Chamber and committees

I realise that we are up against the clock, so I will roll two questions into one. They are also on the theme of what we do now.

I am really frustrated by the use of the made affirmative procedure. It has been overused in both Parliaments. When ministers lay such instruments before the Parliament, they should have to justify why a measure is urgent or an emergency. They should have to come to—or at least write to—a committee and make the case. Also, to pick up on the House of Lords report on the subject, it would be a good idea for every made affirmative instrument to be subject to a sunset provision.

Should the Government have to make the case that an instrument is urgent? Should that have to be subject to a vote in a committee or the Parliament? Should such instruments be subject to a sunset provision and, if so, what length should that be?

We are having this debate against the backdrop of COP26 having just been held and Patrick Harvie rejoicing in the potential loss of nearly 100,000 energy jobs in Scotland—the same Mr Harvie who insists on giving cyclists a bad name every time he gets on his bike, whether it be for a ministerial photo call or not.

I want to focus my comments on transport, because it is our biggest emitter of greenhouse gases. We need to decarbonise aviation as much as possible, as well as our ferries—which should not involve buying second-hand diesel boats—and we need to decarbonise our trains, buses, lorries and cars. There is a lot to do. We also need to get more people to make very short local journeys under their own steam, where possible. That means cycling, walking and wheeling.

The Government motion refers to the just transition commission report and the Government’s response to it. On transport, the response says that the ambition is that

“Public transport and active modes of travel are the norm, supplemented by zero emissions vehicles, where needed”,

which is all fine, but the challenge is in how to get there. If we want to get more people on to public transport, there must be services for them to use, and those services need to have fares that are affordable. Cutting train services is not the way, as Colin Smyth noted. Our having public transport deserts, as we do in some places, is not the way, either. We need to move to a fully integrated system, but we are a long way from that.

Public transport is nowhere near being “the norm”. We are yet to have significant reform of the bus system, and we do not yet know what the Scottish Government has planned for our railway; we are months away from it being nationalised. We know that how the ferries are run is in dire of need of a shake-up; we just need the Government to accept that.

Active travel is not “the norm” either, but it is affordable for many people, and it is low carbon. In order to encourage more people to take up cycling, we need safe cycling infrastructure—which usually means segregation. I was at the COP26 rally in Glasgow. I cycled there in the rain, and the message from my fellow cyclists was “Our machines fight climate change!” Mark Ruskell was there, too. Investment in cycling is good value for money, and investment in cycling infrastructure and cycling projects creates new green jobs. Cycling can be part of a just transition to net zero, and it tackles transport poverty.

People in low-income households are far more likely than those in richer households to use public transport, rather than own a car. About 60 per cent of households that have an income of less than £10,000 do not have access to a car; indeed, 55 per cent of households in north-east Glasgow have no access to a car. Using a bike is, for many people on low incomes, a much more affordable option than e-vehicle ownership. Some 81 per cent of people say that they would be motivated to cycle if there were more cycle lanes, traffic-free routes and off-road cycle paths, because they currently feel unsafe on the roads.

I will be looking very carefully at what is announced in the budget this week. We will need action on electric vehicles, buses, trains, ferries and active travel, as well as on improving existing roads. Those are all compatible and they must happen. This week can be a key test of whether either we are serious about change or it is all hot air.

I tell the minister that I have no double standards in me. I have been fighting for cycling for years, which is why I went to the rally and stood beside fellow cyclists who were saying that cycling can save the planet. That is not double standards.

Does Tess White agree that standing up for 100,000 jobs in the north-east and for energy security is not, as a Scottish Government minister has said, taking a far-right position?

We do not get people back on to trains by cutting services. The consultation on the controversial proposed new timetable closed on 2 October. When will we be told the results?

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the union connectivity review. (S6F-00526)

It is perfectly obvious from that answer that the First Minister has not read a word of the review, because it does nothing that she has suggested that it does.

I was pleased to hear earlier from the Minister for Transport, who, unlike the First Minister, is prepared to have talks with the UK Government on the funding for the A75. That would be a good thing.

If the First Minister bothers to read the review, she will see that a theme throughout it is that both Governments should work together. On that note, it says:

“Both the UK and Scottish Governments have previously agreed to develop options which could support a rail journey time between London and Scotland of three hours.”

Both Governments were working on that, but we know that Transport Scotland officials were told to stop working on it. They were ordered to stop. Will the First Minister now allow them to restart that vital piece of work?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Today, at First Minister’s question time, I asked the First Minister about the union connectivity review. I referred to a project between the United Kingdom and Scottish Governments that aims to develop options to cut rail journey times and said that Transport Scotland officials have been told to stop working on it. In her answer, the First Minister said that I was completely wrong. However, I was not wrong, because I was at the public meeting at which a Transport Scotland official said that that had happened, as was the transport editor of The Scotsman, who duly reported it. Could the First Minister be invited to correct the record so that Parliament has not been unduly misinformed?

Obviously, it is good that the instrument is being dealt with under the affirmative procedure, as that allows the Parliament some time—although not much, it has to be said—to scrutinise it. We probably need more time, but something is better than nothing, which is the alternative that we could have been faced with.

As you said, convener, the instrument adds an alternative to the existing vaccination passport regulations, which we all know about and which we have debated in this committee and in other committees. The instrument adds an alternative for people who want to get into certain events, which is that they would have to take

“a lateral flow test, the results of which have been submitted through the NHS public reporting system.”

Most people who take such tests will do so with a kit at home. My problem with the instrument is that, if it is to meet the policy intent, as set out in the draft policy note, of reducing

“the risk of transmission of coronavirus”,

it relies entirely on people being honest about that. If people are absolutely desperate to get into events such as football matches or concerts, all that they need to do is open their kit and report that they have a negative test result, whether or not they have such a result, or have actually done the test. It is really easy for people just to say that they have done a test and had a negative result and then, 24 hours later, to go to an event. The system relies completely on people being honest. To be fair, the First Minister has admitted that.

I am not convinced that the instrument meets the policy intent as stated in the note. However, there is no basis on which the committee could report the instrument. I do not think that it is badly drafted; I just do not think that it will achieve what it sets out to achieve.

In phase 1 of STPR2, the Government pledged to carry out an audit of all lorry parks and rest areas near trunk roads in Scotland. What progress is being made on that and will there be any investment for improvements?