 The next item of business is debate on motion 16555 in the name of Mark Ruskell on climate emergency. May I invite those who wish to speak in the debate to press requests to speak buttons, and I call on Alison Johnstone to speak to you and move the motion for 10 minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We have just over 10 years to act to avoid climate catastrophe. That was the stark warning that emerged in October following the publication of the IPCC's special report on the impacts of global warming of one and a half degrees. The report detailed some of the impacts we can expect to see if countries don't act to radically curb their greenhouse gas emissions, people losing their homes to rising seas, water scarcity, loss of coral reefs, plummeting by diversity and profound knock-on effects on the ecosystems on which we base our societies and our livelihoods. Across the world, extreme weather events and erratic temperatures caused by climate change are becoming more and more frequent. In Scotland, we are beginning to see impacts too. Over the past year, we have seen a prolonged summer heat wave, as well as extremely high winter temperatures in February. The LINC WWF report, Scotland's nature on red alert, suggests impacts on our wildlife, including salmon populations affected by rising water temperatures, reduced snow cover, lowering populations of our iconic ptarmigan and drier summers, reducing habitat for our wading bird species. I know that this is not easy to hear, but it is to make clear that the climate emergency is already on our doorstep and it is the duty of everyone in this Parliament to support actions that will avoid a climate breakdown. The green motion today commends the inspiring actions of our young people who have taken part in the global youth strike for climate movement. The strikes are inspired by the actions of 16-year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg and represent students from all over the UK taking direct action to ensure young people's voices are heard in the call for governments to address climate change. Two strikes have been organised so far and another is planned for 12 April. During the 15 March strike, school walk-outs were planned in 19 towns and cities across Scotland, as far apart as Peoples and Ullipool. We estimate that some 5,000 young people attended the 15 March protests held in Glasgow and Edinburgh alone. They were acting in sync with school strikers in more than 100 other countries, one of the largest mass youth movements that we have seen in recent times. I and my colleague Andy Wightman joined those strikers, who stood outside the building two weeks ago. We listened to their concerns on what they wanted for their future, secure jobs, clean air, thriving environments and security for their children. I know that they would welcome more contact with those of us in this chamber and I hope that those who are able to take the opportunity to join them for next month's strike. The UK student climate network, one of the event organisers, describes its mission as radically reforming the role and power of young people in national action against climate change by employing strong and repeated student-led protests to promote diverse voices calling for a common aim. It has four key demands, namely that Governments declare a climate emergency and prioritise the protection of life on earth, taking active steps to achieve climate justice, that the national curriculum is reformed to address the ecological crisis as an educational priority and that officials communicate the severity of the ecological crisis and the necessity to act now to the general public and that Governments recognise that young people have the biggest stake in our future by incorporating youth views into policymaking and by bringing the voting age down to 16. I note that both the Government and the Conservative amendment would water down this Parliament's support for the actions that are demanded by the youth climate strikers. I fully support the striker's aims and I stand in solidarity with them. It is unacceptable that our young people should have to sacrifice their school days to urge that the adults in charge do the right thing for people on the planet. It has been the inaction of Governments over the past 20 years that has brought them to this point and we cannot let it continue. We not only have a moral obligation to act in the best interests of young people in future generations but also to deliver climate justice for less well-developed countries. Those countries in the global south who have done little to contribute to levels of historic greenhouse gas emissions are bearing the brunt of climate disruption. Cyclone Idy is the greatest extreme weather event exacerbated by climate change to devastate communities across Mozambique, Malawi and Zimbabwe. I think that it is fair to say that Brexit may feel like a crisis here but I do not think that we are hearing enough of the devastating impact that that is having on people in those countries. The country's former First Lady, Gratha Mackell, has said that Beirah Mozambique will go down in history as having been the city to be completely devastated by climate change. Scotland has taken the first steps in setting up a climate justice fund and I recognise the Scottish Government's support for work to boost climate adaptation in Malawi and other African nations. It is needed more than ever at this point in time. There is more that can be done. The discussion around setting Scotland's new climate targets ought to be the fair shares approach that is adopted by Oxfam International. The approach recognises that, as one of the first countries to industrialise, we have benefited historically from greater levels of wealth and technological development than many in the global south and that this advantage caused associated greenhouse gas emissions. I hope that our historical contribution to the climate emergency will be reflected by this Parliament setting a net zero greenhouse target when the climate bill comes before the chamber. Underlying the climate emergency is our global dependence on fossil fuels, which is hurling us towards a breaking point. We need to urgently move away from fossil fuels in our energy systems and in the choice of products that we consume. Both the Scottish and UK Governments favour a policy of maximum economic recovery of oil and gas reserves, extracting every drop that we can, but at what cost? A 2015 report in the journal Nature advised that one third of the world's oil reserves and half of its natural gas reserves must be off limits if we are to have any hope of meeting the temperature targets. Stuart Stevenson. Will the member accept that extracting oil and gas has no impact whatsoever on the climate each what you do with it after you have extracted it? Until we have found a substitute for the use of oil and gas in our chemical industries, we simply cannot throw away the economic opportunity that they provide. Alison Johnstone. The member will be aware that over 90 per cent of the oil and gas that we currently extract is burned. I appreciate that there are other uses for that. I thank the member for his intervention, but new forms of fossil fuels must also be kept in the ground. We believe that Scotland needs an outright ban on fracking in primary legislation. It is frustrating that the Scottish Government is dragging its feet on setting out its preferred policy position, and I note Claudia Beamish's efforts in pursuing this outside of Government 2. Greens have fought fracking from the start lodging the first parliamentary motion on the subject back in 2011, because it is a serious risk to people's health and local environments while driving up greenhouse gas emissions. I led the first full debate on fracking in this chamber back in 2014, five years ago. After all the arguments and pressures since then, I am disappointed that we have not moved forward in developing primary legislation to set a watertight ban on fracking in Scotland. The climate emergency will not be abated if we recklessly pursue the new source of greenhouse gas emissions. Every Government must now consider a raft of policies to prevent a climate breakdown. This could include providing better busses and reliable rail options that are publicly funded and affordable, a green energy transition where our homes can be heated from renewable energy sources, divesting all public money from the fossil fuel industry, and increasing them. Liam Kerr. Following up on the intervention that was made earlier, how does the member propose to replace the £9.2 billion that contributed to the economy in the 135,000 jobs in the off-shore oil and gas industry through those proposals? Alison Johnstone. I can point the member towards the green jobs in the economy report, which is based on sound research, which shows that 200,000 jobs could be created in a green jobs transition. I will certainly make sure that Mr Kerr has sight of that report. We need to be spending at least 10 per cent of our transport budget on active travel. We need to place a lefi on some single-use plastics and we need to redirect Government business support towards environmentally responsible companies. Small changes alone will not stop climate catastrophe. We must heed to the warnings from the IPCC, the youth strikers and those on the