That is everyone’s aim, but those costs remain stubbornly high for most people.

The fourth agenda item is consideration of two consent notifications relating to proposed UK statutory instruments. The first is on biocidal products. Under the GB Biocidal Products Regulation, companies must obtain authorisation from the Health and Safety Executive to market biocidal products. Biocidal products are substances or mixtures that are designed to control harmful organisms such as bacteria, viruses, fungi, insects or rodents.

The amendment regulations relate not to the substance of that regulation but to a data protection aspect in it, as outlined in the clerk’s paper. The committee’s role is to decide whether it agrees with the Scottish Government about the proposed change. We can express a view both on whether we agree in principle to the UK Government legislating in the area and on whether we agree with the specific manner in which it proposes to do so.

If we are content for consent to be given, I will write to the Scottish Government accordingly. In writing to the Scottish Government, we of course have the option to draw matters to the Government’s attention, pose questions or ask to be kept updated on particular matters. If the committee is not content with the proposal, it might make one or several recommendations, as outlined in the clerk’s note.

I do not see anyone who wants to express a view, so I will move to the substantive question. Is the committee content that the provision that is set out in the notification should be made in the proposed UK statutory instrument?

Members indicated agreement.

Of course, the danger in saying that you have the last question is that a committee member can then ask to come in. Mark Ruskell, I will give way to you as long as it is a brief question.

We are starting the next item slightly later than I anticipated, so I apologise to anyone who has been kept waiting.

Our third item of business is consideration of two statutory instruments, both of which are laid under the negative procedure, which means that they will come into force unless the Parliament agrees to a motion to annul them. No motions to annul have been lodged. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has made no comment on either instrument. I will seek views on each of them in turn.

Unless anyone else has any comments on the order, I will make a general comment. Although I have no problem with the order, it would be helpful to know the Government’s position on it and whether, by extending the trading scheme for a further period—which will allow motor manufacturers to trade off progress against the current targets to allow them to achieve their future emissions targets—that will affect progress on electric vehicles.

In general, I agree with the order, so unless the committee has a reason to do otherwise, I propose to write to the Government and ask it to explain that, but then to make no other comment. Are we happy to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

The seven-year pseudoscientific and inconclusive experiment, which the Government said will now end in 2027, seems to be more about protecting a commercial fishery that is worth more than £5.5 million to just over 20 boats. The minister knows that electrofishing for spoots is banned in the European Union. Surely, then, in 2027, the Scottish Government, under the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021, will need to keep pace with the EU and ban electrofishing of spoots, or will it continue the farce of a scientific experiment?

To ask the Scottish Government what evidence it received in relation to the decision to allow the continued use of electrofishing for razor clams beyond January 2025, when the trial that started in February 2018 was due to end. (S6O-05139)

I, too, thank the Greens for securing the debate. I have to say that I found their arguments less than compelling, as was their leaflet that was delivered to my home early yesterday evening, which was all about taxing the rich and making everything fairer. The rich have got rich by working hard and using the economy to their advantage, and everyone benefits from that. [Interruption.] If the Greens are going to destroy the economy, I do not know where we are going.

The Greens have admitted that we will need oil in the future. Have we thought about all the uses for which we will need it? The turbines that are growing in number across Scotland use hundreds of gallons of oil each year to ensure that they turn and that their gearboxes and other workings function.

Farmers need oil to fuel their tractors, because electric power will not do that. I am a farmer myself—members can check the details in my entry in the register of members’ interests. We need oil for our transport. The battery buses that were sent up to the Highlands did not work, because they did not have the power required to get up the hills.

We will need oil and gas to heat our homes. I keep pointing out—as I did to Mr Harvie—that the alternative sources of power that have been proposed, such as the heat solutions and the heat transfer systems, will not work without a considerable amount of retrofitting of insulation.

Therefore, we will all continue to need oil and gas, which is why Mr Lumsden’s points are so appropriate. Why not use the resources that we already have? Why not ensure that those resources are exploited to ensure that the jobs that are in Scotland continue to offer employment to people and that the money that is brought in continues to benefit the UK Treasury?

The suggestion that we should not use Rosebank means that we would just be exporting production to countries such as Nigeria. Is that environmentally sensible? It is not. If we wanted to, we could rely on Russia and allow it to supply us with oil, but that prospect is equally unpleasant. As Mr Greene pointed out, we could rely on the middle east to supply us with some of our fuel. However, some of the practices that go on there are totally unacceptable.

This afternoon, we have talked about why we should not use oil. We have ignored why we are driven to using it. It is because this Government does not want to allow the use of nuclear power in Scotland. However, the Government is fine about taking the power that comes in from nuclear power stations when the wind does not blow and there is insufficient power here. It is hypocritical for members of the Government who have nuclear power stations in their constituencies to say that they do not want them there when the employment opportunities that they offer are phenomenal.

I am unclear about the position of the Labour Party on this issue. To be frank, I am not sure who is calling the shots there. Anas Sarwar seems to be changing his position. Perhaps that is so that he can align with whichever new leader approaches the front benches when Keir Starmer is replaced, whether it be Wes Streeting or Andy Burnham.

I am confused by everyone’s positions. We have a resource in Scotland and it appears that we can exploit it by carefully—

Do I have time, Deputy Presiding Officer?

Okay. I am sure that the member knows that I would have taken an intervention, but I do not have time.

We can exploit the resource in such a way as to make sure that we do not damage the environment. Importing it from elsewhere will probably ensure that that will happen.