatever people's position on the pace at which we move away from fossil fuels is a failure to act now to deliver a just transformation of our energy system would be to neglect our energy security, the future of our economy and risk the kind of damage to industrial communities that we saw in the 1980s. However, if we seize the opportunity presented by the transition, the number of low-carbon jobs in the energy production sector is estimated to rise from 19,000 in 2019 to 77,000 by 2050, delivering a net gain in jobs across the energy production sector overall. That strategy shows how we can build a positive route through that transition, boosting employment in energy generation and providing energy security. That is why today's publication is not just a draft energy strategy but also the first draft just transition plan. We recognise that the transition must take account of different geographies, industries and infrastructure across the country. The draft energy strategy and just transition plan will be further developed through engagement with trade unions, businesses and communities. We are pleased to have supported STUC to ensure that workers have the opportunity to participate. Our £500 million just transition fund in supporting money and the north-east to become centres of excellence for the transition projects are already underway, such as the deployment of a new digital offshore energy skills passport to support the transition of skills and jobs across the rapidly changing industry, near of work that is led by OPETO. I hope, as we move forward, that the UK Government, which has benefited from oil and gas revenues for so long, will make a matching contribution. The draft strategy sets out our key ambitions for renewables deployment, bringing together clear policy positions and a route map to realise those ambitions. In key sectors, we propose for offshore wind increasing from 8.78 gigawatts as of June 2022 to over 20 gigawatts by 2030, more than doubling our existing capacity. For offshore wind increasing from 1.9 gigawatts as of June 2022, there is a pipeline of 3.8 gigawatts already consented to between 8 and 11 gigawatts by 2030. The results of the Scotland leasing round reflect market ambition to exceed the current planning assumptions. For solar, the strategy consults on what a further ambition should be building on our current 411 megawatts of capacity. Tidal stream has also the potential and we are also consulting on an ambition for tidal and wave energy. We also recognise the huge potential of pump hydro storage power to play a significant role in our future energy system. The lack of an appropriate market mechanism from a UK Government is frustrating the realisation of this opportunity for significant economic investment, job creation and gigawatts of clean energy. Curryglass, for example, represents over £1 billion of investment with up to 1.5 gigawatts of capacity and 330 gigawatt hours of storage. UK Government must take action to ensure that this potential is realised. We will also work with communities, energy companies and with parts of the public sector, such as Forestry and Land Scotland and Scottish Water, which already generates renewables to expand community ownership. We also want to hear views on those ambitions from unions, wider industry and from communities. The draft strategy reaffirms this Government's position that we do not want or need new nuclear power. We are clear that the focus must be on developing flexible and renewable technologies rather than on new nuclear fission plants, which are expensive and take decades to deliver. Although we do not have the power to influence offshore oil and gas exploration and extraction, we are seeking views on a more robust climate compatibility checkpoint, including for oil and gas fields that are already licensed but not developed and on a presumption of no new exploration in the North Sea. The strategy reaffirms our commitment to and the importance of CCUS to Scotland's energy transition. We continue to engage with the UK Government to encourage it to make swift decisions to support the ACORN project in the North East, which is critical not just to Scotland's transition but to that of the wider UK. The ACORN project is connected to the development of a hydrogen economy, but it is clear that the most significant potential in hydrogen comes from the creation of green hydrogen from surplus renewable energy. As we set out in the hydrogen action plan published in December, we will rapidly grow Scotland's hydrogen economy to deliver a renewable and low-carbon hydrogen production ambition of 5 gigawatts by 2030 and 25 gigawatts by 2045. To put that in context, 5 gigawatts could produce energy equivalent to around a sixth of Scotland's total energy demand. Much of that hydrogen could be generated from our offshore wind sector with the potential to create new energy export industry for Scotland. In the coming months, we will develop sector export plans on renewables and hydrogen, setting out how energy can continue to be a critical export growth sector as we transition to net zero. The strategy also sets out how we will meet the challenges of reducing demand with Scotland's main energy-using sectors—heron buildings, transport, industry and agriculture—using energy more efficiently and becoming largely decarbonised by 2030. Funding this transition requires significant investment that goes beyond what a Government with limited borrowing powers can deliver. We will scale up activity to move from a funding to a financing policy model. That will effectively leverage private sector investment and action to better amplify the impact of public investment. The strategy gives certainty to investors that Scotland is a place that supports renewable energy wholeheartedly. Our vision is that by 2045 Scotland will have a climate-friendly energy system that delivers affordable, resilient and clean energy supplies for Scotland's households, communities and businesses. Clearly, the Scottish Government cannot deliver this vision alone. Industry must accelerate investment in key sectors and infrastructure and continue to build capacity in the Scottish supply chain and the skills of the energy workforce. The UK Government must act on energy security, network investment and market reform, which are its responsibility, as much as much of the groundwork required for a thriving hydrogen economy. To deliver on the timescales set out here, the UK Government must embrace those needs with pragmatism. A copy of the strategy has been forwarded to the Secretary of State for Energy, and I will be inviting the UK Government to join us as part of an energy transition delivery group to deliver this forward plan. Achieving this vision for Scotland will be a national endeavour and will require a collective effort at local and national levels across government, industry and our communities. The consultation on the draft opens today. I look forward to hearing views from the people across Scotland and on the critical aspects of our future net zero energy transition. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 30 minutes for that, after which we will move on to the next item of business. It would be helpful if those members who would wish to ask a question were to press the request-to-speak buttons. I call Liam Kerr. I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his much delayed energy strategy, but it represents a far from happy new year for the tens of thousands of workers engaged in oil and gas. Those workers often feel like they are an afterthought for this Government, and that impression will not improve after today. So, whilst the cabinet secretary trumpets a rise in low-carbon jobs from 19,000 in 2019 to 77,000 in 2050, a target so far off even the SNP might hit it, members of this Government have been parroting at least one made-up figure about wind capacity for years, knowing full well that it lacked any evidential basis. So what evidence can the cabinet secretary provide, which will reassure workers that his numbers are correct this time, and when those jobs will become available? Let's not forget that a survey showed that just one in 10 oil and gas workers feel capable of switching to renewables.  So, cabinet secretary, what proportion of the oil and gas workforce does the cabinet secretary believe can switch? Finally, he talks of domestic production ending and a presumption against new exploration and production. Does the cabinet secretary worry that such an approach risks shutting down the industry prematurely, leaving us dependent on imports and undermining the very supply chain that we need to deliver the transition? Members raised a number of points, and I will try to deal with them in turn. First, I will turn to the issue about the suggestion that, in some way, we are neglecting the important role that the north-east has played in our energy sector over the years. It is the Scottish Government that is investing £0.5 billion in Murray and the north-east of Scotland in the transition fund in order to help to support that transition. Something that, to date, his colleagues at Westminster have failed to step up and offer the same level of investment. That is the type of investment that will support the transition. What we have had repeatedly from Westminster Governments is taking the tax revenue from oil and gas but not investing your money back into the north-east of Scotland and the rest of our economy. What we cannot afford to allow to happen this time round with renewable energy is to allow that same trick to be played upon the people of Scotland to ensure that the investment that we see into a renewable sector gets the economic benefits that should be delivered here in Scotland. A very practical example that the member might want to think about when it comes to skills and those in the oil and gas industry that want to transition into renewable sector or want to stay in the oil and gas sector is investing in carbon-captured utilisation and storage. A technology that allows those who work in the industry to remain in the industry and those who want to move into it as well. The only reason that it is not happening is because the UK Government has refused to back the ACORN project. When it comes to making these decisions and making sure that we deliver for our future needs and our economy in the energy sector in Scotland, one party will never take any lectures from and it is the Conservative party and their failure over decades in supporting the energy sector in Scotland. The long-awaited publication of the draft energy strategy and just transition plan comes at a time when we are facing a cost of living and a climate crisis. The need for a just transition to a low-carbon affordable energy process has never been more important but much of the so-called plans that are published today are a rehash of existing policies that the Climate Change Committee has said are simply not enough. There is little new that will change the Government's failure to ensure that our transition is a just one. In 2010, the SNP promised that there would be 130,000 renewable jobs per year by 2020. It would be the Saudi Arabia of renewables, the SNP said. The reality behind the rhetoric is that just a fifth of those jobs have been delivered and supply chain contract after supply chain contract continue to go overseas, so few people will believe the cabinet secretary's commitments today. It is not just the jobs that this Government is off-shore and 90 per cent of the energy from the recent Scotland leasing round will come through overseas-owned multinationals off-shoreing the billions in profits. At a time, Labour in Wales is committed to creating a Welsh publicly-owned energy firm, and the next UK Labour Government is committed to a UK publicly-owned energy firm. Why is there no commitment from the Scottish Government in this strategy to a publicly-owned energy firm to keep bills down and to keep the profits here in Scotland? Let me deal with the point that Mr Smith was making and the importance of the skills in the energy sector, which is extremely important. It is important that we move forward, that we no longer look at the energy sector as just the oil and gas sector, that we need to look at it in a much more holistic fashion, right across oil and gas, renewables, hydrogen. All of those areas play an important part, and it is important as we go forward that we have the right type of skills lab workforce in place to support that. One of the ways in which we are going to do that is through the green skills strategy that we have committed to publishing this year, which will set out in detail the measures that will be taken forward to help to support the transition within the energy sector and green skills. I am