There appear to be no more questions. We will move on to our next agenda item, which is consideration of motion S6M-15035, to recommend that the Local Services Franchises (Traffic Commissioner Notices and Panels) (Scotland) Regulations 2024 be annulled. Douglas Lumsden, do you intend to move the motion?

Thank you.

Therefore, I remind everyone that Scottish Government officials cannot take part in the formal debate. I invite Douglas Lumsden to speak to and move the motion. After that, other members may contribute, followed by the minister, then Douglas will wind up the debate and press or seek to withdraw his motion. Obviously, brief interventions can be taken at the discretion of whoever is speaking.

I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. In April this year, the Scottish Government announced new legislation to repeal a statutory net zero target that it accepted that it could not meet. With that, it announced a new approach to setting out and monitoring emissions reduction targets, in the form of five-year carbon budgets. The committee stood ready to consider the bill, but there was an unacceptable delay, because the bill was not introduced until 5 September. I accept that the bill is narrowly drawn, but it is technically quite complex. The short time that was available for scrutiny should, and could, have been avoided.

I place on record my thanks to committee members and all the clerks for their work to secure evidence from as many experts as we could and for giving the Parliament some food for thought in our stage 1 report. The report also uses the responses to our pre-legislative call for views during the summer. I thank members of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and the Finance and Public Administration Committee for their work on the bill. I am extremely grateful, as is the NZET Committee, to all those who gave evidence, and especially to those who attended our meetings, often with little and sometimes no notice.

The catalyst for the bill is the Scottish Government’s recognition that the 2030 net zero targets cannot now be met. That is a matter of regret. In removing those targets, the bill will sweep away all other percentage-based annual targets. There are some drawbacks to that, as they provided clear and accessible ways of communicating ambition and progress to the public.

However, we heard that there are benefits from switching to carbon budgeting, which provides a more flexible approach to setting emissions reduction targets. We largely welcome the way in which that has been delivered in the bill, including the retention of an advisory role for the independent Climate Change Committee. However, given that the 75 per cent and 90 per cent interim targets remain important milestones on the path to net zero, to lose them completely feels as though we are going backwards.

We recommended having those targets translated, as it were, into the new system, with a revised schedule for hitting them. I note what looks to be a cautious acceptance of that proposal in the acting cabinet secretary’s response to our report.

The timing and sequencing of key events under the new system was a major theme of our evidence taking. In our report, we tried to balance two important considerations—urgency and scrutiny. We all agreed on the pressing need for a new climate change plan to get our net zero progress back on track. However, speed must not come at the expense of parliamentary consideration and, with it, the chance to hear from stakeholders and the wider public.

We suggest that the solution is for the Parliament to be able to consider the proposed carbon budgets and draft climate change plan at the same time, which takes into account the fundamental interconnectedness of targets and plans. The acting cabinet secretary’s response on that recommendation is equivocal, but I welcome her commitment to provide the Parliament with more information about how the proposed carbon budgets target fits into the net zero pathway, to help us to make an informed choice when we consider the regulations.

Another issue that we discussed was whether Scottish carbon budgets should align with UK carbon budgets, which are also for five years. Alignment seems neater, and it may enable more effective cross-Government working. There was a question, however, as to whether it would slow us down if we were to wait for the UK carbon budget in 2027 before setting a carbon budget ourselves. The committee could not reach a common position on alignment, but we agreed that the discussion should continue, and we asked the Scottish Government to show more of its working on why it had come down against UK alignment. The acting cabinet secretary has responded, and we can reflect further on that issue as we go forward to stage 2. I look forward to being personally convinced that her proposals are the right ones.

The bill does not touch directly on the content of climate change plans. However, stage 1 was an opportunity to take stock on the issue, and the need for more detail and more flesh on the bones was a recurring theme in our evidence. We heard that plans should set out estimates for the actual emissions reductions that are envisaged from specific policies and proposals. We recommended that the Scottish Government should work with the Scottish Fiscal Commission on the information on costs and benefits that is to be provided in the climate change plans. The Government must provide more robust information on costing, which links back to the Scottish budget, as Parliament needs to be able to assess whether the Government has put in the money to match its ambitions.

Another issue that we considered concerned section 36 reports in the context of the new carbon budgeting system. Those reports are triggered when the Scottish Government needs to take corrective action in relation to missed targets. We did not think that it was right that only one report could be triggered during the five-year lifetime of a carbon budget—that felt too infrequent. It looks, from the acting cabinet secretary’s response, that she is in part agreement on that and accepts the need for more clarity on the trigger point under the new approach and on how early that should happen. We will wait and see what emerges at stage 2.

I turn to the policy memorandum and the financial memorandum. They were short on detail—indeed, they were just short. The Government’s view is that the bill is a technical bill that does not change the destination—namely, to reach net zero by 2045—and that the bill changes only how we measure how we are getting there. I get that argument, but I put it on the record that there needs to be consideration of the cost to and impact on people who are now having to push harder and faster to keep the 2045 goal in sight. I also note that the Finance and Public Administration Committee felt that there is a general issue with the level of detail in financial memorandums, and this is one example.

