Scottish Parliament, 17 November 2021

287 contributions from 63 members. The official report.

Covid Recovery and Parliamentary Business

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Good afternoon. I remind members of the Covid-related measures that are in place and that face masks should be worn when moving around the chamber and across the Parliament campus.

The first item of business is portfolio question time, and the first portfolio is Covid-19 recovery and parliamentary business. As ever, if a member wishes to ask a supplementary question, they should press their request-to-speak button or place an R in the chat function during the relevant question. There is quite a bit of interest in this portfolio and the next portfolio. I am keen to get in as many questions from members as possible, so please let us have succinct questions and answers.

Covid-19 (Pandemic Handling) (Independent Public Inquiry)

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

1. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the anticipated timescale for the publication of the independent public inquiry into the handling of the Covid-19 pandemic. (S6O-00372)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

By the end of this year, the Scottish Government will establish, under the Inquiries Act 2005, an independent Scottish public inquiry to scrutinise decisions that were taken in the course of the pandemic and to learn lessons for the future. That will include a statement to the Scottish Parliament on the appointment of the chair and on the terms of reference for the inquiry, in accordance with the requirements of the 2005 act. The Scottish Government remains committed to working with the United Kingdom Government to develop the approach to the UK-wide inquiry, avoiding—where possible—duplication and overlap.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

What assurances can the cabinet secretary give that the voices of bereaved families will be fully heard during the inquiry?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I am engaging actively with bereaved families in preparation of the inquiry’s remit. The families have had the opportunity to submit responses to the consultation that we undertook on its terms of reference, and I have had a number of meetings with different groups of bereaved families. We will continue that engagement as we progress towards agreement of the remit.

Once the inquiry is established, it will be for the chair of the inquiry to determine the role of particular relevant parties, and it would be wrong for ministers to prescribe that. That approach is set out in the terms of the Inquiries Act 2005, and any chair who is appointed will operate on that basis. My view, and what the Government will set out to the inquiry’s chair, is that we want the families who were bereaved during Covid to be central to the issues that are raised in the inquiry.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Paul O’Kane has a brief supplementary question.

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

As we have heard, there are thousands of front-line staff, social care users and bereaved families for whom the inquiry will be crucial if they are to get answers on why Scotland was not better prepared. It is important that those who were responsible for that are properly held to account. Will the cabinet secretary confirm the inquiry’s relationship with the wider judicial system? Will it be set out in the terms of reference that he mentioned, and will that information include how the inquiry will handle evidence of potential criminality?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

That issue will not be set out in the remit of the inquiry. Those are entirely separate functions. The Lord Advocate and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service are independently responsible for determining whether there is any criminal consideration to be borne in mind. The inquiry will have no involvement in, and no proximity to, those discussions and decisions, which are entirely the preserve of the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office.

Covid-19 (Recovery Consultation)

Collette Stevenson (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

2. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its work in connection with the consultation paper, “Covid Recovery: A consultation on public services, justice system and other reforms”. (S6O-00373)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The consultation closed on 9 November, and I am pleased to report that almost 3,000 responses were submitted by individuals and organisations. Those responses will be considered fully as part of the development of the Covid recovery bill, which Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise when it is introduced, later in this parliamentary year.

Collette Stevenson (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

In relation to the increase in online services over the pandemic, how could those modernised and efficient services offer on-going benefits to the public sector, front-line staff and service users while ensuring protection for those without internet access, so that they can still access vital services?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

A range of developments have taken place during the pandemic, with an increased emphasis on the delivery of services through digital means. Collette Stevenson’s points about the importance of the delivery of efficient services through digital means and of individuals being able to access those digital resources without impediment are valid.

The Government has a commitment to improving connectivity. The work on the R100 contract, the 4G mobile infrastructure, mobile hotspots and the voucher schemes that are available to support people on low incomes to access devices are all part of the Government’s response, to ensure that those services are in place and that no obstacles exist to individuals accessing them.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

Something that was not of benefit to the public was the temporary release from prisons of 340 criminals, 40 per cent of whom went on to reoffend. Does that sound like the sort of temporary measure that we want to make permanent?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

A range of measures in the bill are the subject of consultation. As Mr Greene knows, the Government had to take difficult decisions around the question of early release in order to provide a response to the pandemic.

We will obviously consider those matters that were the subject of consultation, and the Parliament will have the opportunity to decide whether it wants to legislate on them. Full parliamentary scrutiny will be available for members—a process in which, I am sure, Mr Greene will take every opportunity to make his voice heard.

Covid-19 (Vaccination) (Transmission Prevention)

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the reported findings in The Lancet that having two doses of a vaccine does not prevent the transmission of Covid-19, and how that might impact its Covid passport scheme. (S6O-00374)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I recognise the findings of the article that The Lancet published, which found that vaccination did not prevent transmission of Covid-19 in those who are infected with the virus.

A number of studies have highlighted the fact that vaccines have some effect in reducing transmission, but more data is required to confirm the magnitude of that effect. It is likely that it varies with different viral variants and hence is lower with the current delta variant.

However, it is clear from the paper that the vaccine reduces the risk of delta variant infection and accelerates clearance of the virus. Furthermore, it is also clear from the evidence to date that a significant vaccine effect exists in relation to reducing the risk of serious harm from Covid. It is therefore critical that those who are unvaccinated come forward and receive both doses and that those who are eligible get their booster.

The study also highlights the importance of mitigation measures such as certification to protecting individuals and managing the spread of the virus.

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

I urge everyone to get their Covid vaccination, as it is our best weapon against the virus.

We all agree that the science will see us through the pandemic. Nevertheless, The Lancet showed no scientific evidence that the Scottish Government’s Covid passport cut significant transmission of the virus. In the absence of science, we have a policing app, which the Scottish National Party and the Scottish Greens have mandated. Will the Scottish Government end the compulsory use of that app for policing Scottish businesses?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

No, it will not. The First Minister set out to Parliament yesterday the rationale for why that is the case. The Government is interested in navigating a careful course through the dangerous circumstances that we face. We are intent on ensuring that businesses are able to continue to operate—a matter that members of the Conservative Party are forever mentioning.

Dr Gulhane knows as well as I do that the settings in which the vaccination certification scheme is applied are comparatively higher-risk settings than others, hence the justification for the application of the certification scheme. The rationale for our taking that stance is our intention to sustain those venues for as long as possible, because the alternative is to apply greater restrictions, which the Government does not wish to do. We have seen that the vaccination certification scheme has contributed to an improvement in vaccination levels in the critical age group of 18 to 29-year-olds.

Stephanie Callaghan (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

Although two doses of the Covid-19 vaccine will not fully prevent transmission of the virus, I have viewed a range of evidence that full vaccination lowers the risk of passing on the virus and of developing serious complications and/or requiring hospitalisation. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the vaccination certification scheme provides greater reassurance to many members of the public who are considering attending venues or large-scale events that are covered by the scheme?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I agree with that. The vaccination certification scheme is a proportionate measure that will contribute to reducing the risk of transmission and of serious illness and death. In doing so, it will help to alleviate the pressure on the healthcare system and allow higher-risk settings to continue to operate as I have just explained to Dr Gulhane. At the same time, we believe that it will help to increase vaccine uptake.

No single measure on its own will control the virus, so we need a range of targeted measures to keep transmission under control. The vaccines help to prevent transmission of the virus because vaccinated people are less likely than unvaccinated people to become infected and ill, and only infected people can transmit the virus.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

Is the cabinet secretary aware of concerns about the Covid passport scheme not being enforced rigorously or consistently at large sporting events such as football and rugby matches? How will the Scottish Government address such concerns, to allow the Covid passport scheme to have its desired impact?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

We engage with the football clubs and the rugby authorities in relation to the application of the scheme at large events. From the information that I have seen, all the authorities are reporting very high levels of participation. In the consultation document, we said that we did not envisage 100 per cent certification, but we do place an obligation on the relevant authorities to take the appropriate steps to ensure adequate levels of certification. From the evidence that I have seen so far, I am confident that that obligation is being taken seriously by the football and rugby authorities. However, the point that the member has put on the record is an important one, as it reinforces the necessity of their so doing.

Parliamentary Business (Scrutiny)

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the Minister for Parliamentary Business has had with ministerial colleagues regarding steps that can be taken in relation to transparency of its activities to better enable scrutiny during parliamentary business. (S6O-00375)

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

The Scottish Government is fully committed to maintaining its strong track record of supporting effective parliamentary scrutiny. The Government will continue to make appropriate use of each of the routes approved by the Presiding Officer for making announcements.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Ministers regularly make important Government announcements via back-door answers to written questions, Parliament seems to organise its timetable to suit ministers’ convenience, ministers determine which questions fall within their remit before answering them, and the First Minister reads out scripted answers to scripted questions at First Minister’s questions. What is the point?

In the previous session, Parliament accepted the commission on parliamentary reform’s recommendation to

“review the operation, capacity and effectiveness of the Parliament”

before the end of this session. Does the minister agree that we must begin that process now?

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

Where to start with that? When we stuck to the parliamentary process over the past few weeks, Mr Kerr said that he had an issue with Government-initiated questions. GIQs are and have been used to ensure that Government activities are brought to the attention of all members of the Scottish Parliament. He might wish to reflect on the fact that GIQs are a means of improving, rather than reducing, the transparency that he seeks.

However, I accept that there is a judgment to be made about whether a GIQ is the appropriate means by which Parliament should be informed about Government activity, or whether a ministerial statement would be more appropriate. I keep that under regular review with my ministerial colleagues. All members know that I am open to representations on these issues, which we discuss regularly at the Parliamentary Bureau.

Covid-19 (Vaccination Passport Scheme)

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the impact of the Covid-19 vaccination passport scheme, including on the hospitality sector. (S6O-00376)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

In line with our legal duty, statutory measures are reviewed every three weeks. We consider the necessity, proportionality and targeted nature of the regulations, taking into account a range of evidence across the four harms. Covid vaccination certification is part of that package of measures, and considering whether the impact on the business sector, including hospitality, and society at large remains proportionate is part of the review.

Ministers always consider whether our measures could be relaxed or ended, but, given the state of the pandemic, we have also been clear that we are considering whether it would be necessary and proportionate to expand certification.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

It is not clear to me what the cabinet secretary means by an impact that is “proportionate”, but we know that the introduction of vaccination passports has had a negative impact on hospitality. Why is there still no sign of any additional support for the businesses that have been affected by the introduction of vaccination passports and the many more that will be when he extends the scheme? Why is the Government now saying that it plans to consider not just a vaccination passport or a negative test being required for entry into venues, but both? What assessment has been made of the potential impact of such a decision?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

No decisions have been taken about extension of the vaccination certification scheme. That will be the subject of discussion at the Cabinet on Tuesday, and Parliament will be advised in the First Minister’s statement on Tuesday afternoon. Any suggestion by Mr Smyth that decisions have been taken is not correct.

Mr Smyth asked whether measures were proportionate. That is the test that ministers must satisfy in relation to any measures that they intend to take—such measures must be proportionate to the scale of the pandemic and the threat to public health. That is a very material issue, on which ministers have been challenged in the courts. In the most recent case, the courts did not support those who challenged the Government’s decision to apply a limited certification scheme to nightclubs and other limited venues, with which Mr Smyth is familiar.