front line of climate change across the world. I move the motion in Mark Ruskell's name. I now call Mary Gougeon to speak to and move amendment 16555.4 for six minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I want to start by saying that the Scottish Government absolutely recognises the urgency of the global climate challenge. I do not think that anybody here in the chamber would dispute that part of the green motion that is before us today, because the urgency of the situation that we face is absolutely clear. We have had the scientific reports of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, we have seen our young people go out on strike and we can actually visibly see it all around us. The extreme weather events and changes to our climate are affecting us right here, right now. All of us will have seen the effects of climate change even within our own individual communities, but we have also seen them elsewhere across the world. As Alison Johnstone mentioned, we have seen the floods that have absolutely devastated parts of Southern Malawi, affecting over 740,000 people, leaving many dead, missing, injured or displaced. The current floods that we have seen come just four years after the last devastating floods in Malawi. Again, as Alison Johnstone said in her speech, all too often it is those who have done the least to contribute to climate change who are the hardest hit by it. That is why we have to take action to prevent even worse impacts of climate change further into the future. John Finnie. I am grateful for the minister who has taken intervention. Is one of the actions, continuing actions of the Scottish Government, be to implore the UK Government to give further tax breaks to oil and gas companies? Mary Cushill. In relation to oil and gas, that is the point that I will be coming back to later in my speech today. That is also why we are taking action to do exactly that through our climate change bill. The climate change bill would see Scotland have the toughest climate change legislation of anyone else in the world. The bill contains the most ambitious statutory targets of any country in the world for 2020, 2030 and 2040, and will mean that Scotland is carbon neutral by 2050. The scientific report published last October by the IPC states the need for the world to be carbon neutral by 2050. With our bill, that is exactly where Scotland would be. We have been clear that we want to go further and achieve net zero emissions for all greenhouse gases as soon as possible. In light of the IPCC report, we asked our independent statutory advisers, the UK Committee on Climate Change, for updated advice on our new targets, and that advice is due on 2 May. If that advice states that Scotland can now credibly set even more ambitious targets, then that is exactly what the Scottish Government will do. If the committee advises that 90 per cent remains the limit of feasibility for now, the bill allows a net zero date for all greenhouse gases to be set. That is such an important issue that I am not surprised that the pressure for action that we have seen particularly recently and again particularly from our young people. A lot of that was inspired by Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg, who has since been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for the work that she has done. Young people who stage climate strikes across the world and, again, as Alison Johnstone mentioned, we saw the huge turnout here at the Scottish Parliament just a couple of weeks ago. Yesterday, the First Minister met some of the students to discuss their concerns and to discuss the actions that we are taking, because I think that it is only right that they push us for strong action and that we actually take the time to listen to that. For my own part, while I was not able to attend the strike a couple of weeks ago at Parliament, I will be meeting students from Merns academy in my constituency who attended on that day. I believe that we have taken the most ambitious, the most pragmatic and responsible approach possible to this, and I know that this will all be discussed in more detail next week as we reach the stage one consideration of the bill. When we look at Scotland's transition to carbon neutrality, it is also vitally important that the transition happens in a way that is fair to all. Scotland has seen major industrial shifts before where a just transition has not been achieved, such as the move away from coal. That is why I take issue with those parts of the green motion regarding the oil and gas sector. If we were to suddenly end production, it would have an absolutely massive impact on communities and jobs, especially in the north-east of Scotland and in constituencies such as mine and Angus North and Merns, where thousands of people depend on that sector. Doing that would also not help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally because we have become reliant on imports until we are able to reduce the demand for oil and gas in Scotland. Andy Wightman. I thank the minister for taking intervention. The motion is not suggesting that we switch off the oil and gas tomorrow. What it is saying is that we call on the Scottish Government to recognise that the policy of maximum economic recovery is incompatible with addressing the climate emergency. Mary Gougeon. Again, I will be coming to this in my speech here. What is implied by your motion? What we need to look at is looking at working with the sector. Again, I will come on to that when I talk about the Just Transition Commission to see how we can work towards the development policies in the future. We have to decarbonise our economy. No one here would argue with that, but we have to do it responsibly and by working with the sector. The Scottish Government has established the Just Transition Commission to advise on how the move towards carbon neutrality can be done in a way that is fair to all. A Just Transition is one that creates jobs through new, sustainable industries, is good for communities and helps to tackle inequalities and poverty. We also have the energy strategy, which works in parallel with that. There is a built-in desire to work with oil and gas industry to support a transition using the invaluable knowledge and expertise that the sector has. Just on my last point in relation to the last part of the green motion today, the Scottish Government's preferred policy position is that it does not support onshore unconventional oil and gas development in Scotland. Scottish ministers are entering the final stages of the policymaking process on this important issue. The preferred policy position is subject to statutory, strategic environmental assessment and other assessments before any policy can be adopted. Those assessments are currently under way and our finalised policy position will be confirmed and adopted as soon as possible after this process is complete. The Scottish Government welcomes many aspects of the green party's motion on this vital global issue and we agree that urgent action is needed from all countries. I hope that the amendment that we have tabled today helps to set out some of the ways in which we are rising to the climate challenges that we face and that we can achieve some consensus on that across the chamber. I move amendment 16555.1. I call Maurice Golden to speak to and move amendment 16555.1. Five minutes, please, Mr Golden. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The motion today speaks of a climate emergency and that is exactly what we are facing. Last year's IPCC report laid that out for all of us to see. Around the globe, millions would be subject to extreme weather such as droughts and experts are pointing to the recent cyclone in East Africa as being having made worse by rising temperatures. In Scotland, we would see changing weather patterns, increased flood risks and data from the RSPB and the British ecological society shows that our wildlife is already being impacted. Climate breakdown affects us all and as the motion rightly states, we have a moral duty to act. Much successful action has already been taken by the UK and the Scottish Government. Scottish emissions are down by almost a half thanks to the Scottish Government's decarbonisation efforts in the waste sector, for example. In the electricity sector, this has benefited from a combined approach that has seen Scotland emerge as a world leader in renewables. The UK Government has committed to leading international efforts and, last year, the UK invested over £160 million to help countries to deal with climate breakdowns. Specific actions included direct support to Kenyan families affected by droughts and help for sub-Saharan farmers. It is part of a wider plan to help developing countries backed up by almost £6 billion worth of investment. Almost 50 million people have already been helped with 17 million now with access to clean energy, saving over 10 million tonnes of greenhouse gases. Ross Greer. I wonder if Maurice Golden would accept the hypocrisy inherent in a Government providing money for other countries to mitigate the impacts of the climate crisis while providing many times more in subsidies to the very fossil fuel companies that are causing that crisis. Does he not understand how utterly incompatible those two things are? Maurice Golden. No. I think that it