Seòmar agus comataidhean

As you were speaking, I started to think about whether there is a role for wider public bodies. I will stick with the environment. I presume that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and NatureScot would be very aware of any decisions that were made on environmental regulations by the Commission or the European Court of Justice and that they would at least flag up to ministers if there were potential divergence over, say, species licensing proposals.

Do you have any thoughts on the role of Environmental Standards Scotland, now that the Commission has gone? Should it play a fuller part in the architecture of scrutiny and in understanding what alignment actually means on the ground?

My question is in a similar vein. Wider transparency is important. The report that is before us talks only about the use of the section 1 powers and not about alignment in the broadest sense, which, as Ms Boyack has just explained, is about not just legislation but the interpretation of law.

I want to move on from that conversation to think about what the different levels could be. You have described some of the challenges that parliamentary committees face with the sift process, but you have also said that consultation on those areas generally takes place with stakeholders. What kind of in-depth information can we get, particularly in areas in which, as you have said, there might be a divergence that is in Scotland’s interests? How can that be flagged up at an appropriate level for the committee and stakeholders? That is not really clear in the report that is before us, and it is clear that decisions have been made where Scotland has diverged from the European Union.

That is useful. I think that the cabinet secretary explained things well earlier when he talked about laws that are effectively redundant now that we are outside the structure of the European Union and those areas in which powers are reserved under the current settlement. However, there are also the conscious decisions to diverge, and transparency in that respect is perhaps missing at the moment.

Perhaps I can give you an example. An assumption has been made that we are in alignment with the EU climate change laws, because we have our own climate change legislation, which was updated quite recently with enhanced targets that actually go beyond EU law. However, I am doing a piece of work with a colleague in the Bundestag on the EU taxonomy, which is effectively part of EU law, with regard to which sectors are deemed to be climate neutral and therefore worthy of investment in the European Union. As I am sure the cabinet secretary is aware, that is a big area of debate not just in Germany but elsewhere in the EU. Are we or are we not aligned with the EU taxonomy on green investment, which is part of EU climate law? Has there been any consideration of that? If so, where did the conversation go? That is one example in which things are not entirely clear.

[Inaudible.]—area of alignment with EU policy, such as climate.

That shows the level of information that it would be useful for wider stakeholders to understand, particularly if we are going to get into a debate about joining the EU. We might like what is in the EU taxonomy and we might like the way that European investment is going, but we might not. That is an example of where that level of information and consideration within the Scottish Government—I hope that there is consideration of that—

Here we are, with the ink barely dry on the Glasgow climate pact, and Opposition parties have come to the chamber falling over themselves to support new trunk road expansion across Scotland. Thousands of climate protesters at COP26 shouted out the question, “What do we want?” Now we have an answer from the Tories and Labour: “More roads! More roads!”

The Tories are back to full extremist mode. In this Parliament, they marked the start of COP26 with a debate in which they demanded that every last drop of oil be drained from the Cambo oilfield. They have now marked the end of COP26 with a list of trunk road projects as long as your arm.

As for Labour, this was its first big test to provide a credible green Opposition. To be honest, it has failed at the first hurdle. The Labour amendment is a transport wish list that is based on having more of everything, and particularly more roads. It is an unlimited and contradictory list of demands at a time when public funds are tight and coherent transport choices need to be made.

Let me quote for Mr Bibby the excellent report from Scotland’s rail unions—

Mr Bibby might want to listen to Scotland’s rail unions, as I do all the time. In their document “A Vision for Scotland’s Railways”, those unions say:

“Transport is the biggest emitter of CO2 and 68% of transport emissions come from cars or vans and only 6% from trains. A fundamental requirement for Scotland to meet its environmental obligations is to change people’s behaviour and shift them from road to rail.”

How can we make that shift if the spending priorities are weighted towards road projects that will lock in car dependency?

Free bus travel for young people from January will be really transformative for them and a shot in the arm for struggling bus services across Scotland. How prepared are the communication plans for the scheme? How will schools and colleges be involved? Will we see the minister or some other influencers appearing on TikTok, Instagram or YouTube to get the message out to young people well ahead of the start date?

Speaking as a rural motorist, I find that the real cost to me is the cost of fixing my suspension or something else in my car after I have run over loads of potholes. Does Mr Simpson not agree that the focus needs to be on maintaining our roads rather than sinking billions of pounds into new trunk roads.? Is that not what people in rural communities really want? They want road maintenance rather than white elephant trunk road building schemes like his.