Chamber and committees

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?

As you rightly say, convener, the policy note attached to the regulations points out the effect of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which is that the policy intent behind the regulations might not be achieved. The result is that the ban that the instrument imposes will apply to products that are produced in Scotland, but it will not apply to products that are produced in other parts of the UK where they are not banned.

It is a significant measure to ban any product, whatever it is, and to stop its supply. As you said, the negative procedure applies to the instrument. I would normally argue that that was not appropriate and that it should be the affirmative procedure, but that is not legally available in this case. Therefore, if it is okay with you, convener, we should highlight the issue to the lead committee, which I think is the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, possibly saying that, although the instrument is subject to the negative procedure, that committee can still take evidence on it. If I was a member of that committee, I would want to do that, because I would want to hear from Scottish producers that are potentially affected by the measure.

I should point out that a consultation is going on in England—I read about it at the weekend. Ideally, we probably want the same policy to apply across the UK, so that we do not end up with one set of rules in one area and a different set of rules in another, which is potentially what will happen. The lead committee could address those matters. We should write to the lead committee to point that out and maybe suggest to it that, if it wishes, it could write to the Scotland Office, and probably the department that is dealing with the issue in England, which I think is the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I think that the issue sits under the Environment Act 2021.

I am content with the recommendations, but we should highlight a number of issues to the lead committee.

I am going to give a long list of projects later on in my speech. There are not just a few projects.

Cecil Meiklejohn went on to say:

“It builds up the programme of works we are preparing in our Investment Zone and will complement a series of measures which will help drive forward our area’s economy following the pandemic.

The new roundabout and ... bridge will ensure people are safe when crossing ... while enabling better connection for active travel”—

that is a great thing—

“between key sites such as the Helix Park, Falkirk Community Stadium and Forth Valley College’s new campus.”

I am still quoting the SNP council leader. She said:

“The roads will be widened to accommodate increasing traffic and each of the four ‘rings’ of the iconic bridge”—

it is iconic—

“will provide an elevated platform to view the local area and a safe way of getting around without disrupting traffic.”

It sounds great, and it is a great project.