Hello everyone, I'm Yenivu Diyan, your god, and today I would like to talk about three themes. The first theme is that every Sunday, every Sunday, there is the fifth event of the Sydney Esperanto Group at mita.com. Well, for those of you who have never heard about that event, mita.com is simply a great event for those of you who can organize meetings between people who have the same opinion. It is actually very similar to the chat, but you have to pay for mita.com, or at least you have to pay if you want to organize meetings, but for chat, you don't have to pay. But our group is sometimes traditionally used by mita.com, but I would now like to invite you to my group, this event, because it is a big party, it is what I just said, you don't give money, but of course, I only invite those who live in Sydney, you can't run away from the sun, the sun, the sun, and the North Korea. I know that you can't do that, but for those who really live in Sydney, and I know that there are at least 10 or 15 people who watch my channel and live here in Sydney, I know that, because I can see my statistics.  The second thing is the fact that I have to learn how to do it, and I have to learn that, because a few days ago my wife said, oh fuck you, I don't want to have a drink with you, and I said, no, and she said, well, you can't go, and I said, I can go, I suppose, and then she said, okay, very good, you can give me some money for me, I said yes, I can do that, but later I remember that I can't go at all, in fact, I can drink bread, drink water, destroy vases, and probably kill everyone in the house by smoke, but I can't go, so later I have to search maybe for YouTube as much as I can, because I don't know how to do that at all, and in fact, if you have good recommendations for how to do it, maybe for YouTube's links, put them in the comment below, because really I have to find a way to do that before dying of thirst, and the third thing is that, oh fuck, I just remembered that the third thing and the second thing is crashing against each other, because dying of thirst, I take part in a podcast, and it's interesting, because a lot of you wait, I will interview Esperanto about a podcast about general languages, and I won't put the name of the podcast, because I haven't taken part in it yet, but I just want to share that with you, because after a while, I will send a podcast about me and Esperanto about another great thing, and I'm very excited about it, and I want to share it with you all, but I have to wait, so that's all, I just want to share it with you, if you like this video, like it, share it, subscribe to my channel, if you haven't subscribed yet, and I'll see you later, in the next video, and if you're not there, I'll find you, and I'll go for you. And as always, thank you to all my donors, because they are the best people in the world, and you are Alexander Tolfes in Jay-Z, a musician, Loupe, Margarita Kilpac, Robert Nielsen, Robert Port, Sarah C. Shainpower, and Tommy Lindsay, and if you like my channel, just go to the link below in my description, and give me a dollar a month, so that I can go better on this channel. Thank you very much.


Hey guys, welcome back to our channel. My name is Andrea with Food and Mentory Adventures in Food and I am here today with a quick and easy recipe for taco pie. I live here in Texas and one thing we love here in Texas besides barbecue is Tex-Mex and this taco pie fits in perfectly. So let me show you what you're going to need. Excuse me, you are going to need a deep dish pie. So I always let my pie crust, it's a frozen pie crust. I let it thaw out completely and then I parbate it. You're also going to need some onion and I'm actually using frozen chopped onion. I don't have any fresh onion, but I learned during the pandemic that I needed to keep frozen chopped onion on hand and bell pepper on hand as well. You're going to need a can of refried beans. You're going to need a pound of ground beef and I am using an extra lean ground beef. You're going to need taco seasoning, taco sauce and cheese and I'll make sure to leave the recipe in the description box.  Got my meat and onions going here and I absolutely love this meat chopper. If you don't have one, it is worth the investment. It gets your meat chopped really fine and I got this one from my local grocery store, H-E-B. It was like four bucks, so worth it. So I'm going to let this continue to cook down and I will be back. Just adding in my taco sauce. I'm going to mix up my refried beans. So all I did was just put my refried beans in a bowl. I didn't cook them or warm them up or anything. I just kind of dump them in there.  So let's put this taco pie together. Got my taco meat, I've got my cheese right here and then I've got my refried beans right here and then I've got my parbate pie shell right here. So I am just going to put a layer of beans on the bottom of the pie shell first. Layer of ground beef, cheese, and then you're going to repeat the layers. Here is the taco pie and as you can see, it is fully loaded. I've got my oven preheated to 350 degrees. I am going to pop it in the oven for about 20, 25 minutes or until the cheese is all nice and bubbly and then I will come back and show you guys how it turned out. So here is the taco pie. I ended up baking this for half an hour and then I let it cool for about 20, 30 minutes or so. I cut out a piece so you could see the inside. You could see all the different layers there. And as you can see, this was a really quick and easy recipe. I hope you guys enjoyed it. If you did, please make sure to give us a thumbs up and if you have not subscribed to our channel, we certainly love to have you. Thanks so much for watching and we'll see you guys next time.


Well, so Pakistan has a very brief, but very interesting story of negotiation with the Taliban and making deals, what we call the peace deal with the Taliban. The story started after 9-11 when hundreds, if not thousands of Al Qaeda-linked militants, they slept into the Pakistan tribal region and they took refuge in the Fata region more specifically in the south Waziristan belt. Pakistan started military operations there in 2003 and that was the first time when Pakistan army went into the tribal region after the creation of Pakistan in 1947. They launched military operations there against what they called the foreign militants there, which were supported by the local Taliban militants. And that time there was one local Waziri Taliban commander. He was from the Wazir tribe in south Waziristan region. His name was Naik Muhammad Wazir. He actually that time led the insurgency and he started fighting with the Pakistani forces there. So that's how the story started there. I will briefly go to the peace deal which the Pakistani government made in the Fata region and just briefly, which were made recently in Sawat, which is not part of the Fata, which is part of the NWAP. So this is the first deal which was signed and its name was Shaqai peace deal. It was in April 2004. It was signed amid big fun fair in a sprawling ground of Shaqai, some 20 miles from Wana, which is the headquarter of south Waziristan. Thousands of tribesmen attended the ceremony. That time I was a journalist in Peshawar. I myself was there and it was between the Pakistan army and local Taliban commander Naik Muhammad Wazir who is considered as father of the Pakistani Taliban. Naik Muhammad who was 28 years old that time and he was a trained fighter who fought during the Afghan jihad. He was there before 9-11 and he told journalist after the peace deal that he actually fought at Bagram and those places. So this is Naik Muhammad Wazir. When Pakistan army launched its military operation, the first one was done at Kalusha. Kalusha was a town in south Waziristan on the border with Afghanistan. After that, the first operation they did dozens of military operation and they were not successful. And finally they approached this Taliban commander and you see he is sitting with one of the Pakistan military officer. This picture was taken just a day or two days before the Shaqai agreement in April 2004. And then you see in the agreement one of the top Pakistani journal, Lieutenant General Sabdar Hussain who was the core commander that time at Peshawar. He went to Waziristan and he was actually the one who signed the peace deal from the government of Pakistan. And he landed the Naik Muhammad Wazir and his close and top militant commander there. And then Naik Muhammad Wazir said that he will not fight with the Pakistani forces there. After the peace deal, there was jubilation of the tribesmen who were fed up with the two years fighting in the area. They were dancing, traditional dancing was there. And however, soon the terms and conditions of that agreement was that Naik Muhammad Wazir and his fire top militant will denounce militancy. Pakistan style will not be used for any terrorist activity by anybody. Foreign militants have a right to live in an honorable manner which meant either they have to live or register their names with the government and respecting the law and traditions. These were some other terms and conditions of the Shaqai agreement that time. It felt just in few days. The main point of this deal which became the bone of contention was the presence of foreign militants in the area. Pakistani government from the government side, the main demand was that the Taliban militants, the local militants, they shouldn't give shelter and protect the foreign militants in the area. However, just a day or two later of the Shaqai agreement, Naik Muhammad Wazir, he was talking to the journalist in the area and he said that this is not part of the deal and he actually said that the foreign militants, they are their guests and whenever they come, the local tribesmen, they will give shelter to the foreign militants there. Then Naik Muhammad Wazir was killed in a missile strike which the Pakistani government took credit for that. However, a local reporter and journalist said actually it was done by the US forces in Afghanistan. Then another agreement which also became very famous that was the Sararoga agreement and it was done with Betullah Massoud. Both parties in the agreement, the government and the militant agreed on