The next item of business is rebate on motion 1719 on the name of Colin Smyth and Scotland's future. Scrap the cut to the air departure tax. Can I invite members who wish to speak in this debate to press their request to speak buttons now? I call on Colin Smyth to speak to and move the motion. Last week, the Scottish Government made a welcome if overdue commitment to strengthen our emissions targets to accept the Committee on Climate Change's recommendation of a target of net zero emissions by 2045. Labour welcomes that decision. A target of net zero emissions has been a position for some time. It is a target that reflects the urgency of the climate emergency that we face. However, the sense of urgency is that the targets are not worth the paper that they are written on if they are not backed by the policies that are needed to deliver them. That is why the SNP's proposal to cut air departure tax was not only the wrong policy when it ditched it on the eve of this debate. It was the wrong policy when it proposed it in its 2016 election manifesto. It has been the wrong policy every single day since the SNP minister, after the SNP minister queued up to justify that policy and attacked Labour when we questioned it. The SNP amendment today says that a cut in air passenger duty is now not compatible with the more ambitious targets that Scotland wishes to pursue. It was never compatible. Labour's long-standing calls to drop the cut has been vindicated by the SNP's U-turn on the issue—a U-turn that should have been made a long time ago. The Scottish Government's analysis has consistently predicted that a 50 per cent cut in air departure tax would have been bad for the environment, adding more than 60,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent to the atmosphere each year. The strategic environmental assessment of the policy raised concerns that a cut to ADT would have driven a model shift away from rail towards short-haul flights. Only now do the SNP seem to realise that pursuing policies that would actively increase emissions from transport is damaging to the environment. I thank the member for giving way. He talks about policies. Would the Labour Party be prepared to support the workplace parking levy, which might help? Colin Smyth? The answer to that question is no. No-one believes that the proposal for a workplace parking levy from Derek Mackay was anything other than a fig leaf to try to cover up the brutal cuts and council budgets that this council is going to pursue. The problem with the regressive workplace parking levy tax, where a company boss will pay—the cabinet secretary is speaking from a sense of business. Do you want to make an intervention? To the chair, everything, please. I would like to fulfil my function. Colin Smyth has just said that nobody believes in the Labour Party, apparently, in the workplace parking levy. Does that include everyone in the Labour Party, including those who took the other position at the Labour Party conference? The Labour Party put our policy to the conference. The SNP, however, did not put their policy to their conference, and I will tell you why Derek Mackay sneaked the policy through in the budget, because he knows that it is a regressive tax where the company boss will pay the same as a company cleaner, where the chief executive of a health board will be exempt, but a carer on the living wage will have to stump up. The only thing that a workplace parking levy will do is ignite a public backlash that will undermine proper changes to the environment that we are going to need in the future. Presumably, that is why we still have not seen the proposals from the cabinet secretary for that particular tax. Transport already contributes over a third of Scotland's greenhouse gases. It is a single biggest sectorial contributor, with emission levels barely any lower than they were in 1919, actually higher than they were in 2016. When it comes to transport and environment, the Scottish Government has been moving in the wrong direction. Excuse me a minute, Mr Smith. Is there a wee debate going on in the back benches between the Glasgow MSPs? Show some respect to the person who is actually leading this debate. They are working at how much the workplace parking levy will be imposed by the SNP. When it comes to transport and environment, the Government is moving in the wrong direction. Aeoline passion numbers are higher than ever before, increasing by 40 per cent since 2010 at Scotland's airports. Bus usage continues to plummet, and active travel rates are stuck at less than 2 per cent. Of all the modes of transport, domestic air travel is the least environmentally friendly with higher emissions per passenger kilometre than any other mode. In 2016, aviation was responsible for emitting over 2 megatons of CO2, an increase in the previous year and 50 per cent more than levels in 1919. A cut in ADT would continue to drive those emissions up, but that would not just have been bad for environment. It would have been bad for our public services. A 50 per cent cut would have cost £150 million a year, with the cost of abolishing it altogether likely to be more than double. That is over £300 million of cuts to our public services that they simply could not afford. It would have also been a tax cut that would have benefited the most well-off, with the richest 10 per cent almost three times more likely to fly in a year than those on the lowest income. In contrast, lower income groups are disproportionately dependent on bus services, walking and cycling. The recent Scottish budget for spending in those modes of travel frozen will, at the same time, continue to argue for £150 million cut on ADT three times the total support for buses through the bus services operator grant. I recognise the economic and strategic value of aviation, but we need to support aviation in a responsible and sustainable way and, crucially, in a way that is in keeping with our broader transport and environmental aims. That means, for example, supporting Glasgow airport with a direct rail link to cut car usage on the MA. It does not mean pursuing support for airports that increase emissions and drive passengers away from the greener modes of transport such as cross-border rail. The long overdue SNP U-turn and air departure tax is welcome, but it is not just the ace SNP who has changed the position on air departure tax, it seems. The Tory amendment today calls on the SNP to honour the commitment that was made in the manifesto that it stood on in 2016 that introduced a reduction in Scotland's current ADT regime. The problem for the Tories is that, by calling on the SNP to honour their manifesto, the Tories are dumping their own manifesto commitment. Because the Tory manifesto in 2016 on air passenger duty was very clear, it said, and I quote, we have studied the evidence on air passenger duty alongside the final report of our tax commission, and I have concluded that we will not support the Scottish Government's proposed 50 per cent cut in APD. That Tory tax commission also stated, and again I quote, that the only impact of a reduction on APD would be to boost airline and airport profits.  Unfortunately, I do not think that I have got any extra time. I can let you have it, if you wish. Patrick Harvie. I am very grateful that Colin Smyth is quite right to point out the way a number of other parties have changed their view. Can Mr Smyth remind us when Labour changed its view after having voted for the SNP's motion on the issue back in 2012? Colin Smyth. I can tell Mr Harvie that our manifesto commitment was very clear, and we stick to our manifesto commitment, while the SNP and the Tories, it seems, are dropping there. I welcome the change in position from the SNP.  The response to rising transport emissions is to call for them to be raised even further. Will the Tories move in the direction of Donald Trump on climate change, Scotland needs to do more and more to move faster in the direction of lower emissions? That means not just ditching the cut in air departure tax, but ditching other damaging policies, including the brutal cuts that we have seen to local councils by this Government. In 2011, council budgets have been slashed by more than £1.5 billion. That cut is continuing in this year's budget, devastating local services. We see that clearly in transport. Bus services across Scotland are being dismantled route by route, often as a direct result of funding pressure on councils, particularly in rural communities, where subsidised services are a lifeline for so many of those communities. Likewise, cuts to local authority budgets are impacting on active travel. If we are serious about reducing emissions from cars, the way to achieve that is to put in place the affordable alternatives. Transport is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases. Agriculture is not far behind. This is a sector of huge importance to the Scottish economy, particularly in rural and remote areas. However, it is also one of the hardest to treat sectors in terms of emissions. The support system, as it stands, has little to encourage much less enforced best practice in terms of emissions and sustainability. However, this Government is dragging its heels and redesigning agricultural support to take account of. I will just stop for a minute, Mr Smith. I am looking at the motion and I have been quite lax, but your motion is just about abolish air departure tax. We are now talking about cows and things, so we have moved off the topic a wee bit in any way that you should be winding up. Please wind up. I will refrain from arguing the link between the two. Over the past 200 years, humans have shown that we can change the climate, unfortunately for the worse. We have a far shorter period of time to recognise the climate immensely we face and change our environment for the better. The Government U-turn on air departure tax is a welcome move on that journey. In moving the motion today, Labour recognises that there are other changes that can be made and there is still a long, long way to go, and a lot more change is needed. I remind members, please, to keep to what they have put down on the business bulletin as their amendments and not to drift into other areas. It is exciting, though they may be. I now call on Derek Mackay to speak to a move amendment 1719 0.1. Cabinet secretary, five minutes. To be fair, at least Colin Smith has shown that he is agile enough to amend his speech in light of circumstances. We are in the midst of a climate emergency, so business, as usual, will not do. Last week, the Committee on Climate Change published its new report and said that Scotland should set a 245 target for net zero emissions of all greenhouse gases. This Government has been and will continue to be a world leader on climate change. As such, we have embraced a new report from the committee in full. We acted immediately with amendments to our bill to set a net zero target for 2045 and to increase the targets for 2030 and 2040. In terms of meeting those targets, it will not be easy and will require difficult decisions to be made. Parliament needs to be prepared for that, and that includes the Government's policy on air departure tax. Air departure tax in Scotland had been deferred to ensure that it is not devolved in a defective state that the UK Government admits. To protect our rural communities, a solution has to be found to the Highlands and Islands exemption before we can take on the tax. The Scottish Government will continue to work with the UK Government to seek a solution. This Government has had a long-standing policy to reduce ADT by 50 per cent and abolish it when resources allow. In doing so, we have always sought to balance the economic benefits of the policy with the impact on the environment. The ADT bill placed a duty on ministers to consider the economic, environmental and social impacts before setting the rates and bans and to keep that under review. Following the First Minister's declaration of a climate emergency and her new emissions reduction