Yes, but people are worried about the fact that the Berwick Bank project, for example, has now been on the ministerial desk for more than two years. We have a number of projects that are way over that timescale, so that issue is not fixed. It is clearly an issue in relation to offshore projects, so I would also be keen to hear when the consultation on the sectoral marine plan will be published, as that is long delayed.

It would also be useful to discuss how we can maximise the use of the electricity that is produced by renewables, so that we do not have to pay to turn off turbines and waste the energy, which has long been an issue. For example, the cabinet secretary mentioned hydro. We have had that for more than 80 years. Now we have pumped hydro storage, which is inspiring; it gives us a more joined-up system. The acting cabinet secretary referenced the UK Climate Change Committee’s recent recommendations on doing more to support the installation of heat pumps. The Scottish Government could take the lead on that and do more to support our constituents who want to install solar, then battery and/or heat pumps, to decarbonise their homes—but no, that is not happening.

Then there are the opportunities around using the next generation of wind turbines and floating wind to supply community heat networks. Our Nordic neighbours have used heat networks for decades to deliver affordable, low-carbon heat. That is especially relevant given that our councils all submitted their local heat and energy efficiency strategies more than a year ago.

It would also be good to debate the community benefits that were referenced just a few minutes ago. We have seen that in relation to renewables, but there is much more that we can do to empower communities to develop more projects that will generate long-term jobs and investment locally, whether that is through the community or through co-operatively or municipally owned heat and power. However, we need more effective leadership.

That is exactly the principle behind the establishment of Great British Energy and the local power plan, working with the Scottish Government and—crucially—with our local councils, too, because they are in touch with communities on the ground. I agree that having a share, or ownership, is crucial, but it is not an option for a lot of communities.

Finally, I even wondered whether, today, we would see the publication of the Scottish Government’s long-awaited energy and just transition plan, but no. Apart from name checking renewables, the SNP motion is negative—it ignores the contribution that is currently made by the nuclear sector and is in denial about the opportunities that that could deliver. It is a retrograde motion.

I do not pretend that the world has not had nuclear safety issues historically, but safety standards are now internationally agreed and based on experience, and are at the heart of the design of new small modular reactors. It is vital that standards are met, with monitoring and well-trained management and staff, and that safety is fundamental to the operation of nuclear power stations.

Should historical safety concerns mean that we rule out the contribution that nuclear power can make?

The thing is that we are going to have our oil and gas for decades to come, and we need a joined-up approach. For example, there is floating wind energy where offshore oil and gas is being produced, but we have to take responsibility with regard to the climate emergency, which is hitting our constituents now. When I talk to people up in the north-east and look across the country at who can get insurance for their homes and buildings, it is clear that there are issues that we need to deal with. It has to be a fair transition, which is why nuclear has to be part of the process. It is a highly efficient, zero-emissions source of energy that generates more than 20 per cent of the electricity that we currently consume and provides high-skilled, well-paid reliable jobs that generate income in those communities with a power plant.

There are absolutely lessons to be learned. I very much agree on the failures that we have seen down south over the past decade from the Tory Government with regard to nuclear power stations and rising costs, but we need to learn from those experiences and not rule out the tech on principle. If we ruled out projects that did not deliver on time, the Scottish Government would have some major challenges.

Moreover, the development of SMRs is a game changer—they are now a real option, and they are more economic and will deliver on-going reliable electricity as we go forward.

As the Labour amendment says, nuclear and renewables are not mutually exclusive—they are complementary parts of Scotland having a fossil fuel-free energy mix into the future. If we do not take up that challenge, we will miss out economically. Our European neighbours have 12 nuclear plants at planning stages; we have none. We have one nuclear power station left in Scotland, at Torness. Our workers on that site have kept the lights on and powered our country since the 1980s, and they deserve a future and a fair, just transition. In addition, we might think of the benefits for construction.

We need to decarbonise our homes and buildings and our industrial sector, but we should do so in a way that supports workers and ensures that they have jobs now and in the future. That is what we need to benefit our local communities, but it is clear today that that is not what the SNP is planning for. The SNP wants an argument, but—while that approach was very successful for the first 20 minutes of this debate—we need to work together, because these are long-term decisions.

We welcome the extension of Torness’s lifespan to 2028, which will keep those skilled, well-paid and unionised jobs in our local communities.

Sorry, Deputy Presiding Officer—I see that the light is flashing. I was told that I had nine minutes.

The ECIU report highlighted statistics that show that Scotland’s growth in net zero employment has slowed down and is now growing more slowly than every other region of the UK. Can the First Minister tell us why net zero employment growth in Scotland is much slower, when our natural resources are potentially greater? What are his plans to deliver the jobs and training that are urgently needed to decarbonise our transport, homes, buildings and land?

The cabinet secretary has previously said in the chamber that, if more money was available, she would reintroduce the removal of peak fares. An additional £5.2 billion was made available to the Scottish Government. We are not in government and it is not possible to amend individual budget lines. Last month, we made it clear that we wanted peak fares to be removed. A 10 per cent increase in usage was needed to generate enough income to enable the reduction in fares to pay for itself. We came so close—we achieved a 6.8 per cent increase in usage. I ask members to consider how many more users we could have attracted if there had been effective advertising and promotion of the opportunities of more affordable journeys on reliable trains. Reliability is crucial.