these points that army will evacuate tribal territories. The Taliban will not attack the army. If the foreign militants will not get protection, the army will not conduct operation against the Taliban if they agreed to completion of the development work in the area. This is Betullah Massoud who himself signed the peace deal at Sararoga. Sararoga is a town in south Waziristan and that's why it became Sararoga peace agreement. After the deal, there was a relative peace for a while. After the peace deal, local journalists in the Waziristan region reported that the Taliban established their offices and different parts of Waziristan started new recruitment drive, implemented a very strict version of Sharia in the region. In fact, they converted Waziristan like in a mini-Taliban state that time. Harsh steps were taken against criminals and other people. Again, both sides started in the Shia agreement when it was terminated so the government accused Taliban militants for violating the deal. And similarly, this time again, both sides started accusing each other of violation of the peace deal. In September 2006, another peace deal was struck by the Pakistani government with the Taliban militants and it was with the tribal elders. The chief architect of this deal was the then governor of Frontier Province Ali Jan Aurekzai. And he called it a historic moment when the deal was signed. When the Red Mask operation started in Pakistan in 2007, Taliban announced end of the agreement by circulating statement in Waziristan accusing government of establishing check post in the region. When the Red Mask operation started in Islamabad in the capital of Pakistan so Pakistan Army started a kind of movement in Waziristan and they established some of the check post where they had withdrawn some of their troops as part of the deal in 2006. The Taliban militants accused government saying it is violation of the deal and that's why they announced termination of the deal. This is now the Swat peace deal. Actually in Waziristan in those areas there were some 14-15 deals in different parts but the one which I just mentioned there are the main deals between the Taliban militants and the government. In Swat, it's like the similar story. The first deal was struck in May 2007 between the Six Parties Religious Alliance of Mutahiddah Majlis Amal and TNSM but it was in fact with Molana Fazlullah. And it happened because there were some concerns among the local people because of the FM broadcast by Molana Fazlullah and when these concerns reached to Islamabad and Peshawar so that time the religious alliance, the Six Parties Religious Alliance, it was in power in Peshawar and it started a kind of negotiation with Fazlullah and it said actually they are dealing with the TNSM which is a movement which Rodney mentioned for the implementation of Sharia in the Swat and Malacan region. It signed a deal there with the TNSM and basically with Molana Fazlullah. That time there was a commissioner who actually mediated the peace deal and that commissioner is nowadays he is under very close. I mean some people say he has already been arrested because he's missing and he is accused of having sympathies with the Taliban militants particularly with Fazlullah and his group. So this was and the main point in this deal was because like I mentioned it was because of the FM broadcast by the Taliban cleric Molana Fazlullah however as part of the deal he was led to go with his FM broadcast in the area and the MMA ministers in Peshawar they were telling to the media people that actually he will be broadcasting but he will not talk about jihad and inciting people which was not true actually there was no control of contents of the Fazlullah FM broadcast. During that Swat first deal Molana Fazlullah agreed to close down all training facilities for militants and to support the Polio vaccination. Actually he was opposing the Polio vaccination through his FM channels and he was telling to the people that it is a conspiracy by the West and particularly of the United States to infertile the male segment of the society. So he during this agreement he agreed that he will support the Polio vaccination drive. He also agreed to support the administration and the law and order situation and surprisingly like I mentioned the government agreed to let Fazlullahs continue his FM broadcast. In 2007 November Pakistan Army deployed troops the central government actually deployed troops in the Swat region and the provincial government of MMA called it the violation of peace deal between them and the TNSM Fazlullah. Military operation was launched against Fazlullah and the deal came to end that was the time when the then president Parvez Musharraf also imposed the state of emergency and he also cited Swat the insurgency the situation in Swat is one of the reasons for imposing emergency in his televised speech to the nation. Then in 2008 the new government came in the frontier province of the secular Awami National Party and it started new peace initiative in the region. They appointed the provincial president of the party Afrasiyab Khattak as a peace NY. It was a new position in the government machinery there and the first thing they did they released Sufi Muhammad the TNSM leader who took some close to 10,000 people to Afghanistan after the 9-11 and he led these people to fight along Taliban against the US led NATO forces there. When he was returning back he was arrested by the Pakistani authorities and he was put behind the bars. His views are very strict, very harsh and even he didn't try to approach the court because he believed the Pakistani courts and the judicial system it is not Islamic and that's why he thought it's futile to go and approach an un-Islamic court for his release. However the ANP government started this peace initiative and the first thing they did they released him and they signed a kind of agreement with the TNSM which Sufi Muhammad is its leader. And then that agreement was again terminated after some time and then we had this very much talk about agreement in February this year in which the government agreed to some of the demands of the militants in the area. Sufi Muhammad was the main broker of this deal in Sawat and he mediated the deal between the government and the Taliban militants which were led by his son-in-law Maulana Fazlullah in the area. Now the main point from the government side was how to disarm the Sawat militants and Maulana Sufi Muhammad took this responsibility. He said he's going to ask the Taliban militants to lay down their arms but even that time suspicion was raised that how Sufi Muhammad can do this job because many people thought like now he is more a symbolic leader. He doesn't have that much influence on the local people because the Sawat militants there were reports that there were many foreigners there were many criminals. They were just I mean it was a loose group. They were not like some local people where you can go and talk to them and can disarm them. So and this is what happened the whole because when they started the process even the ANP government which is so much secular in its ideology and outlook it went with this deal. I remember in the past few years whenever there was a deal with the militants in the FATA region ANP was the first to oppose such thing. However surprisingly when they came into power they were the first to start this process of negotiation with the militants in the region. They realized that it is a way to deal with the problem. When they started this negotiation process there was so much uproar and everywhere in Pakistan the human rights activists the civil society and particularly here in Washington DC I remember there was such a knee-jerk reaction and everybody and I mean we saw on the street of Sawat people were distributing sweets because for them the most important thing was peace. For them that was the thing and they wanted peace either to the peace deal or whatever. However when Taliban started demanding more and more and the controversy arose when they were appointing the judges the Qazis there so the government said okay these are the people who are going to be the judges there and Super Muhammad and the militant said no we have a certain criteria for the judges he should be having a certain length of beard and other things so anyhow that was the thing when the deal couldn't work and the Pakistan Army went there and now we see this military operation in Sawat it has rendered some 2.5 million refugees internal displaced people in their own country and still Pakistan Army is fighting there they have cleared some areas there and still they are there. This is how the story of the peace deal in Sawat and other areas is. Well lesson learned from the deal with Taliban. So they are being pursued as a I mean the Pakistani government during this time when they were signing this deal they thought like these are panacea for ending militancy on the one hand and on the other hand many people termed it like a sell out. These agreements have resulted in for the foreign militants and there was relative peace in some areas but none of them proved long lasting. Who is responsible for the breakdown of each successive agreement the government, local militia, foreign militants or some outside powers. Some men listen causes of the failure. I mean this is my own as a reporter when I was covering these deals and each time we were confused who is blaming who for these deals. So these were the men thing which I realized that firstly rarely tribal elders or tribes were involved as they were mostly directly with the Taliban militants in the region. Terms and conditions were never clearly specified in a simple language and that's why there was no clear definition of violation. There was no penalty on violation and all this was because there was no guarantor who could put pressure and levy financial penalty or other fines in case of violation. After seeing all these deals many times we were just discussing what the conclusion was for me who is deceiving who. That was the conclusion for me because we never know who is deceiving who. I mean the government said there are the violators the militants said there are the violators and the end is who is deceiving who.