targets for Scotland, we are committed to looking across our whole range of responsibilities and increase action where necessary. We have come to the conclusion that the economic benefits that we sought through our ADT policy are not compatible with our new emissions reduction targets. The Government has not taken that decision lightly, but we have recognised that it is an important first step to meet our tougher climate targets and rise to the climate challenge. We will continue to support, of course— Murdo Fraser? I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way. In light of everything that he has said, is the Scottish Government still committed to supporting the third runway that he threw? As I have just said, the environment secretary and other ministers will be looking at the appropriate policy responses in terms of our overall suite of policies. That is a very important and significant first step. I have seen much of the pontification from Murdo Fraser in relation to air departure tax, or APD. Colin Smyth is right that the position of the Tory manifesto was that it was not convinced by a reduction in that tax. The Tories need to be careful what they wish for, because the tax cuts planned from the Tories now totals over three quarters of £1 billion in tax cuts. Right now, if the Tories are so concerned about APD, it is the UK Government that will continue to set the APD rates in the UK, because it failed to properly devolve it to Scotland. When the evidence that we have seen leads us to the conclusion that that tax cut is incompatible with our ambitious climate change targets on seeing the evidence that is only the Tories that go in the opposite direction, if I have time? I recognise that the Government wants to look at its wider range of policies, but is it not clear that if a tax measure to boost faster aviation growth is incompatible with climate change policies, then so is any other measure that boosts faster aviation growth? Is the Government committed to stabilising aviation levels? Let me say that aviation emissions account for a relatively small amount of Scotland's overall carbon emissions. We have to look at the suite of policies. The decision alone will have little impact if it is taken in isolation. Of course, we have to look at the range of policies that the Government has. However, there is a responsibility on everyone in Parliament if we are serious about the climate emergency. We all need to look at policies and take the appropriate actions to deliver those ambitious climate change targets. I agree with Colin Smith that there is no point in having the targets if we are not putting in place the actions to get there. That is why it will be significant that the Cabinet Secretary for the Environment and Climate Change makes that further statement to Parliament on the challenge required to meet the new target. We must take all appropriate action and, in finance, we are committed to increasing the share of capital expenditure on low-carbon projects year on year, ensuring that their investment in infrastructure matches our ambition. As part of the budget agreement with the Greens, local authorities will be empowered to implement workplace parking levies to reduce submissions and encourage that modal shift. If the Labour Party is serious in its efforts to tackle climate change, if this debate is to be more than just political commentary, then the Labour Party needs to be prepared to recognise that its policies and reactions must also change, that difficult decisions are required. It should now drop its opposition to empowering councils through the workplace parking levy. Tackling the climate emergency requires decisive action, and this Government is up for that challenge. I hope that others are too. Please move your amendment. I don't know if you did it at the beginning. Did you move your amendment? I moved amendment in my name. I now call on Jamie Greene to speak to move amendment 17190.44 minutes, please, Mr Greene. We want to increase international connectivity and support our thriving tourist industry. We will use powers coming to the Scottish Parliament to have APD, one of the highest taxes of its kind in the world, and ultimately abolish it. I am reading that straight from the SNP's own website right this very second in an ironically named section called Scotland Open for Business. So what's changed, Presiding Officer? Well, this much triumphed and long-awaited reduction to this tax has been canned. A flagship policy, which the SNP praised and defended to the hilt, all now frantically looking on social media to delete their tweets. Nicola Sturgeon is trying to walk a political tightrope here, promising support for tourism, aviation, oil, gas and exports in one breath, whilst declaring emergencies in another. Playing hostage to fortune with policy changes, bereft of intelligence scrutiny, the consequences of which have either been ignored or simply misunderstood. Gordon Dure of Edinburgh Airport yesterday put it simply, we've gone from personal commitments to all out cancellation two weeks, which shows just how reactionary this decision is. Airports and airlines have been led down a path of failed promises for three years by this Government. His angry words not mine. Last night, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, a sensible voice of business, said that, if some members don't think that they're sensible, that's a shame. Thank goodness that they're not in government. Despite years of consultation, years of detailed technical and economic valuations, this decision will do nothing to reduce emissions. Instead, it will cut Scotland off at the knees. What credible government proactively does that to the business community? I'm sorry, Presiding Officer, I'm not one that these benches will sit in. In my three years here, never has such a U-turn delivered such a damning indictment, and that's just what it is—a U-turn—a politically motivated—please sit down—a politically motivated and convenient monumental U-turn from this Government. It's nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to a serious and complex problem. It's a decision that flies in the face of its own policy and advice. It's one that does nothing to address the flawed logic at the heart of its rationale. This has not, nor should it ever be about whether you support the aviation industry or the environment, because we desperately need to support both. Just as we need, as a country, those business travellers who will come and invest here, or tourists who will come and spend their money here—and what is wrong? What is wrong with giving hard-pressed families a helping hand on their well-deserved break if it's very brief? Yes. The member is in his last minute. I've got a lot to get through.  I'm going to move on. I've got a lot to get through. Presiding Officer, it is at best naive. I beg your part to please sit down. There seems to be a wee problem here. What's the wee problem? If you take the intervention, I'll give you your 30-second intervention. Off you go. Based on what the airlines and the airports have said, just out of curiosity, does Jamie Greene think that the UK Government should reduce air passenger duty? Jamie Greene knows the whole point of devolution. The whole point of devolution is that this Parliament makes the right decisions for Scotland and you've made the wrong decision today. It is simply at best naive and at worst disingenuous to single out any one industry in such an unspecific and uninformed way. No consultation, no analysis, and no economic forecasting from the cabinet secretary. What galls people the most is the sheer hypocrisy of all from the SNP, because they think that it's right for people in the Highlands and Islands to be exempt from this tax. They think that it's right to back Heathrow expansion. They think that it's right to send rockets to space from our peninsula. In one simple act of ill thought through policy reversal, the SNP has just shown itself up for what it really is. No friend of business and no friend of Scotland's tourism industry. We could have had a sensible, informed and balanced debate today about the future of aviation and the future of our economy, but instead the First Minister has turned this into a polarised game of political brinkmanship. The only learges of this game will be Scottish businesses, Scottish jobs and hard-working Scottish families. What a sad yeatern and one in which I think this Government will live to regret. I move the amendment in my name. Presiding Officer, I have had many opportunities to speak in this chamber against the policy of an aviation tax cut both before and since the theoretical devolution was agreed. The policy has been clearly dead for quite some time now, and I am delighted finally to have the chance to speak in a debate celebrating its ultimate burial. Back as far as 2012, we made the case very clearly. As soon as the Scottish Government had proposed this policy, we made the case very clearly against it, showing not only that it would hurt the revenues that funding Scottish public services if it was ultimately devolved and then reduced and challenging the Government, which it never responded to, to say where that cost would come from, but also showing at a time when the Scottish Government was still carrying on with the delusional nonsense that this would somehow reduce emissions, it was green questions to ministers that forced them ultimately to admit that it would do the opposite and increase emissions from aviation. We also showed, in working with the campaign group fellow travellers, that it would demonstrably benefit the better off. In any one year, the large majority of people in Scotland do not fly at all, so it would gain no benefit from this tax cut. Most of those who do fly fly once or twice a year of those who do fly in any given year. The vast bulk of that tax cut would go to the tiny number of wealthy, frequent flyers who would disproportionately gain from it. I want to welcome the fact that there has been such movement since that debate, because back in that 2012 debate, we were the only political party making that coherent case, the climate argument against that policy. There were individuals, including Malcolm Chisholm and Willie Rennie, who recognised the strength of the argument that we made, but ultimately it was only myself and Alison Johnson who voted for the Green amendment on that occasion, and the Labour Party voted with the Government on their unamended motion. I welcome the fact that both parties have changed their views. It is important to recognise that and welcome it. I want to welcome how far the Conservative Party has come on that debate, because it has made the most extraordinary change in just the space of a week. Last week, the Conservative Party made a wee video for their social media claiming that the Greens have never achieved any environmental change from the SNP in government. This week, with that one policy announcement, they say that the SNP has succumbed once again to the environmental extremists. I want to thank the Conservative Party for recognising the impact that green influence has indeed had. We can see a lot of the positive effects of that green influence in the Scottish Government amendment today. The commitment to shift the balance of the capital budget away from high carbon and toward low is a green policy concession. The commitment to workplace parking levies, originally introduced by Labour, included in Scottish Labour local manifestos in recent years, is now opposed by Labour only because it has been introduced by the wrong political party. We must make the longer-term case that aviation cannot be given a free pass. We all recognise that lifeline flights to the islands, for example, are a special case, but aircraft efficiency alone will not reduce emissions if we keep on flying more. If the whole world flew as much as we do in this country, there would be zero chance of averting climate disaster. If ADT cuts as a means to boost aviation growth are unacceptable, then