 The next item of business is a debate on motion number 226 in the name of Roseanna Cunningham on taking Scotland forward. Environment, climate change and land reform. Can I invite members who wish to speak in this debate to press your request to speak buttons now? I call on the cabinet secretary, Roseanna Cunningham, in two seconds. We'll just take a few minutes to clear the chamber. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I now call on Roseanna Cunningham to speak to and to move the motion in her name. Thank you, Presiding Officer, for that couple of seconds grace period there. I expect the creation of this new cabinet post for environment, climate change and land reform took many by surprise. Having been minister for the environment between 2009 and 2011, I certainly did not expect to find myself restored to many of the policy areas that I dealt with then. It will be interesting to see what has changed and what has not. What has not changed is my enthusiasm for this job and what a job it is. It is not often that we are blessed with a sustained spell of balmy sunny weather here in Scotland, but I will take every credit for it. There is no doubt that it shows our natural environment at its very best—our land, our air, our seas, our climate, our flora and our fauna. There can be no doubt that our stunning natural environment is one of Scotland's most precious assets. It is how we own, manage, control, conserve, promote, support and develop all of those individually and collectively matter hugely to this Government's ambitions for our country. Put simply, they form the backbone upon which a fairer Scotland and a strong, sustainable low-carbon economy can and should be built. How we harness the bounty that they offer now and in the future will help to determine the success of our ambitions for Scotland and her people. I feel hugely privileged to be leading this Government's work on this portfolio, and I am proud of the work that has begun while I was Minister to develop the idea of the environment as a public good that we need to protect and grow. Our natural capital is a national asset, and like any other asset, we must ensure that it remains in good condition now and for the future. I say that that approach is exemplified in our stance on fracking. The Government is deeply sceptical about fracking, and we have ensured that no fracking can take place by putting in place a moratorium. We are also undertaking thorough research and plan to consult the people of Scotland fully on the issue so that any decision is based on both the evidence and public opinion. Mr Ruskell? Given that you will be aware, of course, of the research that is being undertaken at the moment into underground coal gasification, which I understand will report in the summer, does that mean that you will be able to make a decision on the most controversial of the fracking technologies this summer? We are undertaking a programme of research that is currently work being commissioned by this Government. The timescale for that is probably unlikely to be as early as this summer, but that will be a decision for my colleague the Minister for Energy, Paul Wheelhouse, who will close this debate. He may have more to say about some of those specific aspects. We are also protecting our water with Scottish water, having benefited from investment of £3.6 billion to deliver significant improvements to drinking water and wastewater services for people the length and breadth of Scotland. Scotland has established itself as a hydro-nation in recognition of our world class ability to look after and maximise the value of our abundant water resources. We need to build on that experience both domestically and globally by sharing our knowledge and expertise. We must also focus on tackling flooding and making Scotland more resilient to that challenge. We are all aware of the terrible impact of flooding, devastating to the individuals and communities that are affected and causing wider disruption. In December, SIPA published the first suite of flood risk strategies identifying the causes and consequences of flooding and key actions to reduce future risks. Next month, delivery plans will be published by local authorities in partnership with agencies, including Scottish Water, which will make a real difference to how we plan for future flooding. Of course, managing flood risk is not just about hard infrastructure. We need to invest in natural flood management too, for example through peatland restoration and tree planting. That enables us to achieve benefits both for communities prone to flooding and for biodiversity. Working with nature helps us to build resilience in our environment and our communities. Indeed, that ambition underpins the objectives of our second land use strategy, which was published on 22 March, which I intend to deliver on during this Parliament. Working with nature is also at the core of our commitment to continuing action on biodiversity protection and habitat restoration. Scotland provides the major part of the UK's contribution to Natura 2000, the EU's network of protected sites, with more than 15 per cent of our land area designated for a wealth of habitats and species. We remain a stronghold for a number of species, for example Atlantic salmon and freshwater power mussel. We have led the way in creating a statutory framework to prevent the introduction and spread of non-native species that are invasive, and we will continue to take action to protect our biodiversity in line with our biodiversity strategy. No natural asset presents a greater opportunity to fulfil our nation's potential than our seas. They are home to more than 6,000 species and also have around 25 per cent of the potential renewable energy resource in European waters. Unlocking that resource will help us to achieve our climate change targets and contribute to our ambitions for growing the rural economy. This Government published Scotland's first national marine plan last year, marking an important step in the implementation of national and European legislation. It seeks to balance the competing interests of different marine industries with protecting the marine environment. We aim to complete the marine protected area network over the next two years and to ensure that it is well managed. We must also manage and support land use and wildlife sustainably. The uplands are areas with challenges and, as discussed during the passage of the land reform act, we have hastened the 2016 review of deer management so that it will be completed by October. I can advise that I will consider fully the findings from Lord Bonomy's review of current measures to protect wild mammals such as foxes from being hunted with dogs. If they need to be improved and modernised, we will do that. I also intend to carry out a wider review of legislation and policy to prevent and address wildlife crime. Perhaps the biggest threat to our social and economic ambitions comes from climate change. That is why this Government has worked to make Scotland a world leader on climate change, and we have a record of which we can be proud. We are also ambitious to achieve more. I intend to work closely with ministerial colleagues to drive forward activity to meet our targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We are on track to exceed our 2020 target for a 42 per cent reduction from baseline levels. I look forward to presenting the next set of figures covering emissions in 2014 to Parliament after its release on 14 June. The historic agreement reached at the United Nations climate talks in Paris last year has, as we hoped and argued for, established certainty about the global low-carbon future and presented Scotland with an opportunity to continue to lead the world. As the First Minister announced last week, we will establish a new and more testing target for 2020 of reducing actual Scottish emissions by at least 50 per cent. We will look for support across the chamber for the actions that we will need to take to make that target. We also recognise the need to empower communities to adapt to meet future climate challenges. We will also continue to support communities across Scotland to reduce their carbon emissions through our climate challenge fund, targeting projects that deliver the greatest reduction in carbon emissions. Many of the projects supported by the climate challenge fund encourage the reuse of everyday items and extend their life through repair and maintenance. That is at the heart of our approach to create a more circular economy, where we aim to keep valuable materials and products in circulation for as long as possible, preventing waste and reducing emissions, while also creating business and career opportunities in the food, drink, construction, energy and remanufacturing sectors. I also intend to lead activity to meet our new target to reduce food waste by one-third by 2025, the first such target in Europe. If the minister's research says that fracking is in fact safe and the minister decides to go ahead with it, how will that help with the climate change targets? I think that I dealt with the situation in terms of the question that Mark Ruskell asked earlier. I have indicated what the Government's position is and the member is already aware that the minister for energy will be closing this debate and will pick up on some more of the very specific issues. I want to move on to land reform. Now, our new land reform act seeks to transform our relationship with the land while helping to create a fairer Scotland. As the First Minister set out last week, one of the key priorities in my portfolio will be to implement the act's key measures, including the preparation of a land rights and responsibilities statement. That must be about enshrining fairness to all parties into public policy, and my aim is for this statement to underpin future land reform. I will also prioritise establishing the Scottish Land Commission. The aim is to appoint commissioners by the end of this year with the Land Commission in operation on 1 April 2017. The Government is committed to making land ownership more transparent and inclusive through community ownership, and one of our priorities for Government is to introduce a mandatory public register of land owners' controlling interests. Presiding Officer, I announced today that consultation on that register will begin this summer. So that we can meet the very ambitious target of 1 million acres in community ownership by 2020, we will stimulate activity by increasing the Scottish land fund from £3 million to £10 million. Of course, wise and productive use of our land is not just a rural concern, but also an urban one. Too often, it is our most deprived communities and the lives of all who live there are most blighted by vacant and derelict land and poor quality living, working, leisure and play environments. That is why we will continue to support the central Scotland green network. Europe's largest green space project, 86 per cent of Scotland's severely deprived areas, are within the CSGN, which equates to over 600,000 residents living in areas that require dedicated support. Having outlined some of the key priorities in Government in my portfolio, it is clear that I will be busy in the coming years. I hope, however, that other members will join me in being busy. We can all agree that Scotland's stunning natural environment is one of our most precious assets. There is more that I hope that we can find to agree on in the lifetime of this Parliament, on how to use our country's natural capital wisely and productively, on how to strive for and achieve our world-leading ambitions on climate change, and on how to empower communities by reforming land ownership and management. I could not be more proud to be Scotland's first-ever Cabinet Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform. Those are issues that have long been close to my heart and, indeed, I think that I was making speeches in the House of Commons in the 1990s on land reform. Indeed, I see David Stewart nodding—he was probably there for some of those speeches then. I promise to listen to all voices, ideas and views and to seek consensus where it can be found, which is, I think, in many places. I also promise to drive forward our priorities for Government and to lead on the policies that I have outlined. This portfolio has a clear interest in Government policy on fracking, but the Minister for Business, Innovation and Energy leads on it and will therefore address the issue, as I indicated more fully in his closing speech. However, where we absolutely share a common interest is in our desire, our passion, our determination and drive to create a cleaner and greener country than when we came into Government. I hope that that is an interest that is shared by all members. I move the motion in my name. Maurice Golden to speak to and move amendment 226.1. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Today I would like to bring the circular economy to the heart of the debate around this portfolio area. I recognise the consensual sentiments from the Cabinet Secretary and we will see how long that lasts, hopefully, for longer than just this debate. For the Scottish Conservatives, the debate is about intertwining the needs of the economy and the environment. To paraphrase a quote from Bill Clinton, it is all about the economy. I thank Kezia Dugdale for lending me her book of quotes from last week, if you recall. We need to create more jobs, better jobs and jobs that survive the hollowing out of the labour market. For the Scottish Conservatives in a circular economy, the environment and climate change are paramount. We need economic growth, but we need that economic growth to be increasingly decoupled from any negative environmental externalities. We still do things that causally do not help the environment but make our life easier, better and recognise the technological advancements that we have made as a global community. We will still take flights to be inspired by foreign cultures or, if you are Alex Salmond, take a flight to inspire them with his culture. We will still be slaves to fashion, some more than others, Angela Constance, and we still buy more food, electrical items and products than we will ever need. We need to embrace the power of consumerism in order to ensure that there is an advantage for both the environment and the economy, and we need to make sensible government interventions to ensure that we both influence and change the market. We must deliver for this generation and for the next. The Scottish economy is stagnant, unemployment is increasing and output is flatlining. That is why we must allow fracking in order to create jobs and boost the economy. Fracking will generate up to £33 billion and create up to 64,000 jobs for the UK, according to Ernst and Young. Does the member not recognise that fracking is an unwelcome diversion from the potential that we have in renewables in this country? I appreciate that the member's Government is fixated on incredibly expensive nuclear power, but does he not think that he should be looking to the future, not backwards? Mr Golden. Respectfully, I did not make a reference to fracking in my amendment, but it is worthwhile dealing with that, given the other amendments that are on our desk in this debate, hence the reason for tackling it. I recognise that we need a mixture of energy generation going forward, but we must meet the needs of this generation and the next, and that means getting as much of that investment and those jobs to Scotland as we possibly can. On creating jobs, does the member and do the Scottish Conservatives condemn the decision by the UK Government to scrap the CCS project at Peterhead? We are on fracking at the moment, and I am sure that when my client discovers energy, then we will move on to that. Back to the matter at hand. I knew that the consensual sentiments expressed would not last for long, but I thought that we would get longer than four minutes and nine seconds in. For the three amigos, the left-wing cabal of the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party, I say to you that on fracking you are out of step with the scientific evidence and with what consumers and businesses want and need, and I think that you need to stop playing politics and start standing up for Scottish jobs. How you can look at the unemployed oil and gas workers in the eye while refusing them, a new job is beyond me. For the SNP, you need to make your mind up. You are less decisive than the Liberal Democrats. You need to listen to your own advice, and I quote from your own Scottish Government report, that technology exists to allow the safe extraction of such resources. You need to think about the long-term consequences of blocking an industry, which has so much potential to create jobs and increase the security of supply. Of course, fracking must be subject to local authority consent and the safest regulatory regime in the world. From a global climate change point of view, it is worse to have swathes of super tankers traversing across the world's ocean to deliver shale gas to Grangemouth when we could have that production in Scotland. Despite the talk of the Scottish Government, and despite talking up Scotland by the Scottish Government with respect to climate change—all of which I welcome—and despite the motion today, and despite the fact that Rosanna Cunningham said that she is incredibly proud while