The next item of business is a debate on motion 17000 in the name of Patrick Harvie on a green new deal for Scotland. Can I ask those who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons? I call on Patrick Harvie to speak to and move the motion for up to eight minutes. I am very happy to do so. The concept of a green new deal is one that has gained more recognition and debate around the world in recent months, particularly with the work of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the US. It is a sparking, wider discussion both within and beyond the Democratic Party in the USA, but it did not begin. The concept of a green new deal did not begin there. In fact, the new economics foundation, as far back as 2008, put together the green new deal group, including my colleague Caroline Lucas, as well as respected individuals such as Ann Pettifer and many others. Her report was a response to the financial crash at that time, far, far more than just a green job strategy. An economic agenda, which included re-regulation of finance, addressing issues around debt and stimulus, corporate tax avoidance and a heavy emphasis on human wellbeing and quality employment. That work has informed our own in the Scottish Green Party from our jobs in the new economy report to discussion papers produced by the Green Yes campaign on issues such as the necessity for a post-oil future for Scotland's energy system. I thank the many people who took part in our round table event yesterday in Parliament, not just MSPs from a number of different political parties, but campaigners, researchers and those from the public and private sectors. It was clear from that discussion that there is an appetite for an ambitious approach to applying the green new deal agenda in Scotland. One of our NGO guests said that we clearly need a new approach, an approach that has to be accompanied by a massive acceleration to see the scale of change that we need across every sector. One of the renewable industry representatives said that we need something that can build investor confidence and leverage investment. We need to know that policies-supporting renewables will be there decades down the line. The industry is only capable of making evolutionary steps. Radical steps will not be taken by industry. That comment was echoed by a range of people around the room who recognised the need for an emphasis for the role of government, including institutions such as the Scottish National Investment Bank, because markets and competition alone will not achieve the transformation that is needed. The green new deal is not a single list of prescriptive policies. It comes under a set of key principles—creating the conditions for private investment, yes, but also mobilising the power of the state through regulation, fiscal and monetary powers, and public and community ownership to address the ecological and social crises that we face in a coherent way, and building an economy that is fair, sustainable and fit for the 21st century. Taken together with the concept of a just transition, I think that that offers a clear platform not only to achieve the radical and rapid economic transformation that is needed but to ensure that it works for everybody. That concept will apply differently in different contexts. The situations in the US, the UK and Scotland are different. Existing programmes such as universal healthcare, which many of the Democrats are arguing for as part of a US green new deal, are already in place here. The federal and state relationships in the US are different from the relationships between Scotland, the UK and the EU. The balance of regulatory powers in the different jurisdictions. In Scotland, we would need to act within our current limits, as well as seeking to overcome those limits, as we discussed earlier this afternoon. However, we also have a high level of public support for climate action and for social justice, and we have an abundant renewable resource. Those are conditions that should allow us to act. I want to look at the amendments that have been brought forward for our motion. I have to acknowledge that there are merits to the Scottish Government amendment in part, but in other parts it does clearly weaken aspects of our motion, especially on amendments that we believe are necessary to the Scottish National Investment Bank bill. Given the need for clarity and consistency to achieve long-term investment, how could Parliament have confidence in that agenda remaining central to the bank's objects and missions except by setting it out clearly on the face of the bill? All ministers sometimes behave as though their own political priorities will persist forever, but ministers and Governments do change. New ones are often tempted to create change for its own sake to make their mark. We are not impressed by the Scottish Government's amendment, but if it can give us in its speeches a very clear and explicit commitment to the kind of amendments to the Scottish National Investment Bank bill that will put that core purpose on to the face of the legislation to ensure that it cannot be removed at the whim of any future Government, we will listen to what they have to say. However, I regret that their amendment cuts that principle out of the motion. The Labour's amendment makes some similar arguments about that long-term statutory nature of the decisions that we should be making in relation to the Just Transition Commission, placing it on a statutory footing to give it the long-term role that it needs. We will support that amendment, although I have to say that we have a concern that we need to not downplay the current value of the jobs in the green economy. I recognise that the report that has been presented to the SDUC recently has an important contribution to make to the debate, but it should be acknowledged, even within that report, that there are more than 46,000 jobs, direct and indirect, already in the low-carbon and renewable energy industries in Scotland. There have also been missed opportunities to do more, and I acknowledge that, but we should take care not to feed the narrative that is promoted by the anti-wind and climate denial movements. The potential is real if we have the political will to commit to it. Even more clearly, the alternative to this agenda, business as usual, is simply non-viable. We will, of course, have posed the Conservative amendment not only for what it deletes, but for its continued attachment to the idea that everlasting economic growth is the way to achieve either a sustainable economy or a fair, adjust and equal society. Let's be clear. The right-wing agenda of growth-obsessed free-market capitalism is what has brought about the multiple social, ecological and economic crises. The ideas that have brought us to this point cannot be expected to offer the solutions that are necessary to the problems that they have created. We are in a moment of recognition of the scale of change that is needed, not just in deploying new greener technologies such as renewables, but we need to reject the idea that our current economy can continue while individuals are told to make different consumer choices. Individual choices matter, but if we make those choices within the context of the economic status quo, with corporations giving a free pass to keep extracting and hoarding wealth and governments prioritising immediate growth over long-term survival, we will fail. The Greens are not willing to watch that failure and, increasingly, the wider public is not willing to watch that failure either. We put forward the concept of a green new deal and encourage all parties to embrace that opportunity positively and I move the motion in my name. I call on Roseanna Cunningham to speak through and move amendment 17 000.3 for up to six minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I welcome today's opportunity to debate enhanced mechanisms for the transition to a carbon-neutral Scotland. It is important to challenge ourselves, learn from others across the globe and work together to deliver carbon neutrality. Climate change is a global challenge and there is a growing international focus on how to meet that challenge. As I have said before, many times, delivering a carbon neutral Scotland may be difficult, but there are also huge opportunities. The Scottish Government recognises the urgency of the call to action on climate change. We are already a recognised world leader in terms of our climate change ambitions and we intend to maintain that level of ambition. I welcome that the chamber has constructively supported the principles of the climate change bill at stage 1 just before recess. It is important that, during today's debate, we recognise that the bill both maintains Scotland's place among those at the forefront of global ambition on climate change and makes target setting more transparent and accountable. The Scottish Government has been absolutely clear that we want to achieve net zero emissions of all greenhouse gases as soon as possible and intend to set a target date for this in law as soon as it can be done credibly and responsibly. The 2017 advice that is available from the Committee on Climate Change proposed the most ambitious statutory emissions reduction targets of any country in the world for 2020, 2030 and 2040. We were happy to take that advice and our legislation was drafted accordingly. It will mean Scotland is carbon neutral by 2050. The world-leading nature of the bill targets have been recognised by a number of leading international figures, including Laurent Fabius, architect of the Paris agreement, who described the bill as a concrete application of the Paris agreement. However, the special report published by the IPCC last October represents a very significant step forward in the scientific evidence underpinning the Paris agreement. Responding quickly to the IPCC's report, the Scottish Government joined the Welsh and UK Governments in commissioning further independent expert advice on targets from the CCC. That advice is scheduled to be published on 2 May next Thursday. If the CCC advised next week that higher targets for Scotland are now credible, the Scottish Government, as we have said consistently, will, in line with this advice, amend the bill accordingly at stage 2. However, the First Minister was clear at the STUC conference last week that ushering in the carbon neutral age shouldn't just make Scotland a greener nation, but must also make us a healthier, wealthier and fairer nation. We believe that a just transition to carbon neutrality is one that will create jobs through new sustainable industries, is good for communities and helps to tackle inequalities and poverty. The benefits of transitioning to a carbon neutral economy need to be shared widely. We must be mindful not to leave anyone behind, whether they be businesses, industry or domestic consumers. That focus on a just transition builds on our approach to maximising the opportunities of a low-carbon economy. In 2017, as Patrick Harvie has acknowledged, the Scottish low-carbon and renewable energy sector supported over 46,000 jobs and generated over £11 billion in turnover. That is significant. Together across this chamber, we have a responsibility to promote what Scotland is achieving. We can always strive to do better, and the Government has long been committed to ensuring that Scotland maximises the economic opportunity of the transition to a carbon neutral economy. We need to work together to plan for and invest in socially and environmentally sustainable jobs, sectors and economies. The Government has never said that we hold all the answers to this. We have been open to advice, sought the opinion of others and looked widely at best practice. That resulted in the establishment of the Just Transition Commission. We were the first country anywhere to do that. The commission brings together 11 independent members and is chaired by Professor Jim Ski. The remit is to advise