so are other methods as well. The Scottish Government must drop its commitment to support Heathrow third runway and other means of boosting aviation and commit instead to public transport and to the investment in walking and cycling that would make a real difference to people getting about sustainably in Scotland right across our country. I thank Colin Smyth for bringing this debate to Parliament this afternoon, notwithstanding the finance secretary's last minute U-turn yesterday, I can confirm that the Scottish Liberal Democrats will be supporting Mr Smyth's motion at decision time, not least as that reflects the party's consistently held position on the air departure tax. We will not, however, be supporting either of the amendments. I am afraid that the Tories' position on ADT seems to have been crafted by the same brains trust that brought us Jeremy Corbyn's Brexit position. It risks damaging the environment on the one hand while also failing to satisfy the airline industry on the other. As for the Government's amendment, I am afraid that Mr Mackay, as reasonable as he ever is, cannot get away with rewriting history. He is right that cutting and abolishing ADT is certainly not compatible with the more ambitious climate change targets that we wish to set, but it was not compatible with the previous climate change targets either. The truth is that the policy has never been compatible with our climate change ambitions and no amount of resetting the clock by Mr Mackay and all the other ministers lined up as supporters to his amendment will persuade the chamber or the public otherwise. The justification for giving the airline industry a £250 million tax break was always dubious. Against the backdrop of rising passenger numbers and an expanding network of routes, the SNP's decision to offer such a massive windfall looked reckless. What was the evidence for that move? Therein lies a tale. I note that Keith Brown is not among those listed as a supporter of the Government's new position. That is a shame, for it was he who, when asked in a written question back in 2013, what the evidence was for the policy pointed to my colleague Willie Rennie in the direction of the EasyJet website. Helpfully, there to be found was a report commissioned by British Airways, EasyJet, Virgin Atlantic and Ryanair. Surprisingly, they thought that a £250 million tax out to the airline industry was all upside. Who knew? Massive economic benefits, little environmental impact, too good to be true, surely. Clearly, even SNP ministers thought so, as an independent expert group was then consulted. Sadly, that group comprised 15 airline and airport representatives and one lone environmental voice. SNP ministers seemed determined to stack the dice. By contrast, when the Government went out to public consultation on their proposals, half the respondents raised concerns or objections principally around the environmental impact. The other main concern, of course, was the impact that the tax giveaway would have on funding available for key public services, education, health, policing and even support to help to decarbonise our transport system. The audacious attempt to raid the Scottish Government's own coffers cannot be laid at the feet of Westminster, however. The move had the SNP's fingerprints all over it. Even with yesterday's U-turn, the First Minister needs to explain how her full-throated support for a third runway at Heathrow squares with a new-found acceptance of this climate emergency. I accept that we need an airline industry in good health, given the constituency that I represent, how could I do otherwise? There is a strong case for reducing taxes and costs on certain types of air service where those provide a lifeline, usually a pretty expensive lifeline, I might add, for remote rural and island communities. However, there is a world of difference between that sort of targeted intervention and the sort of windfall previously being offered up by the SNP and still not being backed by the Tories. I welcome the Government's decision to abandon this reckless policy, however belatedly, and reiterate my support for the motion in Colin Smyth's name. Thank you very much. Open debate, speeches of four minutes, no time in hand. Claudia Beamish, followed by Gillian Martin. Last week was a truly significant time for this Parliament and the country, as the Scottish Government agreed to up its ambition and shift its long-term emissions reductions in line with the UK Committee on Climate Change advice. Net zero by 2045 is indeed well-leading, feasible, cost-effective and necessary. Scottish Labour has led the way on this along with others. I am delighted that the pressure from Scottish Labour has led to the Scottish Government changing its mind on the cutting of air departure tax, a money saver for the wealthy that would have been the equivalent of 30,000 new cars on the road. It was always a regressive tax, and it is welcome that the cabinet secretary has come to recognise its social and environmental implications. Of course, the necessity for swift climate action has been stark since the intergovernmental panel on climate change special report on 1.5. The damage at two degrees centigrade rise would be far-reaching, turning dangerous extremes into a normality disaster for so many. 1.5 is an imperative for the global population's health, livelihoods, food, peace and safety, and for the continuation of our natural world, as we know, love and rely upon. Those issues are intersectional with class, race and gender, and many other characteristics. I will focus briefly on race after having shared a conference on climate justice at UN House in which Black Lives Matter spoke. Communities in the global south are adapting to climate change now, and seven out of 10 of the countries most vulnerable to its effects are in sub-Saharan Africa. However, those issues are here at home, too. Black British Africans are 29 per cent more likely than white counterparts to be exposed to air pollution. The Black Lives Matter protest at London City Airport highlighted the climate injustice of an airport for the elite polluting in a low-income London community and exacerbating climate change for the global south as well. Alterations to ADT would have included cuts to short-haul flights for which there are rail alternatives, including to the continent via Eurostar. That would have been likely to have a significant impact on the rail sector. For example, a great number of choices in short-haul flights at a lower price could displace some rail movements. That is the opposite of the modal shift that the Scottish Government needs to encourage in order to deliver a sustainable transport system. Scottish Labour can suggest a number of other ways to demonstrate and act on the modal shift. We would stop the cuts to councils that are devastating the public transport links and active travel schemes. We need more on-road segregated cycle schemes. We would introduce a young person's bus pass to encourage a long-term modal shift, strengthen legislation on LEZs and promote public ownership so that profits can be spent improving services, lowering fares and delivering greener vehicles. The UKCCC report emphasised how vital good policy design will be in reaching net zero. We, as parliamentarians, must now apply stricter tests on all policies with due regard to its environmental and social externalities. Considerations like those will elevate Scotland to the progressive place that we want it to be. This is a challenging and exciting time, and the Government has made two welcome shifts from its original policies lately. All parties must scrutinise their policies as we go forward towards net zero emissions. This mentality should be rolled out across all sectors to give stable long-term direction. I look forward to the Government's review of all policies in the new climate change plan and to contributing to this.  We must act together. I say to members that we are already over time and that speeches will get cut if people insist on doing that. Gillian Martin, followed by John Scott. This is an interesting motion from Labour. I would like to talk about each part of it in turn, but, before I do, I want to recognise my committee colleague Claudia Beamish, who has been a robust challenger of policy and a strong influencer within our own party, which I think shows. The first line of the motion has asked the Scottish Government to review its policies in response to the global climate emergency. In the FMQs last week, the First Minister said that she would review all policy areas with regard to increased ambition to tackle climate change. Just over an hour ago, the First Minister responded positively directly to me on a question on how all Cabinet secretaries will take ownership of the Government's commitment on action in reaching the net zero target. Of course, that comes off the back of the Government accepting the main recommendations of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee's report on the climate change bill, which includes accepting the advice of the UK Committee on climate change and producing a new climate change plan within six months of royal assent. It is interesting to note that, in the middle of the motion, Labour called for local authorities to be more empowered to tackle climate change. We have a recent example of where the Government has done just that, given local authorities the power to introduce a car parking levy and a power that only local authorities and cities with good public transport infrastructure will see fit to use. Rural councils let mine have opted not to use it, given that, for Aberdeenshire, we do not yet have the public transport infrastructure that means that people can completely ditch their cars. I agree with that decision that it is exactly why that kind of decision has to be made at local level. Here is the weird thing, after the Government decided to give local authorities that power, that discretionary power, James Kelly was out and about campaigning against it. Quite against the views of his own colleagues, Councillor Cammie Day, who is at Labour Group in Edinburgh City Council, disagreed with him. He said that we have argued that councils need powers such as the tourist tax and the workplace parking levy to be able to not tax cars, but to create a new environment for people to work, live and enjoy the city. Finally, let us look at the motion's main title, Scotland's Future. As we wait for a UK Government's response to the advice on targets from the UK Committee on Climate Change, we are met with a wall of silence and the policies that the Tory Government is going to pursue to meet its advice targets. I am yet more convinced that Scotland's Future has to be one as an independent country, which has all the levers available to it to make agile and meaningful decisions. The ones that they have just made on APT— Martin, could members—this is not the first contribution that has happened in—please make sure that the use of time to address the motion and amendments under discussion? I am not just coming to the air departure tax part of this. The levers available to it to make agile and meaningful decisions, such as the ones that they have made on APT, which was decided in the first Cabinet meeting after the CCC's advice was received and not also today's announcement on DRS. Scotland's already got a reputation for being a world leader in tackling climate change with the power that it already has at its disposal. This decision this week is proof of that agile working. I also asked the First Minister about the importance of the UK Government also committing to targets in the CCC's advice this week. She pointed out three areas that have specifically been asked to address. Those are decarbonisation of the gas network, commitment to investing in carbon capture and storage technology and an earlier date in the electrification of cars, potentially in line with the Scottish Government's date of 2032. The motion suggests that Labour is fully on board with supporting those