The Government will give consideration to the issue at the Cabinet on Tuesday. Any question of financial support must be considered in the context of the resources that the Government has available to it. Mr Smyth will be familiar with the fact that, over the course of the past 18 months, the Government has provided in excess of £4 billion of support as part of its Covid-related activities to deal with the challenges that businesses and other organisations have faced.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I will allow a couple of brief supplementaries. I ask for brief questions and brief responses.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I have been contacted by a number of businesses in the hospitality sector that are extremely concerned that they might be brought within the reach of the vaccination passport scheme, given the announcement that is due on Tuesday. Is the Scottish Government carrying out an economic impact assessment of the impact on such businesses, should the scheme be extended? If so, will that be published in tandem with any announcement being made?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

As the First Minister set out yesterday, the Government will produce an evidence paper on some of those questions later this week. The Government must consider a range of factors in assessing the proportionality of the actions that we propose to take, should we decide to take those actions. As I explained to Mr Smyth, that is the legal obligation in relation to which we must satisfy ourselves, and it is one that ministers take very seriously.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Cinemas are only just getting back on track, yet we are told that the Scottish Government is considering expanding the use of Covid identification cards to cinema attendance. Will the Scottish Government explain to stakeholders why that is being considered when no outbreaks have been traced back to cinemas?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Part of the judgment is about ensuring that we have sufficient resilience in the measures that we have in place to protect the population against wider impacts that could be damaging to the public health of the country.

On many occasions, we have gone through the dilemmas that the Government faces. The principal dilemma is about the damage to health, and—[Interruption.] We have had countless demands, even from heckling Conservative members, for us to protect public health. When the Government comes forward with measures to protect public health, we are criticised for bringing forward those measures. Such are the dilemmas that we face.

Mr Simpson says that there is no evidence. If Mr Simpson wants to ask me a question, he is perfectly entitled to appeal to the Presiding Officer to be invited to ask a question. I am always here to answer questions. What evidence does Mr Simpson need? How much evidence of the harm to public health does he need for the Government to have to act? If Mr Simpson wants to stick his head in the sand, he is free to do so, but the Government has a duty to act proportionately to protect the health of the population.

Parliamentary Business (Changes)

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether regular and last-minute changes to parliamentary business impact on the effective scrutiny that recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic requires. (S6O-00377)

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

I assure Sarah Boyack that the Parliamentary Bureau makes every effort to provide as much certainty as possible on the timetabling of chamber business. Circumstances can, of course, require that business be changed. In those circumstances, changes are proposed after full consultation with all members of the Parliamentary Bureau.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Does the Scottish Government agree that increasingly short notice of parliamentary business impacts not only on the third sector, businesses and our constituents’ ability to express concerns and views on the issues that we discuss in Parliament, but on our capacity, as parliamentarians, to be effective in scrutinising the Government’s work? We realise that there are lots of challenges, but short notice impacts fundamentally on our capacity to do the job that we are here to do.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

I agree with much of what Ms Boyack has said. Normally, we try to ensure that we have as much time as possible to ensure that members have the opportunity to do all that. I will take on board some of the points that you have made, Ms Boyack, and you can mention the issue to your business managers in order that they can bring it up in the Parliamentary Bureau so that we can discuss it.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Speak through the chair, please, minister.

Covid-19 (Impact on Front-line Services)

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

7. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will undertake a cross-government Covid-19 strategic review into the impact of the pandemic on front-line public services. (S6O-00378)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The impact of Covid-19 on Scotland’s public services, people and places is well understood, and it has driven the Scottish Government’s response to tackling the wide-ranging harms that the pandemic has caused.

We continue to work closely with our partners across local government and service providers to monitor closely the impact of the pandemic on services across Scotland, particularly as we prepare for wider winter pressures. The “Scottish Government Health and Social Care Winter Overview 2021-2022” outlines a package of over £300 million of investment in national health service and care services this winter to help to address those pressures.

The recently published “Covid Recovery Strategy: For a fairer future”, in addition to specific proposals for the NHS, justice and education, was developed in recognition of the huge impact that the pandemic has had on services, workers and the people who use the services.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

My problem is that that is not what I see on the ground in health and social care. I see a situation that is getting worse by the day, never mind by the week. It is absolutely heartbreaking that health and social care authorities are now writing to older and vulnerable people to tell them that their care packages will be cut in order that they can manage. The number of emails, letters and contacts that my office is dealing with is heartbreaking.

We have had exchanges on the matter quite a few times. Although I accept that Brexit and the ending of free movement are factors, as is low pay—I am sure that the cabinet secretary will accept that—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Question, please, Mr Rowley.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

What is the plan? My problem is that I cannot see a joined-up plan to address those issues across the public sector.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Mr Rowley is correct to say that he and I have had exchanges on the issue. I know the seriousness that he brings to these exchanges.

The challenge that the Government, our local authority partners and service providers are facing up to relates to having adequate capacity to deliver the social care support that is required in the community. That is partly because there are few people around to do that because of the ending of free movement. Mr Rowley acknowledges that that is part of the problem, and I accept that it is part of the problem.

The Government has already taken steps to increase social care workers’ pay. I appreciate that Mr Rowley does not believe that that is sufficient, but we have taken steps to do it. We will continue to keep the matter under review, and we are in active dialogue with our local authority partners on what further steps we can take to improve the situation.

Mr Rowley is absolutely correct. If we do not address the fact that some people are currently in hospital who could be at home with an effective social care package, we will have greater congestion in our hospitals and will therefore weaken our resilience in dealing with winter pressures and Covid, as the months pass. I take seriously the points that Mr Rowley has raised and I assure him of our determination to address them—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you, cabinet secretary. Question 8 is from Michael Marra.

Covid-19 (Recovery Plans)

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

8. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on progress with implementing its published Covid-19 recovery plans. (S6O-00379)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Scottish Government is committed to publishing a plan for how we will deliver and report on the actions set out in the Covid recovery strategy before the end of 2021, and for subsequent quarterly reporting of progress, thereafter. The plan will be agreed with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to ensure successful and collaborative delivery to support the people across Scotland who have been most affected by the pandemic.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Today, at the Education, Children and Young People Committee, three witnesses from organisations that represent young people told me that they were not aware of any significant analysis by the Government that assesses the pandemic’s impact on young people’s education. Linda O’Neill from the Centre for Excellence for Children’s Care and Protection informed us that they do not have data that they can use, in which they could look at the before, during and after, and that the data shows where there are gaps, but they have known about them for a long time. How can we begin the process of recovery if the Government has not attempted to understand the baseline of the challenge that is faced?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Obviously, I am not familiar with the evidence that the committee took this morning, but from my experience as education secretary, I am familiar with the volume of data that was available prior to the pandemic. I should point out that a lot of it was resisted by the Labour Party when it was first put in place; the Labour Party was completely hostile to the level of reporting on such measures that I put in place. That was before the pandemic.

We have taken a proportionate response in the education system to ensure that teachers are not being asked to provide information on the capacity of pupils when they have not had adequate opportunity to engage with pupils because of the disruption to learning.

One thing of which I am absolutely 100 per cent certain is that every teacher in the country is focused on ensuring that the learning needs of children are being met. That is something that the Parliament should applaud.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The next portfolio is net zero, energy and transport. Again, if a member wishes to ask a supplementary, they should press their request-to-speak button or put an R in the chat function. We have a lot of interest in this portfolio, so again I ask for succinct questions and answers, please, ministers.

Covid-19 (Bus Travel)

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to encourage the public to travel by bus, in light of reports that the recent Transport Scotland Covid-19 transport trends indicate that concessionary bus travel is down by 35 per cent on pre-pandemic levels. (S6O-00380)

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

Covid-19 had an unprecedented impact on passenger numbers and revenue across the public transport system. To date, more than £210 million has been made available to the end of March 2022 to enable bus operators to maintain services during the pandemic. We are working closely with bus operators to support the safe and confident return to public transport, which is vital to ensure that there is a viable and sustainable public transport system for the future.

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

Pre-pandemic Scottish Government analysis showed that Scottish bus passenger numbers were falling by an average of 10 per cent per year, yet on Lothian Buses services, passenger numbers had remained constant. Given the success of that mutual ownership model, is the Scottish Government prepared to give local authorities the resources that are provided for in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019, so that the rest of Scotland can enjoy the level of service that is offered by Lothian Buses? Will the Scottish Government take this opportunity to support Scottish Labour’s call for free transport for the under-25s?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

The member makes a good point about Lothian Buses bucking the trend, which is one of the reasons why the powers in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 are a full range of powers, and they will be supported by a community bus fund in order to extend their implementation.

On the point that the member makes about free bus travel, as he is well aware, from January, we will be extending it to under-22s. As part of the fair fares review, we will look at further opportunities in that regard.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

The idea of my being an influencer on TikTok fills me with utter dread. [Laughter.]

Let me answer the point more seriously. As Mark Ruskell knows, a targeted marketing campaign commenced on 25 October, to advertise the new scheme. Further work is being done on a full marketing campaign to make young people aware of it. One of the partners in the project is Young Scot, which is assisting us in that regard. A great deal of work is going into ensuring that young people have the opportunity to access the scheme.

Ferry Building (Update)

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the two CalMac ferries being built by Ferguson Marine. (S6O-00381)

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

The turnaround director of Ferguson Marine updated the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee on the delivery timetable and budget for vessels 801 and 802 on 30 September. The cost to complete the vessels remains the same as was reported in the turnaround director’s December 2019 report. The delivery of 801 is planned for between July 2022 and September 2022 and the delivery of 802 is planned for between April 2023 and July 2023.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

Hull 802 was ordered in 2016 and was originally due to be in service in 2018. There is a lot of speculation that it will never see service. Can the minister give an undertaking that it will indeed become serviceable on a CalMac route?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

As the Minister for Transport with responsibility for ferries, I can say to the member that we are planning for the introduction of 802 into the service.

Collette Stevenson (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

We are all acutely aware that the standing position of the Tories since the 1980s has been to close shipyards. The illusory “frigate factory” on the Clyde is a more recent example in a long list of Conservative betrayals of Scottish shipbuilding.

Ferguson Marine employs more than 400 people. Does the minister share my view that, were it not for the Scottish National Party, that shipyard would be closed and those 400 employees would probably have had to seek work outside the shipbuilding industry?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

That is, absolutely, a fact. Nevertheless, we must all now focus on working with the yard to ensure that it has a sustainable long-term future.

Public Transport Use

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

3. To ask the Scottish Government how it plans to encourage people to use public transport rather than cars. (S6O-00382)

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

We have a comprehensive suite of measures to promote sustainable journeys instead of private car journeys, in line with our national transport strategy. Our target to reduce the distance travelled by car by 20 per cent by 2030 is world leading and is backed by landmark investment in active travel and bus priority infrastructure. There is also the forthcoming under-22s free travel scheme, which I mentioned earlier.