is quite right that the UK Government both supports work in developing countries to tackle climate change. I know that I saw last year when I was in Nepal the great work that not just charities but also Governments can do. I think that it is very important that we continue to work on that front. I also think that it is important that we continue to invest in jobs in this country as well. If the UK Government and the Scottish Government can help to continue to foster those jobs in the oil and gas sector, that is something that we all must aspire to do. At home, the UK Government is investigating a DRS system to further reduce waste and improve environmental standards as is the Scottish Government here. Therefore, the UK and the Scottish Governments are seeking updated advice from the UK Committee on climate change on a pathway to net zero. As the cabinet secretary and the minister has indicated today that they will adopt a feasible path to net zero if the UK Committee on climate change identifies that. We welcome that. However, we will also seek to hold the Scottish Government to account to ensure that delivery is commensurate with any targets that are set. For example, the plan to phase out new petrol and diesel vehicles by 2032 needs further detail on delivery, particularly in terms of cost and infrastructure. More needs to be done to decarbonise heating. The interim stretch targets were regarded by the UK CCC as wildly optimistic, leading them to be revised down. Progress can only be made through solutions that are deliverable. The upcoming climate change bill must marry that ambition with details and measurable data to assess outcomes. The Scottish Conservatives will continue to act where we must, like we did last year when we led Parliament to bring forward measures to tackle fuel poverty and reduce heat waste by a full decade. We will seek to work across the chamber to achieve practical solutions. For example, we have listened to NFUS's call to support farmers with a proposal to offer direct capital and technical support to farmers in environmental practices focused around anaerobic digestion. Our electric arc furnace proposal would recycle steel, create jobs, reduce constraints payments, perhaps utilising the 471 oil and gas installations in the North Sea, not to mention the 4.5 million tonnes of steel contained in them, as well as the 10,000 kilometres of pipelines under the North Sea. Finally, our plastic recycling centre would keep waste in Scotland to be used as a resource rather than exporting this value in the associated jobs to England or abroad. For those of us who want to see a circular economic future for Scotland, we stand ready to work with you. I move the amendment in my name. Claudia Beamish will speak to amendment 16555.3 for five minutes. I welcome the opportunity today as a result of the green motion to celebrate the bravery of young people around the world, striking for their right to a clean and green future. 1.4 million young people is an incredible feat. I am awe-inspired by Greta Thunberg, Nobel Peace Prize nominee who started this movement. It is very important that the Eclair committee next week is welcoming climate strikers to meet them in a round table setting. I note from Alison Johnson the case that was highlighted for the four central demands, which we all need to listen to very carefully. We do need a target for net zero emissions in Scotland by 2050 at the latest to be set in legislation in the climate change bill right now. Anything less would be an abdication of responsibility for today's young and tomorrow's young. On this basis, we will not be able to support either the Scottish Government or the Tory amendments today. In Glasgow recently, at a climate strike, a Scottish Labour leader Richard Leonard said, I am here to show solidarity because the Labour Party wants not just action but a planned approach with leadership by government to make sure that we get to a net zero position as quickly as possible. This is an issue for every single people in this city across Scotland and the world. Because people that will be hit hardest by climate change will be the poorest people with the most to lose, we are a Labour Party with an international outlook. We are protesting locally today, but the message has got to be a global one. The need for an international sense of responsibility was highlighted to me far too poignantly and very, very sadly by a recent BBC feature on Mongolia. Mongolia's temperature has already risen by 2.2 degrees Celsius and the feature contrasted how climate change was limiting the options of both the Mongolian steppe and of the capital, Alabata. Tens of thousands are forced to move from the countryside to the city, climate migrants. As vastly unpredictable weather patterns mean that herding lifestyles are no longer guaranteed, but in the capital they face worse air pollution in the world due to the people having to burn raw coal. The air is apocalyptically thick with smog and causing bronchitis issues, and as seen by the babies suffering from chronic bronchitis on the programme, climate change is and will continue to cause a myriad of problems for us all, hitting the hardest, first and poorest. With this in mind, I can say with complete confidence that, as the Green Party does as well, that there must be no onshore fracking in Scotland. This is a new industry which we cannot afford to pursue and it would be shameful. I'm sure that this chamber, including SNP colleagues and the 60,000-plus people who have responded to the multiple consultations are baffled now by the Scottish Government's repeated attempts to slip out of a firm position. I appreciate that this is complex, but the new legal opinion given by Friends of the Earth's council says that the legislative ban with backing of the Parliament is, and I quote, the surest way to prevent fracking in Scotland. It will be steadfast in the face of judicial review. It is now time for the Scottish Government to show leadership on this issue, and I'm very happy to work with them in trying to shape this, as I am with the Green Party as well, and the Lib Dems. Labour will work for a green jobs revolution, a radical transformation that supports public ownership models, including municipal and co-operative action. Scottish Labour is determined that workers and affected communities will be supported through statutory long-term just transition commission as we move towards a sustainable future across all sectors. In this context, we will not be supporting the green motion today as it does not acknowledge this imperative in the context of oil and gas sectors, though there is much in the motion of grave importance. Our amendment highlights how the natural world—I haven't got time, I'm sorry. In our last minute. Our motion highlights that the natural world is a vital helping hand in balancing out climate emissions, which are most difficult to cut. According to studies already highlighted for nature on red alert, our soils, peatlands, forests and seas' abilities as a sequester carbon is expected to peak around 2030 with ecosystem disruption and also drought, disease and floods. That is something that we must address, not least because it could well decrease the carbon storage. The climate emergency and the aim to limit the global temperature to below 1.5 will take real leadership from government. That is indeed an emergency of global proportions and it is only with leadership and ambition from government at all levels combined with equity and action across our economy and society that we can move Scotland fairly to net zero emissions as fast as possible. I move our amendment in my name. I thank Mark Ruskell on enabling this appetiser for next week's stage 1 debate on the climate change bill. I'm sorry. The Liberal Democrat amendment was not selected though I'd certainly appreciate the limitations in such a time-restricted debate, but let me use the time available to me this afternoon to touch on some of the points raised in the motion and the various amendments. Like others, I found the action that was taken by young climate strikers earlier this month, both impressive and inspiring. In my constituency, pupils at Westerie Community Schools, St Margaret's Hope Primary, Strumwrs Academy and Cwtwell Grammar School were all in touch, all making the same case. I look forward to meeting Rachael Evans from Cwtwell Grammar School early next week. The clarity of the strikers message, the passion with which they deliver it and the determination to be heard have been striking and it is incumbent upon us in this Parliament to respond positively to that call for urgent and ambitious action. The main, I suppose, low-emission vehicle for that action will be the climate change bill and I look forward to taking part in the debate next week. While I accept the minister's point that we should await the revised advice from the UK Committee on climate change, there's no getting around the fact that more ambitious and decisive action is required in heat, in transport, in agriculture and other areas as well. What there certainly is no need for is opening up a further carbon front in the form of fracking. The Government's amendment conspicuously fails to make any mention of this, which is unfortunate, though perhaps not entirely surprising. After the First Minister's category of students