Seòmar agus comataidhean

Every project needs to be considered on its own merits. If the member were to look at the A9, he would see that its cost benefit ratio did not stack up initially. I am asking for all transport infrastructure projects to be considered fairly against each other as to whether they are delivering the best value for the public pound. Numerous studies have shown that investing in public buses and trains connects people with economic and education opportunities, boosts productivity and aids connectivity, which all contributes towards growth.

There are also clear environmental and health benefits of investing in and encouraging a shift towards sustainable transport. We all know that private car use is responsible for about 60 per cent of road transport emissions, compared with the 6 per cent of emissions that are created by public transport.

Obviously, we have a lot of roads in Scotland—31,700 miles of roads, to be exact, which is enough to travel the circumference of the earth one and a half times. If we compare that with the 1,752 miles of Scotland’s railway network, it is clear that upgrading and dualling the A75, the A7, the A96 and the A9 will not enhance connectivity.

I absolutely accept that we need investment to dual key sections of trunk roads, alongside junction improvements and bypasses to relieve town centres of traffic congestion. However, we do not need investment to build wider roads everywhere that will ultimately result in more traffic congestion and higher maintenance costs.

We need investment in accessible, affordable and reliable public transport. That means upgrading the Highland main line, for example, and delivering projects such as Newburgh station to connect communities to the rail network and create fresh economic opportunities. It means investing in bus services so that they are reliable, affordable services that everyone can access, which is especially important in rural communities, where those who depend on public transport can become socially isolated. Bus priority measures should be delivered in our cities, so that buses can quickly pass traffic jams. The pause in the Government’s funding for those investments was damaging. Delays and congestion have only helped to accelerate the withdrawal of services by private operators that are solely focused on profitability.

In conclusion, we need a Government that is prepared to break the cycle of declining bus services and commit to financially supporting public transport to deliver franchising and public control for bus services, alongside investment in rail and active travel. I look forward to a national transport strategy that goes back to the principles of good transport planning, rather than a slanging match about the dualling of roads in Scotland.

I move amendment S6M-20057.2, to leave out from “recognises” to end and insert:

“believes that future transport investment must prioritise sustainability, equality, public transport and active travel over large-scale road building, and further believes that investment in roads should improve safety, address maintenance backlogs, deliver climate resilience on vulnerable routes, including the A83, help prioritise road space for buses and be matched with ambitious investment in rail, including upgrading the Highland Mainline and reconnecting communities, such as Newburgh, to the rail network.”

Finlay Carson has made a strong case for dualling the A75, but the cost of that would be £50 million and Governments need to prioritise investment. The cost of dualling the A96 would be up to £5 billion—that is £5,000 million. Does he not see that the political priorities are for the A96, not the projects that he has put forward?

Do I have time, Presiding Officer?

Thank you—that is helpful. I think that it adds to the evidence that we have taken already. Before other colleagues come in, I will move on to briefly discuss the definition of ecocide. The committee has spent a bit of time looking at the terms in your bill, such as “widespread” and “long-term”, the latter of which has been defined in the bill as 12 months. There is no definition of “serious adverse effects”. I am interested in your reflections on the evidence that we have taken, particularly in relation to the concerns around those specific terms. What is your response to those concerns, as you head into stage 1?

You might have seen that we took evidence from NatureScot in which it suggested that 12 months is not an ideal definition of “long-term”, because it is very difficult to see how any ecosystem can recover, even from a relatively minor environmental impact over that timescale, so there are some questions about particular definitions in the bill. The question for us as a committee is whether we have the opportunity to think through a lot of that detail ahead of stage 2, which could come quite quickly on the back of stage 1. Therefore, your response to those questions at this point is quite important.

I appreciate that. I go back to my original question. Part of the argument that you make for creating an offence of ecocide is that it forces us to look from the top of that regulatory pyramid down at the regulatory framework, and there are questions that emerge from that. If we put a permitting defence into the bill, does that mean that we are totally okay with everything else in the regulatory framework that protects the environment and sits underneath that defence?

If we accept a permitting defence—there are a lot of other ifs in that regard, such as if the bill gets to stage 2—we are effectively creating a protection for regulators, consenting bodies and those who have permits. That leads to the question whether we are okay with that and whether we think that any potential ecocide events could happen under the current permitted regime. What I am getting from your answer is that the current regime is fine, but culpability and intention remain at the top of the pyramid and are not captured by the strict liability offence at its highest level. I will leave it there, but it is on the record.

We have received some evidence on the bill’s provisions being a deterrent. Will you expand on that? I am interested in what has been put in place in the European Union. As you say, there is now more emphasis on ecocide as a criminal offence. How has that changed the conversation—or not—with regulators and corporations? What is the impact of having ecocide in legislation? Is it a deterrent? What evidence do you have on that?

I can see that it is about the ecological coherence with the continental shelf and how it extends beyond that. I think that that is a good example.

You mentioned notification, storage, access and reporting around marine genetic resources, as well as co-ordination of potential area-based management tools. How do you anticipate that being organised? Would the UK Government lead on it, or would the Scottish Government want to feed in? I am just trying to picture what the activity is and the reality of the Scottish Government’s function within that.

Cabinet secretary, can you say a bit more about area-based management tools and how you anticipate the legislation working in a devolved context? What is the potential fix or amendment, or negotiated outcome, that you are looking for in relation to those tools? I am just trying to picture what, in practice, this all actually means.

Thank you.