Chamber and committees

I am going to blame this question on my fuzzy head, but I want to understand your point. When I first read amendment 62, I thought that it referred to resourcing the CCC. Am I right that you mean Environmental Standards Scotland?

I will not withdraw amendment 52, but I have listened to what the cabinet secretary has said and will not move amendment 37. I support Graham Simpson’s amendment 45.

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for working with me on amendments 52 and 54. I am also grateful to Mark Ruskell for lodging amendments 5 and 59, and I support what he was trying to do. However, I agree with the cabinet secretary that amendments 5 and 59 represent alternatives to my amendments 52 and 54. Therefore, I ask the committee to support my amendments. As I said, I do not intend to move amendment 37.

Amendment 52 agreed to.

Amendment 32 moved—[Monica Lennon].

When we discussed the matter at stage 1, some examples were given—for example, if another pandemic like Covid-19 was to happen, or if an unusual event took place. I have not attempted to be prescriptive, but I think that the member will know the types of situations that I am talking about.

Members will have to take a view on whether they think that the “have regard to” duty is good enough and robust enough. In my view, it is pretty weak. I am offering a way to make the bill a little bit stronger, while still allowing space, if there are exceptional circumstances, for the Government to set out its reasons for departing from CCC advice.

In the interests of time, convener, I will not add to my remarks on my own amendments. I am not sure whether Brian Whittle’s amendment will be moved. I have listened to what Graham Simpson has said and, with regard to his amendment 1, I will say only that I do not disagree with the intention behind it, but I think that that aspect would be better placed in the climate change plan rather than in the budget.

Thank you, convener, and good morning to you, minister, and to your officials.

We all want to get this right; that is not in doubt. Mark Ruskell is correct to say that we are on the same page and that we want to get it right.

I will follow on from Douglas Lumsden’s questions. The committee has asked a number of experts to give us their views, and we are grateful for the responses that we have received. It is important that we try to learn from practice elsewhere. You can correct me if I am getting any of this wrong.

One of our witnesses, Jonathan Bray, a transport expert who advises the Welsh Government, said in his submission to the committee, referring to the English quality contract scheme, that the proposal for Scotland

“proposes powers that go beyond the English ‘QCS board’. The ‘QCS board’ was only required to make a recommendation, with the transport authority making the final decision on whether to proceed. However, the proposed panel in the draft legislation is given the duty to make the approval for a franchising scheme. This will put great weight on the decision of the panel and may leave the panel at risk of judicial review from incumbent monopoly bus operators. Again risking the panel leaning towards the safer option of rejection.”

I would be interested to hear your response to that, minister. If expert voices from elsewhere are saying that we should not follow that discredited route, would you not agree that this is a good time to pause and reflect? We want to get this right.

I know that we do not have all the time in the world today, but let us consider the submissions from Get Glasgow Moving and other organisations that have a lot of expertise, in which the strong view was expressed that the panel approach would not be the right one for Scotland to take. I hear your point about the fact that, if we do not approve the SSI and we cannot give guidance to the traffic commissioner for Scotland, they will go ahead and appoint a panel anyway. However, surely we—Parliament and Government together—have an opportunity to say today that we will have to take a different approach, having reflected and looked at the evidence and at practice elsewhere.

My concern is about whether, irrespective of whether they are given lots of guidance, the traffic commissioner for Scotland is the right individual to appoint the panel. Without getting into a big constitutional discussion, I see that the point is made in the submissions that this would undermine devolution. The Scottish Government is seeking to give the final decision to the traffic commissioner for Scotland, who is appointed by the UK Government. I know that you have said that annulling the instrument would take us back to square 1, but maybe it would not be a bad thing to use the time to get it right. Is that not an attractive opportunity for you?

So the process is still at an early stage. That is helpful.

I was not trying to trick you about due diligence. I am trying to establish what happens next, because that is what interests me, as someone who has to vote on the SSI today. I was hoping to hear a bit more certainty about the Government’s position. The Government understands that the committee might not vote as it wants it to vote today, so we want to know what will happen next.

Just so that we are clear, you have not discussed the issue with the cabinet secretary and it has not been discussed with key partners, including SPT. The committee would therefore have to have faith that you are going to go and talk to people, but we do not know what that conversation would be like. That is all; I will leave it there.

No—I do not agree with that. I think that the bill as it is currently drafted, in using the term “have regard to”, is weaker than many of us would like it to be; the evidence that we heard at stage 1 reflects that.

My amendments would strengthen the requirement to act in accordance with CCC advice, but they would provide for a departure where there are “exceptional” circumstances. In my view, that would be a better balance than what is currently in the bill.

I am pleased to have worked with the Scottish Government on amendment 57. The amendment would require the Scottish Government to lay a section 36 report within six months of a target being reported as missed. The amendment would replace the current requirement for such a report to be laid

“As soon as reasonably practical”

after the report that indicated that the target had been missed. Ministers would continue to be required to set out proposals and policies to compensate in future years for excess emissions resulting from any missed target.

I heard what Mark Ruskell said about his amendment 13. I gently suggest to members that, given that I have worked closely with the Government on the issue following stage 1 evidence, they should support my amendment 57 as the alternative.

I do not intend to speak to all the other amendments. I was looking for clarification from Douglas Lumsden in relation to his amendments 39 and 40, because I thought that they were alternatives to each other. I understand the intent behind Graham Simpson’s amendment 23, but I am concerned that it would be too impractical or place too much demand on the Scottish Government, given that we have amendment 48, which would provide a mechanism for ministers to monitor whether the Government is on track to meet a carbon budget and take remedial action when it is off track.

I have no further comments to add.

Okay—I do not want us to get too distracted from the issue at hand today. As a Parliament, we have decisions to make and we want to get the best possible system for franchising, because that is what we want to happen. The issue comes down to the question of time and delay. Although I am sympathetic to the principle behind the motion to annul and what it is trying to achieve, when I saw it, my concern was that it could lead to delays and get in the way of franchising. However, no franchising proposal is sitting on the table right now. Therefore, I am interested to know when the Government expects the first proposal for franchising to reach approval stage. I am trying to understand how much time we have to play with.