in this chamber that no ifs, no buts fracking is banned in Scotland, it must surely have been excruciating not even our most loyal colleagues to find Government lawyers then marching into court to deny a ban existed and that it was all political hot air. As a result, communities under potential threat from fracking developments are left confused and alarmed and that cannot be right. Paul Wheelhouse. I'm grateful to the member taking intervention. Would the member recognise that Lord Pentland himself in terms of his determination on the legal case made reference to the fact that the process was still under way and that is why it was deemed premature and also referenced the Government's right to express its intent in robust terms? Liam McArthur. I hate what the minister is saying, but I think the incongruence between what the First Minister was saying in this chamber and what her lawyers were saying in court I think will not have escaped anybody watching proceedings. Where I think the Green amendment gets into difficulty, however, as in relation to oil and gases others have mentioned, there's widespread if not unanimous agreement about the need to decarbonise our economy and our reliance on fossil fuels and to move to a more renewable form of energy production. To think that the oil and gas sector will not continue to have an important role to play in our energy mix for decades to come is simply naive. There's a transition to be made. No, I don't have time. There's a transition to be made, absolutely. Some of that is already happening and this can and should be accelerated. Moreover, the answer to many of the challenges facing the renewable sector as it embarks on the next phase of its development are likely to be found in the supply chains of the oil and gas sector, but the determination of some within the Green party to shut down the North Sea in a bid to demonstrate their environmental machismo is reckless, unnecessary and counterproductive, not least in bringing people along. A just transition is needed and it's needed in other areas too. I'm conscious of the need to be able to describe the sort of changes we need to see in agriculture, in transport and other sectors, how those changes can be achieved without destroying businesses and communities in the process. Finally, having attended a meeting earlier today hosted by Mark Ruskell, where we heard from Josephine Zymba, a PhD student from Malawi who studied climate justice at Glasgow University, we acknowledge that the worst effects of climate change are being felt by those least responsible for its creation. No single weather event should be attributed to climate change, but the patterns we are seeing are evidence that cannot be ignored. Malawi, a country very dear to my heart, has suffered desperately from succession of droughts and floods and now, along with Zimbabwe and Mozambique, from the brutal effects of cyclone edai. I'd argue that the international aspect of climate change needs to be more reflected in the legislation. Again, congrats Mark Ruskell, but cannot support the motion that he's brought forward today. Thank you. We turn to the open debate now. We have four minute speeches, but there's no time in hand, I'm afraid. Gillian Martin, to be followed by Peter Jammon. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We know that we have a global climate crisis. As a historic contributor to global warming, Scotland has a responsibility to be at the heart of how we mitigate its effects. I felt very strongly that, in response to the climate strikes, we have responsibility to open Parliament stores a little wider to involve the young people who took to the streets to make their voices heard. I'm glad that the green motion specifies that some of the climate strikers are coming into Parliament next week and Tuesday to talk to the Environment, Climate Change Committee about the kind of society they believe Scotland has to be if we are to play our part in reducing emissions. Asking for change is the easy part. Determining the pathways we choose is the challenge and it's our job to involve young people in those decisions. I've also arranged for the climate strikers to be in the public gallery as we debate stage 1 of the climate change bill. If the status quo is not an option as we try to reach the already ambitious emissions targets that the Scottish Government has set, then what should our way of life change to be? As we decide on radical changes as we must, how do we make sure those changes don't spell economic disaster for communities and leave behind those who can least afford to adapt? Those in rural communities with limited access to public transport? Those who live in rented accommodation with no decision making powers over how they heat their home? I've spoken many times before in the just transition issues around the latter part of the green motion around the extraction of oil and gas. It's no secret that my area of the north-east of Scotland largely relies on the oil and gas industry. I don't think it's hyperbole to say that if you turn off the taps of oil and gas industry, you potentially destroy the north-east economy and many lives with it. The majority of jobs in oil and gas are not in production, they are in exploration. We had a taste of... I don't know if someone wanted to intervene in me there, it was just lots of noise, but I'm going to carry on. No, you didn't make an intervention, you just made a noise and you put me off. Today, we had a taste of it a couple of years ago. Thousands lost their livelihoods due to the global oil price crash. I catch my breath today as figures come out from my area, but the huge surges in food bank use is people who have fallen out of work and fallen fell into the UK welfare system. The climate crisis is real, but the solution is not to shut off an entire sector, it's to use its products differently. Yes, we're talking about hundreds of thousands of livelihoods at stake, but we're also talking about the workers with expertise that could lead us into a low-carbon and renewables future and a carbon capture and storage future if the transition is managed appropriately. Yes, I will now. Andy Wightman. I thank Gillian Martin for taking an intervention. As I mentioned previously to the minister, motion in the name of Mark Ruskell today is to recognise that the policy of maximum economic recovery of oil and gas is incompatible with addressing the climate emergency. Does she agree with that? Andy Wightman, if I knew Andy Wightman was going to repeat the same intervention, to be quite honest, I wouldn't have wasted my valuable time, I've gotten my speech. I actually think that your motion strongly hints at the destruction of the oil and gas industry. I feel very strongly about this. My family basically has been able to survive economically because of that industry, and if you had to see the constituents in front of you, some of them suicidal about losing their jobs over the last three years, then I think that you might take a different tone. There's no surprise to me that there's no green members representing the Northeast. The oil and gas industry has huge potential to feedstock industry for practically every type of manufacturing. But crucially, natural gas is a key component of the kind of fuels that do not emit carbon, like hydrogen. Hydrogen that could be the zero-emission replacement fuel for heavy emitting sectors like heating and transport. Hydrogen that other major economies are embracing at pace like Australia and Germany. I want a low-carbon future, but I will not stand up and call for an end to the oil and gas industry that supports the majority of my constituents and could provide the innovation and engineering expertise and the raw materials for the transition to net zero emissions, and still has a multitude of uses beyond heat and transport. If we are truly serious about playing our part in tackling climate change, we need to engage all sectors in how they can contribute as a result of innovation around low-carbon alternatives, and if we are to meet the climate challenge, we need to bring everyone with us. We don't, and we fail, and we cannot afford to fail. Peter Chapman, to be followed by Clare Baker. If you take an intervention, there is no extra time given, I am afraid. Thank you for that advice, Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to speak in today's Green Party debate. I am certain that we all agree that tackling climate change is one of the most important issues that we must address to protect future generations and the long-term sustainability of our communities that we represent. While there are aspects of Mark Ruskell's motion that we agree with, I do not believe that it offers the practical solutions that will ensure that our climate targets are met. It is important to stress that this Parliament is already legislating to tackle climate change, and in many instances it is already world-leading. Following the Eclair Committee's report, we will have another opportunity to debate this issue again next week. That bell sets ambitious targets for greenhouse gas emissions, reductions including increasing cuts for next year, 56 per cent, and introducing a new target of 78 per cent for 2040. The bell also allows a target for net zero to be introduced at a later date if that is deemed possible. However, it is pointless to