The member makes an interesting point. A related earlier point was about repowering opportunities, which is something to which I know Forestry and Land Scotland will want to give due consideration. Of course, Forestry and Land Scotland financially contributes to the public good through its own activities. There is a discussion for us all to have in the future, however, particularly on the issue of repowering.

The Scottish Government is committed to growing community benefits. Throughout the debate, we talked about the benefits that community energy provides, including community benefits. As Colin Smyth pointed out, both climate change targets and supply chain benefits are important in that regard.

Alongside growing community energy, we must also ensure that communities are able to access community benefits from commercial renewable energy developments. Those are an important tool to ensure that people and communities benefit from the just energy transition that we all seek to achieve.

Emma Harper pointed to successful strategies for communities, some of those being lessons from other countries, and, like other members, she reminded us of the need to get to net zero. That is always a factor in what we seek to do. There are levers in our hands to achieve net zero, but some levers are not in our hands.

I listened carefully to Patrick Harvie’s comments about local control and culture change. In the past 12 months, more than £30 million-worth of benefits have been offered to Scottish communities, supported by our voluntary good practice principles. We agree that, as a Government, we must do more. [Alasdair Allan has corrected this contribution. See end of report.]

We recently consulted on our good practice principles for onshore and offshore renewable energy developments to ensure that our national guidance is fit for the future. The consultation closed on 11 April. We are currently analysing the responses and information to inform a refresh of the guidance.

The Scottish Government’s working group, which included energy suppliers and consumer fuel poverty and disability groups, called for a social tariff to cut fuel bills for Scots in its final report.

In March, we wrote to the UK Government to share the final report and press for the urgent introduction of a targeted discount on bills to address unaffordable energy prices at source. We are in regular dialogue on energy affordability and have been fully involved in the UK Government’s recently convened data working group, which is critical to delivering automatic and targeted energy bill support that is based on a sophisticated set of metrics. The powers to deliver the scheme are reserved, but we remain committed to working with the UK Government to make urgent progress on that critical policy.

When new energy developments come forward, applications are subject to site-specific assessments by the decision maker. The cumulative effects of developments are an important consideration in the decision-making process, alongside potential impacts on communities, nature and cultural heritage. When an application is ready to be determined, Scottish ministers consider all relevant material that is available to them before making any decision. The merits of each proposal are considered on a case-by-case basis, and a careful balance must be struck.

The member will not be too surprised to hear me say that I cannot comment on the specific case that he mentions. However, it is the case that, in the process, the decision makers consider all the available evidence. I realise that the member’s point is about forthcoming proposals. In reaching a decision, ministers will determine applications in accordance with legislative requirements and relevant policy, and any cumulative impact assessment that is made is limited to considering existing and already approved developments. However, as I have indicated, all representations that are made in any community about an application are considered when a decision is made.

I whole-heartedly agree. We have worked hard and collaboratively to present a compelling way forward, and we have achieved a rare degree of consensus on a social tariff to bring down energy bills.

A key principle of our report is that support needs to be targeted, as the member indicated, and based on a meaningful set of metrics, including, for example, a combination of household income, medical need and rurality.

I have been clear with the UK Government that its current approach of relying on the warm home discount scheme provides too little help for those who are most in need and it does not provide it when they need it. Again, therefore, I call on the UK Government to deliver a new and additional scheme that provides a unit rate discount with the level of discount that is proportionate to need.

Will the member take an intervention?

I am seeking a little clarification from the member, because it is difficult to recognise his characterisation of the Scottish Government’s position on the EPL, given that we, as a Government, did not oppose the initial levy but opposed its extension. He has gone through quite a few somersaults to try to mischaracterise that position.

I cannot say what is in the Prime Minister’s mind on that. I have indicated that the First Minister is open to a summit and has said so to the Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce. I hope that the Prime Minister is similarly open to the idea. I have no idea of the guest list.

Are you challenging the chair?

Members: Oh!

There have been many interventions from the Scottish Government—indeed, sometimes with the UK Government—such as the skills passport and the on-going explanation to school leavers about the many opportunities that exist in the renewables sector. Many positive things are happening on all those fronts. The Scottish Government is committed to doing all that it can within its devolved powers to support the transition to which the member refers.

However, as members know, decisions on offshore oil and gas licensing, consenting and the associated fiscal regime are all currently reserved to the UK Government. Therefore, we continue to call on the UK Government to approach its decisions on North Sea oil and gas projects on an evidence-led, case-by-case basis, with climate compatibility and energy security as key considerations.

To return to the Conservative motion, there is an implication that we in Scotland—or, perhaps, globally—should not be aiming that hard for net zero. However, the clear scientific evidence is that we must do so. The alternatives are fairly unthinkable for the generation that comes after us.

I remind the Parliament of its long-standing consensus around the 2045 net zero target, which was confirmed as recently as the passing of the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2024.