sure that the member will be aware of the recent report from PWC, which highlighted, in terms of green jobs growth, Scotland is actually the highest part of the UK, where we are seeing the fastest level of growth in green jobs. We want to build on that and we want to capitalise on that moving forward. Let me deal with the final point in terms of the public energy company. The member will be aware that we looked at the possibility of setting up a public energy company in the retail sector, and the present market simply does not allow that to happen. I am sure that the member will recognise that, for many decades, where the Labour Party was in government at Westminster, they failed to put in place any form of fund that helped to secure some of the revenues from Ord North Sea over decades to make sure that it was invested for future use. They took the exact same approach that the Westminster Tory Government has taken, and that is that they have quite literally siphoned off the taxes from our oil and gas sector over decades, and we have got no benefit to show for that. The difference that you can see in Scotland, with the overseas public energy companies, is that those are Scandinavian companies that have had oil and gas. Excuse me, can we first sit and treat you up please, cabinet secretary? They have had oil and gas, and their governments have had the wisdom of setting up funds in companies to invest in those areas. They also have the practical benefit of being an independent country, which allows them to free up the finance to make that scale of investment. That is exactly why Scotland should be independent. Not only do we get the revenue benefits from the renewable and energy sector overall, but we can invest in public infrastructure in our energy sector and of a public energy company that invests in the same way that companies in Norway and Denmark and Sweden have been able to do for decades, that both Labour and the Tories have failed over decades to deliver. I call Fiona Hyslop to be followed by Edward Mountain. The people of Scotland have a clear world advantage in access to natural resources, of wind, of water and wave, and this energy strategy sets out clear targets and ambitions and the certainty that developers will need to invest in development and skills. Does the cabinet secretary agree that this strategy cannot just be about enabling exploitation of our resources by international companies for energy transmission elsewhere and that it must ensure that Scotland itself realises the benefits from access to clean, green, cheaper energy, economic activity and energy and manufacturing jobs here in Scotland? So what are the biggest risks to the strategy delivering for the people of Scotland? One of the most important elements of our energy transition is to make sure that it is a fair and just one. That is to ensure that Scotland does not simply become a production basin for producing electricity for our own domestic and export purposes, hydrogen for our own domestic and export purposes, but we do not see any of the economic benefits of it here in Scotland. Even though within our limited powers it is important that we make sure that we have the supply chain benefits that go alongside those types of developments. We saw the impact of the UK Government's withdrawal of substrate to onshore wind, in the way in which that resulted in a very rapid contraction of the supply chain within Scotland and the UK as a whole. As a result, Scandinavian countries stole a march on us in developing that technology and that manufacturing capability. We cannot make that error again. What I can say to the member is that this strategy sets out a very clear pathway to make sure that we are not only maximising the potential from our renewable energy base for both our domestic and export purposes, but also to maximise the economic benefit for us here in Scotland. Not just from the production value, but also from the manufacturing of the technology that goes into supporting those technologies. If we develop that here and we manufacture that here, we can export it to other parts of the world. If we do that, we will be able to deliver the just transition and that is exactly what the strategy sets out at aiming to do. I am keen to take all the members who have pressed to ask a question. I know that Scottish ministers find wind power statistics hard to understand, but here is a fact that should give them some pause for thought. On 14 December last year across the UK, only 3.4 per cent of energy was generated by wind turbines. Surely a successful energy strategy needs dependable, flexible sources of power, so why won't the Scottish Government stop discounting the creation of small modular nuclear reactors? I am sure that you could take any particular day and you could look at the contribution that wind makes to our wider energy mix within the UK. I am sure that the member has taken this opportunity. I do not know whether he has looked at what wind is contributing to the UK grid today in terms of output. It is in the region of 40 per cent of what the UK grid is using at the present moment. However, that will change by the hour, and it will change at different times, which is why, in the strategy, we set out the importance of having an energy mix. That is why we set out the not only for onshore and offshore wind, tidal marine and hydro and pump storage, but why we want to make sure that we do that mix in a way that gives us a flexibility. The member will also be aware of the developments that are coming within battery storage and the capacity that that provides in order to store the energy that is held and generated by renewables. I will finish on that particular point. The reality is that the member makes reference to SMRs. The reality is that SMRs are at phase 1 in their technology development process. There is probably at least, if not another six, seven or eight years on a technological process that needs to go through before you even get to the point where you could actually take forward the development. They are 10 plus years away, and I thought the member, given his consideration of that, would be aware of how far off in the distance SMRs are, and they are not in a reliable way for us to be planning for our energy needs in the future. I thank the cabinet secretary for his statement this afternoon, which presents fantastic opportunities to move