put targets in place if there is no realistic mechanism to achieve them. As an MSP representative in the north-east region, I must disagree with the section of Mark Ruskell's motion that talks about oil and gas being incompatible with climate change. That completely fails to recognise the importance of that industry to the economy in Scotland, contributing £9.2 billion in 2016 and supporting 135,000 jobs. While I recognise that our energy needs must adapt, we cannot simply ignore an industry that is vital to our energy security. It is forecasted that at least 2,000 of the UK's primary energy needs will still be met by oil and gas until at least 2035. As far as farming is concerned, I must now declare an interest, but I have always said that farming is part of the solution to climate change rather than part of the problem. It is largely our farmers who will plant the extra trees that we need to counter climate change. It is farmers who will put mitigation measures in place to restore peat bogs. It is in farmers' land that wind turbines and solar panels farms are located. Cartland sheep get a bad press, but, again, by grazing grass and keeping it green and growing, this process also helps to lock up carbon. Most of our sheep and cattle are kept on ground that can only grow grass, so those areas are never going to be capable of growing cereals or beans which vegans would have a survival on. Cereal farmers can become much more efficient in their use of fertilizer, lime and chemicals by using GPS technology. Putting the right inputs in the right quantity and in the right place is good for the environment, and it is also good for the farmers' profits. As NFUS President Andrew McCormack has said, reducing emissions when farming will not be easy or immediate. The Government has a key role in facilitating and supporting the industry in its efforts to reduce emissions, and that must be part of the new support measures post Brexit. It is clear that our farmers simply do not have the information, the access to new technologies or the Government's support to assist in these measures to tackle climate change. However, given the support and guidance, I am convinced that they will play their part in full. Educating about climate change is important, and that is why I believe that our children would be better placed learning about climate change inside the classroom rather than out with it. However, I absolutely recognise why they are concerned and take the matter seriously. The opportunity to debate this subject today has been welcome, but we must look at practical ways of tackling the problem, which is why I cannot vote for the green motion at this year's end of time. I call Claire Baker to be filled by Stuart Stevenson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This afternoon is a welcome debate that provides an opportunity to offer support and solidarity to people around the world who are currently experiencing the awful impact of natural disasters that are occurring in the context of climate change. It is to recognise the strength of feeling among Scotland's young people and young people around the world who are protesting at the failure of global leaders to take strong action to halt climate change, and to consider how we in Scotland can contribute to international efforts and to recognise the impact of our activity and how we are going to minimise that. The debate encapsulates one of the greatest challenges of modern times. The impact of climate change entrenties the world's inequalities. Those countries and people who have done the least to cause climate change are suffering the worst effects of it. We are fortunate in Scotland that we have already had our industrial revolution and all the benefits of our modern society that came with that change. Our economic growth benefited and it can be argued that it still benefits from a model of development that is now hurting developing countries in Africa, Asia and South America. That is just one of the compelling reasons why we have a strong moral obligation to take action now, to set strong targets that resonate across the world and play our part in showing a different path as possible. I would like to thank Stop Climate Chaos, Christian Aid and Amnesty International for their briefings for the debate. Last April I hosted a faith leader reception where they all came together to make clear that addressing climate change and delivering climate justice for the world's poorest people is our shared responsibility. Scotland's climate change bill is important in setting binding targets for greenhouse gas emissions. As Claudia Beamish has set out, Scotland is a target of net zero emissions by 2050 at the latest and an interim target of 77 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030. Scotland has been ambitious in target setting and we can provide leadership. We need international action and our ambition has been recognised within the European arena. We must do more to keep on track for achieving our targets. Interim targets are important in creating momentum and embedding change in behaviours. Long-term targets are at a risk of hoping that some new technology will come along to solve the problems of energy or transport or agriculture. We have made progress and we can see the commitment of many individuals and groups across Scotland who are working hard to promote behavioural change but we need more investment from Governments to support and promote this change at a local level. In recent weeks, young people centre a powerful message. Their open letter says that the climate crisis is a crisis. They are set to inherit a world that is experiencing huge upheaval with the reality of food shortages, climate refugees, the degradation of biodiversity and marine life, all the negative impacts of increased temperatures. To prevent this, we need to see global effort and that is why the Paris climate agreement is so important and pressure must be applied to all signatories to deliver on that promise. We have had lots of agreement that we are so far this afternoon that something must be done but that is the easy bit. The harder bit is deciding how we as a country are going to make significant changes that work in the interests of the world and not just our own interests. For many reasons I have opposed the development of unconventional onshore oil and gas extraction. The area that I represent in Parliament would be prime land for this type of development and I have many times set out my concerns over the environmental impact, environmental quality and the risk of this activity with the population density that is in 5. As well as the wider argument over the pursuit of another fossil fuel we need to be moving into a reduction on emissions from energy. That is why I am disappointed in the further delays to finding a permanent resolution. Scotland has also benefitted from offshore oil and gas extraction but times are changing for the industry. The reserves that we still have are more difficult to locate and extract meaning less revenue for the return. However, as someone who grew up in what became an ex-mining village I know the impact of industrial change on communities. That is why we are calling for the Just Transitions Commission to be giving a greater role in managing the change that we need to see in our energy policy. The next generation will face significant challenges. We must do all we can to support them in creating that future society. Thank you and I call Stewart Stevenson before we move to closing speeches. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The 70-minute debate and the number of people who are here in the chamber means that we as human beings will have emitted approximately 1,000 litres of carbon dioxide. All human activity has a price in climate change terms and it is important that we unite together in seeking to deal with that. The opinions on the whole subject of this are pretty uniform in saying that there is a problem. The climate change minister 10 years ago and taking the previous bill through fundamentally changed my attitude to life and everything. Greta Thunberg is the flag bearer for the young generation but she does not stand alone. Even unlikely suspects like the United States Central Intelligence Agency in its worldwide threat assessment makes quite clear climate hazards such as extreme weather etc etc are intensifying threatening infrastructure, health, water, food security irreversible damage to ecosystems and habitats while undermining the economic benefits that they provide worsened by air, soil, water and marine pollution. There is the broadest possible spectrum for tackling this agenda and we should respect that. It is important to however that we do not imagine that all seven greenhouse gases must come down to zero. The economics and prioritisation that we have to bring to this agenda are important. We must tackle the easy low-hanging fruit first. We must make sure that every pound that we spend on this delivers the maximum possible benefit. Farming in particular is because of the way the inventory works. Farming gets no numerical benefit for its activity and forestry. It gets no numerical benefit for the substantial renewable energy that comes from wind farms on farmers' fields and so on and so forth. It is elsewhere in the inventory and that is fair enough. Peter Chapman is correct. Farmers are part of the solution. We shouldn't talk ourselves into thinking about farming crisis but the IPCC in its report in October made clear that there is a very real and pressing crisis. It talked about the Arctic having no ice whatsoever. If all the ice in the world were to melt the world seas would rise by 60 metres. Every single coastal town and city on the planet would be inundated. It is that serious. Even lesser inundations come from lesser changes in the climate. 