Kevin Lindsay, do you want to come in? I presume that there is an opportunity to have such a plan, now that ScotRail is run by the Government.

I have a quick follow-up question on the cost issue. If you get more passengers on trains, I presume that the benefits include being able to plan ahead with a different number of rail carriages. For example, we know that getting on the last train from Fife to Edinburgh can be a nightmare, but if the provision is better planned, is that not good for the system? If the trains carried more passengers, compared with buses, that might mean that there would be fewer cars on the roads, so the buses would be more efficient, too. Is there a trade-off or a crossover here?

Thank you. I, too, declare that I am a member of Unison.

I have a question that follows on from our discussion with the first panel. Although there has been a bounce-back since the pandemic, bus and rail passenger numbers are lower than they were before Covid. Those stats are quite stark. The previous panel had a lot to say about what puts people off using trains and buses. What can we do to attract more people to use trains and buses?

I am open about who goes first. Perhaps Gordon Martin could kick off the answers.

First, I thank the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee and the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee for their work on the issue. I also thank the Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland for its excellent briefing. I share the disappointment and frustration of those who gave evidence to the committees that action to deliver the Aarhus convention was not included in the Scottish programme for government, even though it had been promised.

People have been let down. They have a right to live in a positive and healthy environment, breathing clean air, drinking safe water and interacting with nature. The UN treaty—the 1998 Aarhus convention—made that a law, and Scotland has breached it. People have the right to seek justice when their access to vital resources is limited, but that right is currently unavailable. Those who are seeking environmental justice face major delays. Their endeavours are simply too expensive and too time consuming and, ultimately, the process is inaccessible. A massive 40 per cent of Scots believe that the quality of their green space has reduced in the past five years. If the barriers that prevent people from taking environmental cases to court continue to exist, that is not good for our constituents.

The Aarhus convention emphasises the negative impacts of environmental degradation on people’s morale. A healthy environment should not be a luxury, which is why the convention entrenches people’s right to access environmental justice. Green spaces and water sources have been proven to significantly improve mental health in urban areas, according to the European Centre for Environment and Human Health and several mental health organisations. Given that mental health conditions are placing huge pressure on our national health service, we should be acting now to ensure that people have access to green spaces.

It is for energy security. We need to keep the lights on and ensure that people, especially those in rural communities, do not lose their power. Members may remember that, just a couple of months ago, people lost power and had no way to heat or power their homes. That is unacceptable.

One hundred and sixty countries now uphold the right to a healthy environment in law, through entrenched legislation that gives the public the power to fight for environmental justice and to hold local and national bodies accountable for providing healthy green spaces. Unfortunately, we are not one of those countries. The Scottish Government scrapped its proposed deadline to comply with the convention by 2024. The Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland has called the Scottish Government’s lack of progress “an abject failure” to protect access to environmental justice.

None of the six recommendations that were given to the Scottish Government by the convention’s compliance committee in 2021 has been met, while the October 2024 deadline has passed. The Government is now under investigation for its failure to comply and for its long-standing breach of article 9 of the convention. We have less than a year left in this session of the Parliament. The Scottish Government should have done far more to action those recommendations, because current public access to environmental justice is clearly insufficient.

Since the Scottish Government has failed on previous commitments, it has a responsibility to facilitate the requirements that are laid out in the Aarhus convention by entrenching an enforceable right to a healthy environment in Scottish human rights legislation. We should be investing in our green spaces, identifying the shared benefits of environmental improvement and raising standards of living in a way that contributes to Scotland’s green, renewable future. Where members of the public are denied the right to a healthy environment, they should have quick, accessible recourse to justice through the courts.

I know that protective expenses orders have been introduced, but the Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland points out that they are insufficient to reduce the cost of litigation. Although an exemption for court fees for Aarhus cases was introduced, I would like to hear from the Government, in its closing speech, whether the Scottish Government will now extend the exemption to sheriff courts. That is critical to delivering justice.

It is clear that the Scottish Government needs to do more to combat pollution, provide access to green space and ensure that people who are denied those rights have recourse to justice. Our Scottish citizens should be at the forefront of environmental decisions.

One thing that is interesting in this debate, as in previous renewables debates, is community ownership and the need for communities to benefit from developments in their area rather than have them imposed. Do you think that we need a more nuanced conversation on that?

I thank the minister for advance sight of his statement. I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests.

I welcome the commitment to finally introduce a heat in buildings bill in this parliamentary session, because we urgently need people to have warmer and more affordable homes. We are still way behind our European neighbours on the provision of energy-efficient homes and we need effective solutions. Reform of our electricity markets is under way. Instead of hiding behind the fact that it does not control energy prices, the Scottish Government should exercise its devolved powers to support the provision of better insulation and renewable heat solutions in Scotland now.

I have three questions for the minister. He mentioned the growth in Scotland’s renewables. There are existing projects across our urban and rural communities that could see us having community heat networks, if we learn lessons from our Nordic neighbours about supporting and empowering local authorities to deliver their ambitions. Will the Scottish Government announce what it is doing to support local authorities to deliver projects through the local heat and energy efficiency strategy plans, which were submitted in January 2024? Does the minister agree that our constituents need more support to make their homes affordable to heat—

The intention is to bring those regulations by the end of 2025. Is the minister absolutely definitive about that?

I thank the Deputy First Minister for advance sight of her statement.

It was great that we had the joint briefing from the Acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy and the UK Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero when the project willow report was published last month, because the workers and the communities at Grangemouth urgently need investment. Does the Deputy First Minister agree that that joint work and co-operation between our Governments needs to continue?

It is great that the Deputy First Minister is promoting training at Falkirk College, but where are the jobs for the people doing that training? Given the scale of green jobs that have been promised over the past 17 years, we urgently need to know where those green jobs are.

Given the urgency of the situation at Grangemouth, where is the Scottish Government’s just transition plan? It was promised years ago. When will the new investment task force report? Does the Deputy First Minister agree that the focus needs to be on the jobs and industrial investment that will be delivered, so that Grangemouth continues to deliver energy security through jobs now and in the future, rather than being an import terminal?

Will the minister take an intervention on that point?