Chamber and committees

Yes. That is a really good idea. One of the challenges that I found, particularly when I was a councillor, was that kids used to take their bicycles to primary school but, when they got a bit older, that became uncool. You might find lots of bikes outside primary schools, but you will not find any outside high schools.

As you were speaking, it occurred to me that it might be an idea for the cross-party group to reach out to the Scottish Youth Parliament and see whether it wants to get involved. I do not know whether it is involved in any groups, but the idea just occurred to me.

If the group were to get the go-ahead, I would invite Collette Stevenson to become involved, too. I had not realised that she had outdoor education experience—she would be a very useful voice.

No, it is not 100 per cent on cities. When I was on the cycling, walking and buses cross-party group in the previous session, I found it to be quite Edinburgh-centric, and I am keen for that not to be the case with this group. I am very alive to the issue. As with all of the groups, this is a cross-party group for the whole of Scotland, not just urban Scotland. There are, as you well know, specific issues in rural areas, particularly around public transport.

I do not want to put a figure on it. We are looking at issues in general, which means that, when we produce a report, it will reflect the whole country.

Good.

I thought that it would be much safer to turn up in person than to rely on technology. For the new member of the committee, I note that, two weeks ago, I tried to make my pitch but my parliamentary Surface device decided to turn itself off as I was in mid-flow and about to get into the meat of the issue.

I will go over some old ground. In the previous parliamentary session, two cross-party groups covered work related to that of the proposed CPG on sustainable transport. There was a CPG on cycling, walking and buses, of which I was co-convener, and a separate CPG on rail, of which John Mason was co-convener.

In the previous session, a number of us who were involved in the two groups got together and thought that it might make sense to merge them into one group in the next session. Those talks have continued, and we decided that it made far more sense to have just one group.

As you will be aware, convener, part of the reason behind that is the problem—which we will probably face as we go through this parliamentary session—of MSPs attending CPGs. There is a rush of enthusiasm at the start, then numbers start to tail off. Perhaps that is an issue that the committee could monitor. That situation is not fair on the groups that turn up, particularly if it is an in-person meeting.

I turn to what the proposed CPG would intend to do. In the past, CPGs have tended to become talking shops, where people who agree with each other speak to one another They go away and everybody is happy but then nothing happens. To make it worth while, a CPG should actually do something—it should do some work, do research and produce reports. I want to be involved in the CPG on sustainable transport because everyone who is involved in it agrees with that.

We have a programme for the first year. If the establishment of the CPG is approved, the first piece of work would be to look at traffic reduction policy. Last week, the Scottish Government produced a paper spelling out how it would like to see car miles reduced over the next few years. We would drill down into that.

If our establishment is given approval this morning, the CPG will meet at lunchtime and we will have a presentation from Scottish Government officials and someone from Transport Scotland, to get that ball rolling. We would probably like to meet every month. We have quite a programme of work. We would seek to produce reports with recommendations.

We would look at traffic demand management and at how to get the modal shift so that people walk, cycle and use public transport more. I know that there is at least one committee member who has strong views on that. That issue is really important.

Whatever you think of cars, getting people more active is a positive thing. That is what the group will consider. It will also look at public transport. It is vital that we consider ways to help public transport to build back better, if I can borrow a phrase, and get more people on to buses and trains. The CPG will not be a talking shop; it will be a working group.

I am happy to take any questions.

That is a really good idea. Actually, as Jamie Halcro Johnston said earlier in the meeting, cross-party groups can work together, which has happened in the past. There is a big opportunity in that respect.

My door is always open to you, Mr Doris, and to any other member who wishes to pop in.

You are absolutely right. We need to cover all sectors of society, including people who are disabled, elderly people and young people. I am looking at the extensive list of organisations that we have, which is our initial group of members—more have wanted to join since that list was compiled—and I do not see any disability-specific groups.

I want to go back to Liam Kerr’s question about how the cabinet secretary plans to hit the target of 30,000 chargers by 2030, if he thinks he can do so. At the current rate of progress, it will take us until 2066 to hit the target. I do not see anything in the statement or its accompanying document that charts a course for getting there, but perhaps I have missed it. If I have, can the cabinet secretary correct me?

I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance sight of her statement.

I firmly believe that Prestwick can be a success, and we all hope for that. The Scottish Government bought Prestwick airport for £1 in 2013. Nicola Sturgeon said that the aim was

“turning Prestwick around and making it a viable enterprise”.

One has to ask why, more than eight years on, that has not happened. What is it that the Scottish Government is looking for from a buyer? What are the various concerns, which the cabinet secretary referred to, about the latest bid? I am not asking for figures or for her to betray confidences.

The latest accounts show an operating profit of £0.5 million, which is way down on the figure for the previous year. Freight held up, but passenger numbers plummeted and it may be a while before they recover. Can the cabinet secretary tell us what the operating profit needs to get to in order for the airport to be put back on sale?

The latest doomed bid—which was from Train Alliance UK, although the cabinet secretary does not want to say that—was scuppered when it emerged that major repairs to the runway are required. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that the figure for those repairs was around £20 million, and can she say why the preferred bidders were not told about that but kept in the dark? If I am right about that figure—or whatever the figure is—is the Scottish Government going to pay for those repairs before the airport is put back on sale?

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement. However, a bit like last week’s statement on cutting car mileage, this statement and its accompanying document raise more questions than they provide answers for. We can see the direction of travel, but we do not know how we will get there.

The cabinet secretary cheekily mentioned East Kilbride when referring to the Clyde metro project. He has a bit of a nerve, given that investment in the East Kilbride line is being cut. However, perhaps the situation has changed since he was last there, wearing a hard hat, for a photo call. I like the sound of city metro systems, but there is zero to say how and when that will be achieved or how much it will cost. Perhaps the cabinet secretary could clear that up.

Sticking with rail, why is there still no timescale for a smart ticketing system? Why is there only mention of talks, rather than action, on cross-border high-speed rail? What are the plans to improve the situation in the north? Will the far north line be dualled? There is no mention of that.

STPR2 was an opportunity to set out a different route for our failing ferry system, but there is nothing there. No multimillion pound investment has been set out. Where is it? Islanders are calling out for it. If we want our buses to be net zero, we need to spend more, but the statement says nothing about how we will achieve that. This is a series of missed opportunities and there remain a lot of questions.