the Scottish Government has missed, for the last four years, its interim climate change targets. The Scottish Government has missed its own recycling rate target. In fact, the recycling rate in Scotland is the lowest in Britain, lower than England, and far behind Wales. We need Scotland to set targets that are realistic, ambitious and linked to action, and I would like to focus on some areas for action. We need to send the right market signal, so that means working with our finance sector to ensure that investment is on similar terms for circular economy business models and circular economy infrastructure as it is for conventional investments. We also need to move away from recycling rates as our only measure of success, because, after all, recycling is only the third best or third worst option on the waste hierarchy. We need to encourage waste prevention and reuse. We have a nationally accredited reuse brand in Revolve and an increasingly professional third sector, and we need to recognise those successes. An example of sending the wrong signal is where a local authority chooses to roll out an effective waste prevention campaign, something like Love Food Hate Waste. As a result of doing that, the food waste arising, collected at the householder's doorstep, is reduced. Therefore, the recycling rate is reduced by the local authority doing the very thing that we want them to do. We need to look at other mechanisms for analysing that. The use of a carbon metric, which has already been produced, or the development of a circular economy metric. We also need to represent design far more strongly than it is done in the making things last strategy. Politically, design sits with culture, but given that 80 per cent of the lifetime environmental impact of a product is decided at design stage, we need to intervene then. That means aligning cultural and industry funding and making sure that, while we produce the world's greatest designers, they are retained here in Scotland. One solution would be to create a design hub that links academia with industry and ensures that we are engaging in product design, business model and system design. Someone tangentially in terms of land reform, we must ensure that ownership is not the focus of the debate and, rather, we use land more sustainably for the common good. Therefore, we need to create a circular economy for Scotland. We need to ensure that we make the needs of this generation and the next. Parliament, I have the pleasure of moving the amendment to the motion in my name. Thank you, Mr Golden. I now call on Claudia Beamish to speak to and move amendment 226.4. Can I start by congratulating the cabinet secretary on her new role and recognising the wealth of her experience? To all those in other parties with responsibilities in this portfolio, I look forward to working with them. I want to also pay tribute to Sarah Boyack, who worked for 17 years in this Parliament on sustainable development and so much more. Her understanding of and commitment to renewable energy was ahead of its time and her tiring intellect, in my view, and the grasp of planning and structural issues enabled her to be a fine minister and a shadow cabinet secretary. I am sure that we all wish her well. Climate change and all environmental issues are an incredible responsibility and bring many opportunities. I am pleased to hear that the cabinet secretary stressed that she will work with those responsible for other portfolios—transport, energy, housing and agriculture—if we are to forge action and legislation that protects future generations while creating new jobs and a better quality of life now. I welcome the promotion of climate change to cabinet level. The changes that are needed as we shift towards a low-carbon economy are not always easy to make for any political party. While I always hold the Scottish Government to account where necessary, I will work with the Government wherever possible. An example of working with them in the last Parliament was when Alison Johnston, Jim Eadie and I, as co-conveners of the cross-party group for cycling, were able to work with Derek Mackay, then transport minister, to bring about the award for an on-road segregated cycling scheme, which we had thought up and which was developed as community links plus. However, SNP plans to slash air passenger duty are both fiscally and environmentally irresponsible, taking millions of pounds out of public services. Today, with our amendment, Scottish Labour asked the Scottish Government to support a ban on fracking and unconventional gas extraction. The science is clear to meet our climate change goals and protect our environment. We must say no to fracking. Labour is clear—no ifs, no buts and no fracking. Methane has been upgraded as a greenhouse gas for good reason. It traps up to 100 times more heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide within a five-year period. The last thing Scotland needs as we shift towards a low-carbon economy is what some have called a transition fuel. Fracking is just another fossil fuel, and we do not need it. Not at the moment, I want to develop this argument. This Government needs to make clear that it will not issue any licenses for fracking under the new powers coming from Westminster. Labour's amendment provides members with a very clear choice. The divisions in this chamber are pretty clear up to a point. Labour, the Greens and Lib Dems are opposed to fracking. On the other side, as we have heard, are the Tories. It is less clear when we look at the SNP. In the run-up to last year's general election, some SNP candidates could not shout loudly enough about their opposition to fracking. Yet the SNP Government refuses to ban it—not at the moment. Nicola Sturgeon claims to be a fracking skeptic, but it will not go further than a temporary freeze. Today, we will see once and for all which side of the fracking debate the SNP members are really on. If they vote against our amendment, then they are effectively saying to people that they want to keep the door open to the possibility of fracking. Only a vote on an outright ban will show beyond all doubt that the Parliament rejects fracking in Scotland. To the SNP, I say this—you have a choice. It is a choice between working with left-centre parties such as Labour to ban fracking or working with the Tories to push through fracking in Scotland. Will the Scottish Government support our call for a ban or not? I am not going to take interventions because I am very short of time. I am sure that the new minister for energy will be highlighting the issues from the SNP perspective when it comes to the closing remarks. There are also many challenged communities on the coal belt in Scotland that literally face untackled opencast restoration. This is an environmental justice issue that I ask the cabinet secretary to address with urgency. We need to further develop renewable energy ownership models, community, co-operative and public, to both generate and supply our energy. In 2014, 845,000 households were living in fuel poverty in half and half of all pensioners. The SNP was indeed late with its plans for a warm home bill during the election campaign. The cabinet secretary now needs to show how Scotland will ramp up the adoption of affordable district and community renewable heating. I am sure that she will have much support across the chamber on those issues. Marine renewables hold immense possibilities for the future and transferable skills are essential. I ask the cabinet secretary to work closely with the new cabinet secretary for education on both initial and in-job skills development. More broadly, environmental regulation must be right to enable sustainable development by land, sea and air. The implementation of the national marine plan and the marine protected areas will be fundamental to our seas and those who depend on them for their livelihoods now and in the future. In this context, perhaps less well known than other aspects of his work, I want to pay respect to Richard Lockhead for his work on protecting the marine environment. Biodiversity across our environment must be addressed and support will be needed for local authorities and communities. Support for behaviour change will be essential. Research budgets must be protected for flooding, for instance, as discussed by the cabinet secretary. Maintaining a robust interface and further developing partnerships with NGOs and businesses will be vital, as well as with local authorities. I want here to recognise the contribution of Aileen McLeod to the land reform process. Now that we have the new land reform act, the development of the land rights and responsibility statement, the role of the commission and the regulations themselves will be fundamental to progress and Scottish Labour stands ready to contribute to this. I move the amendment in my name. Andy Wightman to speak to and move amendment 226.3, Mr Wightman. Can I first of all congratulate Roseanna Cunningham on her appointment as Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform? It is a great honour and privilege to be elected to this Parliament and I want to thank all the parliamentary staff who made all of us new members very welcome in our first few days. I also want to thank my colleagues in the Scottish Green Party who have given me incredible support and encouragement over the years. I want to thank also my family for their support and, most importantly, I want to thank the voters of Lothian for putting their trust in Alison Johnson and myself. I was particularly grateful to a veteran of this place who gave me the following three pieces of advice shortly after I arrived. First of all, be yourself and stick to your principles. Second, expect surprises every day. That is certainly true. For example, after decision time last Thursday, I returned to my office to find a parcel neatly wrapped on my desk and I opened it and discovered this rather wonderful green knitted woolly hat in it—a gift from former MSP Mary Scanlon, which will be my first declaration of gifts in my register of interests. I know that I have many admirers on the Tory benches and you do not need to—particularly Mary's successors on the Highland list—to wait until you retire before you give me any more gifts. The third piece of advice, and perhaps the most significant one, was to remember why you are here and who put you here—all good advice, I suggest. This Parliament has huge potential to transform the lives of people in Scotland. In relation to the challenges of climate change, the solutions increasingly lie in areas such as energy demand reduction in housing and transport, active travel, urban planning and a substantial programme of reforestation and ecological restoration. Transport is the sector that has seen least progress in reducing carbon emissions. A stock climate chaos point out in its briefing today, the focus on the use of the private car privileges men and higher earners disproportionately. The new cabinet secretary will be faced with formidable vested interests in addressing some of the questions that she will be put. She will need all her experience and political skills to persuade her cabinet colleagues that they must work together to achieve such ambitions. She also has some critical decisions to take in the short term on topics such as wildlife crime and the future of beavers. That brings me to land reform. I first met Roseanna Cunningham in the 1990s when she was an MP and we were both part of a group campaigning against the abandonment of tenant farms by the owner of Blackford estate, owned then as now by a company registered in the secrecy jurisdiction of Liechtenstein. Land reform is about the redistribution of legal, political and economic power over land and is a process at the heart of questions over the affordability of housing, the availability of land for housing, wealth inequality, food security, economic development, equitable taxation and how to govern public land, including crown land. That is why, in the Scottish Greens manifesto, we outlined 18 distinct measures that could be taken to democratise land and ensure that it is owned and used in the public interest and for the common good. That is why I believe that there must be a further land reform act in this Parliament and I look forward to discussions with others on how such an act might be framed. Finally, as this is my first speech, I just want to highlight two related issues that I personally believe are vital to address over the next five years. The first of those is inequality. In the decade 1997 to 2007, the share of total income among Scottish taxpayers that has gone to the top 1 per cent of earners has increased by more than all of the rest of the 99 per cent combined. Scottish Greens did not propose a 60 per cent top rate of tax because it would yield vast amounts of tax revenue. We proposed it because it would help to reduce income inequality by curbing excessive pay demands and by diverting funds to employ more people on more modest salaries. Inequality is also a product of the way in which land and property is taxed. A week ago today, the First Minister talked about the clear progressive majority in this Parliament and how it could be harnessed to oppose what she described as regressive Westminster policies. What more regressive policy, however, is there than the council tax? Designed in Westminster by a Tory Government, it remains the most regressive of all taxes in the UK and it sees those in the lowest value properties pay far more both in relation to the value of their property and as a percentage of their income than those who live in the most expensive properties. That regressivity remains even after the tinkering proposed by both the SNP and the Tories. We will continue to make the case for the abolition of council tax and its replacement with a modern progressive system that provides a predictable source of finance for local government, stabilises and reduces house prices and helps growing numbers of young people afford a home while reducing their exposure to volatile interest payments. The second issue that I want to highlight and will be highlighting continually over the course of this Parliament is democracy itself. Last Thursday, Fiona Hyslop claimed that Scotland has, and I quote, one of the most politically engaged electorates in Europe. But 45 per cent of this electorate chose not to vote on 5 May. Why did so many people see no point in expressing any preference as to who should represent them for the next five years? If this engaged electorate cares little about Holyrood, it cares even less about local democracy, which is in a far more fragile state with turnouts that should shame us all. Deputy Presiding Officer, if people do not vote, political parties will increasingly present manifestos that favour those who do vote—the rich, the property and the elderly. Those who need most effective representation—the young, the poor and the vulnerable—will find themselves increasingly marginalised. The solutions to climate change, inequality and voter apathy can only be addressed by a radical redistribution of economic and political power for the benefit of all and for the planet as a whole. Deputy Presiding Officer, I look forward very much to the next five years and to the bold and transformative measures that we in the Scottish Greens believe are possible and vital. Our amendment outlines that boldness, that clarity and that determination, and I move the amendment in my name. On that note, we now move to the open debate and it will be up to six minutes. Please, time is tight. I call Angus MacDonald to be followed by John Scott. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and congratulations on your appointment. Congratulations to the Cabinet Secretary on her new remit. Firstly, I am pleased that my first contribution in the chamber in this session is on a number of subjects that I care passionately about. The climate change, biodiversity, land reform and the circular economy, among others, are all issues that have been closely involved with in the previous session of Parliament. I have been a member of the former Racky Committee for four years and I am a member of the PLO to former Cabinet Secretary Richard Lochhead and Environment Ministers Aileen McLeod and Paul Wheelhouse before her. It was a privilege. Despite the many challenges that come with the rural affairs, climate change, food and environment brief, as we have seen in the past few weeks and months. The decision to keep responsibility for climate change at senior cabinet secretary level is very welcome indeed and will allow the Scottish Government to focus even more strongly on the issue facing us. Some critics would have us believe that Scotland has been failing on climate change, especially the repetitive mantra that we hear from opposition parties that we have missed our targets. I am sure that we will be hearing more of that today. However, the fact is that there has been a 38 per cent reduction in emissions since 1990 and figures show that Scotland continues to outperform the rest of the UK as a whole. No, I am sorry, I have no time. I have a lot to get in. Let us not forget that, if it had not been for successive increases to the baseline since the targets were established, Scotland would have met and exceeded our target last year and three previous years. It is extremely disingenuous of Opposition members to try to pin the blame on the Government when they know or should know that we are on track to reduce our carbon emissions by 42 per cent by 2020. The latest stats show that Scotland has already reduced our emissions by 38 per cent and the stats for 2015 will come out later this month. Given our direction of travel, it would not surprise me if it showed that we met our 42 per cent target five years early. However, even if it did not, it is now clear that Scotland will meet that world leading target before the target date of 2020, which has prompted the increase in the target to 50 per cent. Members may have noticed in March that Christina Figuera is head of the United Nations Federation on Climate Change, visiting Scotland. During her visit, she met the First Minister and former Cabinet Secretary for the Environment, Richard Lochhead, to discuss Scotland's leadership in tackling climate change. She also spoke publicly about what Scotland is achieving. On BBC Scotland, she said that Scotland was exemplary, impressive and very committed on climate change and renewable energy. She also said that Scotland's leadership on climate change was very important and that she recognised our huge political commitment to continue that leadership. So, whilst you would expect me to praise Scotland's role in this area, you cannot get any higher praise and Scotland's ambition and action than we have received in early spring from the head of climate change at the UN and one of the key architects of the historic deal at the Paris climate talks hell last December, which both the First Minister and the former environment minister, Eileen McLeod, attended. There is no doubt that Scotland's 42 per cent target was a stretched target and it certainly has not been easy, but the progress that we have made shows excellent work undertaken by successive SNP climate change ministers. Prioritising climate change at cabinet secretary level highlights how committed this Government is in continuing to lead the world by example and shows the priority that this party and our Government gives to tackling climate change, including the manifesto commitment to bring forward a new climate change bill and a new target to reduce emissions by more than 50 per cent by 2020. There is no doubt to reach our goals on climate change when we need consensus in this chamber. Consensus has been shown before with the development of the climate challenge fund, which continues to deliver and support excellent initiatives the length and breadth of the country. £75 million is given to 873 projects in 588 communities, to be exact. In addition, I was delighted that the First Minister used her visit to the Paris climate talks to announce a doubling of the Scottish Government's climate justice fund to £3 million per annum for the next four years. Those funds are used to help the world's poorest communities in countries such as Malawi and Zambia adapt to climate change. It is an initiative that has been praised by former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and it shows that our work on climate change is not just about reducing emissions here, but also about helping others who are affected by our climate change. Scotland continues to set a good example on climate change and continues our international leadership. As my time is running out, I would like to briefly touch on fracking, an issue that affects my Falkirk East constituency. I am not sure whether the Labour and the Green parties have noticed, but there is no fracking going on in Scotland. It is fair to say that the majority of my colleagues in the SNP are deeply skeptical about fracking and have ensured that no fracking or underground coal gasification can take place in Scotland by putting in place two separate moratoriums. We have also put in place a very thorough research programme and plans for a public consultation so that any decision is based on evidence and public opinion. Unless it can be proven beyond doubt that there is no risk to health, communities or the environment, there will be no fracking or UCG extraction in Scotland. You cannot get any clearer than that. That is a much more sensible approach to take than Labour's cynical attempts to grab headlines by calling for an immediate outright ban, which could result in a judicial review— The member has only got a few seconds left. It could result in a judicial review with a judge deciding whether fracking goes ahead in Scotland or not. That is a decision that must be taken by Scotland's politicians and no-one else. Our cautious approach is a way forward, which clearly has a backing of the people of Scotland and, more importantly, for me, the people of Falkirk East. Presiding Officer, can I begin by welcoming Roseanna Cunningham to her new post as cabinet secretary and declaring an interest as a farmer and owner of land? Presiding Officer, today we set a direction of travel and a variety of subjects for each party for the next five years, and today we have heard the cabinet secretary outline the Government's position in environment, climate change and land reform. We note that the Government has missed its climate change targets for the last four years, and in response to criticism on those missing targets and how they are going to be met in the future, it can only be described as brave to announce that the targets will be increased, although, of course, we support the principle. On land reform as well, which caused so much dismay in hand-ringing in the last session of Parliament and which may yet be challenged in law, the cabinet secretary has announced, as of the Greens, that more land reform is necessary rather than raining back on those ambitions, which will again create further division and dissent where none existed before in rural Scotland. However, my colleagues will deal with those matters later, and I want to devote my time today to fracking an issue in everyone's lips, if not necessarily one in which we are all likely to agree. As expected, the Labour Party of today categorically set their face against this proposal as a way of creating jobs in Scotland and building on and using the expedience of the North Sea oil industry specialist to deliver a much needed boost to our economy and our jobs in Scotland. That is a great pity, as the UK now imports approximately 70 per cent of its gas supplies, whereas, only a decade ago, we were a net exporter of gas, and there is a huge need to address that gap. My party, the Scottish Conservative—no, thank you at the moment—my party, the Scottish Conservative and Unionist, see it as our job to not just persuade the Labour Party but also persuade the Scottish Government and their advisers that this is one of the ways forward for the Scottish economy and using our own natural resources to do so. The UK's 50 years of experience in delivering and regulating the safe delivery of onshore oil and gas should and would ensure that fracking is conducted safely. Indeed, the Scottish Government's own independent expert scientific panel concluded that experience of onshore drilling elsewhere in the UK and of the largely safe routine management of gas throughout urban Scotland suggest that none of the particular issues raised by unconventional gas developments would be insurmountable given adequate planning and effective regulation. The benefits could be huge. As Maurice Golden has said, the Ernst and Young report of 2014 found that up to 64,000 jobs could be created in the UK with many of those in Scotland. Jobs at Ineos at Grainsmouth would not just be safeguarded but would be built upon. The need to tanker gas across the Atlantic from the shale gas fields of North America would be reduced and then removed, and our Scottish economy would benefit. Jobs lost in the North Sea could be replaced and in a far safer environment if this industry could be developed properly and sensibly and the opportunity to do so now exists, with powers coming to us under the new Scotland act, a power that should be passed to each local authority in planning terms. Today, the Scottish Conservatives urge the SNP Scottish Government to be brave and practical and not to be brave in a romantic brave heart sense, seeking to preserve in myth and song and government a history that was in reality disputingly poor and short-lived for the many generations of Scots who experienced it my forebears among them. Instead of being afraid to take bold and practical steps to reduce our growing dependence on imported energy, we must grasp the opportunity that fracking presents with both hands. As future generations will ask us, why were we so afraid if we do not? Because this is not a new industry. The pioneering work has been done elsewhere, with mistakes having been learnt from. Tumidity, dressed up as caution, must not characterise this Scottish Government as it characterised the last. The Labour Party is right when it says that the Government needs to be bold, and there we can make common cause with them. We can also take reassurance from our scientific communities who provide the evidence to allow us to say that this is a way forward to once again grow our economy and recreate jobs. We must move away from the mindset that is growing in Scotland that doing anything new is too risky. Had such a mindset existed in recent times, we would not have built the railways that our Victorian ancestors built. The Greens, now such an influence in the SNP Government, would have kept every ton of coal of our mind in Scotland firmly in the ground. Had the current mindset existed in the past, our great steel and shipbuilding industries would not have emerged. Aeroplanes would not have flown, and nuclear power would not have been harnessed, because the Governments of this Parliament have been so risk of errors. I must say a lot. We must indeed restore the can-do attitude that Scotland was once so famous for. Today, I urge the Scottish Government to take a big step to encourage investment and invention back to Scotland by saying that Scotland is prepared to take part in the use of 21st century technology. Today, I urge the Scottish Government to acknowledge and encourage our scientific and business community rather than drive them away with policy proposals not based on evidence or science but rather on prejudice and timidity. Finally, I would say that it is time to be bold and practical too with GM crops, but I will leave that for another day as I still hope to get out of the building in one piece. I can see you enjoying your liberation from the chair just a little too much, Mr Scott. I call Graham Day to be followed by Lane Smith. Mr Day, please. Let me begin by welcoming the fact that we now have a Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform. Along with stakeholders, I think that this represents a welcome statement of intent on the part of the Scottish Government. I also, as others have, welcome Rosanna Cunningham to the post and wish her luck in getting to grips with a huge range of portfolio responsibilities that go with it. Given the remit of the portfolio, I do not intend my contribution to be a whistle-stop tour. Even a whistle-stop tour of the Cabinet Secretary's remit would take considerably longer than six minutes. Rather, I want to focus in detail on one specific and significant area, but before I do that, I just briefly want to reference the issue of fracking. Can I draw to the attention of members a briefing on the matter of a ban produced by Friends of the Earth Scotland? In a statement contained within it, it says, and I quote, "...the Scottish Government would potentially be open to legal challenge if it were to put a ban in place before completing the research programme and holding the promised public consultation." That is not the Government saying that. That is an independent organisation that does not want Scotland to go anywhere near exploiting unconventional gas. The moratorium is in place, and like Friends of the Earth, I believe that a full, thorough assessment of the public health, climate and environmental impacts of going down this route will lead in due course to an outright and watertight ban. Let us focus on issues more immediately before us. As I touched on in the debate last week, the coming year and perhaps well beyond that, we will see the new environment, climate change and land reform committee of the Parliament. Tasked with scrutinising, I presume many, if not all, of the 40-plus pieces of secondary legislation that flowed from the Land Reform Scotland Act. Andy Wightman talked to another Land Reform Bill. There might be a need for that, but we still, effectively, have the last one to complete. There are multiple aspects of the primary legislation, transparency of land ownership, deer management, house sporting rates, relief will work, the development of the land rights and responsibility statement to name but four, still to be fleshed out as we continue the land reform journey in this new Parliament. It is important that we get these right. The development of the register of ownership, for example. Although it must be delivered in a way that sits within the competency of this Parliament and meets any ECHR test, it must also push the envelope. Sitting alongside and interlinked with the land rights and responsibility statement is the refreshed land use strategy covering the period 2016 to 2021. It is an impressive document, one that points the way forward in a reasoned and entirely sensible manner. I look forward to seeing its roll-out. I particularly welcome the plans within it to establish regional land use partnerships and, from that, potentially regional land use frameworks. My only question around this is how they might operate in practice. If they are to work and work effectively in the interests of biodiversity in our natural environment and to help to tackle the impacts of climate change, we must ensure that all relevant voices are heard in this and not just the loudest. There is a danger, I fear—I hope that I am wrong—that well-resourced organisations such as the RSPB or the NFUS could dominate the debate and therefore the development of those strategies. Those are other stakeholders of every right to voice their opinions. Agriculture in particular, undoubtedly must have a say, but we have seen in the very recent past how self-interest or entrenched positions can threaten to override the greater good, impacting on the delivery of balanced land use. During the Iraqi committee consideration of the cap in the last Parliament, the NFUS told members that with a reduced pot to distribute, the Scottish Government should rebalance spend away from forestry and delivery on our planting targets. We were told that farmers could provide just as many environmental benefits as tree planting could, although no substantive detail on how that would be achieved could be produced. That was from an organisation that, as members of the Woodland Expansion Advisory Group, had backed the tree planting target that it recommended and, in fact, issued a press release welcoming the Scottish Government accepting all 20 recommendations of the group, the first of which related to the delivery of that planting target. During the same parliamentary process, we had the RSPB tell us that we ought to be doing away with direct support for farming. That is from an organisation that itself pockets millions in cap-related subsidy. Can you imagine the impact both economically and environmentally in terms of Scotland's farmers not receiving such financial support? I make those points, not as a dig at the NFUS or the RSPB, but to highlight the dangers of self-interest and perhaps defensive positions being taken. If we are to move towards more sustainable land use, then we will only do so in genuine partnership, recognising that different approaches are now called for. Of course, the role and remit of the land use partnership will be influenced by the issues and challenges faced in that particular location and relevant expertise will be needed. I suspect, for example, that the farming community in many cases would have more to bring to the table than, say, the local authority. The principles of sustainable land use that are outlined in the strategy also make it quite clear that where land is highly suitable for a primary use, be it food production, flood management, water catchment management or carbon storage, then that should be recognised in decision making, so common sense foundations will be in place. However, we also need local communities to be involved in the voice of young people heard. Apart from anything else, a genuinely open forum has the potential to improve and widen the understanding among the general public of, for example, agriculture and the undoubted challenges that are faced by that industry. The rationale for and the potential of land use frameworks are very clear. Better assessing how changes in land use and land management can impact on a broad range of ecosystem services. Bringing stakeholders together to improve understanding about competing interests, involving local communities and decisions about their local area, providing context and wider input to a range of local authority responsibilities, and helping to target the use of finite financial resources to where they have most impact. Those are more than laudable ambitions. They are entirely necessary moves if we are to make better use of Scotland's land and respond to climate change. With regard to bringing stakeholders together— No, my friend, we cannot regard stakeholders. Sorry, we are tight for time. I will make the point that they have resonance beyond just a land use strategy. Thank you very much. We are tight for time. I do not want every member at the end to find that they do not get six minutes. Elaine Smith, followed by Kate Forbes. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I, like others, welcome the cabinet secretary to her post this afternoon. I am pleased to be given the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I want to specifically address the issue of fracking as outlined in Labour's amendment, particularly in relation to the environment and empowering communities. It is something that is really important to many people in my community, so much so that they organise the hostings on it in Christon during the election campaign. However, the only candidates who turned up to discuss it were myself for Labour and John Wilson of the Greens. I digress slightly at this point to say that, although John Wilson and I were rival candidates over the years, John Wilson was a conscientious committee's parliamentarian, who is no longer a member of this Parliament. I wish John Wilson all the very best for the future. Since no one from the SNP turned up at the hostings to debate fracking, it is particularly important that we have the issue raised here today, and I await with interest that the cabinet secretary is summing up on the matter. When I was growing up, our family holidays were in Blackpool, and that was just like many other working-class families in central Scotland. I have been back there a few times since, with my wider family and our own children, to let them experience what our holidays were like. When I heard that Blackpool had been hit by an earthquake, I was particularly shocked and I empathised with local people. It was on 1 April 2011 that there were reports of a magnitude 2.3 earthquake, and it was no April full. It was followed by a magnitude 1.5 quake on 27 May, and both occurred at the Priesthall drilling site near Blackpool, where quadriller resources were fracking to extract gas from the shale bed. Quadriller pulled out of their Blackpool operation in 2013, but the threat of fracking remains for all of us. It is not just earth tremors that are the worry, although across central Scotland, when there are so many mines below us, that is a big worry with the dangers of subsidence. Concerns based on experiences in America also include the worry that potentially carcinogenic chemicals could escape during the process and find their way into drinking water sources. Further, the contamination of irrigation water polluting the environment would mean that food supplies could potentially be affected, and that is something that would affect everyone. As well as immediate risk at fracking poses, there are wider implications for our attempts to tackle climate change, as I raised in my intervention with the minister earlier. Friends of the earth have highlighted that and said that the impact of fugitive emissions through leakage, in addition to flaring and venting, has led scientists to argue that the climate impact of unconventional gas is greater than that of conventional natural gas, and some to suggest that it could be as bad as coal, goes on to say. Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Those concerns have more recently been sharpened, I think, in our minds because of the decision in Rydale in North Yorkshire, but the county council voted to allow fracking to go ahead in the area, despite the overwhelming opposition of local residents. It seems then that elected members there did not represent the wishes of their constituents, and they caved in instead to the interests of the fracking company. I think that it is difficult at the moment to know where some of our elected members in Scotland stand on this issue. A moratorium is temporary, it is not a ban. Many of the meetings about fracking have taken place behind closed doors, with media reports telling us that Scottish ministers were reassuring big businesses such as INEAS that they were not opposed to it. I think that it is also curious that the Scottish Government commissioned research on how to clean up after fracking. Why would you do that, cabinet secretary? Further, the fact that a motion calling for an outright ban in fracking failed certainly briefly, please? I am grateful to the member for taking the intervention. If you are looking at the life cycle costs and benefits and the potential damage to the environment, you have to look at all parts of the process. It is entirely logical to look at decommissioning as part of that exercise. I thank you for that response personally. I would actually think that it is not logical to look at something if you have no intentions of doing it. I also think that it is interesting that a motion calling for an outright ban in fracking did not get through at the SNP's spring conference, and that adds to concerns about what side the SNP are on, big business or communities. There is a particularly concern that now that the election is over, the moratorium is going to cease, and companies will be given the go-ahead for drilling, particularly if the research that has been undertaken somehow claims that it is safe. Although the SNP has been reticent to reveal the nature of conversations with drilling companies, any of us have had no problems in publicly advocating for our land to be fracked, and they have advertised for senior staff to investigate and progress the process in central Scotland. While big companies continue to press for fracking and while the SNP continues to avoid the difficult decisions and sit on the fence, community groups and local residents continue to organise and mobilise against fracking. In 2012, I was involved with a campaign to stop fracking in Moody's Burn, and at that time I was contacted by a vast number of constituents who were concerned. The community, led by the local Labour Party branch, fought against these plans and I expressed my concern on behalf of my constituents to the landowner and the fracking company, and thankfully at that time people's power prevailed and the plans did not go ahead. In the recent newspaper article, Mary Black MP summed up well the proven risks and dangers of fracking, but rather than making it clear that the SNP Government has the power to block fracking, bizarrely she implied that Westminster might overrule the Scottish Government. I think that we need some straight answers from the minister. To conclude, let's be clear that we have the devolved powers to stop fracking in Scotland. The only thing that is lacking is the political will. What happened in Blackpool should be a lesson on the dangers of fracking, and I hope that the minister can clearly tell us today that Scotland is going to be a fracked free zone. It's banned in France, it's banned in New York, it's banned in other places. How much research do we need to show that it is dangerous? Scottish Labour is not sceptical. We're quite clear in our policy. No ifs, no buts, no fracking. Good to have you back with your voice again as well, Mrs Smith. I now move on to Kate Forbes. We're followed by Michael Russell. Ms Forbes, please. Land has often been just as much about symbols of power as it's been about the ground beneath our feet. Sadly, I think that the debate on land reform has often had to feature on resolving tensions, tensions between owners and tenants, food producers and consumers, access and borders. Today, I want to talk about the potential that land has for creating entrepreneurial ambition and aspiration, both for individuals, family units and communities. To that end, it's crucial that more Scots have a stake and a say in land use. That's arguably just as important as Scots having a stake and a say in the Government of our country through regular elections, because democracy empowers a nation. It's an incubator of ambition, of talent and of economic activity. Ambition creates the economic opportunities that boost jobs, raise income levels and provide the state with the revenue to plough back into our public services. The land reform review group wrote that the concentration of private ownership in rural Scotland can often stifle entrepreneurial ambition, local aspirations and the ability to address identified community need. I want to talk about ambition and community need in the Highlands. If I can give an exciting example from my own constituency of what communities can do with ambition and land, the Glen Weavis distillery in Dingwall will be the world's first community-owned distillery and the second biggest community shares project in the UK. It has the potential to put that metropolis of Dingwall firmly on the map. Shares have been on sale since mid-April, and the project itself is halfway to meeting its finance target of £1.5 million. If additional funds are raised, there are plans to build a community centre with a cinema and exhibition centre. It will be empowered entirely by renewable energy, which is no surprise as the founder, the flying farmer John McKenzie, was instrumental in establishing Dingwall's first community-owned wind turbine. I encourage members to check it out. Projects such as this are only possible when entrepreneurial thinkers have the ambition, the get-up-and-go determination and access to that all-important commodity, land. Land reform is not the only goal in and of itself. It is one very important means by which we empower people to turn dreams into reality and fix many of the problems faced by rural and urban communities. Take housing, for example. I know economists, but I do know that prices are regulated by the ebb and flow of supply and demand. In the Highlands, the price of land due to restricted availability and high demand and the subsequent price of housing is above the Scottish average. If you compare that to the average household income in the Highlands, which is beneath the Scottish average, you start to get a picture of the pressures on families in the Highlands to get on the housing ladder. Of course, there are additional pressures with more and more holiday homes, but I think that the Highland housing market could probably manage the high numbers of holiday homes better if there was more available and therefore cheaper land. Community ownership and buy-outs are not the only answer, though I support the Scottish Government's target of 1 million acres of community ownership by 2020. However, where a community can identify a need, like affordable housing, and purchase land, they can meet that need, like we have seen the Helmsdale and District Development Trust doing, who are building affordable houses for their community. Yes, we need jobs and businesses, but if we do not have homes for lack of available land, then it does not matter how healthy our economy is and how many new jobs are created, our people need somewhere to stay and housing is a pressing need in urban areas, too. I am not given to romanticise historical narratives, but in a speech on land reform, I have to finish by mentioning the historical context because it is very pertinent to my constituency of Skye, Lachaber and Badenoch, because land reform started in the Highlands, sparked by tenants' regular opposition to destructive decisions. The battle of the graze on Skye and numerous other local conflicts were about economic security, economic opportunities, population retention and wise stewardship of a very finite resource, and that is still what the debate on land reform should be about. Thank you very much. Michael Russell, who is followed by Alexander Burnett. Mr Russell, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I too welcome the cabinet secretary to her role, a sort of souped-up version of the role that she did as environment minister from early February 2009. I remember the date because that was when I stopped doing it and we agreed then and I think now that it was the best job in government and I am sure that it has got even better. I want to briefly address two issues before speaking mainly about land reform. The first of those is about deer. There is no doubt that deer numbers are out of control in much of Scotland, although I accept not all of it. The last committee got commitment from the minister's predecessor, the much-missed Aileen McLeod, to a review of deer management and it is good to hear that SNH has already started on it. It is vital that that review is objective, it is intensive and it brings forward solutions. There cannot be any whitewash, there must be no bowing to special pleading. We will need sustained long-term action to bring the deer population back under control. Secondly, on climate change, the minister is in a uniquely powerful position to lead in government and to work with the new committee to lead in parliament. There is much that has been done but much more needs to be done. With First Ministerial commitment now obvious, it is time to stretch targets, to meet targets and to deliver. Let me major on the issue of land reform. It is helpful to remind ourselves why Scottish politics has returned to land reform again and again since 1999, a question that my friend John Scott asked. Firstly, that is because virtually nothing was done in several generations before then. It was neglected as Scotland was. There is good academic analysis by Ewan Cameron, among others, which indicates the patchy, inconsistent nature of such changes. There was nothing straight-line, progressive or even logical. It was incremental and it was often reactive. Secondly, land reform is an issue of democracy. It is about democratising access to and usage of land. The white man is right to talk about the power structures. It is part of Scotland growing up as a society and looking to become more normal with more normal relationships. Thirdly, and at least this part needs some attention, we need to be clear as a society about what we want from land. Is it to grow food? Is it to provide an asset for earning for more people? Is it about leisure, access or wellbeing? Is it about strengthening communities? It is about all of those and it is probably about more of things too. We need to have a national debate on that and come to a national conclusion. That might be one of the key issues in land reform for the coming parliament, to have that national debate and to come to a clear mind about what we are trying to achieve. We have to fit that together, however, with some other imperatives. First, we have to finish the work that we started in the last session. There is an enormous amount of secondary legislation. I think that 47 items are required as a result of the bill. One of the consistent objections to the bill from my old friend Alex Ferguson was that there was too much secondary legislation required and I do not think that he was wrong, but that has to come through and it has to come through fast. Key items include the arrangements for a fully transparent land register, the establishment of the land commission, the statement of land rights and responsibilities and complex changes in agricultural tenancy, rent setting, asignation, the appointment of a tenant farming commissioner and the institution of codes of practice. It is a huge amount of work just to go into that. The second imperative is the unfinished business that the bill did not tackle. Rural housing is part of it. Excellent work done by Margaret Burgess, the former housing minister that helped a number of places in my constituency, including the island of Iona. We now need a comprehensive vote connected to the thorny issue of planning and to the issue of land values. Land is not simply for speculation and the constant driving up of land values is one of the problems in this whole area. The new body land Scotland needs to be put in place, a manifesto commitment from the SNP. The third imperative is to look at what others are bringing to this Parliament where there is not a majority government. I fear that we are unlikely to find great common ground with the Conservatives, particularly after Mr Golden's speech, who tried to persuade us that ownership is not the issue. Ownership is the issue because power is the issue and ownership comes from power. So we have to change the patterns of ownership. As the cabinet secretary said last week at the Scottish Land and Estates conference, there is an over-concentration of land in too few hands. However, there is a possibility of collaboration with other parties. The Liberals have a long tradition of backing land reform, not so much in the last Parliament. It would be good to see that renewed. Labour, of course. Would he give credit to those of us, especially on the Liberal Benishes, in the first Parliament that pursued the issue? I would give credit to those on the Liberal Benishes, but there is only one of them there at the moment. That probably speaks volumes in terms of what you have achieved in land reform. However, of course, we should certainly work with the Liberals if we can. Labour played a constructive and prominent role in the detail of land reform in the last Parliament. I greatly appreciated working with Sarah Boyack and Claudia Beamish, and we will miss Sarah Boyack's voice on this. That potential for collaboration still exists. There is a possibility of common cause with the Greens. Very considerable expertise we heard again today in the first speech from Andy Wightman. The green manifesto commitments dovetail with much of what I have said today, but there are some differences