The second strategic transport projects review will help to prioritise investment towards interventions that are aimed at reducing further the need to travel unsustainably.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

Does the minister think that ScotRail’s proposal to cut 300 train services a day is consistent with our meeting our net zero targets?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

As we have discussed in the Parliament before, the proposals for next May represent a 100-service gain from the current, pandemic situation. Of course, in the long term, we want an increase in services, with the return of services that existed pre-pandemic and additional services. However, there is no getting away from the fact that, here and now, we face considerable financial pressures and we cannot be running trains that are not occupied.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The Government has pledged to revisit the development of a rail connection between Aberdeen city and Ellon, with a possible extension to Peterhead and Fraserburgh. Even if we are successful in realising the project, it will not happen overnight. Given that many people in my constituency have no option but to use their cars, what is the Scottish Government doing to enable people in rural Scotland and Aberdeenshire East to rely less heavily on petrol and diesel cars in our everyday lives?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

A great deal of support is going into the north-east in that regard, and members would take it badly if I were to stand here and list it all. I will say to the member that we work closely with Nestrans—the North East of Scotland Transport Partnership—on all this. Nestrans has a mass transit proposal for Aberdeen and the wider area, which—if memory serves—contains proposals to improve bus connectivity to Ellon, for example, in the member’s constituency.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

If we want more people to use public transport, public transport has to be reliable. The recent incidence of industrial action means that that has not been the case. The Scottish National Party’s approach was to stand back and let the employer and the unions fight it out, even after I showed the minister that, contractually, the Government should have been front and centre. Does the minister now accept that, to encourage more people on to public transport, the SNP has to take a greater and more proactive role in industrial action?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

Where it is appropriate to do so, the Scottish Government will work with employers, whoever they are, to bring about resolution of industrial action in order to ensure that we do not have disruption to transport services, whatever form they take.

Evelyn Tweed (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

The introduction of free bus travel for under-22s from the end of January 2022 will see approximately 1 million young people travelling free of charge. That is in addition to the third of Scotland’s population who already benefit from the older and disabled persons free bus scheme. Does the minister therefore agree that the SNP Government has already taken significant steps to encourage the use of public transport?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

Yes, and we should give credit to our Green colleagues for the part that they played in the under-22s scheme. Of course, as I noted earlier, we have the fair fares review going on at the moment to try to ensure that we best capture opportunities to support our citizens to enjoy easy access to public transport.

Net Zero (Housing)

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what role passivhaus homes and off-site manufacturing have in the Glasgow Shettleston constituency in supporting its aim to achieve net zero by 2045. (S6O-00383)

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

We continue to take action to increase the energy efficiency of new homes and to modernise construction to put Scotland’s homes on the pathway to net zero by 2045.

We are currently consulting on improvements to the high energy standards in Scottish building regulations for introduction next year. Those improvements will be strongly focused on reducing overall energy demand in new homes, and we are also developing a strategy to build more high quality and energy-efficient affordable homes in communities across the country, through greater use of off-site construction.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Will the minister join me in congratulating West of Scotland Housing Association, CCG and hub West Scotland on the passivhaus development at Parkhead, which I believe is the largest in Glasgow so far and will mean high standards of insulation and ventilation and keep heating costs to a minimum?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Yes, I am delighted to congratulate West of Scotland Housing Association, CCG and hub West Scotland on the delivery of the new development at Springfield Cross in Glasgow, and I welcome many other positive developments.

The development will deliver 36 new homes with the support of grant funding through the affordable housing supply programme. The homes are being built to achieve high energy efficiency standards, which will result in low fuel bills for tenants when they move into the completed homes next year.

Ferry Services

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to improve ferry services to island communities. (S6O-00384)

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

Our £580 million investment in ports and vessels that was announced in February will support and improve Scotland’s ferry services over the next five years. As part of our wider infrastructure investment plan, we continue to work constructively with partners and key stakeholders to progress a sustainable and efficient fleet replacement programme. I note the recent purchase of the MV Utne, which I am pleased to tell the chamber has arrived in Scotland and will shortly begin her fit-out. Of course, we continue to look at opportunities to bring other second-hand tonnage into the fleet to improve reliability and availability.

Engagement with stakeholders to develop detailed deployment, cascade and related timetables for the 2022 summer season continues.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The minister will be aware of a number of cancellations due to crew testing positive with Covid-19, which obviously occur at short notice. What steps is the Scottish Government considering to minimise the risk of ferry cancellations in the event of positive Covid cases among crews over the winter months, when infections are high and are likely to rise and when ferries already face disruption due to weather?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

The member makes a fair point. I am pleased to say that I had discussions just yesterday with Caledonian MacBrayne management on that matter. She will appreciate that the primary consideration when something like that happens is, of course, the health and wellbeing of the crews and the need to take essential measures. However, we are actively looking at whether we can assist CalMac with speeding up the testing procedure and also with aspects such as deep cleaning to minimise disruption to vessels.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I am not at all surprised that there is considerable interest in the issue of ferries. A number of members want to ask supplementary questions. I hope to get through as many of them as possible, so I ask for brief questions and answers.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

The Lochranza to Claonaig ferry route is vital to the Isle of Arran, not least when the ferry from Brodick to Ardrossan cannot sail, but in the winter it is replaced by a once-a-day service to and from Tarbert. What steps will the minister take to extend and enhance that vital service?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I am aware of the request from Arran stakeholder groups to extend the winter timetable between Lochranza and Claonaig. However, as Mr Gibson is aware, that request has been considered several times by CalMac Ferries and Transport Scotland. I assure him that it was considered in great detail, but it is simply not possible to operate a reliable service in the winter due to the nature of the slipway at Claonaig.

CalMac has also looked closely at the request to provide more sailings from Tarbert to Lochranza but, again, as Mr Gibson will know, any such deliberations need to factor in the benefits set against the disbenefits for affected populations. In this case, more sailings from Tarbert to Lochranza would mean reducing the Tarbert to Portavadie timetable, which would be problematic for regular users of that service, who include children and young people who use it to get to and from school.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

We learned today that full lifeline ferry services to Harris and Uist will not be reinstated next summer. The Isle of Harris transport forum says that that could cost the island £3 million a year in lost business and that it wants a meeting with the minister. Will he commit to meeting it and reinstating the full ferry service?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I met the Isle of Harris transport forum a few months ago and I understand entirely the concerns that it has on the subject. My officials are currently engaging with CalMac to see whether it is possible to arrive at a compromise on the issue. The costs that are involved in providing a full service, in terms of using the mezzanine deck and having full weekly services, are prohibitive. However, we are keen to see whether we can find a compromise, and my officials will engage directly on that.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

As the minister indicated, CalMac is consulting on two options for the Uig triangle timetable that have no additional cost implications but would result in less capacity than in previous years. Given how busy the route is in the summer months, can any consideration be given to alternative options that would see an increase rather than a decrease in capacity?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

That is happening at the moment. Mr Allan wrote to me earlier this week and one of the suggestions that he made is being considered as a possibility.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Will the Scottish Government commit to expanding the free bus travel scheme to internal ferries for under-22s in island communities, because they rely on ferries in the same way that their mainland counterparts rely on buses?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

As the member knows, responsibility for interisland ferries lies with local authorities. However, all fares for ferries and others form part of the forthcoming fair ferries review.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The purchase of the MV Utne in October is the latest instalment in a series of investments that the Scottish National Party has made in our ferry services, vessels and infrastructure since 2007. Despite the vessel reportedly being earmarked for the Oban to Craignure run, will the minister detail how other island communities will benefit from that addition to the CalMac fleet?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I am delighted to say that the Utne arrived in Scotland this week, and I look forward to seeing her enter service. She is earmarked for the Oban to Craignure route, which will enable a year-round commutable service from Mull alongside the larger vessel that serves Oban to Craignure customers. The potential additional benefits for the introduction include the return of the MV Coruisk to the Mallaig to Armadale route, improving the service frequency and freeing the MV Lord of the Isles to operate solely on the Mallaig to Lochboisdale route. With the addition of the Utne, fleet resilience during dry-dock periods will also be improved.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Question 6 was not lodged.

26th United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties (Sustainable Development Opportunities)

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what it sees as the sustainable development opportunities emerging from the decisions and outcomes of COP26. (S6O-00386)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

In advance of COP26, the Scottish Government recognised our moral responsibility to respond to the urgent need for global action on loss and damage. That is why the First Minister announced a £1 million partnership with the Climate Justice Resilience Fund to help some of the world’s most vulnerable communities prepare for and adapt to climate change, tackle structural inequalities and recover from climate-induced loss and damage. Responding to calls that activists and young people from those communities made throughout COP26, the Scottish Government will treble, rather than double, our climate justice fund, including £1 million to specifically address loss and damage.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

I would be grateful if the cabinet secretary could outline the plans that the Scottish Government has to promote sustainable and ethical pension options for public sector workers, and say whether it considers pension investment to be an important avenue through which we can boost business in sustainable and ethical models, whether those are operating in Scotland or further afield.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Of the five Scottish public pension schemes, four are unfunded and therefore do not make direct investments; only the local government pension scheme is funded. It is clear that environmental, social and corporate governance issues can affect the performance of investment portfolios. We are aware that some Scottish local government pension funds have already signed up to the principles of responsible investment and exercised a preference in new investments with positive ESG—environmental, social and governance—characteristics, which they have set out in their financial criteria.

I can also inform the member that Scottish ministers intend to liaise with the Scottish Local Government Pension Scheme Advisory Board with a view to launching a consultation on climate risk reporting and on ESG standards for local authority pension funds, in line with the recommendations of the task force on climate-related financial disclosure for companies to describe the impact of climate-related risks and opportunities on organisational business, strategy and financial planning. I assure the member that we intend to progress that work in a timely fashion.

Oil and Gas Businesses (Engagement)

Audrey Nicoll (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

8. To ask the Scottish Government how it is engaging with oil and gas businesses in the north-east, as Scotland transitions to a net zero economy. (S6O-00387)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The Scottish Government engages with companies that are operating in the oil and gas sector across the north-east, recognising that the knowledge and experience of the sector and supply chains will be important for developing and investing in new and emerging technologies. Ministers engage regularly with a range of stakeholders, including the Scottish Council for Development and Industry and the Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce. Most recently, on 19 August, I chaired the oil and gas and energy transition strategic leadership group, which was also attended by the Minister for Just Transition, Employment and Fair Work. The Minister for Business, Trade, Tourism and Enterprise is scheduled to meet the chamber of commerce next month.

Audrey Nicoll (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

My constituency of Aberdeen South and North Kincardine is home to a range of businesses, many of which are family run, that have been part of the oil and gas sector supply chain for many decades. Many have a skilled workforce, established suppliers and a knowledge of the energy sector. What support will the Scottish Government provide to ensure that opportunities in the renewables sector will be available to such businesses in order to protect jobs and support the local north-east economy?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

We already provide significant support for the north-east economy. I recognise that there are specific sectoral challenges facing the region, but there are also significant opportunities. We have committed some £500 million to a new just transition fund for the north-east and Moray over the next 10 years, and we are calling on the United Kingdom Government to match that investment. The Scottish Government’s £75 million energy transition fund will also support our energy sector and the north-east over the next five years. Those funds will help to protect existing jobs and create new jobs by opening up opportunities through energy transition, harnessing private sector funding and supporting our thriving sector.

In addition, I can tell the member that those who are bidding to take part in the leasing round for our ScotWind programme, which I believe is one of the largest offshore-wind leasing programmes in the world, are required to submit a supply chain development statement that sets out how they will use the domestic supply chain to support any developments that they may be awarded. The purpose behind that is specifically to help to secure greater investment in our domestic supply chain and to support the very businesses in the member’s constituency to which she referred as we transition from an oil and gas sector to one that is much more dominated by renewable energy.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes portfolio questions. I thank members and both ministerial teams for their co-operation in allowing us to get through as many questions as we did.

