This will be my final question, as we have to move on. Have you done any analysis of how many routes will be saved or added through the bus priority fund partnerships? What analysis has been done on modal shift?

I was thinking about the upcoming human rights legislation, which may propose a new human right to a healthy environment, and about how that would be delivered in practice with both an enforcement framework and different legal and non-judicial opportunities for redress. How does that relate, following on from Ben Macpherson’s questions about an environmental court and linking into Aarhus convention compliance? I can see a couple of nods. I do not know who wants to kick off.

Thank you, convener. If you look at my entry in the register of members’ interests, you will find that I am a member of a number of organisations, which I have declared. The main declaration to make is that I was the cabinet secretary who introduced the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001. I say that just for peoples’ interest.

That is really useful. Does anyone else want to come in on the back of that?

Yes, the point is that getting it right in the first place means that you do not need the redress. Dr Fifield, do you want to come in on that point?

Very briefly, there have been a lot of questions to the minister, because there is a degree of scepticism whether it will deliver big change. At the end of the day, the question is whether bus users will get better and more reliable and sustainable services. I will let this piece of legislation go through today, but what I am really interested in is the report and the action that is taken afterwards.

I very much welcome the bill. I want to place on record my thanks to the committee for its stage 1 scrutiny of the bill and to the stakeholders who took part in the process. I thank the minister for his early engagement with me on the bill, including the meeting that I had with him and the leader of City of Edinburgh Council last year.

I am particularly pleased to see the bill, because I started working on the issue in session 4 of the Parliament and I know that our local authorities have been lobbying for this additional power for some years now. I hope that we will see in Scotland a power that is already extended to localities and cities right across Europe, and which will enable our local authorities to get active on the issue, if they want to use the power. That is the key thing. Last year, I visited Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania, and I noticed that there was a visitor levy in place only when the bill was being paid.

There is a lot that can be agreed on across the chamber, but scrutiny at stage 2 will be very useful to ensure that the bill will work to maximum advantage. For example, I am concerned about the wording of the bill in section 17 on restriction of the “Use of net proceeds” in

“developing, supporting and sustaining facilities and services”

that are used by visitors for “leisure purposes”. That could be problematic.

In Edinburgh, for example, we definitely welcome visitors to our city. It is an absolutely key part of our economy and of who we are, as a city. However, there is sometimes a tension for residents from the impact of our successful visitor economy due to the numbers of people who visit. Residents and visitors often use the same infrastructure and services in Edinburgh, and, at peak times in the year, residents often experience challenges with services being at full capacity or impacts on street cleansing, for example. Let us have a bit of a debate at stage 2 about the words “leisure purposes”, because we do not want unintended consequences for local authorities.

Another issue, which was raised today very effectively by Ariane Burgess, was heard in the evidence from the Edinburgh Hotels Association, which fears that visitors who come to Edinburgh for business and corporate purposes are being forgotten. That is a huge part of our Scottish economy, and we have a number of superb conference and corporate venues across the city. It is important that we do not miss out on that significant proportion of our visitor economy.

We want to address any tension between residents and visitors. Especially in Edinburgh, bus services, parks, open spaces and street cleansing are all services that are used by both groups. It is important to ensure that those services are fit for purpose, although one would not necessarily call them leisure pursuits. We could easily rectify that, so I hope that the minister will reflect on the matter today, and in advance of stage 2.

We could also do some additional thinking about the work that was referred to by Mark Griffin and Craig Hoy. There have been severe cuts to local authorities in the past decade, so we should not underestimate the importance of even a modest visitor levy in enabling local authorities to improve the services that relate to visitors, and to strengthen our tourism economy. As long as it is not overly prescriptive, effective guidance from the Government and the advisory group could help local authorities, which must be able to use the new powers effectively to address their local circumstances. For example, Beatrice Wishart and Willie Coffey made good points about cruise ships.

One question that I have already raised with the minister, and that has come up a couple of times today, is about how long it will take to implement the bill. I know that the council in Edinburgh has done a lot of consultation work and has engaged really constructively with the business and tourism communities. I note the committee’s comment that the 18-month lead-in time is excessive. The minister pushed back on that today. My plea is that we get on with this, because the bill could make a real difference. For the local authorities that want to use the power, the bill is a real opportunity to support both our visitor economy and our residents. I am keen to see the bill pass stage 1 today.

As I understand it, very few local authorities want to go ahead with the levy. Should we not let the councils that want to introduce one do so, monitor the process and learn the lessons as we go forward?

The Scottish Government is failing to meet climate targets in homes and buildings, transport and land. It still does not have a climate delivery plan or a green industrial strategy, and there are cuts to the energy transition. The just transition fund has been significantly cut, the green jobs fund has gone altogether, and the £67 million announced for offshore supply chain investment is just a reduced and reheated figure from before, at a time when we need major investment in our supply chains to deliver on our green jobs potential. How can the First Minister say that his Government is tackling the climate emergency when it is failing in so many ways?

Given the rocketing levels of fuel poverty in off-gas areas, in particular, and the upcoming heat in buildings bill, what specific support with advice and funding will the Scottish Government offer home owners to help them to increase the energy efficiency of their properties by installing insulation to lower their carbon emissions, by installing affordable heat options and by upgrading their homes? For example, can home owners access grants to install solar panels to heat or power their homes?