10 per cent of the ice is within practical consideration. It can be melting. That will raise the seas by 68 metres and many of the cities around the world will suffer. That is an economic problem. It is a human problem as well. That is why it is right and proper that the Greens bring this debate to us today. Liam Kercody and Hollywood magazine highlight some of the practical effects by talking about cyclone Ede in Beria and a city of half a million people. Every building in the city has been affected by that cyclone. It isn't in and of itself part of the climate change problem but it is the sort of thing that happens with increasing frequency as the climate changes. Presiding Officer it is important that we, as we take the climate change bill forward that we find ourselves having the vigorous debate such as today but unanimously at the end of the day decide on a programme of action that we all might have to compromise to get to. If we unite, we can deal with it. Presiding Officer Thank you very much, Mr Stevenson. We move to winding up speeches. Alex Rowley is followed by John Scott. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I think that Stuart Stevenson very eloquently set out the extent of the problem and why we need to take this action. Perhaps why so many young people 1.4 million across the world took action, strike action the other week there to highlight it. I continually say to our grandchildren and their children I believe will look back and say why did nobody do anything about this when they were told what the problems are. There is to that extent a consensus in this place. Stuart Stevenson also talked about taking the low-hanging fruit. I believe to an extent we have done that in Scotland. In some ways by accident we have done that to ensure that we meet some of those targets that were set in the early days by Stuart Stevenson as a minister. But now comes the difficult bit and I am not convinced that we are in the best place even with the Government's best of intention because I can totally understand Gillian Martin and the sentiment and the strength to protect jobs in her area and in the North Sea. The fact is though we are failing in terms of a just transition. There seems to be a lot to talk about a just transition and there are a number of areas where we should be doing so much better. I was delighted to read in the press in general this morning about North US and the fact that they are now entering into the construction phase of the community wind project in North US. What a potential has been lost. We should have community wind projects, community renewable projects up and down Scotland and the ownership of the community and the ownership of the public sector and councils etc. There has been a failurey ambition and a failurey vision when it comes to that specific area. Maurice Golden says that we are world leaders in renewables. Can I quote the former energy minister Brian Wilson where he says and I quote as the windiest country in Europe we should be angry and embarrassed that every single turbine around us has been imported. When is the minister going to introduce a strategy for Scotland so that we can get the jobs in Scotland? He knows because I've met and raised my concerns about Burn Island fabrication. We are seeing that contracts are now being awarded to companies in Belgium in Spain and in the United Arab Emirates and yet we struggle here in Scotland to see contracts awarded. We talk a good game about a just transition but unless we can start to see the real investment going in that's needed and the jobs that are going to come for that then workers in the North Sea and workers in other areas are not going to be convinced. When I support the principle of what the Greens are saying in their motion we have to recognise that the jobs must come so the Government has to do more it has to have more ambition and it needs to be able to produce more jobs where we are in terms of the commitment to reducing petrol and diesel cars I'm not sure that the infrastructure is going in place we might not be building those cars can we be developing the software I just see a failure of strategy and that's what needs to happen a just transition protecting workers jobs John Scott to be full by Paul Wheelhouse Thank you I begin by declaring an interest as a farmer, a landowner and a member of NFUS I welcome this debate because this Parliament is today united and every member who has spoken today is in agreement about the need to tackle climate change and rising global temperatures as a member of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee we have in recent months all heard the evidence relating to rising global temperatures and the need for action to reduce or stop this temperature rise as soon as possible and in October we again heard from the IPCC of the need for urgent action by 2030 or within the next 12 years and Alison Johnson and Stuart Stevenson referred to the threat of coastal inundation from rising sea levels so, Presiding Officer knowing that we need to act the question is how and how quickly and this Parliament should be further encouraged by the fact that many young people across Scotland, the UK and the world who rightly want politicians to provide solutions to this problem and Marie Gougeon referred to this however it may be a fact that this generation is the first generation to recognise the problems of temperature rise and climate change but also the last generation that will be able to stop it if Stuart Stevenson's apocalyptic warnings come true Presiding Officer that is a big responsibility and the resolution to this will affect every man, woman and child in Scotland and we all individually begin to take responsibility for keeping global temperature rises and climate change behavioural change already mentioned by Claire Baker will become a new fact of life that we all have to aspire to and will require lifestyle change for most of us and remarkably it may well be our children and grandchildren that buy in most quickly to the need for behavioural change and show their parents and grandparents the way forward for example it may be children and young people who say to their parents rather than be driven to school in noxious gas producing vehicles so preventative spend must become the order of the day and particularly where more than one outcome can be delivered from the money spent for example creating more warm homes to an EPC band C rating by 2030 would deliver climate change benefits and health and mental health benefits as well encouraging bus use cycling and walking simultaneously delivers reductions in greenhouse gases and health benefits from taking more exercise and turning now to rural land use self evidently we have to encourage land managers land users and farmers to all play their part and certainly the farmers and land managers I speak to are keen to do this firstly farming and agriculture has to be understood and be part of the solution rather than being portrayed as a sector that's not prepared to put its shoulder to the wheel and Liam Kerr referred to this and that will begin by taking a different Liam McArthur I meant to say and that will begin by taking a different approach to measuring the optional good works that farmers can take and already have taken to act in an environmentally responsible way a whole farm or a state approach will be taken and credit given to farmers and land owners for planting trees to help meet government planting targets and deliver timber and carbon sequestration as well and Peter Chapman referred to this credit must be given to agriculture for moorland and peatland restoration and better soil management techniques as well as better livestock customary techniques as well as producing food and Stuart Stevenson drew attention to this and so Presiding Officer notwithstanding the very start of the need to address climate change there are many opportunities too which must be grasped with both hands to keep temperature rises to a minimum as well as deliver better transport services better landscape protection and enhancement as well as warmer homes and an increasing standard of living for us all Conservatives are willing to play their part in this future and await the advice from the climate change committee which will perhaps further show us how to do this thank you Mr Scott, I call Paul Wheelhouse to be called followed by Mark Ruskell The late governor of New York Mario Cuomo once said you campaign in poetry and you govern in prose and it's my role to be constrained by prose and perhaps time today but as a subject as impassioned as climate change will rightly move enlightened individuals like Greta Thunberg and indeed Stuart Stevenson as well who moved the previous bill to powerful calls for action we all owe a great deal to all those who have inspired action both on climate change and