areas of devolved and local authority powers that they previously did not. John Scott, followed by John Mason. I begin by expressing an interest as a co-convener across party group and aviation and my surprise at being here today debating the SNP Government's U-turn on yet another of its flagship policies. Not only am I concerned about the SNP Government again going back in its word freely given, but it is no exaggeration to say that the business leaders from across Scotland are queuing up to condemn this anti-business, anti-tourism and anti-people SNP Government. The people in the air constituency will not understand why the Scottish Government owners of Prestwick Airport just made it even more difficult to fly airplanes to and from this remarkable and strategically placed airport. My constituents will not forgive the broken promises made by the SNP Government to do all that they could to help Prestwick Airport grow and succeed, because air departure tax most adversely affects regional airports such as Prestwick, Aberdeen and Dundee. Instead, the 300 or so trusted and valued employees at Prestwick Airport will be wondering today for how long will they have a job at all, given Ryanair's anger at this broken promise, which of course affects all their flights to and from Scotland, not just Prestwick. I was in Dublin on the day in April 2014, when Michael O'Leary announced that he had persuaded the Irish Government to abolish APD, saying that he would increase the Irish Government's tax take from tourism through increased vac receipts if they would abolish APD. Michael O'Leary did just that by increasing tourists visiting Ireland by 3.3 million people in the first year. That the APD was abolished in Ireland. Indeed, at that time, Cabinet Secretary Derek Mackay was so impressed that he told the daily record that more investment would be possible if APD was to be scrapped in Scotland consistently there. Cabinet Secretary, what? So today we witnessed the SNP again dividing Scotland into those who are for Scotland's business development and the SNP supported it appears by the Labour Party and now the Liberals as well, who are against business development. Do not take my word for it, Cabinet Secretary, but I will not. Do listen, if you will, to the Scottish Chamber of Commerce, who have roundly condemned the SNP Government for going back on its word. Do listen to Gordon Dure of Edinburgh Airport, Scotland's most successful airport, who said that this decision does not show leadership and means that airports and airlines have been led down a path of failed promises for three years by the Scottish Government. So today the SNP Government has shown again that they do not keep their promises, instead they make promises to win elections and then go back on them. My constituents in Ayrshire and others in Aberdeenshire and Dundee will be outraged by yet another failure to deliver by the Scottish Government as their business connections and holiday destination choices just got harder and more expensive to make because of the actions of their Government. Of course, we all know that the threat of climate change needs to be addressed, but this virtue signalling by the Scottish Government is not the way to go about it, as the aviation industry is already clearing up its act more quickly than almost any other industry on greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, the Government is allowing itself to be driven by the Green Party agenda in a similar way to the proposed imposition of a workplace car parking charging scheme. The SNP and the Greens will pay the price at the ballot box as they displace tourism from Scotland at the same time as reducing the choice of easily accessible tourist destinations from Scotland. John Mason, followed by Alex Rowley. It seems to me that this has always been one of those issues where there was a fairly fine balance between seeking to boost our tourism sector on the one hand with a lower air departure tax, which would hopefully have encouraged visitors to come to Scotland. On the other hand, we want to tackle climate change and protect the environment so that we lean towards discouraging flying as a means of travel by keeping or even raising taxes such as ADT. There is also the factor that, at a time of very tight finances, if we want better public services, we need to raise tax and certainly not cut it, whereas cutting tax means further restrictions on spending, as the Conservative Party very well knows. The reality is that we should all be taking climate change more seriously than we may have done in the past. We cannot stick rigidly to policies that seemed right in the past and I think that it is the sign of a mature Parliament and mature Government that we can learn and adapt to circumstances. I think that other parties need to consider their positions as well. The aim of the workplace and maybe other places parking levee is to discourage the use of cars and get more people using public transport. Again, there is a balance to be struck. People want to use their cars and we are a democracy, so we can only restrict car use to the extent that the public will accept. No, not from Mr Kerr nor if he is going to be cheeky. However, that is not to say that there should be no change in the way things have been done in the past. We in the SNP seem to find ourselves in the middle ground on a number of those issues. We have the Greens, who I admire for their idealism, wanting to go much further than the public is prepared for. On the other hand, we see Labour and the Tories opposing the likes of a workplace parking levee, presumably because it comes from the SNP and Greens. Does Mr Mason not think that the wave of new direct action and activism from the school strikers to extinction rebellion demonstrates that the public are rather ready for us to go further than many politicians have previously thought possible? John Mason? Yes, I think that that is correct, and the public mood is changing, but they are not ready to have cars abolished tomorrow night, as some of his colleagues might want. There has been some fairly extreme comment on this decision, not least from the Scottish Chambers of Commerce. They do say that we need balance and we need to reach a balanced judgment, but they also say that this will, quote, cut Scotland off at the knees, unquote. This is clearly nonsense and I would expect something better from the Chambers of Commerce. Both our tourism sector and the increase in flight destinations from Scotland are doing well, perhaps better than we had expected when the policy to cut ADT was introduced. There are many other factors affecting numbers of flights and passengers apart from just this tax. One example is that Manchester airport draws on a larger population base than we do. I can also say that I have some sympathy for the Green amendment, which was not chosen for debate today. Expansion at Heathrow might give more onward flights for travellers from Scotland, but it could also undermine the aim to get more direct flights to Scotland, and on top of that, it is likely to have a negative effect on the environment. If recent developments mean that we are reexamining previous decisions, perhaps Heathrow is another policy that needs to be reexamined. Finally, I note that in the Conservative amendment that has been mentioned, I think that its 2016 manifesto said that it would not support an APD cut. One of the strengths of this Parliament is that no party has a majority, and every party needs to compromise and find common ground. As an SNP MSP, I find that disappointing at times, but as a democrat and a parliamentarian, I find that extremely good. An ability to adapt compromise and negotiate is a good thing. We do not see that with Theresa May at Westminster, but I hope that it is something that we see at Holyrood. The estimates put on the air departure tax being cut by 50 per cent were £150 million. If you take that to the conclusion that the Conservatives would like to go, that is £300 million. The question has got to be asked, where would that money have come from? Where would those cuts have taken place in public services? The Conservative party to come in here and shout about that when we know that their budget cuts would have taken our £500 million out of public services in Scotland surely leaves them. We know credibility whatsoever. What other reasons the Government has brought about this U-turn policy has to be one that is welcomed. We have to recognise that, as we address the climate crisis in this country, we have to do so in a fair and equitable way. Indeed, a transition to a zero-carbon economy must be part, surely, of a broader programme for redistributing wealth and power in this country. I would want to quote from Rebecca Long Bailey, Labour's business secretary at a UK level. She pointed out that Britain is already one of the most unequal and regionally divided countries in Europe. Poorly implemented, economic transitions threatened to further impoverish the poorest parts of the country that are already suffering the worst effects of deindustrialisation and austerity. If climate policy does not fundamentally address those problems, it will not only accelerate them but will never receive mass support of British working people. That surely has to be a key objective of every political party that we build mass support across the country for tackling the climate crisis. That is why I would turn to the SNP and say to them that, yes, of course, we should be working together to tackle the climate crisis but we will not line up to support half-baked policy that has not been thought through. If you take the workplace park in Levy, that is, in my view, a half-baked policy that has not been thought through and would attack working people and indeed threaten their very jobs. Where, for example, in Babcock and Recife, where workers travel all over Fife, where there is not a good public transport system in place, Diageo, Diageo— The point of order from Jamie Greene. I am sorry, but this has nothing to do with the motion, not a single mention of APDs. Mr Greene, could I have some silence, please? That is for me to decide, not for you to decide. Mr Rowley. If you read the amendment for the SNP, it has got absolutely everything to do with the motion and the amendment, but workers in Diageo travelling all over Fife and much further afield in Mid Scotland in Fife, indeed, have not to then end up paying a workplace park in Levy, so it is not thought through properly and it is a policy that would hurt workers. Can I say that I have looked at Nottingham, where they have brought in this workplace park in Levy, and the levels and emissions in Nottingham city centre have not been drastically cut as a result of this policy. I welcome the decision by the Government to work down on this. Let's work together, but let's ensure that we work together to come up with the right policies for Scotland. Jamie Halcro Johnston, followed by James Dornan. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Planned reductions to air departure tax have been in the pipeline for several years now. Those were long-standing commitments by the Scottish Government. They were a flagship transport policy, one that gave some reassurance to Scotland's business community that the SNP had an interest in and some understanding of our country's economy and in creating a more global Scotland. As a member of the Highlands and Islands and a Morgadian, I have seen first-hand the benefits of the APD exemption and the wider positive impact on the region. It has been crucial to the growth of services in and around my region, a region where flights, even though serving the aisles, can be prohibitively expensive. However, while the Highlands and Islands exemption is crucially important, it is not enough in itself. As fellow Highland MSP Kate Forbes has self-observed as the ADT bill was progressing, its natural reduction promised to have a direct and positive impact on families in the Highlands. Does Kate Forbes, as a minister, believe that this is now not to be true any longer? If we accept the importance of our regional exemption, why would we assume that those saving benefits would not accrue significantly from a national reduction? It is frankly ridiculous that the Scottish Government is now ignoring the benefits of effective affordable connectivity after so many years of making the case for it. What is of great concern is that, if the SNP is now targeting air travel to meet climate goals, how long will that Highlands and Islands exemption itself remain? Like reductions in ADT, the SNP has long promised a subtle reduction in ferry fares on the Northern Isles routes. That still has not been delivered yet, either. I would ask for assurances from the Scottish Government in their summing up that the Highlands and Islands exemption is not under threat and that it is still committed to reducing ferry fares on the Northern Isles routes. However, as we have heard already from the aviation sector, who were given assurances only a couple of weeks ago and yesterday they learned that those assurances meant nothing. Looking yesterday like a man sent out to deliver news that he does not really agree with, the Cabinet Secretary, Derek Mackay, desperately tried to shift blame for his Government's failure on to the UK Government. Had those reductions been delivered two years ago, does Derek Mackay really have us believe that, yesterday, he would have reintroduced full ADT? I will, if you are going to answer that question. Derek Mackay. I thank the member for taking the intervention. The reason that we have not taken on devolution of APD is to protect the Highlands and Islands exemption. The Highlands and Islands exemption is absolutely here to stay, but specifically in relation to what has changed. Should we all not reflect on the advice from the committee on climate change, which has said—unlike the previous position where it said that it was manageable in terms of emissions—that, right now, it makes our job easier in terms of meeting those ambitious climate change targets? Should we not respond in light of that kind of information? Jamie Halcro Johnston will take you to four and a half minutes. I thought that the reasons were climate change, as you have repeatedly stated. A policy is fully reversed in just two weeks. Is this a genuine climate change focus move by the SNP? Is the nicolocopter permanently grounded? Is it days of ferrying between party engagements finally over? Probably not, because this is not about climate change. It is all about political gamesmanship. It is a headline-grabbing hypocrisy from a Government that still rightly backs our oil and gas sector and probably backs expansion of Heathrow airport. I would also ask another question that perhaps the Government could address in their summing up. Given that U-turn will seriously impact on businesses across Scotland, most notably within the aviation sector, and given that the Scottish Government owns a number of airports, can the cabinet secretary or minister confirm that the correct procedures for releasing commercially sensitive information have been followed and that neither Hyal nor Prestwick airport were given any advance notice of that decision? Presiding Officer, ADT is not an effective tax against climate change, it is a tax on Scotland's links to the world. The finance secretary once spoke about an ADT reduction boosting trade, investment, influence and networks for Scotland. The Scottish Government spent many years as evangelists for Scotland's connectivity, but now the strategic assets of air travel in Scotland have suddenly become regrettable polluters to SNPIs. Where does that leave their transport policies and at what price do Scotland's connectivity and its economy? The last of the open debate contributions is from James Dornan. There can be no doubt that Scotland is a world leader in tackling climate change. The Government has ensured fracking and, in addition to underground coal gasification, will have no place in Scotland's energy mix. We have already halved greenhouse gas emissions whilst growing the economy. Following yesterday's announcement, we have listened to the evidence and decided not to proceed with plans to cut air departure tax. That will have been a difficult decision for the Government, however, it shows that SNP are taking the climate emergency seriously, far more seriously than other parties. The global climate change is one of the defining issues of our time, and we are now at a defining moment. I sincerely hope that all parties are prepared to rise to the challenge. A challenge brilliantly laid down by our younger generations throughout the Niger opposition that may suit short-term politics and unite behind doing what is right for the future of our planet. It is a challenge that so far, the Tories, Labour and Liberal Democrats have shown little inclination that they plan to meet. We have discussed the workplace parking in Levy a few times today, but under a Tory Government, councils in England already have the powers to introduce such a Levy, a Levy that would support the Scottish Government's ambition to reduce emissions, yet the Scottish Tories are steadfast in their opposition. It is a policy that was introduced by Labour in England, implemented by a Labour council in Nottingham, supported by Glasgow and Edinburgh council candidates in 2017 and reported by Claudia Beamish, Labour spokesperson for environment, climate change and land reform, yet Scottish Labour are steadfast in their opposition. The provisions for a workplace parking in Levy were introduced by the Labour Party and the UK's Transport Act 2000. Those measures were supported by Liberal Democrat members of the UK Parliament, yet the Scottish Labour-led Dems are steadfast in their opposition. Despite what Alex Rowley said, it is a policy that, according to Nottingham City Council's portfolio holder for transport, has helped to improve their quality and has contributed to falling nitrogen dioxide emissions largely due to the investment in sustainable public transport made possible with Levy funding. The Opposition party really must stop playing political games on issues and listen to the evidence. Secondly, Labour, Liberal Democrats and Tory support for the nuclear weapons programme. We all know that the Tories are unashamedly obsessed— Excuse me, Mr Dornan. Do you think that you could come back to addressing the motion? The motion is surely about climate change as well as ADT. Sorry, Mr Dornan. Surely the motion is about climate change and the impact that ADT is going to have on it along with other things. Mr Dornan, I am not asking you to argue with me. I am just asking you to address the motion. I just want to know how you feel. You have a minute and a half left. Right. It appears that the fact that some of the parties are quite happy to endanger the climate in some ways but make a fuss about the air passenger duty is okay. However, I would say that meeting our climate change targets will mean that we have to upper ambitions across a whole range of Government responsibilities. That decision shows that the SNP Government has listened and already taken decisive action. It is now time for the other parties to show that they are also willing to listen to the evidence and act. The Opposition parties must refrain from simply opposing everything tough or challenging, such as a workplace parking levy and step up to the plate. All sides of the chamber have to accept that positions may need to change in light of the climate emergency. It cannot simply be left down to the Scottish Government. Every single one of us now needs to take more action—individuals, businesses, schools, communities, organisations, the Scottish Government and the UK Government—so let's work together and make that change. There is still time to stop climate change, so let's put aside the party politics for once to help to ensure that we can save the planet for our future generations to enjoy. It does not look like I am going to have a very good support for that and among the Opposition. We now move to the closing speeches. Murdo Fraser, four minutes please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Well, this has been a significant debate for what it tells us about the cack-handed policy making within the SNP Government. Those are the people who told us for years about the priority of cutting air departure tax in 2016. They said that we will have the overall level of APD to support growth and improve connections across the globe. Every time we have a debate in the chamber on tourism or connectivity or exporting, they tell us how important that policy is and now they have ditched it. I remember doing hostings before the last Scottish election with Fergus Ewing. On tourism, promising the tourism sector how this important policy would be delivered, only two weeks ago, apparently, Minister Kate Forbes was assuring Gordon Dewar at Edinburgh Airport with a personal commitment that this policy would be maintained and now it has all been abandoned and all those people have been hung out to dry. We have seen the reaction from the business community quoted by John Scott. The Scottish Chambers of Commerce is saying that the change in policy will cut Scotland off at the knees in terms of connectivity and the competitive playing field. It shows the contrast between the SNP under Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP under her predecessor Alex Salmond. At least Mr Salmond understood business in Scotland. At least he stood up for cuts in co-operation tax and cuts in ADT. The whole pro-business legacy of the SNP has been trashed under Nicola Sturgeon and Derek Mackayne. It is no wonder that business is turning away from the SNP and turning to the Conservatives. We understand what is an important issue for connectivity, as Jamie Greene said. It keeps telling us that it wants more powers to grow the economy, but when it gets those powers, it will hand them back to the SNP, or it will not use them at all, as in this case. A number of speakers in the debate have properly raised the issue of climate change. Precisely because of the concerns that we had about climate change, our policy on ADT reduction was different from the Scottish Government's policy, and we did not support a cut in ADT for domestic or short-term flights. Precisely because we were concerned that that would lead to surface travel being less competitive than air travel. That is why the ADT cut that we proposed would apply only to long-haul routes where there was no surface alternative or where present people are having to make extra journeys with connecting flights rather than one journey straight into Scotland. What cutting long-haul would do is open Scotland to the world, bringing in the opportunity of new routes to places such as North and Central America and Asia, which can only be to our economic benefit. It is the economic benefit that will deliver increases in additional tax revenues elsewhere. No, thank you. With increased taxation coming from income tax through growing employment, additional VAT through spending—indeed, John Scott pointed out that the experience in Ireland shows that you can grow your tax revenues by cutting ADT. Alex Rowley should look at that experience. By the position of the Labour Party this afternoon, that does cause me some concern. What the Labour Party seems to be saying is that air travel should once again become the reserve of the rich and not be available to ordinary working people. Because it is only in comparison to the recent times over the past three decades that air travel has become affordable for ordinary families. The first time that I was on a plane was when I was 21. That was not unusual for people of my generation. Many Scottish families did not have overseas holidays until well into the 1980s or 1990s. Now the Labour Party in Scotland, no thank you. The supposed party of the working class now seems to be saying that ordinary working families across Scotland should no longer have that opportunity. They seem to be saying that only the rich should be able to afford to fly overseas holidays.  