Chamber and committees

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.

Will the member take an intervention?

We have discussed this issue in committee, but has the cabinet secretary given further consideration to being as open as possible with Parliament about the work that is done on the climate change plan, so that we do not have to wait until the CCC advice is received?

I am grateful to Douglas Lumsden, a fellow member of the committee.

On the point about alignment, it is fair to say that the committee struggled with some of the evidence, because we did not get strong views one way or the other. The CCC would prefer Scottish and UK carbon budgets to align, but it also said that it could “work either way”. As well as hearing more of the Government’s analysis, does Douglas Lumsden agree that it would be good for the committee to take more external advice on that at stage 2?

We need to get the right national policies, and we also need to empower local decision making. Some policies will work in some local authorities and not so well in others. The message about action was really important.

We heard in committee from Mike Robinson, in his capacity as chair of Stop Climate Chaos Scotland, who reminded us that the reason why targets

“are unachievable ... is that there has not been enough action. We have had the declaration of a climate emergency but not a lot else. It has been a failure of action, not a failure of ambition, that has led us to where we are now.”—[Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, 17 September 2024; c 25.]

We need to bear that in mind. However, we are here to help with the action that is required, and the cabinet secretary has our word on that.

I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate and to close on behalf of Scottish Labour. As a member of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee—it sounds as if it has been a popular committee in the chamber today—I associate myself with the thanks from the convener and other colleagues to all the clerks, witnesses, stakeholders and other committees that participated in scrutiny of the bill. I also thank the cabinet secretary and her officials for their constructive and open engagement with MSPs. I hope that that continues throughout stages 2 and 3.

Today, we have heard constructive contributions from colleagues across the chamber, who told us that the bill is in reasonably good shape but that there is more work to do. Many of the insights and questions that we have put to the Government and to each other are informed by the evidence that the committee took at stage 1, as well as by stakeholders who continue to send us briefings and information. It is important that Government and Parliament continue to listen.

When the committee’s convener, Edward Mountain, made his opening remarks, he set the tone and the theme. At the committee, we were very much in a reflective mood. That is apt in the Parliament’s 25th year, but those of us on the committee, as well as members in the chamber today, have expressed regret that we are in this situation. However, part of the theme has also been a reset, which is a constructive challenge to us all. Katy Clark talked about collective action. I will offer some reflections on the points of agreement that we have heard about.

Douglas Lumsden was correct to say that parliamentary scrutiny should not be the loser. We all want to work at speed—we know that we need to catch up—but we need robust scrutiny. Maurice Golden said that we need a robust reporting regime, and we in Scottish Labour agree with that. That is why I hope that we will continue to work with the Scottish Government at stages 2 and 3 on the recommendations that we have made. Overall, the 21 recommendations in the committee’s report are really important.

I did not hear a lot of disagreement on carbon budgeting. In the committee’s report, we settled on the view that

“a framework based on carbon budgeting is better and a more flexible system for setting targets for emissions reductions than the current approach.”

I am hearing that, across the chamber, we all share ambition. None of us wants missed targets or missed opportunities. We have heard from Labour members and others in the chamber that we want a just transition, because not getting it will put jobs and our communities at risk. Maurice Golden rightly said that we cannot afford more failure.

People have given examples of the policies that they feel frustrated about. Scottish Labour and the Scottish Greens share the frustration around the reinstatement of peak rail fares, which not only is the wrong decision but sends the wrong message to the public. We have heard comments about taking the public with us and giving people certainty and confidence; that decision does not send the right message.

Mark Ruskell set out that we must absolutely root the bill in the science. Parliament has always tried to do that. Where we need to have debate is on the detailed policy measures that we need to take, because the detailed policy pathway has been missing. Scottish Labour is fully committed to working with the Government and others on that point, but we need to get into the detail of the policies that are required.

It was good to hear from colleagues who have been here a bit longer than I have, such as Liam McArthur. I thank him for reminding us of the massive contribution that Claudia Beamish made when she was in Parliament. We heard an exchange between Liam McArthur and Mark Ruskell about what the right targets should have been—let us get into such a detailed discussion and have that passion when we talk about policy and action, because we have a policy vacuum right now, which will not get us very far.

Jackie Dunbar talked about the fact that, in Parliament, things can be exciting or important. Getting to net zero is exciting and important—it is essential. I hope that it will bind us all together.

I do not think that Michael Matheson saw me when I tried to intervene on him, but I am interested in hearing how we knock down the barriers. Sarah Boyack and others talked about the need to work cross-Government, and that is about wider society and local government, too. There are obviously barriers there. When Michael Matheson was Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport, he also had a cross-Government role.

We need to learn those lessons fast—

I will try to be as brief as I can, Presiding Officer. It is great when colleagues such as Graham Simpson come to the committee, because it shows the interest in the issue that there is across the Parliament. I hope that he will continue to come to the committee.

Graham Simpson regularly raises the issue of bus travel, and the fact that we have many communities that hardly have a bus to speak of. Does he agree that we need to see more policy, more action and more investment in that and that it is something that should unite the Parliament?