We also need to take a more joined-up approach to our rail services and to think about how people access them. That includes getting a bus to access rail services, as well as walking, cycling or being able to park at a station. As Claire Baker argued, we need joined-up provision if we are to persuade people to use our railways. The proposed changes are realistic, and they would give us a more desirable system.

The issue of simplifying the ticketing process via integrated ticketing has been raised by members across the chamber. We need to simplify transport fares and ban peak-time fares and the proposed 3.8 per cent increase in rail fares. Several members talked about the cost of rail travel. A return from Glasgow to Edinburgh costs more than £30 in peak hours. That is simply not affordable for people, and it will not persuade people to shift from their cars to travel by train.

The Scottish Government has clearly ignored the public’s and the trade unions’ evident desire for cheaper rail fares, as well as the campaigning for action to reduce our carbon emissions. The Scottish Government has missed nine of the past 13 climate targets. Rather than going into reverse, we need to accelerate progress if we are to achieve a 20 per cent reduction in car kilometres by 2030, which is now less than five years away. As Richard Leonard said, there has been a lack of leadership and a lack of action. We have had three price hikes in just over a year, and that is disproportionately punishing those who are choosing the train over the car.

If the end goal is increased use of Scottish rail services, public transport journeys as a whole must become a more desirable option. That means that we need to have those services in the first place. Yesterday, members of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee discussed the issue of subsidies for bus travel. I totally support the over-60s bus pass, which I introduced when I was the transport minister, and the under-22s bus pass. It was really interesting to dig into the detail. One of the key challenges is the reduction in the number of bus services, which impacts in particular on lower-income and rural constituents. Work needs to be done on that. Many people do not have access to rail services because there are none in their areas, and the same applies to bus services. We need more effective public transport, which will be good for our economy and is also critical for interconnectedness. We need to see progress on that.

When Scottish Labour was in government, we increased the number of stations, we approved new railway lines—Larkhall to Milngavie, Airdrie to Bathgate and Stirling to Alloa—and we made progress on the Borders railway. Those new routes with better connections made it easier for people to travel by train.

We should agree to make it easier and not harder for people to travel by train, and we should have bus services that connect with the railway sector. We need to focus on sustainable funding and investment in our rail services so that passengers do not bear the burden of the shift. Services are not as effective or as accessible as they could be and they are often cancelled. We need to make sure that the infrastructure is reliable, especially in the context of the climate emergency. An effective, popular Scottish rail service that benefits our constituents and our planet must be a goal for all of us, and we need investment in that now and in every year going forward.

I challenge the cabinet secretary on the cuts that we have seen. The cuts to buses and rail fare hikes are not good enough. I say again that the Scottish Government has had an extra £5.2 billion this year and we should have seen something a lot better.

The cabinet secretary has previously said in the chamber that, if more money was available, she would reintroduce the removal of peak fares. An additional £5.2 billion was made available to the Scottish Government. We are not in government and it is not possible to amend individual budget lines. Last month, we made it clear that we wanted peak fares to be removed. A 10 per cent increase in usage was needed to generate enough income to enable the reduction in fares to pay for itself. We came so close—we achieved a 6.8 per cent increase in usage. I ask members to consider how many more users we could have attracted if there had been effective advertising and promotion of the opportunities of more affordable journeys on reliable trains. Reliability is crucial.

We also need to take a more joined-up approach to our rail services and to think about how people access them. That includes getting a bus to access rail services, as well as walking, cycling or being able to park at a station. As Claire Baker argued, we need joined-up provision if we are to persuade people to use our railways. The proposed changes are realistic, and they would give us a more desirable system.

The issue of simplifying the ticketing process via integrated ticketing has been raised by members across the chamber. We need to simplify transport fares and ban peak-time fares and the proposed 3.8 per cent increase in rail fares. Several members talked about the cost of rail travel. A return from Glasgow to Edinburgh costs more than £30 in peak hours. That is simply not affordable for people, and it will not persuade people to shift from their cars to travel by train.

The Scottish Government has clearly ignored the public’s and the trade unions’ evident desire for cheaper rail fares, as well as the campaigning for action to reduce our carbon emissions. The Scottish Government has missed nine of the past 13 climate targets. Rather than going into reverse, we need to accelerate progress if we are to achieve a 20 per cent reduction in car kilometres by 2030, which is now less than five years away. As Richard Leonard said, there has been a lack of leadership and a lack of action. We have had three price hikes in just over a year, and that is disproportionately punishing those who are choosing the train over the car.

If the end goal is increased use of Scottish rail services, public transport journeys as a whole must become a more desirable option. That means that we need to have those services in the first place. Yesterday, members of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee discussed the issue of subsidies for bus travel. I totally support the over-60s bus pass, which I introduced when I was the transport minister, and the under-22s bus pass. It was really interesting to dig into the detail. One of the key challenges is the reduction in the number of bus services, which impacts in particular on lower-income and rural constituents. Work needs to be done on that. Many people do not have access to rail services because there are none in their areas, and the same applies to bus services. We need more effective public transport, which will be good for our economy and is also critical for interconnectedness. We need to see progress on that.