on continuing the transition in a way that promotes social cohesion and equality. Work started in January, and independent advice on the opportunities and challenges of moving to a carbon neutral economy will be provided within two years. I hope that the chamber will support the proposal of a Scottish Green New Deal to secure the economic and social benefits for everyone of delivering our climate change targets. The early core principles of the Green New Deal—job creation linked with decarbonisation, tackling inequality within communities and ensuring access to finance to accelerate the transition—are not new. In fact, they are consistent with many of this Government's policies and programmes. I look forward to hearing views from across the chamber on those areas today. We are listening, and if we need to reshape or refocus existing activity to maximise the benefits for Scotland, then we will. However, of particular interest to me is the views of members on the additional regulatory, fiscal and monetary powers that the Scottish Government would need to implement such a new deal fully. As our amendment recognises, the main fiscal and monetary policy levers to support action in this area remain reserved to the UK Government. I have made many calls in the UK Government to increase its ambition to tackle climate change and to better align with the level of ambition in Scotland. While regulatory levers remain reserved, we need the UK Government to do their bit in order for Scotland to achieve net zero emissions as soon as possible. It is hard not to refer you back to the content of the First Minister's earlier statement. That reiterated our commitment to pursuing Scottish independence. We need to have all the necessary tools and levers at the disposal of this Parliament to deliver for Scotland. That will allow us to work together to promote Scotland's success, the skills of its people and the level of ambition in this area. In conclusion, I move the amendment that is put forward in my name. I call Maurice Golden to speak to and move amendment 17000.1. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. We agree with much of the sentiment in the green motion, but we will not be able to support the text of his motion in its entirety. Indeed, having heard from Patrick Harvie the articulation that he gave of extreme socialism is no way in which to tackle climate change. Nevertheless, whether you call it a green new deal, the circular economy or anything else, successfully tackling the breakdown of our climate can only be achieved by building a more sustainable economy. Business, as usual, is not an option. Therefore, the Scottish Conservatives stand ready to work with any proposals in this area that we will take, and we will take an evidence-based approach with regard to our support. The public appetite for such change is growing, and this Parliament is at its best when it works together in order to deliver that, putting the needs of our planet and our next generation ahead of party politics. We have already seen that on individual policies. For example, Scottish Conservatives in green MSPs alike called for a moratorium on new incineration capacity here in Scotland. Or, for example, when the Scottish Conservatives led cross-party support to bring forward energy-efficient targets to tackle fuel poverty. However, co-operation can be difficult when some still indulge in making unrealistic promises or peddling utopian fantasies. Consider the SNP's claim that renewables would create 20,000 jobs, only for those jobs not to materialise here in Scotland. False dawns erode the public trust that we need to transition away from some of those older industries. Yet the greens are now promising 10 times as many from a rapid low-carbon transition. With livelihoods at stake, many in the north-east in particular, but indeed across Scotland, will be sceptical of such claims and will wonder how those fanciful scenarios will work in the real world. John Finnie. I am grateful for the member for taking intervention on that point. What does the member have to say about those who worked in the solar industry, who overnight saw the UK Government's policy erode that industry? Maurice Golden. Temporary market interventions are to be welcomed. Ultimately, renewables and the business case for any intervention in climate change must stack up. I urge the member to think about the economic realities of today and using the business case that we have to make the case for the circular economy, but I appreciate that that is something that is often lost on the Green Party. That can be seen in their actions in consecutive budgets each time the greens could have pressed for transformational environmental policies in order to back the SNP, but instead all we got was a tax on people driving to work. I welcome the ambition of the UK and the Scottish Government. The UK Government is a world leader in tackling climate change and transitioning to a sustainable economy. Greenhouse gas emissions are down a quarter from 2010, while the share of our electricity needs from renewables is up from just under 6 per cent in 2009 to a third now. That has been brought about by a £52 billion investment that did not just promise low-carbon jobs but delivered 400,000 of them. Scotland has also made progress, too, thanks to public and private sector action. We lead the UK in emissions reductions, with a drop of almost a half, and our renewable electricity share is over two thirds. However, the Scottish Conservatives are determined to continue pushing for practical evidence-based policies so that real change can be delivered. For example, urban consolidation hubs and switching public procurement to electric vehicles where possible by 2027, which would help to tackle transport emissions, reduce air pollution and promote positive economic and health outcomes. Projects such as an electric arc furnace and new plastic recycling plant would also help to deliver the low-carbon jobs that we need while boosting recycling. Underpinning all of this is the circular economy. We would embed it across all government departments to ensure that protecting the environment, reducing waste and creating opportunities for all, was at the heart of Scottish Government policies. This is the green new deal that Scotland needs. Who do you formally move your amendment? I move amendment 1. I now call Richard Leonard to speak to and move amendment 17000.2. Deputy Presiding Officer, Scottish Labour welcomes this debate. We want to reinstate full employment as a goal of public policy. We want to see real economic change. We want to see a new kind of society, a caring society where the whole economy is a social economy and every job is a green job. Of course, it is important that this debate starts with renewable energy jobs, but we must recognise that there is a need for a green new deal right across all sectors of the economy. I say in all sincerity that we will not attain the transformative change that we need by leaving it up to market forces or merely leaving it to the mitigation of market forces through defensive action. Do anyone who doubts that go and look at the powerful oral evidence submitted to this Parliament's Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee just yesterday morning. Go and read the heart-hitting report, Broken Promises and Offshore Jobs, presented to the Scottish Trade Union Congress in Dundee just last week, or go and ask the workers at BiFab in Methil, Burnt Island and Arnish Point. The introduction to the new STUC report is absolutely clear, so let me quote it. The STUC is absolutely committed to building a low-carbon economy and meeting climate change targets. However, we are criticising the failure of industrial policy. I would go further. We are not just criticising the failure of industrial policy, we are criticising the Scottish Government's failure to have an industrial policy in the first place. When I addressed the STUC Congress last week as the leader of the Scottish Labour Party, I called for trade union involvement in not just sectoral collective bargaining, but sectoral economic and industrial planning, because we need to transform our institutions. If we are to repurpose not just the Michelin in Dundee or the Caliworks in Glasgow, if we are to repurpose the whole Scottish economy, it cannot be done according to the central tenets of neoliberal economics. The old ideas of privatisation of austerity, of rolling back the state, cannot be done either through a continued overreliance on imported goods and services or foreign direct investment on multinational, financial and corporate interests. Instead, what we need is an innovative state. That means using the powers that the Scottish Government has got in procurement, in planning, in licensing and investment to ensure that low-carbon and renewable energy developments bring far greater economic benefit to communities across Scotland. It means establishing a properly capitalised national investment bank to secure by public investment the economic rebalancing that we need and the building up of our manufacturing base that must go with it. It means as well investing in new forms of common ownership, of cooperative ownership, municipal ownership and public ownership. There is a growing restlessness out there, school pupils striking young people, some with no vote, no vote but who have voices, voices that need to be heard and listened to. Across all generations, there is a rising determination that this Parliament needs to better reflect on the need for a new urgency of action, for a renewed vitality on the need for change. I am optimistic that we can make the leap, the transformative change that we need to make, with a planned transition, a democratic transition, a just transition, so that the very economic foundations of society become much more democratic, much more accountable and much more sustainable. The struggle that we face to save the planet and to halt climate change is, in the end, a struggle for social, economic and environmental justice. It is a struggle that not only can be won, it is a struggle that must be won. I move the amendment in my name. I can agree with much of what has been said this afternoon that building a fair and sustainable economy requires change and that change must be fair and just. It must not mean greater concentrations of wealth but a fairer distribution. That means jobs and opportunities for local communities that often feel left behind and it requires investment regulation and incentives by Government. Recent evidence is not encouraging. I wish that that was not the case, but there is real anger in Fife about BiFab. Keith Brown, when he was the economy minister, said that the takeover of BiFab by DF Barnes was a very good day for employees and assured Parliament that the firm had no intention of shedding further staff. Just 21 days later, many of those same employees lost their jobs. Weeks later, the company failed to win contracts for the fabrication of turbine jackets and floating platforms for the Murray East and Concardin projects. Gary Smith, from the GMB, has spoken much sense on that. He has captured the sense of betrayal in local communities. To the working-class communities in Burn Island and Methil, he said, this does not look like a just transition or a green jobs revolution. Now, when mainstream renewable power were lobbing for the Narnagoch wind farm in the out-of-fourth estuary, they said that they would create hundreds of jobs during construction and operation will generate significant local economic impact across the country, in particular on the east coast from Dundee to Imouth. They specifically lobbied for the support of working-class communities on the basis that they would see a return for their communities in terms of jobs. The former First Minister, Alex Salmond, promised that Scotland would be a Saudi Arabia of renewables manufacturing. Now is the crunch time for the Scottish Government to deliver on those promises to the bi-fab workers and the workers across the country to make sure that we have that just transition. I support renewables, our record on renewables is strong, but we need to make sure that we take everyone with us. That means making sure that those communities in Fife that I have talked about get a return for that investment as well. They have an interest in the long-term survivability and sustainability of our planet, but they need those jobs right now, too. Today's debate enshrines the importance of building a fairer and more equal society while transitioning away from carbon-dependent industries. Liberal Democrats have consistently forced the pace in countering climate change threats. In Government, we have a very proud record from nearly tripling electricity from renewables to making more than one million homes warmer and cheaper to heat and securing an ambitious EU-wide agreement on tackling climate change. We delivered in the face of almost daily battles with the Conservative party in Government. Today, we oppose the opening of a new front in carbon-based fuels with fracking, just like we oppose the Scottish Government's proposed subsidy for the open-cast coal industry, and we oppose the SNP plans to slash air passenger duty 2. We are urging the Scottish Government to get a grip of its waste strategy, which only yesterday was heavily criticised by a report that highlighted the problem with a million tonnes of waste. How on earth can it be meeting our environmental obligations to send Scotland's waste to England for landfill? It shows that speeches in this chamber are insufficient to tackle climate change. It is actions that count. Mark Ruskell, to be followed by Stuart McMillan. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is very clear that we are now standing at the crossroads in the climate emergency. There is an ambitious path that we can take with vision, courage, dynamism and a commitment that we leave no one behind in the transition that is necessary. We can start the journey by setting the net zero target in our climate bill, sending the strongest signal to everyone, from the climate striker to the banker, that Scotland's mission is to meet the climate emergency head on. As Gretthe Thunberg said to MPs yesterday, sometimes we just simply have to find a way. The moment we decide to fulfil something, we can do anything. But it is also what industry voices are demanding too. Aviva have said that a net zero target would give us the confidence that we need to scale up investments and help to deliver a zero-carbon economy. The Scottish Government needs a clear vision, mission and confidence to tackle the climate crisis, even though the solutions cannot be mapped out with certainty by either the UK climate change committee or the Parliament. It is a change in mindset that is needed across the whole of government in tackling this challenge. Setting the net zero target is the first step, but a green new deal is essential to enable the industries to make the big transformative leaps into doing things differently and better. The economist Keane said that it is not the role of government to do things that individuals are doing already, but to do those things that presently are not done at all. There lies the strongest tool in the box that we have to drive transformation and transition. The state has provided the foundation for our biggest breakthroughs. The technology behind the internet, the iPhone, pharmaceuticals have all come from a confident risk-taking state, investing in innovation to not just fix markets but to help to create entirely new ones. Leaving industry voices came together in Parliament to discuss a green new deal yesterday. They were thirst to deliver the change, but what they cannot do alone is to develop the solutions to the climate crisis when they are at their most risky stage of development. That is where the Scottish Government must up its game, starting with a stronger national investment bank, with a clearer statutory purpose alongside a bolder public energy company set up to share directly in the financial rewards of progress. Simply hoping that the free market will find a path on its own when fossil fuel corporates are investing over $200 million every year in climate change lobbying is naive at best. Government needs to lead the mission with an energy policy that is not based on simply more of everything. If the Scottish Government funds an oil and gas technology centre, then its mission can only be decommissioning and transition, not gunning for every single last drop to be extracted by 2040. One tragedy of the BiFab situation that was mentioned already by Willie Rennie is that the state did not take a direct stake earlier in the offshore wind supply chain. Instead, we have yards at methyl that have sat waiting for much-needed private investment that never came, affecting the competitiveness of the company. Government must take the lead in growing markets, where we have an advantage such as wave and tidal technology, while championing new low-carbon opportunities that are not even off the drawing board yet. We can draw inspiration from history and from great-doers like Tom Johnson, who will do the transformative power of the state to deliver our first great renewables revolution. At the same time, we can assure that no worker from the oil and gas engineer to the farmer is left behind. Our chances of walking out of this crisis get slimmer every day. The alarm bell was rung a long time ago. It is time to get up and run. It is time for a green new deal for Scotland. The tackles of climate emergency creates hundreds and thousands of jobs across Scotland and makes Scotland a fairer, more equitable nation. Thank you. I thank the Greens for bringing it out to the chamber this afternoon. The Greens and my party share a number of common goals, as well as some differences. One of the common goals is that there should not be a glass ceiling placed upon Scotland, and that the issue of independence is certainly the way forward to deliver a better Scotland, something that Patrick Harvie touched upon in his comments earlier on, as well as the statement from the First Minister earlier this afternoon. Some in this Parliament do not agree with that position, and that is legitimate from their perspective. However, if the Scottish Government develops green new deal proposals that require either support from the UK Government to help to deliver the proposals or to require the devolution of powers to deliver those proposals, will the Scottish Tories support those efforts in principle? Maurice Golden spoke about that in his comments earlier on that we will look at any proposals, so if that is the case, I will welcome, and I do welcome, the Tories supporting the Scottish Government in that regard. I have another genuine question to the Tories. We can all agree that we want to see a cleaner greener Scotland helping to deliver a carbon neutral economy, but the Tories' amendment mentions the issue of a circular economic strategy. We could have been further progressing down that line along the journey of carbon capture and storage if the UK Government had not cancelled the CCS competition in 2015. I thank the member for taking an intervention. Rather than blaming Westminster for one particular aspect, does the member accept that the Scottish National Party Government household recycling targets, which will not be met for 12 years after the deadline was set, is a real indictment on the Scottish National Party Government? Stuart Millan What I accept, Mr Golden, is that this Parliament does not have the full range of powers to deal with many of the issues that Scotland has to address. I also want to touch on something else that Mr Golden commented on. I wonder how the Tories explain nuclear waste in the circular economy regarding the environment as well as the economy. Storing the waste is not something that I am sure that the vast majority of the population sees as a positive product. I am not sure whether the Tories recognise that the circular economy is actually one of the headline themes of Scotland's manufacturing action plan. It sits alongside skills, innovation and all the other things that you would expect to find in a manufacturing plan. As the cabinet secretary highlighted in her earlier comments, the Scottish low-carbon and renewable energy sector supported over 46,000 jobs and generated more than £11 billion in turnover in 2017. The Just Transition Commission has also been established to provide ministers with practical advice on promoting a fair, inclusive jobs market as a move to a carbon neutral economy. On the face of it, Labour's amendment regarding the statutory footing of the Just Transition Committee sounds reasonable, but surely it will agree that the best course of action is to wait for the commission to report back and base the decisions on what is needed for subsequent years. I am sure that it will also agree that the landscape might have changed, and it might be different in two years' time. As compared to now, the commission might not be the most appropriate body for that work that is required. The Just Transition Commission is an important addition to working to deliver a carbon neutral economy, and I welcome the constructive dialogue being a central pillar to its approach. I am also conscious of the time, so I will conclude with the same thing. I want the Scottish Government to develop a green new deal policy that promotes an inclusive and sustainable economy that prioritises de-carbonisation. John Scott is called by Lewis MacDonald. Can I begin by declaring an interest as a farmer and as a food producer? While I agree with much of the sentiment of what has been said today, I will perhaps take a less radical and more cautious approach than the Greens and build on what we have, always bearing in mind that Scotland has responsibility for only 0.1 per cent or 1,000th of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. However, what we can do is offer leadership, as well as play our full part, but note that every option costs money. The financial memorandum from the climate change bill, which is currently before Parliament, estimates that a net zero target by 2050 will cost £13 billion. Who will pay for the transformational change that is likely to be required to take us to a low-carbon economy? Much is made of the opportunities for innovation about the potential of the great hundreds of thousands of new jobs by WWF and others, and it is certainly an objective that I would like to see fulfilled, but I just do not think that it is going to happen. I am afraid that I have really pushed for time at it and really sorry. Look at our onshore and offshore wind development, our most successful low-carbon industry, which so far has only provided less than 10,000 jobs in Scotland. To develop completely new industries that are not yet thought of that are going to deliver a jobs bonanza of almost 200,000 people, while a laudable aim is not one yet supported by the facts or experience of Scotland's track record, as far as I can see. So, if innovative and start-up companies are unable or unlikely to provide, with the best will in the world, to provide the investment to create or sustain tens of thousands of new jobs, the knee-jerk reaction here in Scotland has always been to look to government to do so. But, Presiding Officer, based on the track record of the last 14 years, the Scottish Government has neither the money or the ability to develop new industries that will, at the same time, create tens of thousands of jobs and produce worldwide reduction in greenhouse gases. Put simply, Scottish Government capital investment monies are and will be and should be used to build new hospitals, new schools, new roads, railways and housing, etc. Cabinet Secretary Derek Mackay never attires of telling us that there is not enough money to do that. So, the question remains, who is going to