There is a climate emergency. The Scottish Government is acting accordingly. Our first step was to immediately lodge amendments to our climate change bill to set a net zero emissions target for 2045 in response to last week's report from the Committee on Climate Change. Our next step is looking at the concrete actions that need to be taken as a result. Unlike the Tories, we know that difficult decisions are required and we are taking this seriously. Yesterday's announcement on air departure tax makes that clear. Scotland has already shown leadership on this issue as the first country in the world to include a fair share of emissions from international aviation in our climate targets. Our whole economy approach is working, with emissions almost halved since 1990. Aviation currently represents less than 5 per cent of Scotland's total annual emissions, but that is growing. Even relatively small levels of emissions can be important when targets are very ambitious as they are now. Scotland's current climate targets are already world-leading, but we know that greater action is required. We are listening, and it is in this context that the Scottish Government has decided that reducing air departure tax is no longer compatible with more ambitious climate targets. In answer to some of the questions raised, members should be aware that, in 2017, CCC advised that a 50 per cent reduction in ADT was likely to be manageable in terms of emissions impact. This year, the chief executive said that a change in policy on ADT would help immensely with the emissions challenge. To be clear, we are still fully committed to taking on ADT once the solution to the Highlands and Islands exemption issue has been resolved, but in support of our climate change targets, we no longer plan to reduce the tax. I emphasise that aviation is only one part of the emissions picture. Meeting Scotland's climate targets will require many difficult decisions across all areas of the economy and society. Parliament needs to be prepared for that. The UK Committee on Climate Change has been stark in saying that its proposed new targets will require extensive changes across the economy. Our announcement yesterday, along with our commitment to increase the share of capital expenditure on low-carbon projects year on year, demonstrates that we are prepared to lead the way on those difficult decisions. The time for action is now. It is not the time for short-term political point-scoring, and I hope that proposals that will help us to reach our climate change goals, such as the workplace parking levy and low-emission zones, will be supported. The Scottish Government has committed to updating the climate change plan within six months of the bill receiving royal assent. That means that we will look across our whole range of responsibilities, all our policies, to make sure that we continue with the policies that are working and to increase action where that is necessary. I hope that all parties in this chamber will approach it in that same way. The next step will be in the summer. We will engage the public, communities, businesses, industry and the public sector in a discussion about what more can be done to address climate change. We also need to discuss where further UK Government action is needed. The Committee on Climate Change has been clear that the delivery of net zero emissions in Scotland depends on increased UK Government action across policy areas that remain reserved. In summary, the Scottish Government is committed to doing what is needed to limit global temperature rises as we promised in our manifesto and will not shy away from those difficult decisions. Colin James Kelly, to close the debate for five minutes please. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. It has been a very interesting couple of days watching the political gymnastics of SNP ministers because for three years we have watched the SNP front bench doggedly defend this policy of passing tax cuts to airlines and imposing cuts on public services. I am glad that Labour's table in this debate today has precipitated a change in the policy. It is the right move, as Colin Smith pointed out, in terms of tackling an objective of net zero emissions. Having in place a policy of reducing ADT by 50 per cent would result in 60,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions a year, which is contrary to a policy of an ambition of achieving climate change targets. I think that the other point is that it was an unfair policy in that it sought to pass tax cuts to airports and also to frequent flyers to those who were better off. What I would say in response to Murdo Fraser is that I would point out that nearly half of the Scottish public cannot afford to travel by air. They cannot get anywhere near an airport. Some of them cannot even afford a holiday, so why should we design our policy to give tax cuts to frequent airport flyers? The other point that was made effectively by Alex Rowley was the effect on the Scottish budget, because it would lead to a reduction in that budget, first of all by £150 million in terms of the 50 per cent reduction and £300 million if there was a full reduction. It was also based on, as Liam McArthur pointed out, a lack of evidence. Some of the evidence was written by the airlines themselves. If you would have to ask the question—I do not want to take the intervention—you would have to ask the question, if you were to take £150 million out of the Scottish budget, that could be £150 million more out of council budgets, which have already been constrained and cut. That would affect people across the country, that would affect local communities and local economies. I will take the intervention. Derek Mackay I will ask Mr Kelly directly the information that we have received, the climate change targets that we have all signed up to give us cause to look at our policies. Is the Labour Party looking at their own policies in relation to climate change? Of course, we are examining all our policies. In response to that, as Claudia Beamish said, what we need is a sustainable transport policy. We need a policy that looks across all areas, so that should start with rail. We need an operator that will give confidence to rail passengers that trains are going to turn up in time. We could also do using some of that £150 million that has been proposed as a cut, but we are using £1 million of it to save the jobs at the Cali rail depot and keep the jobs in Scotland. We also need to look at the transport bill. That is drafted currently as a missed opportunity. There is too much power in the hands of bus operators who strip away and cut away routes from local communities. We see bus fares increasing by 11 per cent in real terms over the last five years, whereas wages in this country have reduced in real terms by 1.5 per cent since 2009. Alex Rowley made a very relevant point on the workplace parking levy. We are not going to support regressive policies that mean low-paid workers paying more tax. There are 480,000 workers in Scotland who do not pay the real living wage. We will not support a policy that means that they have to pay more out of their small and paltry wage packets and make it more difficult for them to sustain and support their families. That is a welcome U-turn from the Government, but we also need to look at other areas of transport policy to tackle low emissions. We need a proper rail service and a transport bill that gives more power to communities and takes power away from bus operators. That concludes the debate on Scotland's future. Scrap the cut to the air departure tax, and it is time to move on to the next item of business.


Akin gobbler is looking for a 2-0 start to this year taking on international falls. First drive for Akin right up the middle, the handoff to Austin Price. He gives the gobbler a 6-0 lead. Next drive for Akin. Quinn Miller fakes the handoff and finds his receiver Owen Miller in the flat. The sophomore makes a man miss and he is gone for the 50-yard score. Two-point conversion good puts Akin up 14-0. International Falls had a chance to get on the board in the first, but Chase Howlin looking for Riley Larson. No good. Keeps him off the board. Akin with a big win tonight. 54-0.


In the last few lectures, we have been talking about microwave amplifiers. To design a microwave amplifier using either a transistor or even an IC amplifier, you must first see what are the S parameters at the desired frequency, what are the biasing conditions. After that you find out what is the value of delta and k, so that you know whether the amplifier is stable or not at that particular frequency. If it is not stable in that particular case, what do you do? You draw input and output stability circles and wherever the stability circles cut the smith chart, you avoid that particular portion and choose the gamma s value and gamma l values in the different part of the smith chart which does not intersect the stability circle. After you check the stability part, then what we did, then after that you calculate what is the gtu max, so that you know whether the desired amplifier can be designed for a given gain. So, once you know that desired gain is less than gtu max, then start with gtu, then you choose the value of gs and gl such a way that they will give the value of gt, after that you draw the gain circles for both gamma s and gamma l, choose the values of gamma s and gamma l on the constant gain circles which are relatively closer to the center point which is 50 ohm, so that impedance matching network becomes easier and simplified. Today we are going to talk about low noise amplifiers. So, low noise amplifiers are one of the most important amplifier at the input of the receiver. For example, the signal received by the receiver through an antenna is very very small and it has traveled through the atmosphere. So, it actually has lot of noise built into that. So, we do not want an amplifier which also adds noise to it. However, you cannot avoid the noise what you can do, you design an amplifier with minimum noise figure. So, let us see what are the sources of the noise and then how we can design a low noise amplifier. So, we are going to look at different noise sources. So, let us start with the first one which is a thermal noise ok. So, thermal noise is basically because of the resistors in the circuit. So, how thermal noise comes into picture? Well, when a current flows through the resistor there will be power dissipation in the resistor and that will be given by I square R. So, this power dissipation leads to the heat and that is what is thermal effect and that is what is known as thermal noise. The mean square noise voltage V n square is given by 4 k T R B. What is k? k is Boltzmann constant the value is 1.38 into 10 to the power minus 23 joules per degree k, where k is temperature in Kelvin. What is T? T is absolute temperature in Kelvin this is actually equal to 273 degree plus temperature in centigrade. B is bandwidth. So, bandwidth over which that particular receiver is operating and R is the resistance value. Let us take an example to calculate V n square for given parameters of bandwidth which is equal to 10 megahertz. 10 megahertz is reasonable bandwidth to assume for any cellular band. For example, we know that GSM 900 works from 890 to 960 of course, that is divided into two separate bands 890 to 950 and 935 to 960 megahertz. Of course, one band is not going to be 10 megahertz that is generally going to be of the order of 1 megahertz, but for let us say Wi-Fi communication frequency values for Wi-Fi communication is from 2.4 to 2.483 gigahertz. Now that means bandwidth of 83 megahertz, but that is not really correct part of the bandwidth is only used for transmission part of the bandwidth is only used for reception and that bandwidth is of the order of 20 megahertz. So, 10 megahertz we can say is between that cellular band and the Wi-Fi band. So, for a bandwidth of 10 megahertz and let us say resistance is equal to 1 kilo ohm and room temperature is let us say 30 degree centigrade. So, what will be the V n square well let us look at this expression. So, 4 into k 1.38 into 10 to the power minus 23 into T in Kelvin. So, that will be 273 plus 30 multiplied by resistor which is 1000 multiplied by bandwidth which is 10 into 10 to the power 6 you do the calculation. So, noise voltage comes out to be 12.9 micro volt. Now this type of noise is also known as white noise the reason for that is resistors are generally frequency insensitive. So, white noise basically is a noise which can span from DC to terahertz and more frequency range. So, the thermal noise generated by resistor is also known as white noise.  