Chamber and committees

No, that was helpful; I think that you gave a really good response. Do we have enough champions for bus across the Government? It is not all down to you, cabinet secretary, so do you feel that you are getting a bit of solidarity from colleagues?

We can ask them.

That was a helpful opening statement, cabinet secretary. It is good to hear about some positive measures, and it was nice to see you in Hairmyres recently at the new station.

You mentioned the abolition of peak fares and the expansion of concessionary travel, which I welcome. It has been five years since the publication of national transport strategy 2, the clear aim of which was to tackle inequality, reduce emissions and drive economic growth. Can you say a word or two about how successful its implementation has been? Bus and train use has gone down over those five years, and there has been no significant rise in walking and cycling. You mentioned safety, but the number of fatalities on our roads has remained largely static for the past few years. How successful is NTS2?

I have some questions that I will hold, and I know that Mark Ruskell also wants to come in. Cabinet secretary, you mentioned the bus infrastructure fund. Is that a multiyear fund, and what can we expect in future budget allocations? Do you believe that it is sufficient to deliver the step change in on-street bus priority measures that will help to deliver a modal shift?

It is a pity that we do not have much more time to talk about this subject. I know that it has been discussed by the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, and Mark Ruskell has outlined the frustrations of campaigners and others about the delay in producing the statutory guidance that the committee—and the country—want to see, which we have been led to believe is really important.

There is a commitment that we will see guidance soon, but I do not quite understand what you said about funding, cabinet secretary. We have heard in the chamber, and elsewhere in Parliament, that the UK Government has made a substantial investment available to some regions in England, but I am not clear how the Barnett consequentials would be used.

We know that there is huge public support for franchising. SPT has published its ambitious plans, and there is concern that some of the delays are preventing other regional transport partnerships from going ahead with their proposals. We understand that some of that sits with your ministerial colleague Jim Fairlie. However, it feels as though there is a lack of leadership on this. What can you say today to really reassure people—those communities who feel underserved—who want to use bus services and who want more certainty? What I am seeing from my mailbox, on the street and in the Parliament is that people are lobbying and protesting about the issue. Campaigns such as better buses for Strathclyde and Get Glasgow Moving are grass-roots led—that is where the urgency seems to be coming from. So, in the Government, who are the champions who are taking things forward?

We have talked about the delay in the guidance, but what, really, is causing the delay? Do we need to amend the legislation?

Yes, and that is really positive and I commend SPT for that. However, this has been a time of uncertainty. We have heard about guidance being delayed not by one year but by six years. From where I am sitting, it feels as though we are getting a lot of spin from the Government about Scotland being way ahead of everyone else when, actually, when we speak to constituents, grass-roots campaigners and regional transport bodies, they are saying to us that we are behind. There is a bit of a disconnect here, cabinet secretary.

Thank you for the opportunity, convener. I also thank our witnesses. It has been encouraging to hear the broad support for the principles of the bill. Many of the points that have been raised relate to matters to which I gave careful consideration when thinking about drafting options. I am struck by the discussion and the questions around how we get the wording and the terms correct and achieve proportionality in relation to culpability, liability and the defence of necessity.

I am also encouraged by the Scottish Government’s memorandum to the committee—I hope that the witnesses have had a chance to look at it. It might allay some of my colleague Kevin Stewart’s fears about the timing of the bill, although I have been reminded that a number of bills were completed in the final week of the previous session of Parliament. We still have quite a bit of time in hand.

As for what stage 2 amendments could look like, you have been working on some suggested wording, Dr Shivali Fifield, and it would be good to see that. I am certainly open to discussing amendments.

On the issue of responsibility should an ecocide crime occur, I am sympathetic to the concerns about undue pressure on workers and the risk of coercion. I guess, Dr Fifield, that you are saying that responsibility could be shoved down to workers while people at the top of an organisation try to get off scot free. How could the bill and the communications around it raise everyone’s awareness of taking responsibility, so that we can achieve the aims of the bill, which are about preventing the harm of ecocide from occurring in the first place?

I am keen to hear from Dr Fifield, but it would be helpful to hear if anyone else has a comment on that.

I have a brief question for Elspeth Macdonald. I know that the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation is opposed to the bill, and that has been your position from the very beginning and throughout the early consultation and development of the proposals. I am therefore guessing that you would never come to the Parliament to support an ecocide bill.

Earlier this morning, we heard from a witness about major oil disasters such as the MV Braer, although we are not saying that that is an example of an ecocide crime because the law did not exist at the time. Could you say something about the potential impact on your members of widespread pollution and disruption that could happen in the future? What could that do to a business such as those that your members conduct?

Would anyone like to add to that?

I will make this the final question because I am also keen to hear from the second panel of witnesses. We know that the EU environmental crime directive has become quite well established and that it will come fully into effect for member states in May next year. What risks might there be if Scotland does not criminalise ecocide? What might be the attitude in the EU and other jurisdictions to doing business with Scotland if we do not keep pace on the matter?

Sue, can you respond first?