Of the 70 indicators, only 17, or 24 per cent, show improvement. Because they are long-term measures, should we be happy with that performance? I know that any Government would like 100 per cent improvement everywhere, but I guess that that is not realistic. Would you say that 24 per cent is a good figure?

Yes, but I suppose that any calls from local government for more money must be tied to the outcomes-based approach.

I have been contacted by a student who attends the University of Dundee. She attends the library on campus and has to wear a face mask, even though she is more than 1m away from others. She then leaves the library and goes to the student union—still on campus—with the same people, but no face coverings are required. Her question to the First Minister is, where is the logic and the science behind that rule?

I think that Patrick Harvie is on record saying that the oil and gas industry needs to “transition or die”. That type of language is not helpful to the industry.

If Scotland’s oil and gas industry was shut down immediately, hard-working men and women, who are highly skilled and capable, would be left with no hope of work, made redundant long before any greener job alternatives were made available to them. Those are the workers we need for transition.

Let us look at what the Cambo development in particular means to the Scottish economy. It would mean 1,000 direct jobs—Labour is obviously against those jobs. It would mean thousands more jobs supported through the supply chain, more than £1 billion of capital investment in the UK over the next five years and an extra £1 billion in additional support costs over the life of the field. Some £140 million has already been invested. The Scottish Government wants to flush all that down the drain. It is not just people who are employed directly through the supply chain who benefit from such investment, given that taxi drivers, restaurants, hotels and shops all depend on it.

I am coming on to parts of that.

We are not voting on our ambition to become a net zero nation. As Maurice Golden said, we are all agreed on that. Instead, we are voting on where the oil and gas will come from. We need that oil and gas now, and we will need it for the next 20 years. The UK is a net importer of oil and gas. We are transitioning to renewables, but that takes time and investment. I welcome the UK Government’s £16 billion North Sea transition deal, which the Scottish Government should perhaps match.

Just now, we have a choice. We can produce the oil and gas ourselves—thereby protecting thousands of jobs in this country—but regulate how it is produced and the impact on the environment, and ensure that the production is carried out with the lowest possible carbon footprint. We can invest in developing new technologies and we can innovate and learn how to do things differently. We can lead the way on cleaner energy production, share that learning internationally and become a world leader in transition.

I will.

Alternatively, we can do what other parties are proposing and protect jobs in China and Russia, transport oil and gas halfway round the world—

An alternative to ATMs for many has been to withdraw cash from their local post office, but we have seen a large number of post office closures. How will the Government ensure that our vulnerable and elderly can access their cash without being short changed by extortionate fees?

The member mentions brownfield sites nearby. When we talk about the energy transition zone, we are often talking about large wind turbines. Would it be feasible for those to be transported to other sites half a mile from the harbour?

This is a vital debate, especially for the north-east of Scotland. One reason why it is so important is that the public can see what all the parties’ positions are in relation to supporting the energy industry and the vital jobs in the north-east. The amendments that have been lodged make the position of most of the other parties pretty clear.

With Monica Lennon’s amendment, we can see that, although Labour has readmitted its nine Aberdeen councillors, it has turned its back on the rest of the north-east. Similarly, the Liberal Democrats have also abandoned places such as Aberdeen, Montrose and Lerwick, which rely heavily on the oil and gas sector. However, to be fair to Labour and the Liberal Democrats, at least we know where they stand.

From the SNP, we see deflect, dither and delay. The cabinet secretary is sitting on what must be an uncomfortable fence, trying to please everyone but pleasing no one. The aim of the SNP amendment is to appease the Greens and nothing else. It sells out Scotland and it sells out Aberdeen. It will please China and Russia, which will benefit no end, as Liam Kerr pointed out in his speech.

The oil and gas industry has been and continues to be the lifeblood of Aberdeen’s economy, and the north-east is at the cutting edge of good practice and technological excellence in oil and gas recovery. The engineering and manufacturing talents cannot be allowed to go to waste.

Aberdeen is the energy capital of Europe, powering our industry, lighting our businesses, warming our homes and making sure that our trains run on time—unless it is a Sunday. The sector also plays a leading role around the world, with personnel from Aberdeen leading development projects throughout Europe, Africa and Asia, sharing best practice and technological excellence across the globe.

As a result, the oil and gas industry has been one of the most important contributors to the Scottish economy. However, the industry is not just a success story of the past; it has a bright future in a more eco-conscious world.

The UK was the first major economy to embrace a legally binding obligation to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Scotland’s oil and gas industry is fully committed to supporting the Scottish Government in meeting its ambitious net zero goal by 2045.

Companies in Aberdeen are changing and adapting, investing millions of pounds in cleaner technology and leading the world in that field. They should not be stamped out of business before that can happen. The engineering capabilities and essential expertise is too valuable to lose—even the cabinet secretary recognises that.

If we were to close the North Sea fields and end the energy industry in Aberdeen, as some in the Scottish Government are now calling for, what would be the alternative? [Interruption.] The SNP’s Green colleagues seemed to suggest that.

As Liam Kerr said, 75 per cent of our current energy needs are met from oil and gas. Renewables would not be able to close the gap fast enough, especially if we cause economic carnage to our engineering base in the north-east. We would be forced to rely on imports, increasing our carbon footprint as transport emissions leap up and increasing the energy bills of struggling families up and down the country.

If Scotland’s oil and gas industry was shut down immediately, as some new members of the Scottish Government wish, the result would be nothing short of catastrophic.

That is why I support the motion in Liam Kerr’s name. It sends a clear message that we will support jobs and welcome investment, that we support a cleaner and greener energy sector, and that we will not abandon the people of the north-east of Scotland.