to net zero, energy security as well as boosting our Scottish economy. Can I ask the cabinet secretary what workforce analysis it carried out in preparing the strategies? How did we arrive at the figure of 77,000? Can I also ask how we will monitor that figure in jobs acquired and how that will be reported? Those figures were drawn together from a variety of reports, including from Robert Gordon University looking at the potential for development within the renewable and green energy sector. We are also part of the wider analysis that we have carried out in relation to oil and gas and the transition away from fossil fuels. There are also reports that have contributed towards this from OEUK and also from APEETL, who have all looked at the potential for energy sector workforce going forward within the green energy sector as we move forward in transitioning. What is extremely important is that we make sure that we maximise on the economic and job opportunities going forward. That is exactly what the strategy aims at doing to make sure that we maximise the economic employment opportunities within the energy sector. I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement and for the advance sight of the draft energy strategy and just transition plan, which states that we are supporting the reskilling of oil and gas workers by funding an offshore skills passport through our Just Transition Fund. Such a passport must be more than just an app that tells the user where their qualification gaps are. It must allow for a seamless transition, a fair and just transition for offshore workers by avoiding costly duplication of training for them. Failing this, the Scottish Government could look at strengthening licensing and leasing conditions to require energy employers to recognise offshore workers' prior training and existing qualifications. Will the cabinet secretary commit to working with the energy unions to remove financial barriers to transition for Scotland's offshore workers? That is exactly what the passport does. It is to provide that seamless movement between oil and gas and renewables. I hosted the skills summit up in Aberdeen with the trade unions. STUC and RNT were all part of that. They warmly welcomed the work that is taking place in order to deliver exactly that. They have stated publicly that it has made a big step forward in helping to deliver that type of passport. What the member is looking for is what exactly the passport is delivering, and that is why we are looking to roll out this year and why the unions have been so supportive of it. The energy strategy and just transition plan provides a route map of action central to meeting our climate change targets. The north-east communities will play a significant part in delivery of the plan. Can the cabinet secretary outline how the Scottish Government will ensure a balance is struck between the need to deliver a just transition while ensuring that communities are not only consulted, but empowered to make a valid and positive contribution to local delivery and outcomes? Audranekw, I think, raises a really important point here. So, in focusing on delivering a just transition in terms of economic opportunities that go alongside the transition to a low-carbon energy system, we need to also make sure that we take communities with us because communities will be impacted by the technology that will be deployed in order to deliver that low-carbon energy system, which is why, for example, when it comes to onshore wind, we have the good practice guidance where we encourage developers to be much more focused on working with communities to allow them to be party to it. Looking at co-production as part of that process, we have rolled out greater community-enabled programmes to allow those communities who want to develop their own energy network to be able to do so as well. It is important that we continue to make sure that those who are developing energy production facilities, particularly onshore production facilities, are working in partnership with the low communities that will be affected. The guidance that we have put in place is directed exactly like doing that. I would like to go further. I would like to be able to mandate it that they are required to do that, but I am unable to do that because it is a reserved area. I hope that, at some point, the UK Government will see the wisdom of mandating the need to work with communities and for community benefit to be part of any community programme in the energy sector. Liam McArthur is to be followed by Jenny Minto. Thank you. I thank the cabinet secretary for the early sight of this statement. I welcome the strategy and particularly the acknowledgement of the contribution that Tidal and Marine can make towards meeting those ambitions. The climate change committee last month highlighted that there are few enabling factors more likely to have a bigger impact on delivering net zero than the ability to shape our workforce in time to meet the demands of the transition. To be fair, the plan acknowledges that, but there is a mountain to climb to prepare Scotland's workforce. Given the problems that have arisen in meeting earlier commitments to job creation, can the cabinet secretary confirm that the climate emergency skills action plan due to be updated later this year will include a detailed and quantifiable route map to developing the skilled workforce needed to fill the 77,000 green jobs expected by 2050? I particularly welcome the member's comments on Tidal and Marine energy, which he will obviously have a keen interest in. I have not been the local member for EMET, given that it is a well-recognised centre for development in this technology. I agree with the member's point in terms of a very clear pathway in delivering the skills and employment opportunities in the jobs that go alongside any transition, which is why we have embedded the just transition plan within the energy strategy, so that we can clearly see the way in which they are interlinked. The green energy strategy, the climate energy strategy, which we are, the climate skills strategy, which we will bring forward this year, will reinforce that and will give much greater detail around that. I hope that it will give the level of detail that the member is looking for so that we can demonstrate the clear pathway that we are determined to take forward in order to maximise