To sum up, the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee recommends that Parliament should agree to the general principles of the bill at stage 1, but it is also a time for some reflection and indeed regret. If we pass the bill, we will say goodbye to a 2030 target that experts told us was tough but achievable. Action has not kept pace with ambition, and the Scottish Government must therefore now take back the initiative and focus on the nuts and bolts of net zero delivery through the bill.

I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. In April this year, the Scottish Government announced new legislation to repeal a statutory net zero target that it accepted that it could not meet. With that, it announced a new approach to setting out and monitoring emissions reduction targets, in the form of five-year carbon budgets. The committee stood ready to consider the bill, but there was an unacceptable delay, because the bill was not introduced until 5 September. I accept that the bill is narrowly drawn, but it is technically quite complex. The short time that was available for scrutiny should, and could, have been avoided.

I place on record my thanks to committee members and all the clerks for their work to secure evidence from as many experts as we could and for giving the Parliament some food for thought in our stage 1 report. The report also uses the responses to our pre-legislative call for views during the summer. I thank members of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and the Finance and Public Administration Committee for their work on the bill. I am extremely grateful, as is the NZET Committee, to all those who gave evidence, and especially to those who attended our meetings, often with little and sometimes no notice.

The catalyst for the bill is the Scottish Government’s recognition that the 2030 net zero targets cannot now be met. That is a matter of regret. In removing those targets, the bill will sweep away all other percentage-based annual targets. There are some drawbacks to that, as they provided clear and accessible ways of communicating ambition and progress to the public.

However, we heard that there are benefits from switching to carbon budgeting, which provides a more flexible approach to setting emissions reduction targets. We largely welcome the way in which that has been delivered in the bill, including the retention of an advisory role for the independent Climate Change Committee. However, given that the 75 per cent and 90 per cent interim targets remain important milestones on the path to net zero, to lose them completely feels as though we are going backwards.

We recommended having those targets translated, as it were, into the new system, with a revised schedule for hitting them. I note what looks to be a cautious acceptance of that proposal in the acting cabinet secretary’s response to our report.

The timing and sequencing of key events under the new system was a major theme of our evidence taking. In our report, we tried to balance two important considerations—urgency and scrutiny. We all agreed on the pressing need for a new climate change plan to get our net zero progress back on track. However, speed must not come at the expense of parliamentary consideration and, with it, the chance to hear from stakeholders and the wider public.

We suggest that the solution is for the Parliament to be able to consider the proposed carbon budgets and draft climate change plan at the same time, which takes into account the fundamental interconnectedness of targets and plans. The acting cabinet secretary’s response on that recommendation is equivocal, but I welcome her commitment to provide the Parliament with more information about how the proposed carbon budgets target fits into the net zero pathway, to help us to make an informed choice when we consider the regulations.

Another issue that we discussed was whether Scottish carbon budgets should align with UK carbon budgets, which are also for five years. Alignment seems neater, and it may enable more effective cross-Government working. There was a question, however, as to whether it would slow us down if we were to wait for the UK carbon budget in 2027 before setting a carbon budget ourselves. The committee could not reach a common position on alignment, but we agreed that the discussion should continue, and we asked the Scottish Government to show more of its working on why it had come down against UK alignment. The acting cabinet secretary has responded, and we can reflect further on that issue as we go forward to stage 2. I look forward to being personally convinced that her proposals are the right ones.

The bill does not touch directly on the content of climate change plans. However, stage 1 was an opportunity to take stock on the issue, and the need for more detail and more flesh on the bones was a recurring theme in our evidence. We heard that plans should set out estimates for the actual emissions reductions that are envisaged from specific policies and proposals. We recommended that the Scottish Government should work with the Scottish Fiscal Commission on the information on costs and benefits that is to be provided in the climate change plans. The Government must provide more robust information on costing, which links back to the Scottish budget, as Parliament needs to be able to assess whether the Government has put in the money to match its ambitions.

Another issue that we considered concerned section 36 reports in the context of the new carbon budgeting system. Those reports are triggered when the Scottish Government needs to take corrective action in relation to missed targets. We did not think that it was right that only one report could be triggered during the five-year lifetime of a carbon budget—that felt too infrequent. It looks, from the acting cabinet secretary’s response, that she is in part agreement on that and accepts the need for more clarity on the trigger point under the new approach and on how early that should happen. We will wait and see what emerges at stage 2.

I turn to the policy memorandum and the financial memorandum. They were short on detail—indeed, they were just short. The Government’s view is that the bill is a technical bill that does not change the destination—namely, to reach net zero by 2045—and that the bill changes only how we measure how we are getting there. I get that argument, but I put it on the record that there needs to be consideration of the cost to and impact on people who are now having to push harder and faster to keep the 2045 goal in sight. I also note that the Finance and Public Administration Committee felt that there is a general issue with the level of detail in financial memorandums, and this is one example.