Circular Economy

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is a statement by Lorna Slater on “Towards a circular economy”. The minister will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

One of the fundamental changes that we need to make to our society and economy to tackle the climate emergency is the transition to a circular economy. That means that, instead of having an economy in which we take, make and dispose, we design to last and we reuse and repair while wasting as little as possible.

Finding better ways to deal with the waste that our economy is currently creating and to reduce the total amount of waste is key to building a circular economy. I am working on creating a comprehensive vision for how we reduce and manage waste in Scotland, and I will give you an update on our progress towards that vision so far.

The Government’s flagship scheme for reducing litter and waste and for increasing recycling is the United Kingdom’s first deposit return scheme. In 2020, Parliament passed legislation to establish the deposit return scheme, with the intention of having the scheme operational in 2022. Unfortunately—as, I know, members are all keenly aware—2020 was an unprecedented year. The global pandemic and Brexit had a major impact on businesses, particularly retailers and those involved in their supply chains, and challenges persist today. Unfortunately, the very businesses that will be most instrumental in making the DRS operate—including hospitality businesses, small convenience stores and small brewers—were and still are badly affected by the pandemic and the mismanagement of Brexit.

There have also been unresolved issues such as a lack of clarity from the UK Government on the VAT treatment of deposits. Such issues add unnecessary cost, time delay and risk to the project. I have written to the UK Government twice and have offered to meet it to discuss the matter further, as did the former Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform. Industry, too, has written.

However, I heard only yesterday from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that they do not see a route to removing VAT from deposits. That is deeply disappointing. The financial secretary has offered to work with my officials and industry on potential VAT adjustments. I understand that that falls well short of what is needed, but I have tasked my officials to work on the issue urgently in order to understand the implications and agree a way forward. [Interruption.]

The Government is committed to the scheme being operational as soon as is practically possible. Roll-out of the DRS is being spearheaded by Circularity Scotland Ltd, which is a non-profit company that was set up last February by private sector producers, retailers and wholesalers and which was approved as the scheme’s administrator by the Scottish ministers in March. Officials and I are working hard with Circularity Scotland and the industry to agree a final timescale and clear milestones for delivery, and I will announce that schedule to Parliament in due course. [Interruption.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Excuse me, minister.

Could we have no interruptions, please? I made that clear at the outset, and it is normal courtesy when any statement is given.

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

Thank you.

Reducing waste through the implementation of the DRS is just one part of the vision for waste management in Scotland. Another piece is modernisation of our infrastructure to boost Scotland’s recycling performance by supporting local authorities. That is why I am delighted to announce today that we are making our first investments through our £70 million recycling improvement fund. I can confirm that more than £7.1 million has been awarded to local authorities to enable them to increase the quantity and quality of recycling. That marks the beginning of one of the biggest investments in recycling in Scotland in a generation.

Seven local authorities have successfully bid for support from the first round of the fund: Fife Council, Midlothian Council, North Ayrshire Council, Highland Council, East Lothian Council, Aberdeenshire Council and South Ayrshire Council. A range of improvements will include more frequent recycling collections, the extension of food and garden waste collections, and local service redesigns to align with Scotland’s household recycling charter.

The funding will also unlock bold innovation in our recycling provision. For example, the investment that has been made today will allow Fife Council to become the first local authority in Scotland to locally sort and separate the plastic films that it collects for recycling, enhancing Scotland’s ability to deal with that problematic material.

The investment will also include funding for improved reuse services. In North Ayrshire, reuse services at household waste recycling centres will be extended and will include a new initiative to reuse bed mattresses in an innovative partnership with the third sector.

The landmark investment that I am announcing has the potential to reduce CO2 emissions by 17,200 tonnes each year—the equivalent of taking 9,100 cars off the road—and that is just the start of the fund’s impact. I hope to provide further updates on investment in Scotland’s recycling infrastructure soon.

In addition to reducing waste and providing better recycling, we need to correctly manage the waste that is produced even as the total amount of it declines in line with our ambitious waste reduction targets.

The Scottish Government is fully committed to ending the practice of landfilling biodegradable municipal waste by 2025. That is an important step in tackling our contribution to climate change. Landfilling biodegradable municipal waste produces methane, a particularly potent greenhouse gas that received well-deserved attention at the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26. I am pleased to say that the amount of waste that is going to landfill in Scotland is at its lowest level since records began, and we are on track to exceed the 2020 European Union target on landfilling biodegradable municipal waste.

However, we need to maintain progress beyond 2025, too, and make sure that how we treat residual waste aligns with our emissions reduction targets. Our programme for government set out a commitment to review the role of incineration in the waste hierarchy in Scotland. In September, I set out our intentions, including that the review would be led by an independent chair, and I am pleased to announce that we have appointed Dr Colin Church to that role. Dr Church brings a wealth of experience from across the waste and environmental sectors.

I am particularly conscious of the fact that how we treat our residual waste can have wider, unwanted impacts on communities and the environment in both the short and the long terms. That is why the review will include scope to consider the societal impacts of residual waste treatment, including health and community impacts, as well as how emissions from existing incinerators can be reduced.

Of course, Dr Church will determine the detailed scope and timings of the review. However, my previous update set out our intention for the scope to include an assessment of the required incineration capacity, to ensure, as some members have rightly pointed out, that we are not building unnecessary infrastructure that is not in keeping with our ambitious waste reduction targets.

To alleviate concerns about a rush of planning applications for incinerators before the review has completed its work, we have today issued a temporary notification direction. It asks that planning authorities notify the Scottish ministers of new planning applications and of when they are minded to grant planning permission for incineration. The notification direction will be in place only for the duration of the review and should not in any way disrupt local authority preparations for the forthcoming ban, in 2025, on sending biodegradable municipal waste to landfill.

We are already taking action to reduce waste and to reach our targets. Last week, the Scottish Government laid before the Scottish Parliament legislation that bans some of the most problematic single-use plastics. Every year, hundreds of millions of pieces of single-use plastic are wasted in Scotland. They litter our coasts, pollute our oceans and contribute to the climate emergency. That has to end, and the ban will be another step forward in the fight against plastic waste and our throwaway culture. That is another example of the bold action that is needed if we are to deliver on the commitments that were made at COP26.

We recognise that the ban is at risk from the UK Internal Market Act 2020, which effectively exempts any items that are produced in or imported via another part of the UK. However, we continue to work with the other Administrations across the UK to find a way to ensure that the ban in Scotland is not undermined.

We continue to work with the rest of the UK to progress the extended producer responsibility scheme for packaging, ensuring that it fully meets the polluter-pays principle and that local authorities benefit from additional funds as a consequence. We are also currently reviewing Scotland’s progress in delivering on our 33 per cent food waste reduction target.

Those are all building blocks towards a comprehensive vision for waste reduction and management in Scotland, to which we will bring more detail in our route map, in order to meet our 2025 waste and recycling targets, as well as looking ahead to 2030 and beyond.

A circular economy is about much more than waste management; it is also about sharing and repairing, so I am delighted that we are providing support for the new national network of community sharing libraries and repair cafes. New business models that are based around repairing, remanufacture and recycling will bring opportunities.

As I stated, I will return shortly to inform Parliament of the final timeline for the deposit return scheme. I am also looking forward to progressing a transformational circular economy bill as an urgent priority in this parliamentary session. Building a circular economy is key to tackling the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss, and I look forward to working with all members to achieve that.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The minister will now take questions on the issues that were raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move to the next item of business. Members who wish to ask a question should press their request-to-speak buttons now.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I thank the minister for advance sight of her statement.

We have just seen the Green minister again break her promise to ban new incinerators. Unless she can somehow burn and recycle the same waste, how does she expect recycling to improve?

The minister has just suggested that the deposit return scheme might not launch as planned. If there is going to be a delay, I hope that ministers at least use the time wisely to improve the scheme. They can do that by ensuring a future-proof open standard system that is compatible with that in the rest of the UK. A digital app to allow home collections is essential to prevent disabled and vulnerable groups from effectively being excluded.

Finally, there is an issue of transparency. The deposit return scheme is shrouded in secrecy, with a multimillion-pound tender process that has been hidden from the public and the Parliament. Freedom of information requests will not work, because the Scottish National Party used a private company to oversee it. We do not need to see the commercial responses, but will the minister release the brief and the specification that have been provided to bidders?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

I thank Maurice Golden for the question and I will try to cover all the points. With regard to incineration, Aberdeenshire Council, which is Tory and Labour, is pushing for a new incinerator; Maurice Golden’s position on that is unclear.

The notification direction that we have issued today is the same tool that was used to effect a temporary moratorium on unconventional oil and gas extraction. I stress that the notification direction is temporary and does not in any way pre-empt the outcome of the review of incineration.

I am delighted that Maurice Golden is keen for the deposit return scheme to be introduced, especially given that, during the debate when Parliament passed the legislation in 2020, the Tories pushed for a delay to the scheme, and then for a further delay.

The next point was on home collections. Annie Wells said:

“Scottish Conservatives support the delay of implementation ... in light of the Covid-19 outbreak, but we do not think that that goes far enough.”—[Official Report, 13 May 2020; c 93.]

I am delighted that the Conservatives have changed their position and now support the quickest possible implementation of the deposit return scheme.

With regard to home collections, online collections are absolutely part of the legislation for the scheme. As yet, the UK Government has not defined its deposit return scheme, so there is nothing for us to align with. As with so many other things, the Scottish Government is leading the way with the scheme.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I do not care about the UK; we are in Scotland. The minister has not answered my question.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Excuse me, Mr Golden. The question was asked, and the minister has responded.

Before I call the next member, I remind all members who wish to pose a question—I am not looking at anyone in particular—to press their request-to-speak buttons now.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

I thank the minister for advance sight of her statement. We recognise that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs position on VAT is challenging, but VAT deposits have not been a barrier to implementation of deposit return schemes in other European countries.

The minister says that the Scottish Government

“is committed to the scheme being operational as soon as practically possibly.”

Can she confirm that there will be no delay to the July 2022 implementation date?

We know how concerned the minister was about industry lobbying causing delays to the scheme, so can she confirm what discussions she has had with large-scale producers to ensure that they, and not local authorities, will foot the bill for any delay?

We acknowledge that the minister has committed to come back to the chamber to outline the final timeline, but can she confirm today when she will return to the chamber?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

I thank the member for her questions. Again, I will try to address them all.

The member asked about the date for the deposit return scheme. The scheme is comprehensive and involves tens of thousands of collection points around the country, big retailers, small brewers and our hospitality sector. I am engaging with all those stakeholders to figure out the shortest possible period of time in which to implement the scheme, given the challenges around Brexit and the pandemic, which is still raging. There is constant industry engagement.

I re-emphasise that Circularity Scotland is a non-profit company that has been set up by private sector producers, retailers and wholesalers. The scheme will be implemented by industry for industry. Therefore, industry engagement is at the core of the scheme, the implementation of which will be based on the producer pays principle.

The member’s final question was about when the announcement will be made. A firm date for industry as to when the scheme will go live is absolutely critical, and I will return to the chamber as soon as possible to make that announcement.