When Scottish Labour was in government, we increased the number of stations, we approved new railway lines—Larkhall to Milngavie, Airdrie to Bathgate and Stirling to Alloa—and we made progress on the Borders railway. Those new routes with better connections made it easier for people to travel by train.

We should agree to make it easier and not harder for people to travel by train, and we should have bus services that connect with the railway sector. We need to focus on sustainable funding and investment in our rail services so that passengers do not bear the burden of the shift. Services are not as effective or as accessible as they could be and they are often cancelled. We need to make sure that the infrastructure is reliable, especially in the context of the climate emergency. An effective, popular Scottish rail service that benefits our constituents and our planet must be a goal for all of us, and we need investment in that now and in every year going forward.

I challenge the cabinet secretary on the cuts that we have seen. The cuts to buses and rail fare hikes are not good enough. I say again that the Scottish Government has had an extra £5.2 billion this year and we should have seen something a lot better.

I am really glad that we are having this debate today. Unlike the cabinet secretary, I do not think that it is a poorly timed debate—it is a debate that is urgently needed. Scottish Labour’s amendment aims to strengthen the Green motion. It is important that we highlight the need for investment—sustainable investment—so that ScotRail can improve the efficiency and performance of its services.

Members across the chamber have talked about the need for reliability, affordability and accessibility, which are crucial. Given the climate emergency, our public transport services need our immediate attention. In his devastating critique, Richard Leonard said that there is no way that the Scottish Government will achieve a 20 per cent reduction in the number of car kilometres by 2030, given what is happening with our bus and rail networks.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

I would be delighted to take a sharp intervention.

The cabinet secretary has previously said in the chamber that, if more money was available, she would reintroduce the removal of peak fares. An additional £5.2 billion was made available to the Scottish Government. We are not in government and it is not possible to amend individual budget lines. Last month, we made it clear that we wanted peak fares to be removed. A 10 per cent increase in usage was needed to generate enough income to enable the reduction in fares to pay for itself. We came so close—we achieved a 6.8 per cent increase in usage. I ask members to consider how many more users we could have attracted if there had been effective advertising and promotion of the opportunities of more affordable journeys on reliable trains. Reliability is crucial.

We also need to take a more joined-up approach to our rail services and to think about how people access them. That includes getting a bus to access rail services, as well as walking, cycling or being able to park at a station. As Claire Baker argued, we need joined-up provision if we are to persuade people to use our railways. The proposed changes are realistic, and they would give us a more desirable system.

The issue of simplifying the ticketing process via integrated ticketing has been raised by members across the chamber. We need to simplify transport fares and ban peak-time fares and the proposed 3.8 per cent increase in rail fares. Several members talked about the cost of rail travel. A return from Glasgow to Edinburgh costs more than £30 in peak hours. That is simply not affordable for people, and it will not persuade people to shift from their cars to travel by train.

The Scottish Government has clearly ignored the public’s and the trade unions’ evident desire for cheaper rail fares, as well as the campaigning for action to reduce our carbon emissions. The Scottish Government has missed nine of the past 13 climate targets. Rather than going into reverse, we need to accelerate progress if we are to achieve a 20 per cent reduction in car kilometres by 2030, which is now less than five years away. As Richard Leonard said, there has been a lack of leadership and a lack of action. We have had three price hikes in just over a year, and that is disproportionately punishing those who are choosing the train over the car.

If the end goal is increased use of Scottish rail services, public transport journeys as a whole must become a more desirable option. That means that we need to have those services in the first place. Yesterday, members of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee discussed the issue of subsidies for bus travel. I totally support the over-60s bus pass, which I introduced when I was the transport minister, and the under-22s bus pass. It was really interesting to dig into the detail. One of the key challenges is the reduction in the number of bus services, which impacts in particular on lower-income and rural constituents. Work needs to be done on that. Many people do not have access to rail services because there are none in their areas, and the same applies to bus services. We need more effective public transport, which will be good for our economy and is also critical for interconnectedness. We need to see progress on that.

When Scottish Labour was in government, we increased the number of stations, we approved new railway lines—Larkhall to Milngavie, Airdrie to Bathgate and Stirling to Alloa—and we made progress on the Borders railway. Those new routes with better connections made it easier for people to travel by train.

We should agree to make it easier and not harder for people to travel by train, and we should have bus services that connect with the railway sector. We need to focus on sustainable funding and investment in our rail services so that passengers do not bear the burden of the shift. Services are not as effective or as accessible as they could be and they are often cancelled. We need to make sure that the infrastructure is reliable, especially in the context of the climate emergency. An effective, popular Scottish rail service that benefits our constituents and our planet must be a goal for all of us, and we need investment in that now and in every year going forward.

I challenge the cabinet secretary on the cuts that we have seen. The cuts to buses and rail fare hikes are not good enough. I say again that the Scottish Government has had an extra £5.2 billion this year and we should have seen something a lot better.