Chamber and committees

I think that we can all agree in this debate on one thing, which is that we need to cut carbon emissions and that whatever target we set to reach net zero, we have to achieve it.

I will focus my remarks on transport, the biggest contributor to carbon emissions, and start with active travel, which I am keen on. There is no reason why people cannot walk or cycle instead of taking the car for many short journeys, but still too few people do. When it comes to cycling, many people do not feel safe, so we need to invest more in segregated routes and maintain them. We also need to teach children and adults how to ride safely. The Scottish Government’s recent conversion to our own manifesto target of spending 10 per cent of the transport budget on active travel infrastructure is welcome, but it must deliver.

Next, on motor travel, we need a green recovery from the pandemic, but it cannot be a car-led one. That does not mean that we ignore cars, vans or lorries, because investment in roads is needed as congestion is bad and therefore projects such as the dualling of the entire A96 must go ahead. However, ultimately, we will have to move to zero or low-emission vehicles, be they electric or hydrogen. The infrastructure is not fully there yet and it often does not work. For example, someone told me at the weekend that a fast charger near where I live works only if twigs are stuck in it—that is not good enough.

On public transport, I am convinced that people will use it if it gets them where they want to go, is integrated and has simple, low fares. Decarbonising the bus fleet is vital, but the idea that we can replace half the Scottish bus fleet by 2023 is for the birds. After talking to Scottish bus operators this week, it is clear to me that they are on board but that, having already met strict Euro 6 emissions targets, they will struggle to do it all again. Aside from the cost, the speed at which utilities move was described to me as “cripplingly slow”, and bus manufacturers will struggle to keep up with demand.

Next, on trains, we need a mix of technologies in Scotland, from electrification of some lines—like the one to my home town of East Kilbride—to the use of battery trains, hybrid trains and hydrogen. However, we might need to keep diesel for a while as we get that right. We need to work with the UK Government to shift more freight on to trains and we should also, where feasible, open up old lines. I am not convinced that nationalisation will achieve any of that, and the Scottish Government should say why it believes that it will. It has not done that so far—but there will be more on that tomorrow.

Whenever we can get new ferries—we can only hope—it is clear that they should be more fuel efficient. If we have an aviation sector left after the pandemic, it can be a catalyst for change.

Last week, the SNP Government published a 54-page document on how it will engage with the public on climate change. It was the usual waffle with a nice photo of a father and daughter at an iron-age fort, a somewhat fluffy introduction from Michael Matheson and the claim throughout that we, in Scotland, have something that is described as an open Government—I am none the wiser, either. If we really want to get to net zero, we need less Governmentspeak such as that and more Government action.

Does the minister plan to keep the timetable cuts when ScotRail is nationalised?

When is the turnaround director going to turn anything around at the yard, and when is somebody’s head going to roll over this shambles?

I welcome the minister’s comments at the start of the meeting about the relationship that he wants with the committee. When I was the convener, I had a good relationship with Graeme Dey, you will be horrified to hear.

We had a two-hour debate on something about which we knew precious little. We certainly did not know the detail, which is where scrutiny comes in. I know that you know that, but I do not think that that debate counts as scrutiny. The scrutiny will come when you actually tell the Parliament what the Government is proposing to do—if, indeed, you proceed with the proposal.

I will read out what you say in your letter. You say:

“I absolutely accept that the made affirmative procedure must only be used when the test for using it set out in Schedule 19 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 is met.”

Paragraph 1(1) of the Coronavirus Act 2020 says:

“The Scottish Ministers may by regulations make provision for the purpose of preventing, protecting against, controlling or providing a public health response to the incidence or spread of infection or contamination in Scotland”

so that gives you the power to do all this stuff. However, there are also some checks on that power in the 2020 act. Paragraph 2(4)(a) of schedule 19 says:

“Regulations under paragraph 1(1) may not include provision enabling the imposition of a special restriction or requirement”

which could include vaccine passports

“unless—

(a) the regulations are made in response to a serious and imminent threat to public health, or

(b) imposition of the restriction or requirement is expressed to be contingent on there being such a threat at the time when it is imposed.”

The threat therefore has to be both “serious and imminent”.

The First Minister announced her intention to bring in vaccine passports a couple of weeks ago and said that they will not actually come in until the start of October, which does not meet those tests, in my view. When she announced her intention, the threat was not “serious and imminent” and, under the second point about the threat when the restriction is imposed, we cannot possibly know what the threat will be in a couple of weeks. That is why I argue that you should not be using the made affirmative procedure. You should be allowing prior scrutiny of whatever you propose, so that we get it right.

We will have to strongly disagree with each other on that. My interpretation is that you have not met the tests of the 2020 act, which gives ministers the powers to do such things. We are clearly not going to agree on that.

I am speculating because we do not actually know. However, you said that you will write to us with the details.

I move on to another item. You mentioned earlier the need for clarity when you lay instruments. At committee recently, we had an interesting discussion about what constitutes dancing. You will recall that, if you are dancing in a nightclub, you do not have to wear a mask. Of course, we do not yet have a proper definition of a nightclub, let alone dancing. The Government came back to us and said that dancing is a form of exercise, so it will fall into that category. As Craig Hoy then pointed out, somebody could be dancing in a supermarket aisle and could take their mask off. That is why there is a need for clarity. Have you defined what is meant by dancing?

That was the problem with the way that the law was framed, which was why we raised the issue. We are joking about it, but it is a serious matter that, when we write law, it needs to make sense and be understood, and there should not be loopholes.

I found Graeme Dey and his predecessor, Joe FitzPatrick, to be very good to work with. When they appeared at the committee, we had a very cordial relationship and they knew the committee’s requirements.

We had some correspondence with you last week about the vaccination passport debate and the proposal from the Scottish Government to introduce a requirement for vaccine certification at certain events. You will have seen our annual report from the previous parliamentary session in which we expressed some concern, shall we say, over the number of made affirmative regulations that were being approved. For anyone who is watching, I note that that is when the Government brings in a law without its having been scrutinised by the Parliament; the scrutiny comes later. Most parliamentarians accept that there has been a need to use that procedure during Covid, but there has been a large number of such instruments.

We wrote to you about the proposal for vaccine passports. That might not be the term that you use, but that is the term that I use. We know what we are talking about. You wrote back to us on 9 September—it was a quick turnaround—and in that letter you said that if there were to be regulations, which there would have to be if the proposal comes in, your view is that the made affirmative procedure should still be used despite there being weeks to prepare. Is that still your position?

It would be useful for the committee to have something from you about which SLC reports you anticipate implementing and which you do not. Then we will know what we are working with.