Seòmar agus comataidhean

Will the cabinet secretary confirm that what was agreed by the committee in Monica Lennon’s stage 2 amendment is in effect a super-affirmative process that will follow the pre-laying procedure that we already have in the bill?

It should be clear to the minister, following last night’s vote, that he does not have the confidence of the Parliament or stakeholders in the franchising process for Scotland’s bus services. How will he rebuild that confidence in the months ahead? The first decision on franchising is unlikely to take place until summer 2027, so there is time to work constructively with Strathclyde Partnership for Transport and other transport authorities on a fairer and more robust process that puts the public interest at its heart.

I thank Audrey Nicoll for lodging the motion and for securing the debate, which has been quite fascinating. Members have underlined that non-native invasive species are one of the main drivers of nature loss in this country, but there is also synergy with climate change—the two work together to damage our environment.

In a week in which we have been intensively discussing the budget in the chamber, the issue gives us one of the clearest examples of the impact of preventative spend. If we can tackle non-native invasive species early, we will save society a huge amount of money further down the line.

A number of members have celebrated the work of volunteers, charities and partnerships. David Torrance mentioned the amazing work that is happening with restoration Forth. We are making progress. For example, big progress has been made in controlling grey squirrels, and there is good progress on tackling rhododendron and giant hogweed. All that work needs co-ordination and support, and it needs organisations such as the Forth Rivers Trust in my region, which does amazing work in bringing together landowners and volunteers to take action and tackle issues such as the expansion of giant hogweed. It has done that successfully in the Allan Water, but that has taken a huge amount of effort.

That takes me back to the point about funding that a number of members have underlined. This is about spend to save. If we spend money on tackling non-native invasive species now, we will save later. It is disappointing that there has been an in-year cut to the nature restoration fund, which was established when the Greens were working in government with the Scottish National Party. The minister needs to consider how we can reinstate funding, particularly the council funding strand, which has been cut. The £5 million is an absolute drop in the ocean in comparison with the public pay settlement, and we are stacking up costly problems unless we can empower councils to restore nature and tackle invasive species. It is really important that we do not lose momentum on that.

Members have received briefings from a number of charities that have called for multiyear funding, because we cannot tackle invasive species in only 12 months. Invasive species do not follow budget cycles. We need to look at growing cycles and ecological cycles. That means that multiyear funding is needed, otherwise the money that we spend in one year will be erased by the growth and distribution of species in the years that follow.

I will mention two species very briefly. According to a briefing from Woodland Trust Scotland, 140,000 hectares of rhododendron ponticum need to be treated, predominantly on the west coast, because the species is continuing to invade.

Funding is important, but it is not just about funding. We have an opportunity in the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill to place a duty and responsibility on landowners to deal with the species. We could also introduce a national register of ancient woodland. Of course, the Scottish Government could work with the UK Government to put in place a retail ban for the species, which would really help.

We also need to widen the debate. We have a list of non-native invasive species, but there are questions about non-native game birds, such as pheasants and partridges. More than 40 million game birds are released into the environment across the UK every year, yet we know from the science that there are concerns about the spread of bird flu and predation of reptiles, and that there is an ecological imbalance when we so many of these birds are roaming around our countryside and interrupting our natural ecology.

There is much to consider, particularly in the context of the proposed natural environment bill. The minister could and should consider licensing, particularly in relation to non-native game birds. I look forward to the issue coming back to committees of the Parliament and to our considering ways in which we can take on some of the challenges and provide some certainty.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on how it is supporting local transport authorities to franchise bus services. (S6O-03863)

Will the minister acknowledge the critical role of councils in co-ordinating the work and creating partnerships to do that work? Co-ordination is important here. Without that co-ordinating function, we can do a little bit of work on removing INNS in one area of land, but it can be undone by the extension and expansion of INNS to another area of land.

It is clear that our communities have suffered from years of bus services being run for private profit rather than in the public interest, so change is desperately needed in order that the public can take greater control over how our services are run.

The SSI that we are considering today would create a system whereby a panel of experts established by the traffic commissioner would have the final say on new franchising proposals. However, the previous traffic commissioner was reported as having made comments against bus franchising. Given that the stated objective of the traffic commissioner is to

“minimise regulatory burden on operators”,

that does not give confidence to transport authorities that their plans will be fairly judged.

Yesterday, the minister attempted to allay those concerns by pointing to future guidance, but it is not clear how such future guidance will address the fundamental concern. How will the public interest be reflected on the panel rather than its being dominated by members who have a largely technical view of bus operation that comes from their experience in a privatised sector? Unfortunately, there are even some in the private bus industry who, sadly, have stated that they see the proposed changes as a form of theft of their business model.