finance necessary infrastructure changes? And the answer is those with the research and investment budgets, namely current fossil fuel energy providers, for one, as they transition to providing energy in a low-carbon way and Scottish power is a shining example of what I mean. Similarly, for transport, existing train, bus and car manufacturers will, in reality, be the deliverers of real change. As Simon French cogennally argued in The Times on Saturday, it will fall to private sector groups to build the infrastructure necessary for a low-carbon economy to which we all aspire today. The same will be true for agriculture and it will be landowners and land managers and farmers who will have to provide the capital supported by a more holistic appraisal of what agricultural land delivers to create a low-carbon rural economy. Maurice Golden's amendment helpfully points us in the direction of a circular economy, again building on what we have and those who are already doing the business continuing to do so in a low-carbon way. It will be for the Government to declare its level of ambition, following advice from the climate change committee, to responsibly set achievable targets, which will in large part be delivered by the private sector. Of course, local authorities and health boards and other agencies of government will have a part to play, but the big shift in innovation to a low-carbon infrastructure in energy provision, to a low-carbon agriculture, to low-carbon transport will come from the private sector. We must encourage the private sector to do all that they can by creating a fiscal climate here in Scotland that encourages them to deliver the better future that we all seek. I call Lewis MacDonald to be followed by Fulton McGregor. Thank you very much. The motion before us today refers to our rapid and just transition, and as Richard Leonard said, most of us will sign up to that. The challenge is how to strike the right balance between speed and fairness in that transition. Getting that balance right is vital for many sectors of our economy and for the jobs and livelihoods of those who work in them. It is particularly important that we get the balance right from the point of view of our energy industries and energy workers. North East Scotland has one of the largest concentrations of energy expertise anywhere in Europe. Aberdeen, the oil capital of Europe for the last 40 years, aspires to be the energy capital of Europe for the next 40 years and beyond. How to make a just transition is therefore not an abstract issue, it is a matter of vital and personal interest to tens of thousands of people in the area that I represent and, indeed, across Scotland. Would you not acknowledge that it is important that, if you are going to set up an oil and gas technology centre, that becomes an all-energy technology centre that addresses the needs for emerging technologies, including renewables? Lewis MacDonald was right to make that point, and that is what the oil and gas technology centre is, as I am sure that, when he visits it, he will find out that they are doing very many very good innovative things in renewable energy offshore. I am glad that he mentioned it, because it is not on my list, but it is a critical area of energy transition. Other big steps have already been taken. Aberdeen is the largest fleet of hydrogen buses in Europe. The world's largest wind turbines generate power in Aberdeen Bay. The largest domestic district heating scheme in Britain has cut both carbon emissions and fuel poverty for thousands of council tenants, and Aberdeen Renewable Energy Group provides an outstanding model of municipal leadership in working towards a low-carbon economy. Indeed, Aberdeen Bay is only one of a large and growing number of wind farms in the north-east, onshore and offshore, while the ACON project at St Fergus has the potential to lead Britain and Europe in enabling carbon capture and storage in the North Sea. Those many projects are not crowded into the north-east just because we have innovative universities, enterprise and councils and a world-class workforce, although all those things are true. Those projects are here because we have energy industries and energy workers who have been delivering for a generation working in some of the toughest environments in the world and developing successive new technologies to overcome technical challenges, which would once have been seen as insurmountable. Public policy and expectation now look to our energy industries and energy workers to make different things happen. Those industries and workers are already adapting, seeking to deliver both low-carbon energy and successful carbon sequestration in those challenging offshore environments. The choice that we have to make now is whether to seek to deliver energy transition through partnership with the energy sector and energy workers or in opposition to existing energy businesses and those who work there. We should choose to develop a strategy to deliver real change, not simply to virtue signal at the expense of the people who work in our energy industry. Labour is clear that we want real change and we want to deliver it in partnership with workers in energy. We need to see real action by Scottish and UK Government ministers to secure real jobs in the renewable energy sector as an essential precondition of a just transition for our existing energy workforce. Many oil and gas workers are fully engaged with this debate. They are clear that energy transition must start with the creation of high-quality, high-skilled new energy jobs, not with getting rid of those that we already have. A generation ago, Scotland failed to capture the economic benefits of onshore wind, despite having led the way in developing the technology. We must not let that happen again. Government must find new ways to secure those future energy jobs and it must do so in partnership with our people who work in the energy industry. Fulton MacGregor, to be followed by our closing speeches. I would also like to thank the Green Party for bringing this very important debate to the chamber. The terrible Green New deal is something that we hear a lot across the world and more than ever we have seen the mobilisation from not just pressure groups as it once was but citizens and businesses as a whole towards a carbon-neutral economy. Indeed, we have seen our young people leading the way by striking as part of the school strike for climate movement, where pupils chose to take part in demonstrations to demand action to prevent future and further global warming and climate change. I must commend as others have the Swedish environmental activist Greta Thunberg, who at just 16 years old is showing not just her fellow young people but everyone who activism and taking a stand can make a difference regardless of age or background. Of course, as well as putting on record my appreciation of Greta, I thank the many young people in my constituency of Cochbridge and Chrysyn, who have contacted me over the past couple of weeks about this very issue, and indeed the couple of folk who have emailed me today, while the speech has been going on. I would like to thank them for all the work that they are doing. We are facing not just a country but a planet, the potential for a state of environmental emergency. There is really not much dispute about that. The time to make meaningful action is passing us by, but we must also make sure that measures are in place so that we are fully prepared for the economic challenges that come along with the transitioning to a greener and healthier Scotland. There is no reason why we cannot be both green and prosperous. After all, the low-carbon and renewable emergency sector generated over £11 billion in 2017. Scotland's natural environment is almost perfect in some ways for us to become green, and it is no surprise that it is worth £20 billion a year to our economy with 60,000 direct jobs. Rural Scotland covers 98 per cent of Scotland's landmass, and three of Scotland's key growth sectors—food and drink, energy and tourism—are reliant on Scotland's natural resources. Therefore, we must ensure that they are protective measures in place and that our rural economy is safeguarded. I think that there is also a general consensus that Brexit is one of the main threats to that just now. It is also known that our industrial sector accounts for over half of our exports and sustains a significant number of high-value jobs across Scotland. That is why I agree with the comments that the cabinet secretary made earlier. We cannot make the transition to a low-carbon future without ensuring that the domestic industry continues to thrive. Rather than meet targets through diminishing the industrial base across Scotland and putting forward the risk of industries relocating to areas where climate regulation is less stringent, I am sure that Richard Leonard and members of the Labour Party agree that we do not want to put workers in our working population in any sort of difficulty, in any sort of disadvantage. That is why I believe that the Just Transition Commission, which will report back in two years, is a very important factor in this, in moving towards a carbon-neutral economy. We must look at all the different aspects of that increase in active travel—for example, the new jobs in the sector that others have mentioned. I would also like to take the opportunity to urge local authorities to take action. I am glad to see that carbon management plans are being followed across the country. Northlandshire Council, local authority for my constituency, has come to the end of their current plan and are currently proposing a new plan to commit within the next few weeks. I have been assured just recently that substantial measures have been put in place in funding for pilot projects to work towards lower carbon are being sought. I urge local councillors to ensure that the plan is rigid and guarantees that the new three-year plan is substantial to ensure that we see real change by 2022. However, while I am putting that challenge down to Northlandshire Council, I also want to put on record my thanks to them for their strong support for the local community in Coatbridge against an incinerator, which has been going on for 11 years. It has responded to environmental concerns in the past, and I hope that that will continue. I will leave it there. I thank you very much. Claudia Beamish will be followed by Dean Lockhart. I welcome the Scottish Green Party bringing this motion for debate today, and Scottish Labour will support the motion in Patrick Harvie's name. A Green New Deal could be the way to root our climate ambitions in systematic economic transformation for the public good with the right criteria. However, it is worth reflecting at this stage in the debate on the opportunities in the low-carbon and renewable economy that have slipped away from Scotland due to poor planning and failure to support Scottish industry. The STUC report is right to lament and I quote, what could have been as we see European neighbours reaping those benefits and contracts literally slipping through our fingers. Scottish Renewables has also spoken of the historic under-investment in UK yards compared to Europe, but caveat this by saying there are certainly things that can be done and issues are fixable. A new green deal could certainly be the way to focus attention on those issues across all sectors, pulling together the Just Transition, the Scottish National Investment Bank and Industrial Strategy, new forms of ownership and our climate targets. The Just Transition Commission must be at the core of the Green New Deal. Yes, we need investment and we need strategy, but equity must remain the final test. That will be the role of a commission, and Scottish Labour is adamant that it must be written in statute in the climate change bill. It will be long-term, it must be independent of government and it must be well resourced to fulfil this remit. When