the jobs and economic opportunities that come from the transitioning of our energy system. As the cabinet secretary will know, Argyllun Bute is a significant contributor to Scotland's energy strategy, whether it is onshore wind, offshore wind, wave power, pump storage and isle being one of the carbon neutral islands. Can the cabinet secretary advise how the Scottish Government will ensure that rural and island communities across Argyllun Bute will see the benefits of this strategy? I would like to say that it is important to do so. One of the area of ways in which we can help to achieve that is through the islands carbon neutral strategy, which has been taken forward, including Argyllun The Member's constituency. The other aspect that we are going to be bringing forward is that we are leading a piece of further work, which will complement our strategy, which is the islands energy strategy, which will be published in the course of the coming year, which will set out more detail on how we will ensure that the energy and just transition strategy has the right impact on our island communities, including in island communities within the member's constituency. I call Maurice Golden to be followed by Mark Ruskell. A just transition to clean energy requires materials to build the wind turbines, heat pumps, electric cars and other infrastructure that we need. We cannot assume that those materials will be ready available. Global demand for resources is rising and we have all seen the shocks to international supply chains. Can the cabinet secretary confirm what proportion of materials can be sourced through domestic reuse, remanufacturing or recycling, and if not, when that assessment will be carried out? I cannot give him the specific details, but I think that the member raises an important point here. In the course of the last nine to ten months, energy security has become such a central focus for European countries. The level and scale of ambition around transition away from a fossil fuel-based energy system has grown significantly, and there will inevitably be constraints on materials in the sector. It is impossible for the sector to scale up at the speed and rate at which countries are now looking to transition away from oil and gas and to deliver renewable energy projects. There is no doubt in my mind that there will be material constraints that will have an impact on the roll-out of some of the technology. The member's point is a very important one. One of the key issues that I think is absolutely central to trying to address that is not only looking at what we can produce locally within our own domestic markets and from recycling as well with the repowering of some of the older on-shore wind farms, but it is also to move early in order to secure access to those materials. That is one of the areas where Scotland has an advantage. We are in a position where we can move earlier than other countries who are now turning their minds to looking at onshore and offshore wind. We are already in that space taking forward those technologies. My view is that the way in which we can try to help to secure greater access to those markets and materials is to move early, which is why the strategy sets out a ramping up of our ambition and the timeframe in which we want to deliver that in order to try to help to address the type of issue that the member is highlighting. The science of climate change demands that North Sea oil and gas is phased out. That is the right thing to do for people and the planet. Today, Scotland's energy strategy abandons the dogma of maximum economic recovery of oil and gas and sets a path to a renewable future that leaves no workers behind. The UK Government must follow Scotland's lead, so can I ask what plans does the cabinet secretary have to engage UK ministers with this strategy, and does he share my concern that unless they change direction on oil and gas, they will undermine not just our ambitions but the whole Paris agreement? In terms of the aspects that the UK Government needs to take forward, there is a section in the strategy that sets out the clear areas of action that the UK Government needs to take forward. I have offered a copy or provided a copy to the Secretary of State at the UK Government, who has got policy responsibility for this area. We are setting up a task force to have a very specific role in helping to implement this, and I have invited the UK Government to have a minister join us on that task force in order to address the issues that the UK Government needs to address in order to drive forward the strategy and to deliver it on the just transition plan. I hope that they will work in partnership with us in delivering this. We have offered it in a genuine with the spirit of co-operation, but it is important that they are practical and that they are open in recognising the role that they have, and I hope that they will take up the offer to join us on the task force in order to drive forward the delivery of the strategy and the just transition plan. I ask the cabinet secretary to provide more detail on how the £75 million energy transition fund will support our energy sector and the north-east to make progress on the energy transition as we move towards net zero. There are already four projects that have received funding through the energy transition plan, through which we are investing £75 million in the north-east. Those projects that have already received funding are the Global Underwater Hub, the net zero technology transition zone and the energy transition zone, and the Aberdeen hydrogen pub. I couldn't see the Scottish Government investing in alcohol sales, but the Aberdeen hydrogen hub in the north-east is all about helping to support the creation of existing jobs and to help to promote the creation of new jobs in the north-east. We will look to build on that as we go forward with the funds in the years ahead. I agree with the cabinet secretary that Scotland has the potential to be a world leader in the production and export of green hydrogen. It is a market that is growing at a very fast rate. However, to gain first mover advantage, Scotland needs to invest now and invest at a level that allows for a fast development of hydrogen production. Many other countries are ahead of us, including in the middle east. There is a fast expanding market, so will the Scottish Government ensure that