I am currently engaging with industry to ensure that the scheme is on the quickest possible timeline and that we have concrete visible milestones to allow us all to see active progress on the project.

Stephanie Callaghan (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

The actions that are set out in today’s statement will help us to reach our world-leading targets for zero emissions by 2045. Dr Church’s review of the role of incineration in the waste hierarchy in Scotland is particularly welcome. What impact will that have on planning applications for new incinerators, such as the Overwood farm proposal in South Lanarkshire?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

I absolutely agree that moving towards a circular economy, using less, reusing and recycling are critical to meeting our climate aspirations.

With regard to incinerators, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the merits of any individual planning proposals. The notification direction requires planning authorities to make ministers aware of new planning applications that involve incineration facilities, and they must notify ministers if they are minded to grant planning permission for incineration facilities. That will ensure that both the review and Scottish ministers are fully aware of any on-going and new planning applications that are submitted during the review process. It will also give ministers the opportunity to decide case by case whether national interests are at stake that would merit ministers calling in an application for their own determination, or to allow the local authority to issue a decision at local level.

The notification direction is the same tool that was used to give effect to a temporary moratorium on unconventional oil and gas extraction. I stress that the notification direction is temporary and does not in any way pre-empt the outcome of the review of incineration.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The minister has blamed her Government’s latest failure on deposit return on everything except her Government. However, she says that she and her officials have been working hard. What are the projected start-up costs of the scheme, and how will it be funded?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

The scheme is being run by an independent administrator, which is a private company. It is responsible for pulling in the funding and for planning. It is external to Government; it is a separate body.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Has the minister finished responding to the question?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

Yes, thank you.

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

My constituency is an important renewable energy source. However, due to the dispersed nature of communities on islands and remote mainland areas, many of the proposals to achieve a circular economy can be more expensive to implement. Will the minister advise what the Scottish Government is doing to support communities such as those in Argyll and Bute?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

I understand the different challenges that communities across Scotland face in building a circular economy, including island communities such as those in Argyll and Bute. We are working with local authorities to identify and address specific challenges that authorities with island or rural communities face in delivering the forthcoming ban on biodegradable municipal waste, and we are providing support through Zero Waste Scotland to enable authorities to secure alternative solutions for their residual waste.

Zero Waste Scotland has made funding available through the islands green recovery programme refill fund to empower existing small and medium-sized enterprises in island communities to take steps in the war on waste by ditching single-use packaging and moving to reusable options.

The recycling improvement fund has been developed in partnership with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers to support all local authorities in improving recycling infrastructure.

I urge all local authorities to engage with Zero Waste Scotland and to bring forward applications to the fund, to help deliver a step change to modernise our infrastructure and boost Scotland’s recycling performance.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

According to Greenpeace, the increase in littering as a result of the deposit return scheme not being implemented runs at a rate of 21 million discarded bottles and cans a month. Does the minister agree that that externalising of cost to the public sector and the local authorities that have to collect the waste is not sustainable? If the scheme’s implementation continues to be delayed, will the minister be on our side and push for local authorities to get the extra money that is needed to cope with the continued expense of picking up litter?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

As with the Scottish Conservatives, I am delighted that Labour has changed its mind about the issue. At the time of the debate on the deposit return scheme in 2020, the Labour spokesman said that they felt that this was not the time for a deposit return scheme and asked for a delay to its implementation. [Interruption.] I am delighted that Labour is on board with having the scheme implemented as soon as possible, and that is what I am working towards every day. [Interruption.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Excuse me. Could we listen to the minister, please? Thank you.

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

We are engaging with stakeholders, including landowners and local government, on a new national litter and fly-tipping strategy, which will be launched early next year. We will consult the public on actions around littering before the end of the year.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Circularity Scotland has produced estimates of the key requirements that will largely determine the overall costs of the proposed deposit return scheme. Its estimates are broadly double the Scottish Government estimates, which, at the time when the Parliament approved the scheme, totalled £2,410 million over 25 years.

What are the total costs now? Have they doubled to around £5,000 million? Will the minister publish or arrange to publish the Circularity Scotland estimates? In the light of that and other extremely significant challenges, will she instruct an independent review of the proposed scheme, including reappraisal of all other options so that the objectives that we all share can be achieved in the most effective and manageable, but affordable, fashion?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

My priority is to implement the deposit return scheme as quickly as is practically possible. The cost of the scheme is borne by industry. It is organised by Circularity Scotland, which, I reiterate, is a private company. As such, it is for it to decide what information to publish. The full business case—

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

Who is paying?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

Industry is paying. This is an industry scheme funded by industry; it is not a publicly funded scheme. The full business case addendum that was published last March sets out the strong economic case for the DRS.

There are successful deposit return schemes throughout the world. I have interacted with the one in Sweden, where deposit return machines provide a community hub. People go to shops to return their bottles and cans every day and, in doing so, they support and increase footfall to local businesses. Successful schemes are run all over the world and they deliver significant environmental and economic benefits to the public. We are confident that Scotland’s DRS will do the same.

We are aware that some in industry have been exploring alternative values for some of the assumptions that are set out in the full business case. We have not had an opportunity to assess the evidence for those alternative assumptions in detail, but I understand that industry is suggesting that the number of containers may be higher than was anticipated. It is wonderful news for reducing litter and waste in Scotland that the scheme may be able to collect more containers than was previously thought. The more containers that are captured by the DRS that might otherwise have been littered or gone to landfill, the greater the environmental and economic benefits will be, because the DRS will ensure that those containers go for recycling.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

This is the second delay to the scheme, and now we do not even have a date for its introduction. Meanwhile, small businesses, particularly in rural and island areas, lack the information and clarity that they need in order to be able to prepare. Given the international precedents for rolling out deposit return schemes, why is the Scottish Government making such a mess of introducing a DRS in Scotland?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

In 2020, Willie Rennie, who was leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats at the time, said that it was beyond him why we were rushing the scheme through. I am delighted, therefore, that the party has changed its mind and is now in favour of the scheme being delivered as quickly as possible.

I am absolutely aware of the criticality to industry of a firm delivery date, and I will return to the chamber to give a firm delivery date as quickly as possible, because I agree with what the member says.

Small businesses have been writing to me asking for delay to the scheme due to problems with Brexit and the Covid pandemic. Those are exactly the businesses that have been most badly affected, and I am listening to them. I am also engaging with big retailers—I have spoken this week to some of the biggest retailers in Scotland—as well as bottle producers and non-governmental organisations in order to find a route map for the scheme that will be as quick as is practically possible and will take into account the concerns of those businesses, which the member mentioned.

There are schemes in other countries around the world, many of which are less ambitious than the scheme that Scotland is proposing. For example, some of them do not involve small businesses. In Scotland, we want to support small businesses, because we believe that the scheme will increase footfall and improve the outlook for them.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I want to make two points. First, could we have less chuntering from a sedentary position? When the minister is asked a question, we need to hear how she responds. Secondly, if we have more succinct answers, I will be able to bring in members who are seeking to pose a question.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It is great to see momentum building behind the circular economy. Although I share some of the frustrations about the delay to the DRS, I welcome the minister’s commitment to deliver the most ambitious scheme on a timescale that will set the model for the rest of the UK to follow, instead of Scotland following a weak UK scheme that has been watered down by vested interests.

The VAT treatment of deposits is of considerable concern to industry, and the latest decision from the Treasury will no doubt be ringing alarm bells. Will the minister explain the latest position? How have she and the Scottish Government been consulted by the UK Government on the issue?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

I must confess that our interaction with the UK Government on the VAT issue has been very frustrating. I have written two letters to the UK Government and have asked for a meeting on the issue, but it has been very slow in coming back to me. It came back to me yesterday saying that it would not implement industry’s requested action, which was aimed at ensuring that VAT returns on deposits in the scheme would be handled in the way that was best suited to getting the scheme up and running quickly and as cheaply as possible.

There are still many unresolved questions around VAT and the details that industry needs in order to be able to implement the scheme. I will continue to work with the UK Government and industry to figure out the details of all the matters around VAT. It is a complicated issue, but it is frustrating that the UK Government has been so slow in coming back to us on the scheme and appears to be dragging its feet.

The members to my left—the Conservatives—could support the scheme by speaking to their colleagues at Westminster about getting the VAT matter sorted out in a timely fashion in order to enable the deposit return scheme to be delivered as soon as possible.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Will the minister provide an update on the plans to introduce a charge for single-use drink cups?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

In 2019, Scotland became the first country in the UK to ban plastic-stemmed cotton buds. We have taken further action this year by banning more problematic single-use plastic items such as cutlery, straws, plates, and expanded polystyrene food and drink containers. We will now take further steps and consult on a charge for single-use disposable beverage cups, in line with recommendations from the expert panel on environmental charging and other measures.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

According to the industry, the scheme will need an estimated 10,000 reverse vending machines. Will those machines be constructed here? Will all materials that are collected in the scheme be recycled here?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

That is an on-going matter for the industry to consider. The purchase of 10,000 reverse vending machines is an exciting opportunity. As the member can imagine, with the short timescale that we have to implement the deposit return scheme, there is a question about how quickly we can scale up to build those machines. I am hopeful and confident that as many machines as possible will be built in Scotland, but the industry will have to do what it can to meet the ambitious targets for the implementation of the scheme. I very much support building and manufacturing in Scotland.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

Will the minister elaborate on how the five-year £70 million recycling improvement fund will help us to accelerate progress towards meeting Scotland’s ambitious waste and recycling targets and fulfil our net zero commitments?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

Today’s announcement marks the beginning of one of the biggest investments in recycling in Scotland in a generation. Across Scotland, that funding will be transformational. It will make it easier for households to recycle more; help to deliver the rates of recycling that are needed to meet Scotland’s ambitious climate targets; support local authorities in improving recycling and reuse infrastructure; help with the alignment of recycling collections to Scotland’s household recycling charter; and maximise the quality and quantity of recycling. The investment will also help local authorities to get ready for future developments including the deposit return scheme and the reform of producer responsibility systems for packaging.

The first £7.1 million of funding, which was announced today, will enable a range of improvements across Scotland, including more frequent recycling collections, the extension of food and garden waste collections, the replacement of litter bins with recycling bins, and local service redesigns to align with Scotland’s household recycling charter. The investment has the potential to reduce CO2 emissions by 70,200 tonnes each year, which is equivalent to taking 9,100 cars off the road.

Road Infrastructure

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I remind members of the Covid-related measures that are in place. Face coverings should be worn when moving around the chamber and across the Holyrood campus.

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-02838, in the name of Graham Simpson, on delivering promised road infrastructure across Scotland. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak button now.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Tom Arthur is a likeable chap. As a back bencher, he was affable and straight talking. However, during questions on the draft national planning framework last week, he showed that he has quickly learned the art of being a Scottish National Party minister, because Fergus Ewing—also a straight talker—asked the minister whether he could

“provide reassurance to me and my constituents in Inverness and Nairn that his statement does not and will not, in any way, manner or means, delay, detract, diminish or dilute the absolute commitment of the Scottish Government to dual the remaining sections of the A9 between Perth and Inverness and the section of the A96 from Inverness to Auldearn, and to do so as swiftly as possible?”—[Official Report, 10 November 2021; c 28.],

which was a great question. Unfortunately, Mr Arthur did not give a straight answer, so we were left none the wiser. Jamie Halcro Johnston had a go as well and did not fare any better.