To sum up, the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee recommends that Parliament should agree to the general principles of the bill at stage 1, but it is also a time for some reflection and indeed regret. If we pass the bill, we will say goodbye to a 2030 target that experts told us was tough but achievable. Action has not kept pace with ambition, and the Scottish Government must therefore now take back the initiative and focus on the nuts and bolts of net zero delivery through the bill.

I am pleased to speak in the debate. I am sad, though, that it seems to be concentrating purely on buses. That does not surprise me, however, because it was brought to the chamber by a party that is fixated on buses and which has not, to my mind, concentrated enough on trains and ferries.

Let us look at buses and what options they bring. In the Highlands, there are not that many of them, and we therefore rely on other forms of transport to get around. I have reminded members in the chamber in the past that those who want to leave Inverness to get back to Aberdeen in the evening have to leave by 9.30 pm—and goodness help them if they want to go back to Inverness, having been up in Wick for the day. They have to leave at 4 o’clock in the afternoon.

There is complete dis—I cannot think of the right word. There is complete discombobulation between buses and transport, when we should be looking at trains.

I should also say that people in the Highlands and Islands rely distinctly on ferries. We have been waiting for the Glen Sannox since 2018, and just this week we have heard that it is still not able to drop its anchor or use its engines without tripping alarms.

I want to talk about the ferries on small islands, because they are the buses that we should be talking about. That is why they must be considered when we consider this motion.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what the total monetary cost has been, including in relation to travel, accommodation and staff and ministerial working time, of all overseas trips taken by the Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture since his appointment in 2021. (S6O-03816)

I support openness. My question relates to around 20 visits, with 66 days abroad and more than 23 members of staff accompanying the cabinet secretary. I want to know—in pounds, shillings and pence—what it has cost the taxpayer for that to happen. I am surprised that the cabinet secretary is not prepared to give me that answer. I ask the question once more: what is the cost in pounds, shillings and pence?

Interestingly, I had a conversation with a constituent on the way down to Edinburgh on Monday. She talked about wanting to be more able to travel around the Highlands. She was a Ukrainian refugee and was struggling to get around. She told me that there were no suitable buses to enable her to get around and she felt particularly isolated, which is why I am bringing up trains and why, for refugees who end up on islands, it is important that we have ferries. It is not just about buses, which is what the member is concentrating on.

I want to go back to talking about the ferries to islands. If people want to go back to Shapinsay from Kirkwall, they have to leave at 4 pm in the evening. That gives them little option to do anything else. Surely that makes people feel marginalised.

If we are concentrating on buses, we must ask how the buses will get around. It will not be on the A9, which was supposed to be dualled by 2025. There is a section of the road that we are still working on, the contract for which should have been awarded in 2021 at a certain price. It has now gone up in price and will be delayed.

It is important that we consider all the aspects of transport, not just buses. We also need to understand the cost pressures, which Sue Webber talked about. I welcome Douglas Ross’s comments about how Moray is welcoming refugees, but it is not just, as he pointed out, asylum seekers who struggle to get buses.

I hope that the Cabinet Secretary for Transport can explain something that I have never been clear about. Concessionary travel on buses is funded partly by Government grant and partly by the bus operators. Who was going to fund the free travel for asylum seekers? Was it to be totally funded by the Government or would it also have been funded by the operators? Had the Government discussed that with them before it made the promise on which it then reneged?

I thank Jackson Carlaw for speaking about a personal event that, I think, shook us all in 1984. For me, it was the culmination of a long line of IRA atrocities that, as he said, were euphemistically known as the troubles, but it was more than that.

We need to remember that, in the build-up to that event, for the IRA, terrorism was the threat of action designed to influence the Government by intimidating the public, and that is what happened on that day. I had experienced that two years and three months earlier, when my regiment experienced the Hyde park bombing.

I will give a reminder to those members who do not know about that event. A bomb was made by Danny McNamee and planted in a blue Morris Marina on the south carriageway of Hyde park. John Downey sat on a bench about 300m from where the car was parked and waited until the horses rode past—waiting for the most opportune moment to explode it, killing Anthony Daly, Roy Bright, Jeffrey Young and Simon Tipper, as well as seven horses. I am not sure what possessed him to think that blowing up people in ceremonial armour was ever going to take his argument further forward. It was a calculated decision, in the same way as the Brighton bombing was a calculated decision, with the bomb planted much earlier and planned to go off in the middle of the night to cause maximum devastation.

Patrick Magee, who planted the Brighton bomb, said afterwards, when he had talked to the families, that, having listened to them, he could never do it again. I think that that is a message for all terrorists: you will never achieve what you want to do by intimidating the public—listen to those people who tried, and please do not ever do it again. That is my message: it is not right to attack unarmed people and try to subvert democracy, especially in the United Kingdom.

Will the member take an intervention?