and discussion is needed. It is important that conservation and climate change underpin the rural economy. They are not separate from it. However, in that continuum, land reform must be seen as an enabler of a more successful rural economy, with greater participation. It is land reform that can free the assets of Scotland for the benefit of Scotland. That is a huge prize that we still have to grasp. Deputy Presiding Officer, before I start my maiden speech, I would like to make a declaration of my registrable interests. I own and manage property, including agricultural, residential and commercial lettings, recreational and sporting usage and forestry. I own shares in a renewable energy company and I also hold remunerated positions in companies related to these matters. It is a privilege and an honour to have been elected as Aberdeenshire West MSP, and I really appreciate the support and trust placed in me, especially by those who voted Scottish Conservative and Unionist for the first time. Like most members believe of their constituencies, I believe that Aberdeenshire West is home to some of the most beautiful scenery in the United Kingdom. From Macangorms National Park to Royal Deeside and Donside, there is a range of attractions to enjoy all year round, and I can thoroughly recommend a visit and you can be assured of a warm welcome. Now, of course, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor, Dennis Robinson. Over the years, he showed his commitment to public service and the constituents of Aberdeenshire West, and I am sure that we would all like to wholeheartedly thank him and wish him well for the future. Now, this year has not been easy for Aberdeenshire West. Communities along our rivers are still recovering from the devastation of Storm Frank, which affected all parts from Khemni to Kintaw and Dramoch to Aboyne, but especially in Ballater, where the generosity of spirit and determination in rebuilding is showing Scotland at its very best. Continuing job losses in the oil and gas industry have affected many families right across Aberdeenshire, particularly in West Hill, the heart of the sub-sea sector, and I am under no illusion of the difficult challenges that lie ahead as the north-east's economy is in a fragile state, affected by the delay of farm payments and the downturn in the global economy. But in relation to this debate, we need to plan for life after oil, not one dependent on it, and by background I am a conservationist with a passion for sustainable development, particularly in renewable energy and environmental issues. From helping peat bog restoration to protecting red squirrels, developing public access routes, and to building one of the UK's largest biomass heat networks, members can be assured that I am a man of action. And as my party's new energy spokesman, I will take a keen interest in reducing demand, increasing efficiency, developing storage and expanding district heating, and always make sure that this Scottish Government is held to account. In the turning to the potentially divisive issue of land reform, I also welcomed the minister's comments last week, which recognised the positive and valued contribution made by landowners to their communities and to the local and national economy. This is certainly my experience of a vast majority of landowners. And speaking personally, I am proud to have supported a large number of community projects over the years, such as Wood End Barn with its community theatre and allotments, the Milton of Carthers, which showcases local art and railway restoration, and creating pictures for Deaside Rugby Club, which now has teams of all ages and has seen the first esteem promoted for second season running. Progress that was possibly related to my retirement. Although sometimes difficult to quantify in detail, actions like these are taking place across Scotland every day and are valued by many. To bring them to fruition takes for commitment and dedication of people from all walks of life. Land ownership has always come with community responsibility. And I want to put on the record my appreciation for landowners and their employees. They are often unrecognised in sustaining Scotland's countryside, as well as helping the Government to achieve its objectives across so many areas. So let this Parliament give credit where it is due, and let us have an honest debate on how land is best used. Before I draw my remarks to close, I hope that members will forgive me for a quick reference to my family history in this place and beyond. My family has been rooted in Scotland for many centuries, earning our name from Robert Bruce, and we value the freedoms hard-won by Scots over that time. It has been over 300 years since a Burnett of Leys last sat in a Scottish Parliament, and on that occasion he notoriously voted against the import of French wine. Members can be assured that I will not be making the same mistake. Now, not far from here in Edinburgh, during the Scottish Enlightenment, another ancestor, James Burnett of Montbodo, hosted his famous learned suppers. At his table dine such luminaries as David Hume, Dr Johnston, James Hutton, Adam Smith, Joseph Black, James Boswell and Robert Burns, making new discoveries about the universe, geology, and even tracing the evolution of man and language. I am therefore pleased with the First Minister's current focus on education, for we need a new Scottish Enlightenment for the 21st century. I look forward to serving Aberdeenshire West to the very best of my abilities. I call Stuart Stevenson to be followed by Claire Baker, Mr Stevenson, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Let me make a declaration that I have a very small investment. I think that it is about £300 in a community wind farm at Boindy near where I live and in my constituency. Let me congratulate Andy Wightman on his first speech in this Parliament. We will listen with interest to his subsequent speeches. When I was minister, I think that the last time I met and had a serious discussion with him, it was on a Scottish Parliament Act. Not this Scottish Parliament, but the 1491 Common Good Act, which was interacting with the Long Leases Bill, which Andy Wightman was taking an interest in and I, as minister, was taking through. Let me similarly congratulate Mr Burnett on his first speech. I will listen with interest to his future contributions while having no great expectations of having major agreements with him on their content. I want to spend a bit of time on the subject of climate justice, a subject that I have spoken about before in the past. In 2012, we brought to this Parliament what was then thought and still thought to be the first parliamentary debate on climate justice anywhere in the world. We were inspired by the work of Mary Robinson, the former president of the Republic of Ireland. Mary Robinson is now a feisty campaigner for climate justice across the world. The Mary Robinson Foundation describes climate justice as something that links human rights and development to achieve a human-centred approach, safeguarding the rights of the most vulnerable and sharing the burdens and benefits of climate change and its resolution equitably and fairly. I think that that is an excellent place to start any analysis of the effects of climate change. We have heard reference in previous contributions to the flooding that took place in the north-east of Scotland. Of course, it was not simply the north-east of Scotland, it was the south of Scotland and, indeed, in many places right across the islands. The losses that individuals experienced were more than simply homes and furniture, entire lives were put on hold, health would be affected and safety, both psychological and practical, was eroded. The Scottish Government responded well. £12 million was released in January this year to aid those affected by the floods. Correct response, but future preventative measures will also be very important. We must head off disasters before they happen. We cannot remain at the mercy of climate change. However, for the rest of the world, the issue is even greater. In Scotland, in the UK and in the developed world as a whole, we have the resources to respond to those issues. For example, in the Philippines between the years 2005 and 2016, it is thought that there has been $16 billion worth of damage arising from climate change. Those have been from the rising of the oceans and the intensification of typhoons. Indeed, the 2014 world disaster report showed that nearly 2 billion people have been affected by disasters over a 10-year period to 2013. Around 95 per cent of those who suffered were either in medium development or low development in countries. We, who have benefited from the industries that have created the problem of climate change through anthropomorphic effects, are not the ones who are paying the cost. It is also a gender issue, because, particularly in Africa, it is women who are differentially most adversely affected by climate change. They are often the gatherers of wood and the transporters of water. They are having to travel further to get either of those materials, and that is an effect that is specific to gender. We in the development world have to work collaboratively with people around the world on the issue, and I am delighted that we are doing so. I want to turn in the last part of my speech to some of the things that John Scott and others of the Conservatives said about jobs and how there can be jobs created by fracking. I have to say that that is entirely hypocritical, because we have seen turning away from the prospect of jobs of carbon capture and storage in my constituency of Peterhead, and indeed in the north of England as well. We have seen a closing down of the future prospects of renewable energy sources, tidal, wind energy offshore by the changing of the regime. At the same time, as we are prepared to engage electricity to France to build hinkley point nuclear power station, generating electricity at many times the cost that we could do so in renewables. Finally, let me just say gently to my colleagues on the Labour benches that, while I do not stand between them and their arguments against fracking, I am, of course, with them. I urge them to consider that the motion that they invite us to support at five o'clock tonight is one that will bring fracking closer, not move it away. If we make a decision against fracking without subsequently being able to defend a legal judicial review in court based on evidence, we bring forward the date at which companies can bring fracking to Scotland. That is why I will not be supporting the motion while I will support the words that have been said by many of the members. May I remind members that time is really tight? Can I have Claire Baker, followed by Gordon MacDonald? Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am very pleased to take part in this afternoon's debate, and I would like to welcome Roseanna Cunningham, who is temporarily not in the chamber, to her new role. It is very welcome to see a cabinet role, which will be primarily focused on delivering our climate change targets. I look forward to the anticipated legislation in this area. This Parliament shared the responsibility for setting which are ambitious and challenging targets, but it is hugely disappointing that the Scottish Government has had to report every year that Scotland has consistently failed to meet the interim annual targets. This has resulted in 17.5 million tonnes more CO2 being released into our atmosphere. I always endeavour to work constructively with Paul Wheelhouse in his previous role as Environment Minister, and I did not doubt his commitment, and I welcome his unexpected contribution to the debate this afternoon. Every year, when there was a failure to achieve the target, Mr Wheelhouse would have to defend the Scottish Government decisions in transport, infrastructure and economic development—all areas that contributed to a lack of progress, and yet he did not hold the decision-making power in any of those areas. That is not a job for a single minister, and it is welcome that Ms Cunningham is now at the Cabinet table. I trust that she will take that opportunity to emphasise the importance of making progress on our climate change targets to all her colleagues and turn the Government's commitment into further progress and firm action. It is welcome to see that the Scottish Government intending to raise the bar of carbon reduction with a proposal to raise the target from 42 per cent to 50 per cent by 2020. That is judged to be achievable, but we need to be honest about why it is achievable. The impact of the economic downturn and the closure of several large energy plants risks masking the lack of progress at domestic policy level. The WWF briefing for this debate describes the situation as, it remains hard to see the fingerprint of the Scottish Government action across an emissions reduction to date. Much of our progress to date is a consequence of the combined efforts of accounting changes, the impact of EU emissions credit in our favour, economic restructuring and the policies of Europe, the UK and the Scottish Government. If we are to see real transformational change in this Parliament, we need to see greater policy ambition from the Scottish Government. All the evidence is there for the Cabinet Secretary to present a compelling case to her colleagues. Policies to cut climate change emissions will deliver multiple benefits, greater employment opportunities, economic renewal, it will tackle fuel poverty, it has the potential to improve people's health and also produce cleaner air. In this Parliament, I would like to see greater progress on improving air quality. Friends of the earth are warning that we will experience increased levels of particular matter this weekend with WHO and Scottish regulatory safety standards expected to be breached in more than 20 council areas. It is welcome that we will see low emissions zones by 2018, but much more could be done to make progress in this area. Some of the solutions are simple and would have the broad support of the public, such as improving energy efficiency of our homes and accelerating progress towards renewables and community heating. A bigger challenge and one that is closely related to air quality is the need to reduce transport emissions. There has only been a 2 per cent reduction in transport emissions in comparison to 1990 levels. Transport emissions have been stubborn. WWF identified the need for greater support for demand side measures in the transport sector as a solution. How do we make public transport more attractive, more available and more accessible? There must be more opportunities for infrastructure in rail and increased bus options. Labour has consistently argued for the re-regulation of bus services, and we should give more attention to bus routes and multimodal infrastructure. We should also be promoting and prioritising rail projects, such as the Levenmouth rail project and Fife, a project that would support efforts on climate change, as well as open up the area to greater employment and economic opportunities. Getting people out of their cars is a big challenge, but new technology will make a contribution, but we still need to try and see some real shifts in behavioural change. Our energy policy is one key area where we can still make progress. We must see a continuing shift away from fossil fuel economy to a low-carbon economy. That is one of the reasons why I do not support the introduction of fracking or UCG technology. As a Fife-based MSP, I have consistently raised in this Parliament questions and concerns over the deployment of the planning system and the licensing system. I do not have confidence in the technology from an environmental perspective, and pushing ahead with this energy source will not help us to achieve our climate change ambitions. There are no guarantees that the disruption to communities that the testing would deliver would lead to a viable energy source for Scotland. Those are risks to our environment and to public health, and I urge members across the chamber to support those arguments to support our amendment at decision time. In conclusion, if we in the developed world do not make progress, it is not just us who will deal with those consequences. The Paris climate talks held in December resulted in a groundbreaking agreement between international countries. Countries will have to reduce emissions to avoid raising global temperature by two degrees centigrade. The consequences of failing to do this will lead to global warming, which will cause devastation in many vulnerable countries through rising sea levels and droughts. We witness at the moment refugees from war-torn countries, but we will increasingly see environmental refugees, people who are unable to live in their homeland because of the lack of action from governments and countries. We in the developed world must take seriously our responsibility to other nations, and Scotland's climate justice is a good example of what we can do to help. The Paris agreement has set the ambition. We must all in this Parliament and around the world work together to turn that ambition into reality. I have Gordon MacDonald, followed by Edward Mountain. A very tight six minutes please, Mr MacDonald. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I can also welcome Rosanna Cunningham to her new post. I am pleased to be speaking in this debate on the environment, climate change and land reform in my first speech since being returned as a member for Edinburgh Pentlands. My constituency is, of course, named after the range of hills that lies to the southwest of the city and is described by Cameron McNeish as Edinburgh's lungs. It provides outdoor recreation for over 600,000 people a year who undertake a range of sports, including angling, hill walking, mountain biking and skiing. However, making use of this fantastic natural resource in Edinburgh's doorstep requires a degree of environmental responsibility by the public. I have assisted with litter picks organised by the Friends of the Pentlands, a group of volunteers who give up their time to regularly walk the hills, including the Benale and Dreghorn car parks, picking up litter that the public could have easily taken home. Then there are those individuals who, from time to time, descend on clobbydine reservoirs who fish illegally, cut down trees and light bonfires. I have walked the area around the reservoir with members of the clobbydine fishery and I have seen firsthand the damage that some people, when wild camping, are doing to this area. If the Pentland hills are Edinburgh's lungs, then we have to start looking after them, and that must mean that we retain and fully fund a ranger service for this regional park. Air quality is also an important issue in my constituency, and I have raised this subject before in debate. The Calder Road and the Larratt Road west are two of the four main commuter routes into the city from the west and currently do not fail the air quality standards. However, neither are properly monitored, as the A71 in my constituency does not have any curbside measuring equipment along its length, and the A70 equipment is located over 1,000 feet from the main road behind a high school building. However, both roads at peak times, but especially the Calder Road, suffer from major traffic congestion and it would be no surprise to residents along the route of both roads if there were high pollutant levels at these times. This situation can only get worse as more house building is under way in West Lothian from Drumshoreland, East Calder, Broxburn, across to Lynchboro, all commutable by car into Edinburgh. The Scottish Government is quite rightly invested vast sums of money into our rail network, and with increased electrification will help us move towards our climate change targets. However, there is a problem. We need to ensure that the level of service on both the Glasgow Edinburgh via Shorts and the Ayrgi bathgate line provides a level of service that people want and need in order to tempt them out of their cars. For example, Abelio does not always have enough carriages on the Glasgow Edinburgh Shorts line that runs through my constituency. My constituents who want to travel in from Curt Newton, Currie Hill, Westerhales or Kingsnow stations have difficulty finding a seat or even getting on the train at peak times. That is after they have squeezed into a platform shelter out of the driving rain. In other areas, served by both lines, the station car parks become full before 9am, forcing people to take their cars into Edinburgh when they would prefer to take the train. We need more carriages and increased parking at the railway stations if we are to provide an alternative to the car that could result in reduced congestion and improved air quality in Edinburgh. Scotland has made great strides in tackling climate change emissions. In 2009, the SNP Government set world-leading targets of reducing Scotland's greenhouse gas emissions by 42 per cent by 2020. The most recent stats show that by 2013 Scotland achieved a 38 per cent reduction, and, as Angus MacDonald already stated, the UN climate change secretary, Christiana Fugueres, referred to this reduction and a recent visit to Scotland stating that it is actually quite impressive. Scotland is currently generating 50 per cent of its energy supplies from renewable sources. In 2015, Scotland achieved 58 per cent of its gross electricity consumption, generated from renewable sources, representing 26 per cent of total UK renewable generation. Compare that to the UK Government position, where the renewable energy target for the UK of 15 per cent by 2020 is not expected to be hit and currently stands at around 11 per cent. Small community energy products, such as the Harlow Hydro in my constituency, helped Scotland to achieve that 27 per cent. The scheme that was opened by Fergus Ewing last year will generate approximately 260,000 kilowatts of green electricity per year, enough for approximately 100 average houses. The society was established in 2012 for the specific purpose of owning and operating a micro-hydro scheme, and a proportion of the income generated will benefit the community by contributing to other projects and initiatives within the local area through the Ballerno village trust. If the UK Government is serious about achieving its climate change targets, it must revisit how it can support the renewable energy sector instead of providing billions in subsidies to nuclear power. Deputy Presiding Officer, I would like, at the outset of my first speech to this Parliament, to declare an interest in a farm, ancillary houses and some fishings on the rivers bay. I would like to follow to start with tradition and thank my predecessors Jamie McGregor and Mary Scanlon. They both steadfastly served this Parliament and the people of the Highlands and Islands. They both championed local issues, and I understand and believe that they will both be hard acts to follow. I would also like to take a moment to thank all those people that work in this Parliament. Everyone is so willing to help, and they offer the help with the relaxed ease that is truly exceptional. I am very privileged to have been given the opportunity to serve my country on a number of occasions. I served it when I was in the army, and I am serving it now again as a member of this Parliament. Standing in this chamber, representing the people of the Highlands and Islands and the people of Scotland, is not just a privilege to me, but also an honour. The oath that I made in 1980 to serve Queen and Country is similar to the one that I made in this chamber a few weeks ago. Both were solemn, vows, both required and will require commitment and dedication. During the 12 years that I was in the army, I was lucky enough to serve around the world, spending time in Germany, Cyprus, Egypt, Spain and Canada to name just a few places. I was also lucky to serve with many different nationalities, Danes, Austrians, Australians, Tanzanians and Ugandans. Many of my core values were shaped during my service in Uganda, and the brutality at that time demonstrated by Idi Amin was still evident. Never before and never again will I witness human life being treated with such little value. In those dark days, it was neither treasured nor protected as it should have been. It was taught me a lot about where we are in this world and indeed how lucky we are to be where we are at the moment. Today I live by those values that I learned in the army. To say what I mean and to do what I say, to put the needs of those that serve and I lead before my own, never to desert my friends and also to stand tall when difficult decisions have to be made. I believe that these are the values of a good politician, and I've learned these qualities the hard way from real-life experience. There were my values during the election, there were the values that I would set to the electorate I would bring to this Parliament, and I intend fully to do so. They are the values and standards that I ask to be judged on. Now, I'm particularly interested in the land reform debate, to which I bring some expertise. Those of you that watched have I got news for you the other day. You can relax, it's not those skills I'm going to talk about. It's the skills that I've learned whilst I was a farmer and also that I've learned while I was a qualified surveyor working in the Highlands. I worked for over two decades managing farms, rivers and wild land across the Highlands and Islands. That has given me a real insight into the fragile rural environments that will potentially be affected by land reform. Parliament has a huge amount of views and groups across Scotland to reconcile. Some discussions have become particularly entrenched and indeed dogmatic. Neither of those approaches are helpful. Others indeed to seek for their own benefits to say that those that use land and split them into two groups are pressed and oppressors. Others make the argument that ownership is blighted by huge estates, while not accepting that economies of scale that they trumped in other businesses are just as relevant there. I am clear, divisions never have and will never serve Scotland truly. I believe that we should try and find common ground, accept an openness towards land ownership with investment in our resource, encouraged but not limited by nationality, in the same way that Fergus Ewing yesterday trumpeted 3,300 foreign firms investing in Scotland. We should make land management inclusive so that the hills are as much for the deer as for hill walkers and eagles are as important as sportsmen. Recognising that good tenants need good landlords and that tenants with freedom of contract are driven by some good protections of the way forward, understanding that giving tenants an absolute right to buy destroys the letting market, knowing that land ownership per se is far less important than really good land use. So land reform must not only protect our environment in my mind but also be inclusive. It is not about excluding those who live and work and invest in the countryside. It is all about taking pride in what we can achieve if we work together. So my promise that I made to the people who live in the Highlands and Islands remains that I will always represent their views, ensuring a balanced approach to the issues. In relation to land reform, I believe that we must drive it by inclusivity and not ideology. Looking to the future without being driven by the past, being pragmatic rather than being driven by political dogma and by being imaginative rather than being predictable and then being a strong opposition if that is required to bad legislation. I look forward to working with everyone to find solutions rather than problems. I believe that that way will ensure that Scotland is a place to be proud of, a place that attracts all kinds of investors and remains a great place for all of us to live and work in. Thank you. May I have Mike Rumbles and then a shorter contribution from Mr Tom Arthur? Deputy Presiding Officer, the Liberal Democrats put forward an amendment to the Government's motion when we discovered today, but when we discovered the self-congratulatory tone of the Government's motion, we fully understood that not every amendment can be taken in every debate, but I thought that it would be helpful this afternoon to outline our position. We wanted to highlight the fact that the Scottish Government has indeed missed its statutory annual climate change targets four years in a row, as the Conservatives pointed out in their opening, and that it chose to cut the climate change budget by 10 per cent, and the fuel poverty budget was cut by 30 per cent in this financial year. According to the First Minister in her first speech to this session of Parliament last week, she intends to set new climate change targets for Scotland. Easy, isn't it? If you don't meet the current targets, just set new ones and hope nobody else notices. If Scotland is to meet its climate ambitions, it will require additional investment in warmer homes and low-carbon transport, a shift to clean, green renewable energy, and a new action to protect the natural environment. By doing that, we can beat our climate change targets, we can improve people's quality of life and we can also strengthen the economy at the same time. What we don't need from the Scottish Government is self-congraturating contributions to the debate when they are obviously failing to live up to their own hype. Let's look at the issue of warm homes as just one example of this rhetoric. The Scottish Government has a statutory duty to eradicate fuel poverty. Yes, November, this November, it refuses to accept that this is going to be missed. Isn't it, Deputy Presiding Officer, that it's going to be missed this target? They don't seem to accept it. The fact that a third of households are in fuel poverty at the moment. In some rural and remote areas, it's two thirds. The Government's own statistics showed no real change and the rate of fuel poverty in 2014. I get it, though. The way this Government works is that if it's not going to meet its targets, it just decides to set new ones and everything is going to be okay. We all know that half of emissions, for instance, come from heating homes and heating businesses. In the social housing sector, 30 per cent of dwellings fall below the energy efficient criterion of the Scottish housing quality standard. You wouldn't think that that was the case by the self-congraturatory tone that the Scottish Government comes forward with. If you combine the climate change benefits of tackling fuel poverty with the health benefits to our single pensioners in particular, it soon becomes obvious that tackling this issue effectively should be a no brainer. In the previous UK coalition Government, the Liberal Democrats invested £7 billion a year in renewable energy, doubling the amount of energy produced by renewables in just five years. What has the current UK Conservative Government done since then? I can see a lot of heads looking away. It has cut the department's budgets by 22 per cent. It has scrapped the ground-breaking £1 billion carbon capture project for Peterhead in my region of the north-east. It has ended the green deal and zero carbon home schemes. It has cut the renewable sector off at the knees through £130 million—I am glad that you are laughing—cut the solar and wind energy putting tens of thousands of jobs at risk. That is the Conservative Government acting alone. I do not think for one moment that the Conservatives, with their amendment today, have one shred of credibility left on this issue of the environment, and we, from the Liberal Democrats, will not be supporting it. If I can turn briefly to land reform, it was interesting to hear Mike Russell's contribution. From Mike Russell's contribution, he addressed it that it was neglected before the Scottish Parliament was established, and then he jumped to the new Scottish Government in 2007. He would think that land reform was not even addressed in our very first session of this Parliament back in 1999 and 2003. Now, I know that there are only about two dozen of us left from 1999, but that was a really big issue. You were there, Mike Russell. Mike Russell was there. Yes, I would gladly give way. I can try and cement this alliance. Can I acknowledge the wonderful work of the first Scottish Executive on Land Reform and express my gratitude to the present Government for doing even better? I thank Mike Russell for at least acknowledging that the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition of the first two sessions of the Scottish Parliament made great strides in this area. There is no doubt that there is much more needs to be done, but let us get the historical facts correct. As to the other amendments, we are closed by saying that we are minded to support them, saying that they do indeed advance the environmental cause. We now move to the last of the closing speeches. Can I remind those who were in the debate that they should be in the chamber for the closing speeches? Mr Arthur, no more than three and a half minutes. You will be delighted to know that I do not even intend to take that much time. I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate. I congratulate the cabinet secretary on her appointment and the minister. It is applaudable and it is not worthy to see climate change elevated to a cabinet portfolio. Climate change is the defining issue of our age, not just in Scotland but across the globe. On the Government's motion, I do not think that anyone would disagree that Scotland is possessed of a stunning natural environment. Indeed, it is one of its most precious natural assets. I would like to take the opportunity to talk about some of the precious natural assets in my constituency of Renfisher South. Of the many areas of environmental significance in my constituency, one of, if perhaps not even the most significant, is to be found in Lachwynoch. Hosting the castle sample visitor centre, Lachwynoch serves as the gateway to the Clyde Murshield regional park. One of the few wetlands left in the west of Scotland, the visitor centre and country park afford visitors the opportunity to enjoy fantastic waters, outdoor activities and environmental education. Also in Lachwynoch and part of the Clyde Murshield regional park is the RSPB Lachwynoch nature reserve, a site of special scientific interest. The reserve has a rich wetland biodiversity and is home to an array of birds and rare plants close to Glasgow and with nearby train stations and easy to access on the national cycle network and with tens of thousands of visitors per year. Both the castle sample visitor centre and the RSPB Lachwynoch reserve serve as a model of how Renfisher South's and Scotland's natural capital can be at the heart of our local and national economies. Just as communities like Lachwynoch can reap the benefits from our natural capital, so our local communities are playing their part and helping to work towards achieving our climate change goals. Newstone, also in my constituency of Renfisher South, is home to the Newstone community wind farm, comprising four large turbines with a maximum output of 10 megawatts, roughly double Newstone's electricity consumption. Newstone community wind farm, driven forward by the Newstone development trust, demonstrates how the partnership of community empowerment and renewables can play their part in transforming and transitioning all towards a low-carbon economy. Therefore, I come as no surprise that I enthusiastically applaud the Government's commitment to further increases in community renewables and driving that forward. I am aware now that I am getting to three minutes and 12 seconds, so on that note, I will return to my chair. Thank you very much, Mr Arthur. We now move to closing speeches, and I call on Mark Ruskell. You have six minutes, Mr Ruskell. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I begin by congratulating Rosanna Cunningham on her new role as Cabinet Secretary and the elevation of climate change to the portfolio of a senior minister and also to Mr Wilhous, who is today riding shotgun on fracking in this debate? This is a session of Parliament where ambitions on climate change, the environment and land reform run high. The prize of tackling fuel and food poverty, of creating new livelihoods from the land and the technologies of the future, while improving our communities as places where our health and wellbeing can thrive is within our grasp. We have had interesting contributions from many members on that, particularly Kate Forbes giving us some very grounded examples of how we can seize the opportunity. It is a big agenda, but there are some simple actions minister that you could commit to in those first few days in your new role. One is to use your leadership to reconvene the Scottish Biodiversity Committee, which, under your predecessor, met just once. There is clearly important work to do on biodiversity. Andy Wightman mentioned the need to double down a wildlife crime or make a decision on the reintroduction of beavers. Claudia Beamish mentioned the importance of completing the network of marine protected areas as well. Another critical action is to commit to the reconvening of the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Climate Change. I was a little disappointed minister to receive your reply to my parliamentary question yesterday, stating that no decision has been made to re-establish it as yet. You give the impression, as someone who can knock heads together, who can get action. Of course, at the heart of action on climate change—you're going to threaten to knock my head together—it is the need to make sure that there is coherency across Government. There is no point in taking two steps forward in one area of policy only to take one step back in another. The Climate Change Act has not led to the step change that was needed either in the actions or results. Whether we hit or miss targets has been so far largely determined by moving statistical baselines in the weather rather than Government policy. I think that the point is also emphasised by Clare Baker. If we turn to the issue of transport, for example, we have only seen a 2 per cent cut in emissions from transport sector. If we look back at the last climate action plan, there were really no significant actions in there for how we achieve modal shift, how we reduce transport emissions. Claudia Beamish mentioned some exemplar schemes that exist that have been worked on on a cross-party basis in this Parliament. We need to see more of that and more investment in walking and cycling and modal shift. Clearly, infrastructure is key, a point that was emphasised by Gordon MacDonald. We see Scottish Government capital budgets spending only 30 per cent on low-carbon infrastructure. We need to flip that. We need to see 70 per cent of our capital budgets going on low-carbon infrastructure. I make a plea to the Scottish Government that nine years after I held my last member's debate in the chamber on reopening rail routes in Fife, I asked the Scottish Government once again—as I did nine years ago—to renew its ambition and ensure that the largest communities in Scotland are still cut off from the rail network, leaving a metal that is reconnected once again. I will take a brief one. Stuart Stevenson I hope that he does not forget Peter Head and Fraser Brown, who are over 15,000 and furthest from the rail network. Mark Ruskell Perhaps Stuart Stevenson wants a debate about who has the most disaffected communities, who has the most economically disadvantaged. There is clearly work to be done and there is clearly a need to reinvest our capital infrastructure in providing communities with opportunities once again. The energy efficiency is an important national infrastructure priority. We need to be ambitious with that. It will cost £4.5 billion by 2025 to ensure that all existing homes reach category C. However, the return on investment from that is threefold. On the back of that, we will get cuts in fuel poverty as well. We talked a little bit about waste. Maurice Golden told us more about waste minimisation. We have seen significant cuts in emissions from the waste sector. It would be good to get some feedback from the Scottish Government about its commitments to deposit return schemes so that we can make progress on the circular economy. We have had a good debate on land use, which is responsible for around a quarter of our missions in Scotland. It was good to hear the cabinet secretary reaffirm the fact that public subsidy needs to pay public goods, hopefully on time, at least for farmers for next year. Mike Ruskell talked about freeing the assets of Scotland to deliver the benefits for Scotland. I welcome his commitment to many of the 18 land reforms that will be delivered with boldness by Andy Wightman with the support of his colleagues in the chamber. Energy strategy is critical. I look forward to the Scottish Government's energy strategy consultation coming in the autumn. We have achieved a lot—a 30 per cent cut in emissions in spite of the savage cuts to subsidies that have come from the Tories of Point, emphasised by Stuart Stevenson and Mike Rumbles. Yes, we have made good progress on electricity. We have made less progress on heat, and that is why we welcome the warm homes bill. I am sure that the experience of Alexander Burnett in that regard will be useful as well. Let me turn briefly, Presiding Officer, in closing to fracking. It is crystal clear that there are a majority of MSPs in this chamber that want to ban on fracking. They have another opportunity to support one tonight. The voices of communities across Scotland need to be heard loud and clear. The potential risks to our environment from fracking are too much for too little reward. The Scottish Government has many tools to keep the gas that we cannot afford to burn in the ground and deliver the will of this Parliament from licensing to environmental regulation to planning to primary legislation. We recognise that the Scottish Government has worked to do within the legal frameworks that exist, but it also has to work to deliver the ambitions of the people of Scotland that demand a renewable future free from unconventional gas. I urge members to be bold and take the first step of turning genuinely sustainable Scotland into a reality. May I remind members that they should always speak through the chair, and I now call David Stewart. He has six minutes, Mr Stewart. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This has been a first class debate within my view very impressive contributions across the parliamentary divide. I particularly would like to single out the members who have passed their deal of their first speech to Parliament today. First, Presiding Officer, I have a confession to make that I am a great admirer of David Cameron—no, no, not that, David Cameron—but the real one, the one from Harris, who is chairman of Community Land Scotland. In a recent speech, he called land reform unfinished business, which is fundamental to greater social justice in Scotland. He said, Is it possible for Scots to conceive of a future Scotland that does not explicitly have greater social justice at its heart? I think not. This is not about fighting battles of the past. Land reform remains a cause of the present and the future. Along with other members, Presiding Officer, I would like to congratulate the cabinet secretary on her post today and the general thrust of her remarks. I first met Roseanna Cunningham in 1997, when we both served in the Commons. I still remember passing her in the iLobby, and she asked me to sign an early day motion about land reform on the island of Egg, which was very admirable and I was very happy to do, but it just occurred to me as I was leaving the iLobby that it was actually in my constituency, but her early dedication is very admirable. Claudia Beamish deserves praise for her promotion and her depth of knowledge and environment issues have shone through in her speech, as did her passion for posing fracking. I would also like to echo her comments about Sarah Boyack and Aileen McLeod. I believe that Parliament is the poorer for their loss from this place. I was looking particularly forward to the speech by a new member, Andy Wightman, who was a great track record on land reform and ownership, and I was certainly not disappointed. You would expect that from the author of The Poor Have No Lawyers, but I thought that his speech was thought-provoking and he gave a very well-researched speech. Clearly, Mr Wightman is a member to watch, particularly when he is wearing his new green headwear, which I understand he got from Mary Scanlon. Mike Rumbles was an original member of the class of 1999, and I believe he was very much missed during the last session. I have to say to Mr Rumbles, who is certainly a much quieter Parliament in the past four years. He gave a very good speech, well-argued and knowledgeable, particularly around shifting to the low-carbon economy and investment in warmer homes. We had a number of first-class well-researched speeches. I have not time to mention all, Presiding Officer, but I would just like to put on record the contribution that was made by Angus MacDonald, Gordon MacDonald, John Scott and Graham Day. I thought that Elaine Smith's speech was very passionate and very anti-fracking, and her comments about the husting were very interesting. Can I also join with her in praising the work that John Bolson carried out when he was a member of this Parliament? Kate Forbes had made an excellent speech. I met Kate Forbes during the election campaign. The fact that she was my wife's opponent is a minor issue, but we shared at least one husting. I thought that her speech was very knowledgeable and touching on the history of the battle of the braze and the very important role of land reform was one that I think agreed with just about every word. I am sure that that will not be the case in the next five years, but I would like to echo that. Mike Russell made a very good speech. Mike Russell was, in my view, a first-class environment minister and spoke about issues around dire numbers and climate change. I was particularly interested in his issues around land reform, about what we want from land and finishing the work of the last session, particularly on issues of land registration. I would also like to put on record the first-class speech by Alexander Burnett in his first contribution to Parliament. He made a very good speech, very wide-ranging, particularly mentioning that he had relatives in the last Scottish Parliament, which many of us have put their claim to fame on that point. With Stuart Stevenson, again, I think that a very good ex-environment minister made some very interesting arguments around climate change. I may not totally agree with my friend Mr Stevenson on the issues of fracking. Although I am not a lawyer, obviously any policy passed by this Parliament could potentially face judicial review. The issue is making sure that you get it right and you get the science right. Edward Mountain again made a first-class speech. Mr Mountain and I were colleagues, if I can put that term loosely, as we were both stood for the Inverness and Nern Seat. We did about seven or eight hustings together, and I hope that I do not ruin his career by saying that I do not think that we did a wrong word on that issue. For Mr Mountain, it is certainly a man to watch. In conclusion, I believe that the new land reform act is not the last word, but a small step on the endless road. A new chapter in land reform is ready to be opened. It will take political will and it will take commitment of public funds, but above all, it will take an understanding. It is not about hankering after some romantic rose-tinted past. It is about a heart-hearted appreciation of the very real social, economic and environmental benefits of community ownership of land. What we need to succeed, Presiding Officer, to quote Sir Walter Scott, is the will to do and the soul to dare. I call Peter Chapman. First, I declare for the register that I am a farmer on land and wind turbines. I would first like to congratulate those who are making their maiden speeches again today. Across the political spectrum, we can see that there is real talent in these benches, and I congratulate everyone who has done their maiden speech today again, a first-class standard. I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome Rosanna Cunningham to her new post, and I am confident that we can work together to ensure that our rural communities receive the support and the need in the months to come. Scotland is rightly proud of its natural heritage, which has celebrated the world over. The truth of that can be seen in the thousands of tourists that arrive to see our beautiful scenery every year. In approaching this topic, we must be mindful of the great responsibility that we have in caring for this beautiful part of the world and ensuring that we can be proud of what we pass on to our children and to our grandchildren. As far as land reform is concerned, there have been many contributions about that. Andy Whiteman said that he welcomed the land register, and I also welcomed the land register. We see no problem in that in knowing who owns the land. However, we have also made it clear that the Government needs to focus not on who owns the land but on how that land is used. Ministers must ensure that an ideological agenda is not holding a rural economy back. Land reform proposals began, as most plans do, with the best of intentions. One of the aims of the Land Reform Bill was that it wanted to increase tendencies in the farming sector, but I believe they haven't unintentionally, I am sure unintentionally, erected more barriers for new tenants by putting landowners in a difficult situation. We need to strike a balance between tenants and landowners. Under current proposals, some landowners believe it is too risky to create new long-term tendencies while the possibility of losing their land to right of buy exists. And until we strike that balance, it will become increasingly difficult for young, talented new farmers to get a start, and that is a great pity. While some members have raised the issue of the amount of land owned by individuals, few have made reference to the actual size of the businesses. An area of 10,000 acres of heather hill in Highlands will not have the same productivity as 500 fertile acres in East Lothian. To move on to the issue of fracking, now the labour benches today, led by Claudia Beamish and assisted by Elaine Smith, have done their very best to trash fracking today. It is unfortunate that their fine words fly in the face of scientific evidence. Rather than advocating for us to create jobs, grow our economy and harness Scotland's natural resources, they would see us continue to import shale gas that we have right here at home. We must remember that 70 per cent of the gas that we burn at the moment is imported, so even if we did start fracking, we would only replace what we are bringing in anywhere. It would have no effect on CO2 levels at all. If the Conservatives are so enthusiastic about fracking, could you explain why, just before the election, one of their now new constituency MSPs wrote, that I was opposed to plans for fracking in Canangbey? That would have been a hugely misguided exercise. Is that a case of, what do you want fracking, where do you want it, everywhere but conservative constituencies? I will answer. I cannot answer for every colleague. Everybody has their own ideas, but I can only answer from our benches as to what we believe to be right as a group. John Scott explained it very well. He was saying that we need to have a bit more ability to take things forward. If we had acted in this way in the past, timidity would have meant that nothing would have been achieved. Providing fuel for our homes is, however, something where we should not shy away from the science. It is therefore vital that Government ministers take action to move forward on getting shale gas out of the ground. That said, local authorities must be part of the decision-making process, particularly when it comes to planning. We need