Today’s debate is an opportunity for the Scottish National Party to drop the prevarication and tell us straight: will the A96 and A9 be dualled in their entirety—yes or no? I will happily take an intervention if the minister can tell us that.

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

Carry on.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

“Carry on”, he says.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Could we have less chat between one member who is seated and one who is standing? If no intervention is taken, there is no intervention.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

The minister does not wish to intervene, and the reason is that, although the SNP might agree with us that those roads and others need to be upgraded, they have become ensnared by the extremist Greens. Maggie Chapman has already declared that she is confident that the A96 project will not be viable for environmental reasons. Anyone who is hoping that Ms Chapman will be overruled will have to wait for the results of what is being described as a transparent, evidence-based review that will not report until the end of next year. The Government is kicking the can down the road to keep happy a party that would take us back to the horse and cart era.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Investing in roads is what this is all about, and if we invested more in roads, Mr Ruskell would not have his car broken by potholes.

The SNP might have been taken hostage by the kaftan crusaders opposite, but that does not mean that the people of the north-east and elsewhere should suffer as a result. Those of us who live in the real world know that Scotland needs to keep moving, that our connectivity needs to be improved and that, if we do that, we can, in the words of the Minister for Transport, Graeme Dey:

“improve road safety, journey times, and journey reliability”.

Long, slow-moving lines of traffic, stuck on roads that are not fit for purpose, and belching out fumes for longer than is necessary, do not help climate change and they do not help the economy. By improving existing roads, we can help to tackle climate change. We can build in electric vehicle charging points, hydrogen refuelling stations, and cycle and walking lanes. Mr Ruskell would be delighted by that.

We are way behind where we need to be with the charging infrastructure. The Scottish Government has a target of 30,000 chargers by 2030, but at the current pace it will take until 2066. I wish all members long and happy lives, but I do not think that many of us will be around to see that. If we are serious about climate change and getting people such as me and most other members to ditch our petrol or diesel motors, it is no good just banning the sale of new ones, because there will be plenty of old ones on the road for a good while yet. We need to provide the infrastructure to persuade people that electric vehicles are a viable option.

So far, I have mentioned only the A96. That is seriously unfair, so I will rectify it. Let me move on to the A9—although I would rather not. It is shameful that the main artery from Perth to Inverness is not a dual carriageway. Fergus Ewing knows that. It is not just unfair to people who need to travel to and from Inverness and beyond, it is unfair to businesses that are trading from and with the north. It is often the peripheries that suffer—the north-east, the north-west, the south-east and the south-west—but they are every bit as important as the central belt, and it is not perfect, by any means.

Donald Cameron will talk about the A82 and A83. We have debated them previously to little effect in the way of outcomes. Brian Whittle will talk about the A77, which is the vital link to and from Ayrshire. He will also talk about the A75, which is the seriously lacking artery that links Gretna to Stranraer. It is essential to our connectivity with Ireland and to the economy of the south-west that that road be dualled.

The A74 and M74 are much improved—it is possible to travel north from England up the west quite easily, as long as you do not want to veer off to the left. However, on the other side of the country, the experience on the A1 is not so great. Why are we so petty that we do not even allow Transport Scotland to engage in the union connectivity review, when it could result in money flowing to Scotland to improve roads such as the A1 or the A75? It is quite pathetic.

All Scotland needs to be connected. Some members of the Scottish National Party understand that, and all Conservative members understand that. We need ministers to stand up to the Greens, because better roads can also mean a better environment.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises that driving in most parts of Scotland is a necessity; believes that the Cooperation Agreement between the Scottish Government and the Scottish Green Party Parliamentary Group should not prevent or delay the delivery of any future road projects, and calls upon the Scottish Government to reaffirm its commitment to dualling the A9 and A96 and commit to upgrading the A1, A75, A77, A82, A83 and A90.

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

Graham Simpson’s speech was amusing and entertaining, but let us deal in facts. Just last week, Glasgow hosted the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—at which nations sought to reach agreement on the greatest threat that our planet faces. In Scotland, the transport sector is our largest emitter. If we are to meet the challenging targets that were set by the Scottish Parliament—which, I seem to remember, the Conservatives voted for—we need to do all that we can to decarbonise transport.

Our “Update to the Climate Change Plan 2018-2032: Securing a Green Recovery on a Path to Net Zero”, which was published last December, includes a national commitment to reduce car kilometres by 20 per cent by 2030. We have adopted a sustainable investment hierarchy that focuses investment on reducing the need to travel and making best use of what we have before considering adding to existing—or building new—infrastructure. Members will be aware that the Scottish Government’s transport strategy and investment priorities have pointed that way for several years but, importantly, in a balanced way, to ensure that the road and other transport infrastructure that is required for the country to operate successfully continues to be fit for purpose.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

At the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s meeting on 31 August, when I asked the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy about the Government’s commitment to the A96 and the A9 and whether there had been any problem with that, given that the Greens and the SNP had entered a coalition, she said categorically that the Greens and the SNP being together in the Government would not affect either of those projects. Is that correct?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I will come to those projects later in my contribution.

The Scottish Government is fully committed to meeting our ambitious climate targets, but that does not mean that there will be no investment in our strategic road network. The trunk road network is one of our largest and most visible community assets. It carries 35 per cent of all traffic and 60 per cent of heavy goods traffic. Ensuring that it is safe, operates effectively and is maintained to a good standard is fundamental to the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of Scotland. We need to balance the extensive changes that are required to meet our net zero ambitions with our duty to ensure that Scotland has that infrastructure. In 2020-21, we invested £470 million in managing, maintaining and operating the Scottish trunk road and motorway network, and this year’s budget provides £529 million for that.

We are working hard to bring the benefits of the A9 dualling programme to the people of Scotland. That work has benefited from in-depth and innovative engagement along the route—Liz Smith knows that, as she represents part of the route—which has involved the whole local community. That process has ensured that a correct balance has been struck between improving a vital transport link, minimising the impact on the outstanding natural environment and taking the local community with us. In part, that has caused a degree of delay.

Work is continuing along the route, with dualling already in place between Kincraig and Dalraddy and Luncarty and the Pass of Birnam. Design work for the rest of the programme is progressing, and the statutory process is well under way for seven or the remaining eight sections. That is our commitment.

Meanwhile, procurement of design work is progressing on other trunk road projects around the country. On the A83, we are committed to ensuring continuity of access to Argyll and Bute by finding a long-term solution to the problem at the Rest and Be Thankful. While that long-term solution is developed, we are progressing work to develop a medium-term resilient route through Glen Croe. We will bring forward proposals on that next year.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

No—I need to make progress.

The Scottish Government is also committed to delivering improvements for the north and the east of Scotland, along the A96 corridor. We will take forward an enhancements programme that improves connectivity between surrounding towns, tackles congestion and addresses safety and environmental issues.

Alongside that, we will carry out a transparent evidence-based review of the A96 corridor, which will report by the end of 2020. That is sensible good governance for major investment of that level. I remind Mr Kerr, if I may, that his party endorsed that approach back in 2019 in supporting an amendment to the bill.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The minister’s party promised to dual the A96. Will he?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

The situation is very clear. The commitment remains to address those issues, and the dualling aspect is subject to the review.

We remain committed to making much-needed improvements on the A96. Development work has already been undertaken that will not go to waste. We also remain committed to improving the A82 between Tarbet and Inverarnan, and we are progressing a range of infrastructure projects that are related to the city and growth deals.

Our approach to the on-going improvements that I have mentioned aligns with the approach to assessing the need for infrastructure improvements in the future, as set out in the national transport strategy. We are clear that we will not build infrastructure to cater for unconstrained increases in traffic volumes. That was set out in the NTS and taken forward in the strategic transport projects review, which is on-going, and it will be published for consultation this winter.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I want to make progress.

STPR2 will include recommendations for future investment in the Scottish road network over the next 20 years. Although the commitments to improve the A9, the A96 and the A83 and the other projects are progressing separate to the review, the need for improvements to trunk roads across the rest of the country, including, for example, on the A75, the A77, the A90 and the A1, is being appraised and robustly assessed within the review.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Will the minister take an intervention?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The minister is in his final minute.

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

May I take that intervention, Presiding Officer?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

If it is very brief and you wind up in your allotted time.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Does the minister agree that the Scottish Government needs to put aside its petty and divisive position and work with the UK Government, particularly if the Hendy report recommends major investment in the A75 for the good of the whole nation, and given that my constituents do not really care what purse the money comes from?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That was not a brief intervention. I think that the minister has the gist. The minister should be brief.

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

The UK Government needs to show some respect for the devolution settlement.

We will, of course, also continue to progress our maintenance programme to ensure the continued effectiveness and resilience of the roads.

We have adopted a focused and rigorously assessed approach to investing in our road network that balances the needs of our people with our climate ambitions, and we will continue to do so.

I move amendment S6M-02138.2, to leave out from “driving” to end and insert:

“, in the face of the climate emergency and the imperative to cut greenhouse gas emissions, as a nation, there is a need to encourage more people to use more sustainable travel options and reduce their car use; acknowledges the need to shift away from spending money on new road projects that encourage more people to drive, and instead focus resource on maintaining roads and improving safety; agrees that people need a realistic and affordable alternative in public transport and active travel, and notes that the Scottish Government will set out its plans for future investment in Scotland's transport network in the second Strategic Transport Projects Review.”

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

Scottish Labour believes that key routes in Scotland must be upgraded to improve road safety, reduce journey times and support local and regional economies. In many parts of Scotland, there is no practical alternative to the car, so the routes that we are debating are essential.

How we prioritise investment in transport generally is crucial. We must take full account of road safety, economic and community development, and our climate change ambitions. It is disappointing that the Conservative motion, which comes just days after COP26, makes no mention of climate change at all.

One of the reasons why so many people in Scotland have to rely on private fossil-fuel-burning cars is that the alternatives are not good enough or simply do not exist. I recognise that Mr Simpson mentioned that in his speech, but that is a serious omission from the Conservative motion. We should be united in challenging the Scottish Government to do more than just provide better road infrastructure; we should be challenging it to reverse the decline in public transport and address car dependency.

The reality is that public transport under the SNP Government is a joke. Bus passenger numbers are at record lows, and ScotRail is proposing to cut 300 services a day. Labour says let us make the road network better and safer for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians, but let us also use this debate to call for practical alternatives to the car.

There is no question but that road maintenance suffered badly during the years of austerity. We have already heard that. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities says that its capital funding from Scottish Government budgets, supported by the Greens, has been cut by 6 per cent in real terms since 2013-14. For many councils, capital grants are not enough to meet existing spending requirements, let alone support the transition to net zero. The chronic underfunding of Scotland’s councils has to be challenged and reversed.

The roads that are identified in the motion and in our amendment are part of the trunk road network. They are the direct responsibility of the Scottish Government. It is the Scottish Government’s responsibility to ensure that vital infrastructure is upgraded appropriately; to prevent impossible detours at the Rest and Be Thankful; to make good on its promises to the action group and ferry firms in the south-west of Scotland that are served by the A75 and the A77; and to tackle potholes on the network, the number of which is up from just under 4,000 in 2007 to 21,000 now.

