Chamber and committees

World leaders have once again failed to make progress at the global climate conference. They all know the urgent need to transition away from fossil fuels, and the public gets it, too. Polling from the think tank Uplift shows that, in Scotland, most business leaders back the transition to a fossil-free energy system. However, the Scottish Government has still not published or set out the new energy strategy that is supposed to shift Scotland away from fossil fuels. It is still sitting on the First Minister’s desk, nearly two years after the draft was published. Scotland needs clarity, our renewables industry and the energy workforce need clarity, and the Parliament needs to see the strategy, too, so that we can see whether the Scottish Government is providing proper funding. Will the First Minister finally end the delay and publish the strategy before next week’s budget?

Will the member give way?

The lack of the strategy does not bring the clarity that the First Minister is claiming exists. He tells us again that his priorities include tackling the climate emergency. Driving down transport emissions will be a key part of achieving that. That is why, during our time in government, the Scottish Greens cut the cost of public transport by providing free bus travel for under-22s and scrapping peak-time rail fares. We know that cutting fares is critical to driving up public transport use while driving down emissions. Instead of continuing that work, however, the First Minister has brought back peak rail fares, which has undermined climate action and increased the cost of living.

The Scottish Greens have now set out plans for a national bus fare cap to ensure that nobody pays more than £2 for their regular bus journey. Can the First Minister see that public transport costs need to come down, and will he commit now to making that plan happen?

The minister has once again claimed that the package of rent controls will make rents more affordable. Will he acknowledge that tying rents to an above-inflation increase everywhere, even when the evidence justifies a rent-controlled area, means that rents will continue to become less affordable?

Thank you, convener. I am grateful to you and the committee for making time for so many colleagues to address you. The fact that so many of us are here should be the first demonstration to you of the clear breadth of political support for greater urgency in this area.

I have seen very positive engagement by the campaigners—certainly those based in Glasgow, who are working with all political parties that represent the city. There is clear consensus that there needs to be fundamental change. In fact, the passing of the 2019 act demonstrates that there is already clear consensus on the need to move in the direction of franchising and to support local areas that choose to do so. The passing of the 2019 act was intended not only to make that possible but to make significant progress in that direction.

Even when the Parliament was considering that legislation, the committee that was doing so took a litany of evidence at stage 1 that the process, including the panel, would simply take too long. Many organisations—the Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland, Glasgow City Council, the Strathclyde Partnership for Transport, the Scottish Association for Public Transport and the Urban Transport Group—raised concerns about the timescale involved and the level of bureaucracy and lack of democratic accountability in that process.

Since the bill went through the Parliament and became an act, faster progress has been made elsewhere than is being made in Scotland, despite the political consensus that this should be the direction of travel. It is very clear that, if we are going to see communities such as the one that Neil Bibby described and, indeed, right across Scotland benefit from the required change, we need to accelerate the process. If that means the Scottish Government making relatively minor changes to primary legislation, that is what should happen.

Yes, during your tenure, convener.

More than a little.

Many thanks. I wish we had time for a long exchange about the political points that you have made but we do not. I will move on to Professor Hall.

Good morning to our witnesses. You might be aware that, later in this inquiry, we will have sessions specifically on mobility; in particular, the committee has an interest in youth mobility. I want to ask about the connection between that theme and the trade in services that we have been discussing; it has come up in a number of your answers.

For me, people’s freedom of movement and young people’s opportunity to move can be justified in its own terms due to the social and immediate benefit that people get from it. Should we also regard it as an economic investment for the future, to ensure that we have a generation of people coming up in every walk of life and business who have personal connections with people in other European countries, particularly in the fields in which they have studied, and who regard European countries as something more than a holiday destination?

If we do not restore that opportunity for the upcoming generation, what will be the impact of the loss of youth mobility, not just on trade and services at the moment but in the longer term? Regardless of whether the UK and the EU agree improvements in this area, is there anything more that the Scottish Government should be doing to maximise the opportunities in the current context for young people in Scotland to experience a connection with European countries and for young people in Europe to experience a connection with Scotland?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I will keep this part brief, but you have talked about negotiating positions on a veterinary and sanitary and phytosanitary agreement and youth mobility and whether there is room for an improved position between the UK and the EU. On our visit to Brussels, I picked up some views from the EU perspective to the effect that, as one person put it, “You will have to accept every dot and comma of regulatory alignment”, while from a UK perspective, I picked up the expectation that the Europeans will, of course, give us what we want, because it is in their interests to, really. Is it your view that the negotiating positions are naturally going to begin at those extremes and that the potential for something that is agreeable, even to a pro-Brexit UK Government, is simply a matter of political will?