to ensure that that has been carried out in a safe manner, but as we have a 50-year history of safe oil and gas extraction in this country, I think that this is an area where we have confidence in the professionals. The expertise is there from those thousands of people in the north-east who have been made redundant from the North Sea oil and gas sector, and that would be welcome employment for them. In the words of Professor Paul Young, previously hailed by the SNP as an energy engineering expert, it would be, and I quote, a flight from reason to continue with the SNP's maybe I, maybe no approach. Now, as Professor Young is a fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, I think that we in this chamber should take his advice seriously. In a country as diverse as Scotland, our Government cannot expect a one-size-fits-all model to work for our rural communities. My colleague Alexander Burnett spoke earlier, with passion for the huge range of community activity that he supports, and no two are the same. Ministers would do well to remember that this diversity is the strength of our rural economy and reconsider their moves for more centralised proposals. Alexander Burnett also spoke about district heating. That is an example that we can take from Scandinavian countries, where wood-fuelled district heating plants are the norm, rather than the exception. That said, creating energy to heat our homes is one thing, but we also need energy-efficient homes. That is why, in our manifesto, we called for the Scottish Government to increase their energy efficiency allocation in the capital budget by 2.10 per cent. That would be an increase from £80 million to £340 million each year, and by 2020 that would be a cumulative of £1 billion investment in our homes and in our environment. Mike Rumbles spoke passionately about that, and he understands that. However, what he does not understand is that the Conservative Government has produced, with the last chancellor, a £1 billion tax cut to the oil and gas industry and a £250 million city region deal to Aberdeen. That is the kind of policy that the SNP should adopt to hit climate change targets, not increasing the targets despite missing them time and time again. My shadow colleague Maurice Golden has rightly spoken of the importance of promoting a circular economy. We need to have a model where we promote economic success, alongside protecting our environment for future generations. The two are not mutually exclusive. We cannot go green if we are in the red. Take for another example transport. In nearly 30 years since 1990, CO2 emissions in transport have only fallen by 2 per cent. Mark Ruskell mentioned that. There is real action that we can take on this by encouraging less short-car journeys in cities. To do that, we need infrastructure to be put in so that cycling and walking are seen as a safe prospect for urban families. Not only would that have a positive environmental effect, it would have a real impact on cutting congestion as well and be the healthy option. Gordon MacDonald spoke passionately about that as well. With that, I will stop. I now call on Paul Wheelhouse to close the debate. You have 10 minutes, minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is not often that you will hear a Government minister express disappointment in being involved in a debate. I am pleased to be involved with that, but as much as I welcome the opportunity to address issues relating to unconventional oil and gas development, including, of course, hydraulic fracturing—I will subsequently call that fracking for the sake of simplicity—and other unconventional gas techniques, I will rather have done so as part of an energy debate rather than the debate today. Labour thought that—I am somewhat surprised and disappointed, I have to say that Labour thought that it is appropriate to ignore all the substance of today's debate in motion with their amendment and had the potential to discuss a number of issues of great importance to their environment, as was laid out by the cabinet secretary. However, in doing so, they also potentially reduced the debate around the environment and the wider needs of the environment to a bit of a sideshow. Thankfully, a number of members across the chamber have focused on that issue, and I will return to talk about their speeches later on. To be clear, the SNP will be abstaining on the amendments that I have sought to make fracking front and central in this debate and, for this reason, above all else. Unlike all the other parties that are represented in this chamber, our position, we believe, on fracking, is clear, unequivocal, coherent and consistent. Above all else in her opening speech, the cabinet secretary for the environment underlined the significance of the clause in this Government's motion that the natural environment is one of our most precious assets and how we intend to ensure that under an SNP Government, wise and productive use of Scotland's natural capital is explored. Quite simply, you do not take risks with your most precious assets, and it follows that we cannot and will not do that with the environment. As the cabinet secretary made clear, this Government is deeply sceptical about fracking, and through our moratorium we have ensured that no fracking can take place in Scotland at this time. However, we have also set out the need to conduct a full research programme followed by a full consultation of people in Scotland so that any future decisions on fracking are informed fully on the scientific evidence and by the views of the people who live and work here. I would rather make progress if I may. I may bring the members back in later. Indeed, ours is the only approach that has clearly and consistently promised to engage with the evidence and the public on this issue. This Government is absolutely determined that the people of Scotland will have the benefit of the most substantial body of evidence into the impact of how frat hydraulic fracturing may impact on Scotland. I will to the member. I thank the minister for giving way on that point. Can I ask him the same question that I asked the cabinet secretary in opening, which is about underground coal gasification? My understanding is that the work programme for the research of that has been conducted at a more rapid rate, therefore you will have the evidence to make a decision on that sooner. Can you give us detail on the timescales for that place? I will, Presiding Officer. I will follow you. Thank you. Certainly, I recognise a point that Mark Ruskell fairly asked at the beginning of this debate. As he may be aware, Professor Campbell Gemell is undertaking this work. We do expect that he will be able to report later this summer, and we would hope that that will be published later on this year. There is another programme of work that the member will be aware of, Presiding Officer, which will not conclude until later, because we undertake consultation with the communities. No, thank you, Mr Finlay. Presiding Officer, we are delivering one of the world's most comprehensive programmes into research into unconventional oil and gas. In February this year, we awarded five research projects to conduct independent and impartial research into a wide range of issues relating to fracking, including environmental and economic impacts. That research is due to be completed this summer, and this Government will ensure that its results are made available to all and shared with members across the chamber. I am also happy to come back to Parliament to give a statement or lead a debate on that research at the appropriate juncture once that research is published. I would not, if I may at this moment, Miss Bailey, have some progress to make. We also need to award a further contract exam on the transport of community impacts, because that work has been delayed. Members will be aware, and we will undertake that as quickly as possible. In the meantime, we will continue to meet with and listen to the widest range of voices and views, so that our consultation focuses on the issues that matter to communities and our stakeholders. That is the right approach to take. We have put in place a range of additional measures to protect Scotland's interests on this issue, not least in securing the devolution of powers to issue and manage onshore oil and gas licences in the Scotland act. Our actions have ensured that the UK Government did not issue any licences for fracking in Scotland in the last licensing round. Moreover, we have made changes to planning policy. We have reviewed regulations to close any gaps that might have allowed the environmental regulations to be breached. Not only in our words, but most especially by our deeds, this Government is standing up for Scotland's interests on this issue. We are being rightly cautious, but no one can be in any doubt that this Government's position is on fracking. For the benefit of the party's opposite, who appear to be a little hard of hearing on this issue, Mr MacDonald, let me reiterate this Government's position. There will be no fracking in Scotland unless it can be proven beyond all doubt that it will not harm the environment, communities or public health. If Parliament wishes to take a different view, we have no issue with that. I have said no, Mr Finlay, but it will not deflect Government from the very clear, cogent and consistent pathway and timetable that we have set out. I would like to turn to wider issues on the environment, because I have said it outside that it is an important debate on those issues. Turning to other members' points, Elaine Smith made the point regarding fracking. I will touch on this issue in terms of how can this coexist with climate change targets. That is indeed the purpose of the work that is being undertaken by the UK Committee on Climate Change to establish exactly what the climate change impacts would be of such activity. Until we have that data, I think that we need to reserve our judgment and then respond to that evidence in due course. Maurice Golden referred to trying to find consensus, so I welcome that assertion. However, he went on to, if I may say so, give quite a confrontational speech. Regarding three of the five parties as being a cabal, it is not a good way to start to build friendships in this chamber. However, he made some important points, but I gently caution him that, when he is talking about growth being decoupled from negative environmental externalities, I agree with him that that is an important area to look at. However, we have to wait to see the evidence, so rather than being gung-ho about fracking and pushing ahead with it, let us see what the evidence suggests. If it proves environmental damage, I would expect him to take on board that point in relation to the point that he has just made in his speech. Climate change performance in Scotland has been criticised by a number of members across the chamber, but let us not forget, especially for the members on the Conservative benches, that the ambition of this Government and the United Parliament at the time of 2009 act went through is far greater than that of the UK Government, and let us not lose sight of that. We are, as a number of members pointed out, performing comparatively well with a 38 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions against the 1990 baseline. It is important to point out to Mr Rumbles in making our argument for us in criticising the Scottish Government and its performance in climate change. Let us not forget the impact of consequential changes made by the UK Government in rolling back the green policies that supported energy investment and domestic energy efficiency. In short, I appreciate some of that happening after the UK election of 2015. The UK Government has slashed renewable support. It has announced the early closure of the renewables obligation for large-scale onshore wind and solar PV projects and cut support for small-scale renewable projects through the feeding tariffs. More than that, the Scottish Government maintains public sector support for energy efficiency and domestic energy efficiency measures. The UK Government has axed the Green Deal Home Improvement Fund, which had a detrimental impact on our ability to meet our climate change targets. I thank Claudia Beamish for her kind words about Dr Eileen McLeod, and I share her sentiment about Sarah Boyack. Both members, as Dave Stewart acknowledged, will be badly missed in the chamber, and I recognise the work that she has done, and especially my former colleague Dr McLeod, who I wish well. However, we have an opportunity to work constructively. I take on board the point that she made in her speech, and her references to Moratorium vs Ibane. I hope that I have explained why we believe that maintaining Moratorium while we wait for scientific evidence to come forward is a justifiable position. Andy Wightman and other members who made their first speeches, I congratulate them all. Probably having time left me the opportunity to mention all in passing. Andy Wightman made a thoughtful speech. He is very welcome to the chamber. I look forward to hearing Andy Wightman's speeches in due course. He referred to work on land reform and further land reform act. That is something that the cabinet secretary looks forward to engaging with Mr Wightman and other party spokespeople on the development of land reform policy. I would encourage Mr Wightman to engage with the cabinet secretary as time goes forward. He made some good points about democracy as well. Angus MacDonald, I am glad to see back in his chamber, who is very strong support to both Dr McLeod, myself and Richard Lochhead. He very much made strong points about Christine Fergeras's support for the Scottish Government's action on climate change. Indeed, it was a point that was made later on by another colleague that Christine Fergeras's support for the Scottish action described it as being effectively quite good. She said that it was exemplary, and I think that that is the point that we need to reflect on. John Scott talked about fracking, as well. I would point out that Scotland is still a net exporter of electricity and a major contributor to the energy sector, but I see that my time is up. I encourage members to support the Government's motion and to reject the amendments that have been laid today by the Opposition. Thank you, Mr Healouse. That concludes the debate on taking Scotland forward in the environment, climate change and land reform. We will move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of business motion 277, in the name of Jo Fitzpatrick. On behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme, I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press their request to speak, but now I would call on Jo Fitzpatrick to move motion 277. Formally moved. Thank you, minister. No member has asked to speak against the motion. I therefore put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion 277 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next item of business is consideration of a Parliamentary Bureau motion. I would ask Jo Fitzpatrick to move motion 278 on the establishment of committees. In moving this motion, members should be aware that the presenting officer on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau will be writing to the standards, procedures and public appointments. Committee, once it is established to ask it to consider extending the remits of four of the mandatory committees. The committee remits that this applies to are the finance committee to include the constitution, the equal opportunities committee to include human rights, the public audit committee to include post legislative scrutiny and the European and External Relations Committee to include culture and tourism. I move the motion. Motion on providing the Parliament with that information. The question on the motion will be put at decision time to which we now come, and there are five questions to be put at decision time today. The first question is that motion 226.1 in the name of Morris Golden, which seeks to amend motion 226 in the name of Roseanna Cunningham on taking Scotland forward be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote is as follows. Yes, 30, no 93, there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 226.4 in the name of Claudia Beamish, which seeks to amend motion 226 in the name of the minister on taking Scotland forward. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote is as follows. Yes, 32, no 29, there were 62 abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that amendment 226.3 in the name of Andy Wightman, which seeks to amend motion 226 in the name of Roseanna Cunningham on taking Scotland forward be agreed. Are we all agreed? Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote is as follows. Yes, 32, no 30, there were 61 abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion 226 in the name of Roseanna Cunningham as amended on taking Scotland forward be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote is as follows. Yes, 32, no 30, there were 61 abstentions. The motion as amended is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion 278 in the name of Joffith Spatric on the establishment of committees be agreed. Are we all agreed? Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote is as follows. Members should cast their votes now. What the motion hatten no part of thousands ofdegenerated