So, maximum available power from noise source will be when R load is equal to R n. Now we are not trying to optimize the maximum noise the reason why we choose R load equal to R n or may be the source resistance. So, that maximum signal is transmitted to the load ok. So, let us say this is the noise source which has an associated resistance R n. So, for maximum signal power transmission which will also lead to maximum noise power R load should be equal to R n. So, we can say that this voltage will be equal to V n pi 2. I just want to mention that I have not deliberately written here V n the reason for that is V n sin is not predictable. So, it may have a plus here or minus over there. So, generally speaking we represent in the form of V n square, but you have to understand this is V n by 2. So, you have to take square of that if you want to calculate the power. So, power delivered to the load will be V n by 2 square divided by R load. So, this is given by 4 k T R n B where R n is the noise resistance and for maximum noise power calculation R load should be equal to R n which is true for maximum signal power transmission also. So, now P comes out to be k T B. You can actually see here interesting thing that there is a no resistance value coming into picture. So, what does that mean that is noise power independent of the resistor? Well actually speaking I would like to say that this particular expression has been derived assuming that this load is equivalent to R n. If R load is not equal to R n in that particular case R will come into picture. So, let us take the same example, but now we are going to calculate what is the maximum noise power coming to the receiver end. So, for bandwidth of 10 megahertz temperature of 30 degree centigrade we can calculate the value of P which is k T B. So, k is this T is 273 plus 30 this is the bandwidth and this comes out to be 4.18 into 10 to the power minus 14 watt. So, you can see that this is a very very small number. Let us take the D B of this. So, that comes out to be minus 133.8 dB which is equivalent to minus 103.8 dB m. Now, I want to mention here that the receiver sensitivity of let us say mobile phone can be from minus 70 dB m to minus 100 dB m. In fact, there are many mobile phones which even have a sensitivity up to minus 110 dB m. So, this noise power is not negligible in comparison to minus 100 dB m or even lower value which can be received by the mobile phone. Now, let us just look at the another source of the noise which is a short noise also known as short key noise, but basically I want to tell you this results from P n junction. So, any diode or transistor would have a P n junction. So, there will be current flowing through that P n junction and let us say that d c value of that current is I d c. Then mean square noise current is given by this particular expression, where q is the charge which is given by 1.6 into 10 to the power minus 19 coulomb and B is the bandwidth over which a receiver is going to operate or you can say you have to design amplifier to operate over that particular bandwidth. So, let us say now I d c is equal to 10 milliampere and B is equal to 10 megahertz. So, let us see what is the value of I n square. So, I n square is given by 2 times q 1.6 into 10 to the power minus 19 I d c we have taken as 10 milliampere B is bandwidth which is 10 megahertz. So, from here if we calculate the value of I n that comes out to be 0.18 micro ampere. So, let us calculate what is the noise power due to this particular noise current. To do the power calculation we have to assume the value of resistor. So, for most of the microwave circuit resistance value is typically taken as 50 ohm. So, P will be I n square into 50 and that comes out to be minus 118 dB which is minus 88 dBm. So, you can see that this is fairly large value if we think about a mobile phone receiver sensitivity. So, that is why majority of the time first stage of the low noise amplifier does not use biasing current of 10 milliampere it may be of the order of 1 to 2 milliampere and if we take this as let us say 1 milliampere. So, we will see that the value will decrease correspondingly. So, I n square will decrease correspondingly by 10 times and that means, noise power will also decrease by about 10 dB which will be about minus 98 dBm. So, please remember when we are designing a low noise amplifier we have to really be very very sure that the noise power generated by the amplifier should be as small as possible. So, now let us define noise figure. So, first we will define signal to noise ratio I am sure most of you are familiar with signal to noise ratio signal to noise ratio is defined as P s divided by P n which is nothing, but signal power divided by noise power and of course, these things will be related to voltage. So, this will be V s square by R this will also be V n square by R. So, R R R will get cancelled. So, this is the signal noise ratio in terms of the signal voltage in terms of the noise voltage. Now, let us define noise figure symbol is n f. So, noise figure is defined as signal to noise ratio at the input side divided by signal to noise ratio at the output side. So, you can see that this is the input of a noisy network which has a gain of G A and this is the output. So, from where this noisy network is coming into picture think about any amplifier let us start with the transistor. A transistor amplifier would have several resistors it will have a few P n junction. So, those P n junctions can be then represented by noise current. So, the entire amplifier circuit can be represented in terms of its Thevenin equivalent or Norton equivalent. So, what is a Norton equivalent that will be a current in parallel with resistor. So, we can say that any amplifier can be ultimately simplified to a noise current and a resistor. So, we have already seen what are the noise current and resistor. I just want to mention here that inductors and capacitors do not give rise to any noise that is true only for ideal inductor and capacitor. A real inductor will be represented by inductor and series resistance that series resistance will give rise to noise power. Similarly, a lossy capacitor can be represented in terms of ideal capacitor in parallel with lossy resistance. So, for that noisy resistor we have to calculate what is the noise power, but just to say in general any noisy network can be represented in terms of a current source and resistance for which we have already given you the expression one can find out what is the equivalent noise coming out of that particular circuit. So, let us just define now the gain of this particular amplifier is GA. So, let us find out the expression for noise figure now. So, that is signal to noise ratio at input by output. Now of course, some noise will be generated by the network. So, this particular expression will be always greater than 1. So, let us see now signal to noise ratio at input is given by p s input divided by p n input you can see from here and signal to noise ratio at output will be given by this particular expression simplify this further that comes out to be p n out divided by p n in multiplied by GA. What is GA? GA is nothing, but gain of this particular amplifier and that is equal to p s out divided by p s in. Now, we are going to define another term this is known as noise temperature of a network. I just want to mention that there is nothing like a noise temperature of a network. It does not mean that network will have a this much temperature or some other temperature. This is just a mathematical representation of noise figure only to find out overall noise figure of a larger circuit. So, please remember noise temperature is not a physical quantity it is just a mathematical way of representation of noise figure. So, let us just represent now. So, we had seen that p n is nothing, but equal to k T b and that is given to the noisy network. So, let us see what will be p n out. So, p n out will be nothing, but gain multiplied by this particular power. So, that will be GA k T b plus p n e which is nothing, but noise generated by this particular network. So, this particular thing is now further written in this particular form where p n e is represented in the form of T e multiplied by these terms over here. So, we can say that p n e is noise power at output by internal noise of the network and this internal noise can be due to all the resistors due to all the current sources due to all the voltage sources within the network. So, from here we can say that T e is nothing, but p n e divided by GA k b. You can actually think this whole thing in a slightly simpler manner as shown in the next slide. So, the same thing which we had shown in the previous slide, there was a noise input noisy network, but now this can be represented in this particular form where this network is noiseless network. So, how we have taken care of this noisy part? So, we had seen in the previous slide that this particular network generates noise of p n e and that p n e is represented in the form of k T e b multiplied by GA. So, this term has been taken in the input side and when finally, we look at the output output will have this term multiplied by this particular term over here. So, we can now say what will be noise figure. So, noise figure is given by this particular expression. So, now let substitute the values. So, p n out is nothing, but GA k b T plus T e and what is this term p n in is k T b GA comes as a term. If we now simplify this you can see most of the terms will get cancel GA k b GA k b will cancel. So, we are left with T plus T e divided by T which is equal to 1 plus T e divided by T. I just want to mention this is the general term for a given T. However, a manufacturer has to specify the noise figure of a network they cannot define noise figure for any arbitrary temperature. So, what they do they actually define noise figure for a standard temperature and I just want to tell this value of T 0 is equal to 290 degree k. So, 290 is equal to 273 plus 17 degree centigrade. So, they have taken temperature as 17 degree centigrade. Of course, in India generally speaking we would have taken as 27 degree. In fact, that would have given a nicer number 273 plus 27 would have been 300 degree, but however since all these developments had been done in the western world they took 17 degree. So, we have to take T 0 as 273 plus 17 which is 290 degree Kelvin. So, the manufacturers define noise figure for this particular standard temperature. Now, this can be simplified further to T e equal to T 0 times n f minus 1. Again I want to repeat that all these T e are only there to do the simplification of the network as we will see in the next slide. So, now we want to find out noise figure of 2 cascaded networks. So, let us say we have a network 1 which is defined by gain g a 1, T e 1, n f 1. In fact, most of the time manufacturer will only give g a 1 and n f 1. So, we have to calculate T e 1 this is network 2 defined by g a 2 noise figure 2. So, now we want to find out what is P n out. So, I just want to mention here. So, here it shows a resistor here, but it is represented by T 0. So, this is nothing, but a standard temperature which is equal to 290 degree. So, let us see how we can find out the value of P n out. So, P n out is given by this particular term which will correspond to k T 0 b multiplied by gain g a 1 g a 2. So, you can see that this particular term corresponds to this temperature. Then T e 1 is to be taken in the input side. So, for this also k T e 1 b multiplied by g a 1 and g a 2. For T e 2 this will go to the input side of this one here. So, this will be only multiplied by g a 2. So, you can see that g a 2 times k T e 2 b. So, now we want to find out overall noise temperature of this particular network. Again I want to mention our actual objective is not to find T e 1 2. Our actual objective is to find out combined noise figure for these two network. This is again a mathematical representation. So, we can say P n out will be actually represented by one single network. So, for that single network what will be the gain g a 1 multiplied by g a 2 k b and this will be the total thing which is seen at the input side. The right hand side terms can be now simplified in this particular fashion. We can just take g a 1 g a 2 k b outside. So, we are left with T 0 plus T e 1 plus T e 2 divided by g a 1. So, from here we can calculate T e 1 2 as T e 1 plus T e 2 divided by g a 1. As I mentioned earlier our objective is not to find T e 1 2, our objective is to find n f 1 2. So, now we substitute the value of T e in terms of noise figure. So, we can now write T e 1 2 as T 0 n f 1 2 minus 1. Similarly we can write T e 1 and T e 2.  