public investment and support in green hydrogen matches the opportunity and ambition, because this cannot be another Scottish Government promise that is not met by that kind of action? I welcome the member's support for the potential for green hydrogen, because I completely agree with him that there is a huge potential here. I think that our green hydrogen market will be driven not by domestic land but by export opportunities. Scotland is in a unique position in Europe to capitalise on that, which is exactly what we are determined to do. The hydrogen action plan that I published just last month sets out in our export plan on that and how we intend to go about that. It was in October and November last year that we set out our hydrogen proposition to support manufacturing industry here in Scotland and to attract manufacturing industry in the hydrogen sector into Scotland as well. We are already engaging with a whole range of different stakeholders in the industry who have an interest in coming to Scotland. The reason for their particular interest in Scotland is that the gateway to delivering green hydrogen is renewable energy, offshore and onshore wind. We are already in a position where we are able to set out our plans, not just our targets but our plans and our leasing rounds have already happened where they can see that it will become a reality that other countries are behind us in achieving. I recognise that there are some countries in the Middle East that are further advanced than us in this matter. The UK is in any part of the world, given the level of investment that it is making, but it can be absolutely assured of our absolute focus in making sure that we maximise the opportunity that we can get from green hydrogen. That could be a major economic boost for Scotland for many, many decades to come. One of the other reasons that we are in a very strong position in taking forward green hydrogen is because of our oil and gas sector. The skill sets within the oil and gas sector can transition very well into the hydrogen sector. There are very few countries in the world that have set very ambitious targets for green hydrogen have the skills base that we have in order to drive that whole sector forward. That combination of skills in the oil and gas sector plus the build out of our onshore and offshore renewables gives us a real opportunity to be one of the major players in Europe, in particular in the delivery of green hydrogen for export purposes. We are determined to make sure that we capitalise on that to build that economy, that hydrogen economy for future generations, because it could become a major part of our economy in the years ahead. I warmly welcome today's commitments to significantly increase gigawatt outputs for both onshore and offshore wind. Can the cabinet secretary confirm his continued commitment to maximising the potential of solar energy and perhaps touching some of the reasons why Scotland's solar ambitions require further consultation at this time? The strategy sets out the proposition to extend and develop our hydrogen capacity here in Scotland. At present, we have about 411 megawatts of solar capacity. We want to look at increasing that, but before setting a target, we want to consult with the sector and those in the industry to understand what the most appropriate target would be for going forward. I assure the member that the purpose behind our strategy is to look at how we can build and expand our solar sector here in Scotland. I hope that, after the consultation period, we will be in a position where we can set a clear target for how we want to expand our solar energy sector. I welcome the ambition and the just transition plans to maximise economic benefit and ensure fair distribution of opportunity and to do so in a way that is inclusive. However, I fear that it is not the case for what is happening in our communities. Taxi operators in Glasgow are fearing for their jobs and livelihoods of plans to introduce the low-emissions zones in June. They are facing a significant challenge to ensure that vehicles are compliant, including in finding compliant vehicles. Drivers have said that they might have to give up their jobs. The impact of not getting that right is significant. Fear taxis mean that women have fewer safer options to travel home late at night. I do need a question. We are running out of time, thank you. At disabled people, people could be stuck in their homes altogether. Taxi drivers are really struggling. The council has written to the Government to ask for additional funding. Please ask a question, Ms Duncan-Glancy. We are running out of time, thank you. So can the minister update on whether the Scottish Government has received this request for additional funding? Will they provide that funding or will they ask the council to delay it until funding is in place so that Glasgow can keep its cabs on the road and people can continue to rely on them? I understand the point that the member is raising. It is not an issue that is covered by the energy strategy and the Just Transition Plan, but it would be a matter that is covered within the transport policy area. I am more than happy to ask the Minister for Transport to write to the member to confirm where we have received that letter and what action we are taking on the basis of the information that is provided I can squeeze in John Mason if I get a brief question and a brief answer. The cabinet secretary mentioned carbon capture, utilisation and storage in his statement. Can he say anything about how his negotiations are going with the UK Government and if they are being any more constructive than their predecessors? I am sure that members read across this chamber recognised the critical importance of carbon capture, utilisation and storage and, in particular, the ACORN project, not just to the Scottish energy transition in delivering on our climate change targets, but also the very significant economic benefits that go alongside taking forward the ACORN project. We remain deeply concerned at the lack of progress that has been made by the UK Government on this matter. We have not had any confirmation of the track 2 process, the timeline for that being taken forward. At one point we were indicated that the track 2 process would start before the end of last year. We have no certainty or clarity over what the timeframe will be now. It is absolutely