the energy industry and its need for a Just Transition is an imperative for Scottish Labour, that support is equally important across a range of other sectors, such as farming and the land use sector. So many farmers work in isolation, meaning that the consequences of climate mitigation and adaptation are less visible and that in the more concentrated energy workers and communities. The industry also needs forward planning in policy, accompanied by commission advice, support and skills training. If that support for change is affected across all sectors, we will continue to discover new areas for improvement and that can bring innovation and jobs. Textiles is one such area. Currently, we are wasting 65,000 tonnes to landfill every year. A new circular economy approach would also help to tackle clothing poverty. The Labour amendment calls for the Green New Deal to support alternative forms of ownership in the public interest. We know of the offshore wind industry in my colleague Lewis MacDonald's constituency. There are Scandinavian and other models where publicly owned offshore wind operates. If the Scandinavians can do it, so can we here in Scotland, and we must support this. There are also other forms of energy gaining in the public interest. Smaller scale, the Edinburgh Solar Cooperative is climate friendly and the surplus can be reinvested in the social good. Municipalities worldwide are forging their own path. As Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York City, says, one of the best steps that national governments can take is to fight climate change is to empower their cities with the tools and autonomy that they need to act. Aberdeen Renewable Energy Group has taken a lead on that, as have others across Scotland and the UK. Community ownership. In Lewis, the Galston estate has three 900 kilowatt wind turbines, the net profit from which is distributed to the community via the Galston Trust community investment fund. It has proved that there can be support to community and social events, and the total of other funds leveraged in to support those initiatives as a result amounts to £2.3 million. Scotland can create stable jobs, strengthen communities, wipe out fuel poverty, do its bit to stem climate change and relocalise economies. As Richard Leonard says, we need an innovative state, and the new green deals supported by the Just Transition Commission must get this right for the people of Scotland. Dean Lockhart, who is followed by Ivan McKee. I begin by referring to my register of interests in connection with a smart meter business in England. This debate deals with one of the most pressing and critical challenges facing this generation and future ones, how to address climate change by transitioning to a carbon neutral economy and society. Our amendment to the green motion today highlights the increasing recognition in Scotland and across the world that future economic growth must be aligned with environmental protection and tackling climate change. As other members have said, business, as usual, is no longer viable. Here in Scotland, while significant—I am sorry, Mr Wyman, I have only got four minutes—I have got quite a lot to cover. Here in Scotland, we have made significant progress. Emissions are down 49 per cent in the last 30 years, but progress has been mixed over sectors and more robust action is required to deliver the transition. Whether we call this a transition delivery mechanism a new green deal or otherwise, the transition to a carbon neutral economy will require a whole-of-government approach. It will require investments of unprecedented scale, a fundamental review of the skills and training necessary for the future workforce, a balance between energy security and energy costs, and that transition must be delivered in a structured, co-ordinated and just manner so that no one is left behind. The reality is that there are already in place a number of delivery mechanisms that can help to achieve those outcomes. The UK Government's industrial strategy has made clean growth a central part of its sustainable economic policy. It provides the massive scale of investment required to support the transition, with £37 billion of investment available to promote sustainable economic growth. That includes £2.5 billion to invest in low-carbon innovation, the announcement of a new offshore wind sector deal, plans to make the UK the global leader for green finance to support clean growth and, as a result, the low-carbon economy in the UK is expected to grow by 11 per cent each year in the next decade. We want Scotland to benefit from the low-carbon growth, and that is why we repeatedly call on the Scottish Government to work closely with the UK Government to make sure that Scottish business can capitalise on those low-carbon opportunities. The Scottish Government itself can progress the transition by introducing a dedicated circular economy strategy for Scotland. Maurice Golden, in his opening remarks, referred to an ambitious programme that could create 40,000 jobs if the Scottish Government were to embed that in all portfolio areas. That would include the creation of new institutions such as the Institute for Reuse, microplastic recycling facilities and promote best practice across Scotland. We would encourage the Scottish Government to follow our policy recommendations in that area. Another delivery mechanism that other members have spoken about is the Scottish National Investment Bank. We agree in principle that that should be focused on the transition, but all of the projects must be evidence-based to ensure that projects are viable and sustainable. We cannot repeat the mistakes of the recent past, where £40 million of taxpayers' money was lost on failed investments such as Palamas and Aquat Marine. That cannot be the focus of the bank going forward. Finally, the Scottish Government's own climate change plans must also play an important part in the transition. However, those plans will need to address the concerns that are raised by witnesses in the economy committee who raise concerns that the plans cannot simply be wishful thinking, but they must be backed up by credible policies, resources and more specific targets. All those policy platforms can help to achieve the outcome of a carbon-neutral Scotland, but policy in that area will have to be prioritised. It will have to be implemented through a whole-of-government approach. Unfortunately, as we heard earlier today from the First Minister, the priorities of this Scottish Government are focused elsewhere and are not focused on climate change, sustainable economic growth or training the workforce of the future. I support the amendment in Maurice Golden's name. Thank you very much. Today's debate has covered many of the opportunities that the transition to a carbon-neutral economy offers. In addition to tackling climate change, Scotland's ambition to drive down emissions can help us to achieve social and economic gains, including increasing investment, creating employment and tackling inequality. We want to continue the debate that we have had today in the weeks and months ahead, focusing on the challenges and on the opportunities that it presents to Scotland. The issues that are discussed today are not new, and we should acknowledge the significant progress and achievements that are already made. Scotland has a well-deserved reputation for recognising and tackling climate change and for demonstrating a proactive approach to innovation across the green economy. The Scottish Government has provided significant investment to businesses, communities and the public sector through a suite of low-carbon support programmes, including our low-carbon infrastructure transition programme, as well as our community and renewable energy scheme. I have been fortunate enough to visit a number of overseas countries during my time as minister, including Ireland, Norway, Denmark and many others. Everywhere I go, Scotland is seen and recognised as a world leader in renewable energy, innovation and adoption. Provisional figures show that the equivalent of almost 75 per cent of Scotland's gross electricity consumption was from renewable sources in 2018, an increase from 70 per cent the year earlier, another record year. Over £18.5 million in the last year has been paid in community benefits by the renewable energy sector to local communities across Scotland. That money has been transformational to some communities, allowing them to support a number of social and economic projects. Scotland is already a global leader in floating offshore wind with high wind. The world's first floating wind farm is located off Peterhead. Richard Leonard's comment about the evils of FDI. Equinor has put the money in to get the high wind project up and running. The value of FDI is something that needs to be included, where investment is not only Government money but also with others who have technology and investment to make Scotland's renewable energy sector all it can be. I do not have time for that, unfortunately. We are committed to maximising the offshore wind sector in Scotland, and the finance secretary, Derek Mackay, will co-host an offshore wind summit with UK energy minister, Claire Perry, at the start of May. Decommissioning presents another distinct and clear opportunity for innovation, growth and economic development. The Scottish Government wants to ensure that the infrastructure is in place to allow the world-class Scottish supply chain to continue to develop competitive capabilities. Our work through the decommissioning challenge fund is providing direct support to the supply chain to ready it for the opportunities in decommissioning, creating growth and employment. The oil and gas technology centre, as Mark Ruskell should know, is very much focused additionally on renewables and is a key part of that transition. I suggest that he goes and visits them in Aberdeen to understand what they are engaged in, as I have done. The circular economy is also a priority. Yesterday, I visited McReibor in Lockerbie and was very impressed with the innovative technology using recycled plastics to manufacture roads, creating the conditions for a successful and powerful circular economy, which is making it easy for businesses such as McReibor to develop and roll out their technology here in Scotland and across the world. I want to comment on Maurice Golden's comments in his opening speech about the number of jobs. He talked about the great number of 400,000 low-carbon renewable jobs across the UK and how much of success that was. He will therefore recognise that the 46,000 low-carbon renewable jobs in Scotland, a significantly higher percentage than that across the rest of the UK, is also an achievement of the Scottish Government. Turning to the Scottish National Investment Bank, the bank has the potential to transform Scotland's economy, providing capital for businesses at all stage in their investment life cycle and important infrastructure projects to catalyze private sector investment. The bill for the creation of the bank was introduced in February and was the establishment of the bank in 2020. The bank will take a mission-based approach to investment with Scottish ministers setting the strategic direction. That approach will help to create and shape future markets, support innovation and tackle social economic challenges. As the First Minister said in her speech to the STUC, supporting the transition to carbon neutral society will be a key mission for the bank. That recognises the important role that the bank has to play in supporting future low-carbon neutral industries and infrastructure and financing improvements to existing industries. We welcome the consideration of the bill that is now under way and we will give careful consideration to proposals for improvement to the bill and where child changes can be made to ensure that the bank is better able to meet the ambition set for it. We will work with