I say to the Scottish Government that creating a more resilient transport network is about more than roads. The total number of bus passenger journeys in Scotland is down by 121 million under this SNP Government—a record low. A country that is serious about tackling climate change is not a country with record low levels of bus patronage.

It has been the policy of this SNP Government to preserve a broken bus market. Even now, with new rules secured by my colleague Colin Smyth that make public control of buses possible, there is no strategy to remake local bus services. When it comes to bus services, the preferred option of the SNP is, and always has been, the status quo.

Well, the status quo is not good enough. Bus services should be run for passengers before profit. If democratic alternatives to a broken bus market are good enough for Lothian, London and now Manchester, they are good enough for Glasgow, the west of Scotland and the rest of Scotland. The Government should be prepared to support councils choosing to bring bus networks under public control, and it should do so with investment.

The Scottish Government once described the Abellio deal to run our railways as “world leading”—but not any more. ScotRail will become a publicly run operator again after the Scottish Government was forced to bring it back into public ownership. However, under current plans, it will inherit a diminished timetable. We cannot shift travel from Scotland’s roads to Scotland’s railways if the rail network is being cut and the ambitions of COP26 are not being realised.

To drive modal shift, it is time that the Scottish Government finally delivered easier, more affordable travel. The COP26 summit showed that smart, integrated ticketing is possible, but it was restricted to COP26 delegates. Integrated ticketing makes travel easier. It should not be just for the select few at COP26; there must be integrated smart ticketing for all, all year round. Dublin has just announced an affordable 90-minute fare with free transfer across bus services. If Dublin can do it, why can we not? If there is to be a legacy from COP26 for the people of Scotland, let it be seamless, integrated ticketing on our public transport network.

Let us make travel more affordable for all. As a minimum, Parliament should endorse calls to extend free bus travel to the under-25s. To tackle the climate crisis and make transport more resilient, the Scottish Government must invest wisely and show the leadership that has been lacking for far too long. That is what our amendment calls on it to do.

I move amendment S6M-02138.1, to leave out from “recognises” to end and insert:

“regrets that car dependency remains the norm in Scotland, partly due to Scotland’s inadequate public transport system; calls upon the Scottish Government to upgrade key routes, such as the A9 and A96, A1, A737, A75, A77, A82, A83, A90 and other vital road links, to deliver improved road safety, journey times and reliability; considers that decisions about investment in transport infrastructure, including roads, must have due regard to road safety, economic and community development and climate impact; further considers that local government requires a fair funding settlement to allow councils and communities to improve local roads and cycle routes, to bring local transport under democratic public control and invest in better local transport and green infrastructure; believes that all parts of Scotland would benefit from enhanced public transport, and calls upon the Scottish Government to support integrated ticketing on public transport, action to reverse the decline in local bus services, the extension of free bus travel to under-25s, the dedication of 10% of the transport budget to active travel, and the restoration of rail services to pre-pandemic levels.”

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I want to make three points on the importance of core connectivity between communities and the rest of Scotland; the safety of our roads and the need to maintain our public assets; and the balance between road transport and the environment.

Road building or upgrading should not be done for the sake of it. Scottish Liberal Democrats recognise that communities deserve an equitable standard of core connectivity to the rest of Scotland. Our rural, remote and island communities rely heavily on roads. Durness, in north-west Sutherland, which is more than two hours away from Thurso train station, is a community that is utterly reliant on road—and not just road, but single-track road. At home in Shetland, there is not a train or tram in sight. The Rest and Be Thankful, on the A83, is subject to landslides and closures, and communities are forced to take a 59-mile route diversion. The A9 is well known as one of the most dangerous roads to travel on in Scotland. It is dangerous to overtake on it, and multiple changes from single carriageway to dual carriageway and back again are a hazard.

We must not neglect infrastructure because of dogma, inadvertently allow accidents and deaths or overlook the importance of core connections for communities.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I recognise the safety issues on the A9. Why, then, did Liberal Democrat MPs oppose the introduction of safety cameras on the A9?

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Repairs and other improvements fall in line with the recommendations of the Infrastructure Commission for Scotland, which suggested that greater emphasis be given to maintaining public assets.

Scottish Liberal Democrats understand that there is a balance to be struck between the climate emergency and delivery of road projects, but, as I have said, road building or upgrading should not be done for the sake of it. Additional roads can increase traffic and carbon emissions, and they can impact on our environment and biodiversity, so we need to be decarbonising, protecting our environment and reversing biodiversity decline. All sectors need to reduce carbon emissions if we are to reach our net zero targets, and transport is lagging behind.

As Labour members said, the job of providing core connections must go hand in hand with work to establish a climate-friendly transport system. Scottish Liberal Democrats would give local communities control over bus routes and timetables, to ensure that buses go where people need them to go and not where they make the bus company the most profit. That would ensure that gaps and issues could be addressed, thereby bringing down car miles and addressing the steep decline in bus journeys under the SNP.

We want to establish new rail connections and reopen rail lines, and we want to get more freight on to railways, to reduce congestion and pollution. We want to accelerate journey times to the north and the north-east, which are basic connections.

However, those measures simply cannot take every car off the road. As I illustrated, in some parts of the country car travel is the only viable transport. Scotland needs to go electric, and quickly. The electric A9 website says:

“Scotland’s longest EV-ready route will stand as a beacon to those at home and abroad.”

We need such electric-vehicle-ready routes to pop up across the country. Scottish Liberal Democrats want more electric rapid-charging points to be installed—and to be working and ready to use. That is essential road infrastructure. If we can give people the confidence to buy an electric car, we can move older vehicles off our roads sooner.

We can jump-start that change by requiring new public sector vehicles to be electric, by spreading the costs through longer, Government-backed interest-free loans and by having a Government-funded scheme to enable everyone to try out an electric car for a weekend.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We move to the open debate. I advise members that there is no time in hand. If you take an intervention, it must be absorbed within your allotted time.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in the debate.

The dire need to invest in the south-west’s transport infrastructure is a topic that I and my colleagues have long championed in this chamber. We have talked about the goat tracks that are the A77, the A75, the A76, the A70 and the A71 and about the ridiculous situation at the Bellfield interchange at Kilmarnock.

Given that Graeme Dey is so interested in facts, let us get some out. From Alex Salmond in 2010, when he opened the new Cairnryan terminal, after a £250 million investment from the ferry companies, to transport ministers including Alex Neil, Humza Yousaf and Michael Matheson, the Scottish Government has continually made promises and has continually broken them.

My colleagues and I have tried to encourage and persuade the Scottish Government to pay attention to the routes to and from the busiest port in Scotland—and the third busiest in Britain. We have said that the routes are not fit for purpose and that their state holds back the economic potential of the region. There was even, belatedly, support from the Government’s back benchers, once they realised that they would need to support the upgrading of that infrastructure if they were to get public votes.

However, all of that was to no avail. Let us call it what it is. The Scottish Government has had more than a decade to go beyond platitudes and procrastination and to show that the south-west is as important a part of Scotland as any other place, but it has invested 0.04 per cent of the transport budget in the region. By any standards, that is a Government that is abandoning any notion of investing in the south-west and that is finding any and every excuse to kick the can down the road.

The Scottish Government’s answer is to have another consultation and listening exercise, to go with all the other consultations and listening exercises—anything to avoid the significant commitment that would bring the infrastructure up to the basic requirements for such busy routes. Members should remember that 45 per cent of the goods that go to and from Northern Ireland go through Cairnryan.

I will turn to the motion. Let us bury the myth that road building is always bad for the environment. That is simplistic nonsense. What is important is what is on the road. Investment in the south-west infrastructure could generate a whole new green economy. What an opportunity that would be. The creation of electric and hydrogen superhighways would take the trundling, stop-start heavy goods vehicle convoys from the ferries out of towns and villages, thereby hugely reducing carbon emissions. A west coast cycle route down that beautiful coastline would give us another new economy.

It is poor connectivity that is smothering the economy of the south-west. I challenge the Scottish Government to grasp the opportunity to show its green intentions post-COP26. I challenge it to prove that it has not abandoned the south-west and to develop the south-west infrastructure to the benefit of the green economy and the safety of people on the roads. I challenge it to allow the south-west to breathe.

Finally, I suggest that the target of a 20 per cent reduction in car miles is predominantly going to involve a reduction in shorter, more urban journeys and that how we connect up our rural communities in a more environmentally friendly way is going to require investment in new technologies.

The driving force behind purchasing an electric vehicle—if members will pardon the pun—is not always saving the planet. For many people, it is more about the cost savings that an electric vehicle can bring. We are past worrying about the range; it is more about the number of charging points, and the Scottish Government is way behind the target for those, as Graham Simpson said.

The time to invest in the green superhighway network in the south-west and the rest of Scotland is now. We should create infrastructure that encourages the behavioural shift that we are all striving for. There can be no more excuses and no more talk. We need action. I recognise that that is not the Scottish Government’s strong suit, but we can all live in hope.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

First, as someone who grew up in Orkney, where my family had no car until I was near the end of my primary school years, I want to say that I know how necessary cars are in remote, rural and island communities. Indeed, communities across Scotland need infrastructure projects to be delivered in order to improve safety, cut pollution and improve productivity, so that our communities and our economy are well served.

For instance, in my area, I am looking forward to the delivery of the East Airdrie link road, which will link the M80 at Cumbernauld with the M8 at Newhouse and will, crucially, serve the new Monklands hospital in the coming years. I was incredibly proud to have played my part, alongside Alex Neil, in ensuring that that hospital would remain in Airdrie.

The new road will provide a crucial route for my constituents, as well as patients from across Lanarkshire, to access the site. It will also divert significant traffic from the congested roads in and around Airdrie. Parts of Chapelhall are among the most polluted in the country because of slow-moving traffic, particularly HGVs, travelling between the M8 and M80. I have confidence that the new link road would pass an environmental impact assessment because it will relieve the current congestion that is being generated along the bottleneck junctions of Carlisle road, which serves traffic going north and south between the motorways, and will cut pollution.

It is on that point that I find the Tory motion to be politically tone deaf. Although we all acknowledge the merit of the projects that are listed, there is zero acknowledgment in the motion of the need to decarbonise our nation, to carry out environmental impact assessments on our road infrastructure projects or to move away from using petrol and diesel cars and towards more sustainable modes of transport. It is as if the Tories have completely forgotten that the world was literally at our door for COP26 in Glasgow just last week. However, we can forgive them for forgetting, given that Boris Johnson himself forgot what city the conference was being held in, perhaps because he spent so little time there fighting for the deal that was needed.

I acknowledge how important all the projects that are mentioned in the motion are to the communities that they will serve, and that many of them involve safety considerations and congestion issues. Those projects have not been stopped, but the partnership agreement rightly says that we should be getting the balance right. I think that most reasonable people who are willing to acknowledge that we need to decarbonise are also willing—and understand the need to do so—to subject new road-building projects to environmental impact assessments as well as to invest in public transport, active travel and electric vehicle infrastructure. That is why I find the Tory motion startling.