essential that the UK Government does not lose what is a major economic opportunity with the ACORN project here in Scotland. If it is lost, the communities right across the north-east and right down to Grangemouth will rightly feel bitterly betrayed by the UK Government. We will continue to press them to ensure that they take forward urgent action in addressing this issue, because it is mission critical to delivering climate change here in Scotland and right across the whole of the UK. Any further delay is wasting money on a project that could be getting delivered now and creating jobs now, and we will continue to press the UK Government to set out a very clear timeframe for when track 2 will take place so that there is certainty on the ACORN project being delivered swiftly. That concludes the statement on Scotland's energy strategy and just transition plan. We will now move on to the next item of business. I will now very short pause to enable front-bench teams to change positions.


around the city and see some of the sites. Okay. There we go. So I'll just briefly go over who DoraSpace is for those who might not be aware. DoraSpace is not the profit. It's a legal entity. 501C3 is what they call it. We're set up in the U.S. DoraSpace was really born out of two academic projects, the DSpace repository and the Fedora repository. These two projects came under the umbrella of the DoraSpace organization in 2009. Since that time, DoraSpace has expanded in scope, not in mission, but in scope. We now incubate other open source projects so we're not limited to DSpace and Fedora. Recently we added Vivo, which is another open source project under our umbrella. And we also have an arm within DoraSpace that provides services. We're mainly focused on cloud-based services. Those are DoraCloud and DSpace Direct, but we also offer some educational services. And we've added these projects and services really as part of our sustainability model. To take what we offer as part of our value proposition, which is to steward these projects and add services to our community to really diversify where we can get revenue from in order to sustain the operation and sustain the open source projects. So how we're organized, we have projects, I really look at this as business units. Projects is one business unit and services is another business unit. On the project side, the work that we do associated with those projects, which is employ a dedicated technical lead, employ in most cases the dedicated project or product manager, depending on where the open source code is in the life cycle. Those people are paid through a sponsorship program, which I'll talk about, sometimes grants for new developments in those open source projects. And also what we have is a registered service provider program. So these are businesses that resell our software to the community by adding services to that software and then we get some portion of that revenue back to help sustain those projects. On the services side, we charge money for our services. They're typically subscription services and those funds pay for the cost of running the service, but they also contribute back to the open source projects. So for example, DeSpace Direct, that's a cloud-based hosted service. The revenue that we make from that pays for the operation, but then it also helps pay for development of the open source project as well. We might put some of the funding towards better documentation. We might put some of the funding towards developing a particular feature when there's extra revenue coming in from those services. This is the role DeSpace provides the projects. So one of the big misconceptions that we've experienced as we've taken on stewarding these open source projects is that DeSpace, you have lots of developers there and you do all the coding and you produce the roadmap and then you do the release. Well actually DeSpace does very little of that. We provide some technical leadership to the project but all the developers are out in the community. So we have revenue coming in that supports the work of DeSpace but we rely heavily on contributions and kind from the community. And those come in the form of developers, people that write the documentation, people that do the testing. So we think of DeSpace as actually kind of the glue in the community that helps move those open source projects forward. So these are the types of things that we do within DeSpace. We provide some executive leadership and strategic planning for the projects. We develop a number of community programs and provide opportunities for awareness in the community. We do fundraising for the projects. We provide technical leadership and typically some product management, marketing communications and then legally we provide a home for the software. So we hold the IP. We provide infrastructure, we need websites and Wikis and issue tracking systems for the projects and then of course administrative support for the project. So over the past six years really where I've been working on these two projects and then broader in DeSpace, here's some of the things I really think that help make projects sustainable. So one is that you really need adequate resources to do the work. And this can be financial, contributions and kind but you have to figure out what that mix is in order to sustain the project. Most projects that I've seen particularly coming from academic community are usually funded by grants or the government to start and then lo and behold four or five years later you have to figure out what is that sustainability model to keep the project going on and enduring beyond the grant cycle. And so to figure out what resources you're gonna need to do that and to figure out what the ratio is community support versus financial support I think is really important. And it should be adequate or else you're gonna reduce your value proposition to the community. So in other words, if the software doesn't continue advance to meet the ever changing goals of the community they're not gonna use the software over time. So you need to continue to invest in the project. It's not done once the grant period is done. You need engaged stakeholders. So many times projects start with a few institutions or what we call PI a primary investigator that's really the visionary and the person and the institution that's really driving the project. But in