So, how do we find overall noise figure? So, let us just see that overall noise figure will be.  So, n f 1 comes out as it is corresponding to network 1, whereas n f 2 is now coming as n f 2 minus 1 divided by gain of the first stage. So, it is very important that first stage should also have decent gain also. Suppose if the gain is equal to 1, then what will happen? Overall noise figure will be combination of these two. But if the first stage has a gain of let us say 10, then this term will be divided by 10. But if the gain of the first stage is 100, then this term will be divided by 100. That means, the second stage noise figure contribution will be very very small. Now this particular thing can be extended to three cascaded networks also. So, let us see how this particular expression can be expanded to three networks. So, we have three cascaded networks. So, we want to find out the overall noise figure of these three networks. So, just recall the previous thing. So, first stage comes as it is. So, n f 1 comes as it is n f 2 minus 1 divided by gain of the first stage. But for the third stage it is n f 3 minus 1 divided by gain of the first two stages. So, which is GA 1, GA 2. It will be more clear if we take an example. So, let us say we want to find out noise figure for three cascaded networks. So, the first stage has a noise figure of 2 dB gain of 10 dB, second stage has noise figure of 6 dB and gain of 14 dB, third stage is actually quite bad as far as the noise figure is concerned, it is 10 dB and gain is 18 dB. So, now we have to find out n f 1 3. Now please do not keep all these dB values in this particular expression. You must find out the corresponding numeric value. So, to find the numeric value we know that n f dB is given by 10 log n f. So, from here we can find the expression for n f which is 10 to the power n f dB divided by 10. So, for all these cases now let us find out the numeric values. So, n f 1 comes out to be 1.585 corresponding to 2 dB GA 1 comes out to be 10, for n f 2 6 dB n f 2 is approximately 4, but the real value is 3.981, GA 2 14 dB comes out to be 25.12 and similarly n f 3 and GA 3 are given by these value. So, now we can find out overall noise figure n f 1 3. So, you can see that n f 1 comes as it is n f 2 minus 1 divided by gain of the first stage, then n f 3 minus 1 divided by gain of first stage and second stage. So, overall noise figure is 1.919 which comes out to be 2.83 dB. So, if you look at this number here you can see that this one here is 2 dB. So, this has to be more than that, but you can see here this is 6 dB and 10 dB. So, it is not sum of these 2 plus 6 plus 10, the reason for that is we had some gain for the first stage. So, noise figure 2 gets divided by this particular gain, this noise figure 3 gets divided by these 2 gain values. Hence, the contribution because of this is very very small. You can actually see that even though this noise figure is very high, contribution from this to the overall noise figure is very very small. So, just see that this is 10 minus 1 let us say 9 divided by 10 multiplied by 25.12 this really comes out to be only 0.04. So, you can see that the contribution is relatively small in this particular number ok. So, just to summarize today we talked about low noise amplifier. We looked at two main sources of the noise. One is the thermal noise due to resistor and then we calculated what is the noise power available due to the resistor. Then we looked at the short noise which is represented by iron square and that is mainly because of the p n junction within diodes or transistors. There may be several p n junctions within a transistor. So, basically an amplifier can be represented in terms of it is not an equivalent which is nothing, but a current source in parallel with resistor. So, any amplifier circuit can be represented in these two simple current and resistance values and from that we can find out what are the noise power available from them. Then we talked about signal to noise ratio and noise figure. We defined the term noise temperature as I mentioned it is only a mathematical representation and we have to not worry too much about noise temperature. What we are interested in is to find out overall noise figure. So, we did find out the overall noise figure expression for three cascaded stages and we took an example and we saw that the first stage is very very important. So, we must design the first stage which should have a very low noise figure. In the next lecture, we will actually look into how to design low noise amplifier. Thank you very much. We will see you next time. Bye.


Scientists have done it again. They've verified Einstein's theory of general relativity using real-life experiments. The latest group to do it is led by researchers at the Rieken Center for Advanced Botanics and Cluster for Pioneering Research. And this time, they've done it using a pair of ultra-precise clocks spaced 450 meters apart, one on the ground and the other in the observatory floor of Tokyo Sky Tree, one of the tallest towers in the world. Einstein theorized that massive objects warp spacetime, the fabric of existence throughout the universe. One consequence of that is that time runs differently between different gravitational fields, slowly in deep fields and faster in shallow ones. Theoretically, a pair of clocks could capture this time differential. And in real life, that might be easy when the difference in gravitational strength is gigantic. But measuring that difference between two spots on Earth would be practically impossible. That is, if it weren't for optical lattice clocks. An optical lattice clock works by using laser cooling to corral atoms into a well-defined spatial pattern, or lattice. Because the parameters describing this system are so well-defined, scientists can reduce the tiniest disturbances to atomic pendulums. The oscillation of these undisturbed atomic pendulums gives the tick of the optical lattice clock. Clocks of this type are big enough to fill a small room, making it difficult to take measurements at two separate locations. The team led by Rekin overcame that problem by miniaturizing their clocks to fit inside cabinet-sized boxes. Capable of measuring time with 18-digit precision, the clocks produced verifiable differences in the passage of time when separated by 450 meters. And thus, the Rekin-led team could verify Einstein's theory. But the true innovation is the clock's portability. Small and easy to transport, the clocks could be used to detect otherwise invisible differences in height. That includes foreboding differences in ground swelling in risky areas such as active volcanoes or regions of crustal deformation. In the future, the group plans to deploy hundreds of clocks based tens of kilometers apart to monitor the long-term uplift and depression of the ground. The ground networks of optical lattice clocks play a complementary role to the conventional GNSS observation system.


What's up y'all it's your girl Kinsey here from Layton Sports Cards and I'm ripping 2023 top sterling baseball hobby 4 box case break number 15 random hit style. How this is gonna work we're gonna go ahead and open up the boxes as I pull out the cards. Christian's gonna type them into our random hit sheet. At the end we're gonna randomize both the names of the participants as well as the hits that come out. Do the random line them up and we'll see what you hit. So best of luck y'all. Super excited for this one. Good luck. I'm not ripping this yet. They're the same thing. Huh? I'll type the same thing on the first line. Tops. Whereas last year I was like silver on silver I think. All right we've got 2023 rookies and 70s all-star cycling access. Let's find out here. Yeah 1970s. First hit up. Got dual bat relic. Otto's gonna be a Steve Carlton. 20 of 25 Steve Carlton. Dual of bat relic. 4,136 strikeouts. All right 2023 rookies. Big potential here. These are hard to get open this year. All right let's see what we have. Good luck y'all. It's gonna be the 25 rookie Otto. Highly green. Nice. 3 of 25 dual jersey rookie Otto. Very nice. Good luck to everyone on that. Get that one in a mat for you. Boxer. 2010 it'll be all-stars first. First up we have a Jose Altuve on the triple relic Otto. Jose Altuve. It looks like two jersey swatches and a bat relic. Jose Altuve that's five out of ten. It's hard to see on the bottom there. Five of ten. Triple relic Otto. Jose Altuve. I'm gonna see it first. Oh this is sick. We've got a one of one five-way relic Otto of Nolan Ryan. Look at those patches too. All three color patches. Rangers Nolan Ryan. Good luck to everyone on this. That's so cool. 5,714. Our rookie cup team and 80s all-stars. 80s all-stars first. Yeah all three color patches too. That's awesome. I don't see that too often. Next up we have a Rod Kuru 24-25 dual relic Otto. Four of 25 dual relic Otto. All right tops all-star rookie cup teams. We've got the 25s. It's gonna be a polar bear pitilanzo. Polar bear piece. Two of 25 on the dual relic Otto. All right last box here y'all. Box number four. Right in the same break back. That is full. The first recon is full and the second one was down to 17s I believe. We've got postseason performers and silver slugger award winners. Interesting for the last box here. We'll do postseason performers first. Triple relic. It's gonna be a one-soto three of ten. Triple relic Otto. Two jerseys and a uh bat relic. Nice. The Godot. Mr. Godot there three out of ten. Get down in a minute. Good luck to everyone on that. All right last one here silver slugger award winners. We have nice Bryce Harper 19 of 25 dual jerseys. 19 of 25 Bryce Harper on the sterling season. 19 of 25 Bryce Harper dual jersey. All right give me one second. We'll get that one in a mag as well. We get this random set up. Eight entries. Eight participants back in here. Let's run this random here. All right we've got the eight names. Gonna roll our dice. Four times. Names first. One two three four. Anthony B down to John A and four times four times here on the hits. Good luck everyone. One two three four. One-soto down to Nolan Ryan. All right we got Anthony B taking home the one-soto triple relic Otto to ten. John A with the Bryce Harper dual auto jersey to 25. Anthony B Rob, Rob Caru dual relic Otto to 25. Jason C with the following three. The Riley Green to 25. Nice one there. The Jose Altuven to ten. And the Pete Alonso to 25. Jonathan L with the Steve Carlton bat relic to 25. And John A taking home the Nolan Ryan five-way patch auto one of one. Gonna get these posted to the site and I will drop the link right in chat for you. Congrats everyone. Thanks so much. We got another one of these coming right up.