as Allison Johnson says climate justice as well this government in responding to the urgency has a duty to do so responsibly but also to chart a credible course to meet our legal responsibilities including environmental ones ensure a well managed transition and keep Scotland's lights on and ensure we have secure affordable energy for our heating and transport systems Scotland should continue to be a world leader in tackling climate change and the number of emissions since 1990 and equivalent to 70 per cent of our electricity demand can now be met from renewable sources despite key levers being out with our control and I look forward to Mr Rowley supporting the devolution of energy policy to the Scottish Parliament Scotland has a rapidly expanding network of publicly funded electric vehicle charging points however we know that our hard yards ahead on our journey to net zero emissions if the member can be brief what do you mean Minister for taking intervention does he not agree that the structural issues across the UK can be done very very well and that with a Labour Government in UK that that can happen we are determined to have a green jobs revolution I don't doubt the member's sincerity but I have doubts about whether there will be a Labour Government anytime soon I'm afraid however we know there are hard yards ahead on our journey to net zero emissions we support those parts of today's motion that recognise the urgency of the call to action and climate change and this government is meeting the urgency of the challenge head on our climate change bill makes us one of the first countries to propose strengthened statutory targets in response to the Paris agreement set to be the most ambitious targets of any country in the world for 2020 and 2030 as well as meaning Scotland would be carbon neutral by 2050 if our independent expert advisors the committee on climate change advise our credible pathways for Scotland then we will act on that advice Scotland's challenge like many European nations is that despite great progress on renewable electricity we remain 75 per cent reliant on hydrocarbons for overall energy needs and we cannot turn off that reliance overnight the IPC's special report recognises that oil and natural gas will continue to play a significant role in the global energy mix to 2050 and Scotland's energy strategy is credible and consistent with our existing climate targets and we plan to update it to reflect on those targets within the climate bill the strategy sets out a clear role for the oil and gas sector and supply chain in maintaining secure domestic sources of energy during transition but also in terms of transference of skills and knowledge into renewables in areas such as carbon capture, utilisation and storage and perhaps hydrogen as mentioned by Gillian Martin the sector and its 110,000 strong Scottish workforce and supply chain is a key component of our energy system and economy it will play a positive role in supporting the global low carbon transition and key industry voices have endorsed our energy strategy and are already embracing alternative energy North Sea oil and gas production is highly regulated with some of the most advanced and comparative least polluting methods in the world and maintaining efficient domestic production therefore potentially results in lower net global emissions than a scenario where we become dependent on hydrocarbon imports Presiding Officer, the Scottish Government's preferred policy position is that it does not support unconventional oil and gas development in Scotland and we remain committed to transparency and public engagement on this important issue we're entering the final stages of the policy making process we've repeatedly set out a preferred policy position will be subject to a strategic environmental assessment and business and regulatory impact assessment before any policy is adopted and that is a position that Parliament debated and endorsed on the 24th of October 2017 I have no time I'm afraid in the time available to me we consulted on the SEA environmental report preferred policy position and partial bria over eight weeks in late 2018 the responses received led us to form the view it would be helpful to provide some further clarification on a number of points raised in response to the consultation documents therefore as we set out yesterday we'll publish an addendum to the 2018 consultation documents inviting further responses we anticipate the addendum and related documents will be published for an eight week consultation following the Easter recess and responses then analysed our final policy on unconventional oil and gas will be adopted as soon as possible after this process is complete I'm conscious of the strongly held views on all sides of this important issue and of the calls for legislative ban on unconventional oil and gas from some colleagues in the chamber our view is that new legislation is not necessary to control unconventional oil and gas in Scotland and the adoption of a strong policy will provide appropriate and proportionate means to regulate such development will defer a decision on any planning application that comes before us until the policy making process is completed and I just want to finally emphasise two points of a made, Presiding Officer the first is that the practical effect of the moratorium introduced by this Government in 2015 is that no fracking or other unconventional oil and gas activity can take place in Scotland at this time and secondly the alternative approaches would also require statutory processes to be completed and to operate to appropriate timescales our approach is the only approach that allows us to move at pace towards confirming and adopting a robust final policy on unconventional oil and gas amendment sorry, Presiding Officer Thank you and I'll call on Mark Ruskell to conclude and Mr Ruskell you can go beyond five o'clock as the minister and a few others took a few extra moments there Excellent thank you, Presiding Officer I'd like to conclude this debate with my remarks about three areas which we've debated this afternoon one where we've got strong consensus another where we've got a majority view in this Parliament and we need to push Government over the line and another area where we've got strong consensus yet but Hope Springs eternal will get the rest of the chamber on board with the Greens at some point in the years to come the area where we've got strong consensus is around the importance of limiting global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees and it's significant that every single amendment and the motion itself that's being put forward here today commits us to that target of limiting temperature increases to 1.5 that's significant because it goes beyond the Paris agreement obviously pegged us to two degrees but also committed us globally to pursuing a limit of 1.5 degrees the motion today goes beyond that that is significant and I hope that that can now be reflected in the climate change bill at stage two but of course you know these targets these numbers mean very little to communities out there who are suffering the impacts of climate change and at lunchtime today a very eloquent young Malawian woman Josephine Zimba who talked very passionately one second Mr Ruskell can you just ask members to keep the conversations down Mr Ruskell thank you the young Malawian woman Josephine Zimba who talked very passionately about the impact of climate change in a world at only 0.7 degrees global warming she talked about the rural communities that have hard choices to make about what they use their scarce water resources for she talked about the impact of the economy of families having to make a choice about how they can raise the money from the growing of tomatoes and other products to raise enough revenue to send their children to school there are hard choices that communities around the world are facing because of this climate crisis and Stuart Stevenson, Alison Johnson and many other members pointed to that reality that's the reality that we need to deal with that's the reality of keeping the world to 1.5 degrees and the choices that we need to make let me turn to another area where we have a majority in this Parliament and that's to support the government and to deliver a legally watertight ban on fracking now I do believe that the legal opinion that was produced by Friends of the Earth Scotland at the weekend is a game changer it opens up the possibility of a legal ban on fracking the climate change bill or through the members bill of Claudia Beamish and I'd like to say to Claudia Beamish we respect the work that you've done on this whatever you choose to do with your members bill you will have the backing of the greens it remains an option that is on the table and needs to be taken seriously we need to get this legally watertight ban and my concern for the minister to consider here is that the longer that we have a temporary moratorium the longer that we have a temporary moratorium the more that that moratorium will be open to legal challenge there is uncertainty around this last year we saw the Scottish Government grant exploration licences an extension of exploration licences to the likes of Ineos those licences end in June this year what will be the government's response to that will they seek another extension