When it was suggested last week that the subject for debate today would be in the net zero brief, I reckoned that the motion could mention COP26, transmission charges for our renewables sector, carbon capture and storage—perhaps how the north-east has now been let down twice on promised investment by the UK Government—or the incredible work that is being done with wave and tidal power in Scotland, in which we are leading the world. There are any number of other areas that could have been built on through COP26 and which could have continued to project the leadership that was shown by Scotland in hosting the conference, and continued to find cross-party consensus.

However, we got the motion that we are debating, which undermines our progress. It also smacks of a complete lack of self-awareness, given that the Scottish Government’s ability to deliver on infrastructure projects such as those that are mentioned in the motion today are hindered by the UK Government’s having taken a wrecking ball to the Scottish Government’s capital budget and having short-changed Scotland in replacements for EU structural funds.

Instead of trying to bypass Holyrood and undermine devolution, instead of trying to claim that we can burn all the fossil fuels that we want and still live up to our net zero goals, and instead of suggesting that we can continue to live with ever-increasing numbers of cars causing pollution in our communities, the Tories need to start getting serious and to join the rest of the world in finding ways to tackle the existential issue that is climate change.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

Only the Tories would lodge a motion in the wake of COP26 that focuses solely on road building without any reference to public transport or active travel. Domestic transport continues to be the largest source of net emissions. Cars account for almost 40 per cent of those emissions and car dependency is increasing at unsustainable levels, with the proportion of single-occupant journeys reaching 66 per cent.

However, there is an alternative. A double-decker bus can replace 75 single-occupant cars, but to get people out of cars and on to buses requires public investment, democratic ownership and socialist ambition—things that we cannot rely on the SNP or the Tories to deliver. By all means, let us debate road infrastructure, but let us speak about connecting our communities with accessible and affordable public transport, making our pavements and cycleways safer for everyone and restoring biodiversity through a network of green corridors.

Road infrastructure must focus on delivering accessible and affordable public transport and creating an integrated transport network that seamlessly links communities and promotes active travel. It must also focus on making such a network environmentally sustainable, but the reality is that private control of our public transport is a barrier to achieving that. Tory-driven deregulation in the 1980s led us to the broken transport system that we have today—it is expensive, disjointed and fragmented.

Bus operators extract profit from the most commercial routes while failing to invest in the wider network, despite receiving more than 40 per cent of their income from public subsidies. They continue to hike up fares, which have risen by more than 10 per cent above inflation over the past decade. All that has led to a decline in bus journeys, so it is no wonder that the Tories do not mention public transport in their motion, given their toxic legacy of deregulation, which they continue to champion.

However, the Scottish Government’s amendment is no better. It acknowledges

“a need to encourage more people to use more sustainable travel options and reduce their car use”

but offers no practical steps to make that a reality. The Government has a target of reducing car kilometres travelled by 20 per cent by 2030, but has yet to outline what steps will be taken to achieve that.

The Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 allows for publicly run bus services, but it is not backed by sufficient resources for local authorities, and the Government’s proposed bus service improvement partnerships will leave control of fares, routes and timetables at the whim of private companies. Instead of capitulating to private interests, the Scottish Government should take innovative action, such as providing start-up capital through the Scottish National Investment Bank to enable the development of publicly run local bus services. Public ownership is key, because it means that profits that are generated can be reinvested to support non-commercial routes, deliver affordable fares and improve workers’ pay and conditions.

To conclude, I contrast the empty rhetoric of the SNP Government and the lack of ambition from the Tories with the action that is being taken in Wales. The Welsh Labour Government has announced that it will suspend all future road-building projects, and the money that is saved by not building new roads will be used to improve existing ones, including creating new bus and cycle lanes and infrastructure for sustainable transport.

That is the kind of ambition that Labour in Government has, and is the kind of ambition that we need in the Scottish Parliament if we are to meet our climate change targets.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

All members want to see improvements to our rail and bus services and public transport. We all want more active travel, whether by bicycle or Shanks’s pony, although this particular and somewhat ageing pony treks no more.

My first point has been made by other members—it is a trite point, but it is absolutely crucial to the debate. In rural Scotland—98 per cent of our country’s land mass is rural—a car, van or tractor is a necessity, not a luxury. It will never be anything else; that will remain the case in perpetuity. For the majority of people in rural Scotland the car will, as far as we can see, continue to be the only method of transport.

In just a couple of decades—I hope that I will see it in my lifetime—petrol and diesel vehicles will be replaced by low-emissions vehicles. I hope that they will be powered by hydrogen rather than by electricity, but I am not an expert on that. My point is, however, that once that shift happens, we will still need roads. The last time I looked, the buses that colleagues in other parties so frequently, and quite fairly, talk about still needed to be driven on roads. [Applause.]

I am slightly embarrassed by the applause from the Conservative side of the chamber. Keep quiet, please. [Laughter.]

The point is this. We should not be anti-road; we should be anti-emissions. I address that reflection in particular to those who have, today, been dubbed our kaftan-clad colleagues.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Why not?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Briefly. It must be absorbed in the member’s time.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

Does the member agree that there is an opportunity to create a road network for electric and hydrogen vehicles?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

To be fair, I think that the transport secretary will confirm that SNP members are committed to upgrading roads throughout rural Scotland, in particular on the ground of safety, although I cannot speak for the Government.

We should not forget that dualled links reduce massively the risk of head-on collisions. Some years ago, a friend of mine lost his wife on the A9 on the way to an SNP conference. All of us will know people who have been similarly affected—if they have not lost a loved one, they will have a family member who has received debilitating injuries that have ruined their life and the lives of their family for ever. The safety case for dualled links is paramount; I passionately believe that.

I turn to my constituency. The A9 is the major link to the central belt and beyond. It is vital for people, businesses and families—it is a link between families and friends throughout the country. It is vital for tourism, which is, in many ways, the driver of the Highland economy, and it is the road to the islands, as well. The A96 is the major link between the north-east and the Highlands; it, too, is essential. I am therefore delighted that the SNP has, since 2009, been committed to dualling both roads.

I welcome the progress that has been made, to which the minister referred earlier. That includes the section that has been completed from Luncarty to the Pass of Birnam, the Tomatin to Moy section that is going ahead and the design work. However, I ask the minister to confirm today, in his closing speech, that we will deliver on our promises on the A9 and the A96. I am talking specifically about the revised promise, if you like: that the dualling of the stretch of the A96 from Inverness to Auldearn, including in particular the Nairn bypass, will go ahead and will not be subjected to the environmental test. That last point is a fine distinction, but an important one, and I will finish—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mr Ewing, can you bring your remarks to a close, please?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I will finish on this. The project should go ahead, as it has already gone through the public local inquiry process. That, for me, is a matter of honour.

Donald Cameron (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

As other members have expressed today, our roads are far more than just a means of travelling from one place to another—they are, in fact, vital routes for everyone, every day of every year. They are vital for businesses and economic growth; for tourism and the hospitality sector, which has been so heavily impacted during the pandemic; and for people who need to work or visit friends and relatives.

Once upon a time, the SNP was whole-heartedly committed to investment in our road infrastructure. It would be wrong not to acknowledge some of the major projects that have been undertaken in recent years. The dualling of the A9, which Fergus Ewing spoke about so powerfully just now and which has taken place over the past few years or even decades, has made my way home easier, faster and safer. However, the dualling project has been piecemeal and its future is now uncertain.

When the SNP went into coalition with the Scottish Greens, it was effectively announcing the death knell of future investment in our road network beyond the handful of projects that are mentioned in the co-operation agreement. Even then, as Graham Simpson said, there is doubt as to whether those projects will be delivered in full and within a reasonable timescale.

In the brief time that I have, I will focus on one road—it will not surprise the transport minister to find out which one that is. I make no apology for that, and I will go on mentioning this road again and again until the Scottish Government finally takes action to sort it out once and for all. I have spoken before about the A83 at the Rest and Be Thankful pass. The road suffers from landslides and is frequently closed, cutting off Argyll and causing massive disruption and anxiety to locals. Interestingly, the road is affected by weather. There has long been a problem there, but it has got worse in recent years, which is quite possibly due to climate change and increasingly severe wet weather. However, is the solution to make no effort to improve and upgrade the road? Of course not. There is no alternative for residents and businesses.

In 2020, when Transport Scotland committed to replacing the route with a new permanent route, many people, myself included, welcomed that. The SNP manifesto had a pledge to

“deliver the short, medium and long term solutions required at The Rest and Be Thankful”,

although I note that that is not mentioned in the co-operation agreement. We have had consultation processes to determine the corridor for the replacement route, and we have an on-going process to determine an option within that corridor. However, Transport Scotland has said that the process of delivering a new route could take up to 10 years.

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I am sure that the member did not mean to mislead, but I want to draw a distinction there. The period of up to 10 years is for the conclusion of the long-term proposal. At the moment, we are talking about the medium-term proposal, which is being worked through.

Donald Cameron (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the minister for that clarification. Yes, the period of 10 years is for the permanent solution.

I realise that it is not a quick-fix project and that it is important that any solution is durable, but communities across Argyll cannot wait 10 years for a permanent solution. Many people have spoken about the need to deliver a medium-term route, which the minister just mentioned, by using the nearby forestry road, which they believe could be made available within weeks. However, Transport Scotland has said that it could take years to deliver even that. It is no wonder that so many people across Argyll and Bute feel left behind.

Graham Simpson referred to the A82, which continues to cause significant dismay to people in Lochaber. Many promises to upgrade that route have been made, but the Government has dragged its heels when it comes to taking meaningful action.

Much uncertainty remains about whether the SNP-Green coalition is committed to any new road projects, let alone the projects to which the Government has long been committed. In the Highlands and Islands, we rely heavily on robust roads, yet all we have seen is dither and delay. As Brian Whittle and Fergus Ewing said, in terms of climate change, it is not roads that matter, it is what drives on them. Therefore, I ask the Government not to cave in to the anti-road agenda of others but instead to work with us and deliver a road network that is fit for the future.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The member does not appear to be taking interventions.

Please continue, Mr Ruskell.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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?

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

Will Mark Ruskell give way?

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will Mark Ruskell give way?

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will give way to Mr Kerr.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

If the minister is successful such that we all drive zero-emission cars, how does increasing traffic on roads add to emissions?

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Mr Kerr should look at the challenge that we have in tackling climate change. I drive an electric vehicle. That will not tackle climate change; it will increase our energy demand. We need modal shift. It has been shown since the 1960s that new and expanded trunk roads generate new traffic and higher levels of emissions. They destroy our communities as well, and they create congestion, which affects the economy.

Members have spoken about the safety case for projects. There will be valid improvements that benefit road safety. I think back to the second session of the Parliament and the strong cross-party campaign, of which I was part, to improve the Ballinluig junction on the A9. However, just as Transport Scotland never accepted a safety case for dualling the entire length of the A9, so there is no credible safety case for dualling the entire A96.

Let us consider what has worked on the A9 to reduce accidents: average speed cameras. We should introduce those first on the A96, alongside a range of targeted improvements to roads and public transport infrastructure that reduce congestion and improve safety and connectivity between towns along the corridor.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

Will Mark Ruskell give way?

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No.

Many of those measures are highlighted in the co-operation agreement between the Greens and the SNP.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

Mark Ruskell voted for the budget.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mr Bibby, do not comment from a secondary position, please.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Labour did not take an intervention from me, so why should I take one from Mr Bibby?

Can I make some progress, Presiding Officer? I am being interrupted quite a lot.