order to make it sustainable over time you really need to involve more institutions and more people to build your community. And one way to do this is to really figure out who is using and promoting the use of your software or your service and then really engage with those folks providing them roles within the community which they can really identify to and create their own sense of purpose around your project. And you need mechanisms to engage the stakeholders and I think one way that I found an effective way to do that is through governance. So if you have a governance structure which gives stakeholders a way to weigh in on what they feel is important and a way to validate what you're doing they can then advocate on the behalf of your project and then build the community. In order for any project to be sustainable in this type of environment you really need a shared company. So understanding what the value proposition is not only to you but all the institutions that are involved in this project. There should be a shared company or else the work required to collaborate is far higher than the perceived benefit. These look kind of oval on my screen. So one of the things I talked about was transitioning from grant to project funding. So in 2009 this pie was 100% grant funding. And so one of the big focuses of my work over the last whatever that is five years was to really change the pie from being all blue to being more colors in a very simplified way. So right now we still have about 25% of our funds come from grants versus 100% in 2009. 57% comes from sponsorship and 18% comes from services. So in the next two years my projections are the pieces of this pie in an ideal world will be a third, a third and a third. That's always been my goal to get to a very diversified portfolio, revenue portfolio to reduce the risk of any piece of the pie not coming to fruition in any given year. And you can see some variation between 2012 and 2013. The pie shifted but the pieces have all made up the same number which our run rate is about $1.8 million just as a data point. So what is sponsorship? So you've heard a little bit about membership. Sponsorship is similar to membership with the exception of sponsorship is really a charitable contribution that is given by either a user or institution. So in other words, and all of our sponsors are actually institutional members. So our stakeholders are universities, primarily university libraries and they become sponsors to Dura space. What that means is they're giving a charitable contribution for us to continue working and deploying either DeSpace, Fedora or Vivo. So their money is directed to a specific project and they become a sponsor of that project. One of the benefits they get by giving money to that project is that they get to participate in the governance of that project. So at a certain level of funding, they have the opportunity to sit on one of the governance boards of the project. But really that's the key benefit to being a sponsor other than you're really supporting the work of Dura space in keeping these projects sustainable. And so this is, we have four levels this year, but actually we take contributions of any kind. So we have many smaller institutions that are donating. I think the lowest amount I've got is $100. You can do it on PayPal. So, but you can be in one of those other categories at higher amounts. This is some of the types of ways people contribute in kind. I didn't bring up the FT number, but if you look at how many FTEs we have outside of Dura space, about two FTEs per project inside Dura space, full-time equivalence, that's what that means. Outside of Dura space for each project, D space has, I say about 25 FTEs that are coming from the community at any given time, doing all these variety of roles. Fedora is probably more about 12. So, as I said, one of the key things is really engaging, empowering your stakeholders and building a broad and diverse community. So, if you look at, we have 1,700 institutions using D space Fedora or Vivo all throughout the world, and really trying to build these communities and empower them to do what they need to do to be successful is part of the strategy. This is one example of governance. So, Dura space has a board of directors, but then for each project we have a project governance board, and this is really where the stakeholders come together and look at the strategic direction of the project and figure out how the project moves forward, doesn't need more resources, if so, where do we get them? So, you have your community of users which includes sponsors, technical contributors, and then you have an advisory committee, a steering committee, and then a project team, and then working groups that work with those boards in different capacities. Vivo also has a project governance. At Dura space, we don't dictate what the project governance should look like. We let each project come up with a governance board that suits that particular project. Okay, and so in closing, some words and advice for someone that's been trying to build a sustainability model the last six years for Dura space. We found that engaging with your stakeholders through participation in governance is really in the long run gonna have a significant impact on the success of the project. Just having the project be at MIT or University of Virginia or Cornell or any really the founding institutions makes it really difficult to sustain in the long run unless that institution is gonna always contribute to the bulk of what is required for the software to endure. Ensure your project meets needs of your stakeholders. So again, that's coming with the diversified board and group of stakeholders that you're working with outside of your institution. This is an interesting one. Develop project champions beyond the initial creator. So we are usually taking projects from transitioning them from that initial creator to who's gonna be the next champion. And I think that's really important to create the passion around the project. Focus on sustainability early in the project life cycle before you run out of funding. We have lots of projects come to us after their grant funding is over. Makes it much more difficult to build a sustainability model. And then share the work by creating broad diverse community of users. Thank you. Good up Yana Cloud. We have here the IPR and policy advisor.