to these licences there were great concerns from communities at the time about the planning decision on the application for coal bed methane development to earth that still lies undetermined despite being lodged in 2012 again potentially legally challengeable so we need to help to get the government over the line on this we need a legally watertight ban and I'm open to discussion with the minister and I'm sure members in other parties are as well about the progress or the lack of it that the government has made and about how we can ensure that we get this legally watertight ban can we turn very briefly to the last area where there perhaps is less consensus in this chamber and that is around the future of North Sea oil and gas it is very disappointing that all parties in this chamber with their amendments have sought to delete the line in the green amendments around maximum economic recovery much to have a huge amount of respect for Gillian Martin and Liam McArthur and others I think there's an element of scare mongering here the North Sea oil and gas industry needs to shut tomorrow but there is an uncomfortable truth here we do need to acknowledge that the majority of fossil fuels do need to be left in the ground we can't have an energy policy based on simply more of everything now real leadership globally on this comes from New Zealand and New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern who last year stated the government policy of New Zealand which was that there will be no further oil and gas exploration permits granted this is something which the New Zealand Government did not do lightly they are an oil and gas producer they have regions like Taranaki which I'm sure Gillian Martin would recognise as being similar, I don't have time unfortunately would recognise as being similar to Aberdeensia this is an economy that is building itself up on oil and gas but recognises that it has to make a transition now I'd like to finish presiding off some of the words because she said that transitions have to start somewhere unless we make decisions today that will essentially take effect in 30 or more years time then we run the risk of acting too late and causing abrupt shocks to communities and country they have taken this decision to not grant any more exploration licences precisely because they are worried about job certainty they are worried about security of energy supplies and of course they're worried about climate change as well and they are pursuing the kind of re-industrialisation that Alex Rowley and other members talked about we need to learn the lessons from the past we need to learn the lessons from the way that we treated the longannate workforce and prepare for this transition but having a backstop having a policy that recognises that maximum economic recovery is not compatible with climate change has to be the starting point it has to be the starting point for that transition to a low carbon economy of the future thank you very much and that concludes our debate on climate emergency we're going to move on to the next item of business which is a consideration of business motion 16579 in the name of Graham Day on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau setting out a business programme could I call on Graham Day to move this motion move Presiding Officer thank you very much and no one wishes to speak against the motion the question therefore is that motion 16579 be agreed are we agreed next item is consideration of six Parliamentary Bureau motions could I ask Graham Day on behalf of the Bureau to move motions 16580 to 16585 on approval of an SSI moved Presiding Officer thank you very much I'm going to turn now to decision time point of order Patrick Harvie thank you point of order under rule 7.3.1 which requires members to conduct themselves in a courteous and respectful manner as part of that respect that we're asked to show to one another you and the Deputy Presiding Officer regularly remind us the members who have taken part in debates should be there for the closing speeches can I ask whether it's in keeping with that rule and in keeping with the spirit in which you ask us to show that respect by being present for closing speeches is it in keeping for a member to turn their back on the chamber a member on the front bench to turn their back on a closing speech throughout almost the entirety of that speech does that show the appropriate respect in keeping with that rule I thank Mr Harvie for advance notice of the point of order Mr Harvie is right our standing orders our code of conduct and the Presiding Officer's guidance all emphasise the importance of courtesy and respect to be shown by members to each other at all times I'm not aware if the member to which Mr Harvie refers to whom Mr Harvie refers was being deliberately discourteous what I would suggest is that all members bear in mind that certainly turning you back on the chair is discourteous and I would recommend that all members be aware of whether or not their body language is signalling discourtesy to other members and while responding to that point of order I also come back to Mr Arthur who raised the point of order earlier the point of order earlier I've reviewed I believe he was making a political point and the point about the miscibility of amendments was dealt with by the Presiding Officer in the chair at the time so we can now move on to decision time and the first question this evening is there amendment 16554.4 in the name of Fiona Hyslop which seeks to amend motion 16554 in the name of Patrick Harvie on revoking article 50 be agreed are we all agreed we're not agreed we'll move to our division members may cast their votes now on amendment 16554.4 in the name of Fiona Hyslop is yes 89 no 28 there was one abstention the amendment is therefore agreed now the second question I would remind members that if the amendment is agreed then the amendment in the name of Neil Findlay will fall the question is that amendment 16554.1 in the name of Adam Tomkins which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Patrick Harvie be agreed are we all agreed we're not agreed we'll move to our division members may cast their votes now the result of the vote on amendment 16554.1 in the name of Adam Tomkins is yes 28 no 89 there was one abstention the next question is that amendment 16554.3 in the name of Neil Findlay which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Patrick Harvie be agreed are we all agreed we're not agreed we'll move to our vote members may cast their votes now the result of the vote on amendment 16554.3 in the name of Neil Findlay is yes 84 no 33 there was one abstention the amendment is therefore not agreed the amendment is therefore agreed yes 84 no 33 there was one abstention the amendment is agreed the next question is that motion 16554 in the name of Patrick Harvie as amended on revoking article 50 be agreed are we all agreed we're not agreed we'll move to our vote members may cast their votes now the result of the vote on motion 16554 in the name of Patrick Harvie 28 there was one abstention the motion as amended is therefore agreed now I would remind members that if the amendment in the name of Roseanna Cunningham is agreed then the amendment in the name of Maurice Golden and Claudia Beamish will fall the question is that amendment 16555.4 in the name of Roseanna Cunningham which seeks to amend motion 16555 in the name of Mark Ruskell on climate emergency be agreed we're not agreed we'll move to division members may cast their votes now the result of the vote on amendment 16555.4 in the name of Roseanna Cunningham is yes 58 no 59 there were no abstentions the amendment is therefore not agreed I would remind members that if the amendment in the name of Maurice Golden is agreed then the amendment in the name of Claudia Beamish will fall the question is that amendment 16555.1 in the name of Maurice Golden which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Mark Ruskell be agreed we're not agreed we'll move to a vote members may cast their votes now the result of the vote on amendment 16555.1 in the name of Maurice Golden is yes 28 no 90 there were no abstentions the amendment is therefore not agreed the next question is the amendment 16555.3 in the name of Claudia Beamish which seeks to amend motion in the name of Mark Ruskell be agreed we're not agreed we'll move to a division members may cast their votes now the result of the vote on amendment 16555.3 in the name of Claudia Beamish is yes 22 no 96 there were no abstentions the amendment is therefore not agreed the next question is that motion 16555 in the name of Mark Ruskell on climate emergency be agreed we're not agreed we'll move to a vote members may cast their votes now the result of the vote on motion 16555 in the name of Mark Ruskell is yes 6 no 111 there were no abstentions the motion is therefore not agreed the next question sorry I propose to ask a single question on the six parliamentary bureau motions does anyone object 16580 to 16585 in the name of Graham Day on behalf of the bureau be agreed are we agreed we are agreed and that concludes decision time we're going to move shortly to members business in the name of Shona Robison on the impact from celebrity endorsement of diet products but we'll just take a few moments for ministers and the member to change seats