That is good—and it focuses us. Is the Government doing enough, Kevin?

I will give that question some context. The committee looks at concessionary bus travel, which costs about £230 million, so making travel free on every single bus across Scotland might cost substantially more than that. David Harrold might say that he will power it all from the energy from Orkney. Does anyone want to comment on that point? It was recommendation 17, I think.

You are almost getting the pen launched at you.

We have one more question, which will come from Monica Lennon. Whoever puts their hand up first can answer it.

You ambushed me, David—I said there should be one answer and you supplied a second.

Before this session, the Parliament’s participation and communities team warned me that I was not going to get away with not being asked a question. I am not going to give you the chance to ask me a question—politicians never let other people ask questions; they work out the question they want to answer and then give that answer—but I guess that the question that you would have wanted to ask me is, what are we going to do with this report now that we have got it? The committee will decide after this meeting what we are going to do, but I can tell you some of the things that we will be doing. For example, the Climate Change Committee will appear before the committee next week, and I am sure that your report and some of the questions that are raised by it will inform our views and our questions to it. Further, we are about to deal with stage 2 of the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill, and I am sure that the report will prompt some of the discussions that go on at that point. We constantly have ministers in here from various portfolios, and we will ask them questions informed by our reading of the report.

At the moment, there is a process going on in the Parliament in which Government policies are reviewed to see how they contribute to reaching net zero targets. Conveners and committees are looking at ways to make sure that, when bills and policies are published, we understand whether they not only contribute to achieving the net zero goal but are getting the right messages out, and whether there is the correct funding within the bills. I think that the report will help us with that process.

When you were planning your ambush, David, the deputy convener ambushed me and said that we could write to the minister—subject to the committee’s approval, because I cannot do anything as a convener of a committee without the committee’s approval—and ask for a written response to your recommendations, which we could then share with you. I am not seeing any dissent from committee members on that point, so I hope that we can agree on that afterwards.

I stress that this has been a committee-driven process; it is not being driven by the Government. Karen Shakespeare suggested things that the Government could do. I can say that, if I were the convener of the Government, I am sure that we could get a lot done, but I am the convener of the committee, so we will have to simply take your points to the Government.

I thank and congratulate you for all the work that you have put in, because there was a lot of work. This is your Parliament and we are here to make sure that what the people want is delivered by the Parliament. As a committee, we are extremely grateful for all that you have done and for all the information that you have given us. I cannot reiterate my thanks enough.

We are now going to have to go into private session to see whether we can agree some of the things that I have just talked about and to review the evidence that we have heard. We will be in touch to keep you updated and point out things that have come about as a result of your participation in this deliberative democracy.

We will now move into private session.

That is the point. It is about where the dividing line is, where scrutiny is needed and whether the UK Government and the Scottish Government agree in relation to autonomous vehicles.

The potential for unintended consequences has been discussed in other contexts—for example, in relation to accessibility and the impact on taxi services from an employment perspective. The committee is glad that consideration has been given to the potential for unintended consequences in what is a developing area. We encourage constructive and effective engagement between both Governments to further minimise the risk of any conflict.

Although there have been disagreements in relation to the drafting of the bill, I hope that we will see effective co-operation when it comes to its implementation, to ensure that there is a fair and clear system for everyone.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could give the response of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee first if that would be helpful.

Will the minister clarify how I am to tell my constituents who are building new houses—for example, in the area of Rothes, which is in the shadow of a plant that burns woodchips to generate electricity, for which a grant is given—why they cannot burn wood in their wood-burning stoves?

I see that the minister has now come in.

I am pleased to speak in this debate as convener of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. I draw members’ attention to the committee’s report on the bill.

The Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee recognises the need for the bill to provide regulation in relation to innovative technology use, which may be expected to increase. It also recognises that the bill is the result of four years of careful joint work by the Scottish Law Commission and the Law Commission of England and Wales, alongside other consultation and policy development. Unfortunately, there was very limited time for the committee’s scrutiny, but I would like to highlight the key points that arose during our consideration.

The committee’s consideration related principally to clause 50 of the bill. There is a dispute about that between the Scottish Government and the UK Government. The clause gives a power to the secretary of state to clarify the application of legislation to the user in charge of an automated vehicle. As I understand it, the dispute between the Governments centres on whether the provision is reserved or devolved. As we have heard from the minister, the Scottish Government’s objection to that clause is that the power can be exercised in devolved areas without the UK Government having to seek the consent of the Scottish ministers and without its having to consult them. The UK Government considers that a requirement to seek consent or to consult would be unnecessary, as the provision relates to a reserved matter.

The committee is in no position to adjudicate disputes on the dividing line between devolved and reserved competence. However, we noted in our report our disappointment that both Governments could not reach a solution on the matter that satisfied everyone. It appears that there is little dispute in relation to the policy behind the bill. It is therefore unfortunate that, even though that is the case, the Governments have been unable to reach agreement.

As I have said, the committee cannot determine whether or not clause 50 relates to devolved matters. However, we agree in principle with the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s recommendation that the Scottish Parliament should have an opportunity to effectively scrutinise the exercise of all legislative powers within devolved competence.

The committee explored the Scottish Government’s specific concerns about the potential use of clause 50. Those concerns relate to the potential for the creation of a two-tier approach to driving offences, with one set of rules applied to conventional vehicles and one set of rules applied to autonomous vehicles. The committee understands that the Scottish Government has concerns that that could potentially complicate the law on road offences in a way that might not have been intended.

I will take an intervention. However, I am limited in what I can say.