The minister said that the issues in question could have been debated in 2019, when the Transport (Scotland) Bill was considered, but SPT raised strong concerns in evidence at the time. In the original consultation on the bill, it was ministers who were to make the final decision on franchising. The switch to the use of a panel in the final 2019 act was warmly welcomed by private operators, including FirstGroup. Today, we know that the panel system has been discredited and that new models of partnership between national and local government appear to be the most effective and most robust way of introducing franchising. According to an adviser to the Welsh Government, the Scottish Government’s on-going commitment to the panel process leaves Scotland as a backward-facing outlier on bus reform in the UK.

Yesterday, as we have heard, the NZET Committee could not have been clearer in its support for new bus franchising and municipal models, but we need to ensure that the legislation that underpins that mission actually works. Therefore, the Greens will vote to annul the SSI, and it is up to the Government to consider whether improvements can be made to the panel process or whether a change through primary legislation is now needed.

Regardless of the outcome tonight, SPT will, I believe, continue to work on franchising over the next two years, even though no guidance on that is currently available from the Scottish Government. I, too, spoke to the chief executive of SPT this afternoon. As it is unlikely that any decision on any proposal that emerges from SPT’s work will go for approval until summer 2027, there really is time for the Parliament to fix the problem. I am sure that SPT and others will be prepared to work with Transport Scotland and ministers on further necessary reforms should primary legislation be needed.

I listened carefully to what the cabinet secretary said. I do not think that amendment 62 contains anything that would require the Scottish Government to fully fund the Climate Change Committee. The amendment relates very much to the work that that committee does in relation to Scottish carbon budgets. It is important that the issue is continually raised. If that is done through interministerial forums, so be it. An understanding of our needs, of the issues that are emerging from deliberation on our climate change plan and the budget and of the CCC’s capacity to deliver on that need to be part of an active conversation.

I will consider whether it is worth revisiting amendment 62 ahead of stage 3, but I do not intend to press it at this point. I appreciate that the cabinet secretary has, I think, acknowledged that this is an issue. I think that she has acknowledged that—I am not sure. [Interruption.] She has—right, okay.

Amendment 18 seeks to ensure that the climate change plan will state the expected emissions reductions for each policy. We recognise that that is good practice, and the UKCCC has been recommending it. My amendment seeks to ensure that climate change plans will include that detail. I do not think that we have ever had that detail up to now, as the Government has said, “This is too difficult to do—it’s too difficult to work it out and we can’t make it that transparent.” Going forward, we absolutely need that transparency, because it could be that some policies deliver unexpectedly large reductions in emissions while others may result in less of a reduction. Amendment 18 seeks to improve scrutiny and transparency, which is important.

Will the minister take an intervention?

I will speak to amendments 5 and 59, and offer some comments on the amendments that have already been discussed. First, I thank Stop Climate Chaos Scotland for its detailed engagement with the bill and its discussion of how it can be improved.

Reflecting on the evidence that we took at stage 1, I think that setting a carbon budget is a very important step. In removing the interim targets and moving over to that process, the Parliament is taking a significant step. I appreciate the timescale issues around the setting of the first carbon budget, but I feel that a super-affirmative instrument is the best way forward for committees to scrutinise budgets, to take evidence from those who are going to deliver carbon reductions, to get the granularity of the discussion about the contributions of sectors, which we have already discussed this morning, and to come to a judgment about whether the carbon budget is adequate or not.

As I said, I recognise the situation that we are in with the first carbon budget and the need to expedite that quickly. Therefore, amendments 5 and 59 do not apply to that first budget, but in future we need to have adequate scrutiny. The kind of situation that we could be in, where the carbon budget is passed through an affirmative instrument and a committee could, in theory, just discuss it in a morning, would be ridiculous. The evidence points to the need for a more thorough super-affirmative process, which is what amendments 5 and 59 put forward. I put that to the committee for a decision today.

It makes sense that the Government should publish how the target-setting criteria are being taken into account, so I welcome what Monica Lennon has put forward in amendment 52.

I will be interested to hear from the cabinet secretary on amendments 37 and 45, both of which would establish a timescale for the introduction of the first carbon budget. Will it be 90 days or three months after the CCC’s advice? My impression is that the Scottish Government already has a lot of advice. It already has advice from the CCC. What will come in the spring next year will be more about the second and third carbon budgets. I am interested in the cabinet secretary’s thoughts on that and in what she considers to be practicable right now, given the advice that the Government already has and how quickly it can bring forward that first carbon budget.