Seòmar agus comataidhean

To be clear, then, in preparing for today’s committee session, the Government has not thought through the scenario in which the SSI could be annulled today, and you are in front of the committee without a plan B. We are looking for as much certainty as possible on what the Government would do next.

Just to be clear, in preparation for this morning’s committee session, views have not been sought from the cabinet secretary, and you and your officials have not reached out to SPT or to any other regional transport partnership for their views.

Have you spoken to SPT about the SSI?

I have four amendments in the group. I thank Stop Climate Chaos Scotland for its briefing and for its advice and support on these matters. Colleagues will be aware that Stop Climate Chaos Scotland has previously called for budgets to be set in accordance with the advice from the Climate Change Committee, unless there are exceptional circumstances. However, as drafted, the bill only requires the Scottish ministers to “have regard to” the latest CCC advice in preparing the draft budget-setting regulations. The amendments that I have lodged try to strengthen the provisions in the bill.

I know that the Scottish Government is not currently minded to support these amendments, but I hope that it will reconsider, because the current “have regard to” duty should be strengthened to require the carbon budget that is proposed to be consistent with CCC advice, unless there are “exceptional” circumstances to justify any variance. Stop Climate Chaos Scotland strongly supports amendments 28 to 30 and amendment 32 in my name.

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.