partners across the chamber and beyond to deliver those. Were there natural and human resources and our political will, Scotland is very well placed to not only lead the way globally on carbon neutrality, but to develop the industries and innovations that will help to shape that future. We can do that to the best of our ability with the limited powers that we have, but we also recognise that to invest to a level that is required, we will need control of all the economic levers in Scotland that can only come with the full powers of independence. Andy Wightman to conclude this afternoon's debate. Andy Wightman, thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer. Thanks also to everyone who has spoken in this debate. I welcome the broadly constructive tone, positive tone, adopted by nearly all members in this debate. Despite differences in approach, it is clear that the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP and ourselves share elements of this ambition, even if we disagree perhaps on some matters to do with urgency and emphasis. A green new deal is not, as the SNP amendment claims, just a policy or a different set of interventions. It is a mission-driven, time-constrained and ambitious new economic paradigm. The mission is outlined in our motion, the timescale is set out there too, and core elements of the means—for example, the objects of the Scottish National Investment Act—are also set out. Although the minister, Mr McKee, said that he would listen carefully, I did not hear anything in response to Patrick Harvie's invitation that, in fact, we follow up the commitment that the First Minister made at the STUC conference that, if those ambitions to incorporate climate in the Scottish National Investment Bank are so important, they should be on the face of the bill. I will reflect shortly on contributions for members, but, first of all, I thought I would highlight, as Richard Leonard has already referred to, a discussion that took place in the economy committee yesterday, when we convened a round table to discuss recent events relating to BiFab, wider questions around the offshore supply chain and what the future holds. Clearly, offshore and, indeed, onshore and all renewables play a key part in the core of any new green deal, but we have seen policy decisions made at a UK-level historically that have meant that we have missed much of the opportunity to become the world leader in offshore technology or wind technology or renewable technology in general. I recognise the disappointment that is expressed in the STUC report that is referred to in Labour's amendment relating to the opportunities that we have missed historically to develop a stronger local economy around offshore. Although we have missed those opportunities, the key is how we move forward. Willie Rennie also outlined the broken promises that Government has made on renewables. Yesterday, we heard from the chair of BiFab and the chair of DF Barnes about their alleged difficulties in securing a contract for the Concardin and Murray East wind farms, in which a state-owned entity—the Spanish state-owned shipbuilder—undercut a loss-making bit of 35 per cent and raised questions about state-aid rules. The fact that other countries have, through state action on investment and procurement, supported the development of renewable technology and, thus, the economic benefits for workers and communities was highlighted as well. We need a much more joined-up approach in procurement, in the supply chain and a much more joined-up approach between the Crown Estate, for example, who owns the seabed and grant leases, Marine Scotland, who provides planning and licences and by the UK Department of Business, who provides contracts for difference. A green new deal means that we need to learn from the mistakes of the past, but we need to move forward. There is not much discussion in this debate this afternoon about finance, but we have seen substantial billions of pounds made available in quantitative easing following the financial crash that did not do anything to transform the economy and only enriched asset holders. We have pension funds around the world who are investing, big Canadian pension funds investing in shopping malls in Edinburgh for the consumption of the masses. We should be securing disinvestment in fossil fuels and greater investment by pension funds and the like and sovereign wealth funds and, indeed, crowdfunding and, indeed, state-owned companies. Claudia Beamish and Lewis MacDonald mentioned Sweden's Vattenfall, a wholly-owned state company that is operating the European offshore wind deployment centre. The cabinet secretary talked about joined-up policy, and she is right. We welcome the Just Transition Commission, but it must be aligned, as she alluded hinted at, to the infrastructure commission, the energy strategy and, most importantly, Scotland's economic strategy. Maurice Golden talked about and accused us, indeed, of extreme socialism. I am not really sure what that is, but it has got nothing to do with a green new deal. Even Richard Leonard is not an advocate—I do not think—of extreme socialism. He told us this afternoon that he wanted the whole economy to be a social economy, and we would agree with him. To become a social economy, we need to repurpose the economy. We need to redesign it. It cannot be done within the paradigm of neoliberal economics, so we agree with Richard Leonard on that. My colleague Mark Ruskell highlighted the potential of publicly-owned energy companies and the Scottish National Investment Bank working together. It is not widely known—it was revealed in committee yesterday—that, in fact, the Scottish Government is a 28 per cent stakeholder in BiFab. It is also not widely known, perhaps, that the methyl yard, in fact, is in public ownership. It is owned by Scottish Enterprise. Of course, none of that is unusual. I have just alluded to countries such as Sweden and Vattenfall. Lewis MacDonald and Ivan McKee claim that the oil and gas technology centre serves all sectors. I have the objects of the company here. Object number 1 is to be recognised as one of the top-through centres globally for innovation and technology development and deployment for the oil and gas industry. Object 2 is to be recognised worldwide as a leading oil and gas hub with particular focus on sub-sea production, mature basin asset management and maximising economic recovery and ensuring deconimationing excellence. I am sorry, Mr White, but I am afraid that there is no time for interventions at this point. I am sorry about that. We are at an important moment in history. A number of members have talked about the imperatives of the climate crisis, but rapid changes are unsettling. That is why I agree with many members who say that a Green New Deal is imperative. We need to bring everyone with us. That is a deal, a contract, an understanding and a commitment that we are all in this together to create a pathway to a clean, green and peaceful future. The time has come for a Green New Deal for Scotland. I commend the motion to follow it. Thank you very much. That concludes our debate on a Green New Deal for Scotland. We will move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of business motion 17027, in the name of Graham Day. On behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, could I call on Graham Day to move the business programme at motion? Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. If no one wishes to speak to this, the question is that motion 17027 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next item of business is consideration of business motions 17028 and 17029 on the stage 1 timetable for two bills and 17030 on the stage 2 timetable for a bill. On behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, could I call on Graham Day to move the three motions? Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. Again, no one wishes to speak against the motions. Therefore, the question is that motions 17028, 29030 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Before we come to the decision time, I think that we may have a point of order. Alexander Burnett, point of order. Presiding Officer, last week, the chief executive of the Parliament issued advice to all MSPs on the European elections. It made it quite clear that parliamentary resources should not be used for election campaigning. In a statement earlier, Nicola Sturgeon said that the Euro-elections will also give voters a chance to back a party like the SNP. Order, please. Does the member finish, please? So can the Presiding Officer give us his guidance, given that the First Minister used a parliamentary statement in her role as First Minister to make a party political statement explicitly appealing to voters in an upcoming election? Has Nicola Sturgeon kept to the spirit and letter of the advice given to MSPs? I thank Mr Burnett for advance notice of his point of order. As the member noted, in his comments, advice has been issued covering the European elections. It looks at, in particular, at the operation of the member's expenses scheme and the wider use of parliamentary resources more generally, however, it does not cover the content of political comment in political proceedings in the chamber such as statements, questions or debate. Having said that, I will take advantage of this opportunity to remind all members to observe the distinction between political debate and blatant electioneering or campaigning and to refrain from the latter over the next few weeks. On that note, can we turn to decision time? The first question is that amendment 17011.3, in the name of Jeane Freeman, which seeks to amend motion 17011, in the name of Alison Johnson on addressing Scotland's GP recruitment and retention challenges, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote and amendment number 17011.3, in the name of Jeane Freeman, is yes, 60, no, 61. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 17011.2, in the name of Miles Briggs, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Alison Johnson, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that amendment 17011.1, in the name of Monica Lennon, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Alison Johnson, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. And the next question is that motion 17011, in the name of Alison Johnson, as amended on addressing Scotland's GP recruitment and retention challenges, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that amendment 17011.3, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, which seeks to amend motion 17011, in the name of Patrick Harvie, on a Green New Deal for Scotland, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 170003, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, is yes, 61, no, 60. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that amendment 170001, in the name of Maurice Golden, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Patrick Harvie, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 17011, in the name of Maurice Golden, is yes, 29, no, 92. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 17012, in the name of Richard Leonard, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Patrick Harvie, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 170002, in the name of Richard Leonard, is yes, 31, no, 90. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The final question is that motion 17011, in the name of Patrick Harvie, as amended, on a green new deal for Scotland, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 17011, in the name of Patrick Harvie, as amended, is yes, 92, no, 28. There were no abstentions. The motion, as amended, is therefore agreed. That concludes decision time. We are going to move to members' business shortly, in the name of George Adam, on MS Awareness week 22 to 29 April 2019. We will just take a few moments to allow members and the minister to change seats.