Seòmar agus comataidhean

The decision to bring back peak fares has brought back complex, costly and confusing ticketing on ScotRail services. Does the cabinet secretary accept that reducing ticket office hours not only removes passengers’ access to expert ticketing advice in order to get the cheapest tickets but significantly disadvantages disabled passengers who require assistance when travelling on our rail network? What consultation can the cabinet secretary continue with disability rights groups to ensure that those people are not disadvantaged by the changes?

We all agree on the importance of scrutiny of carbon budgets, and of committees having enough time to do that. We all agree that, ordinarily, it would be important to go through a super-affirmative procedure. There is obviously a rush to get the first carbon budget approved but, ordinarily, committees would be taking time to gather evidence and to consider whether the budget is adequate. At stage 2, I effectively introduced a super-affirmative process into the bill, which would have enabled committees to consider a pre-laid carbon budget for 120 days. As has now been clarified, Monica Lennon has proposed a slightly different amendment, which would enable committees to take 90 days to consider the carbon budget.

I am content with where we have got to. We have heard a clarification from the cabinet secretary. I will not be moving amendment 5; I will accept the cabinet secretary’s amendment 2. That will tidy up where we have got to at stage 3.

On amendment 1, I accept that the UK CCC is an advisory body, but it is not an elected Parliament. It is this elected Parliament, ultimately, that needs to make decisions on targets. I am happy to accept that the wording is now better at stage 3.

Amendment 4 requires ministers to indicate in which carbon budget period Scotland will achieve a 75 per cent cut and a 90 per cent cut in emissions. Members will be aware that those figures represent the percentage cuts to emissions that were attached to the 2030 and 2040 targets in our climate legislation. The bill removes those targets and replaces them with a mechanism to set carbon budgets.

Members will recognise that there was considerable dismay earlier this year when the Government finally admitted that the target of a 75 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2030 was beyond reach. This is the moment when those targets are being removed from legislation.

I am pleased to have worked with the cabinet secretary to ensure that, in the forthcoming climate plans, there will be public transparency, so that we will be able to see when Scotland will meet the 75 per cent target and get three quarters of the way to net zero. We will also be able to see the date for meeting the target of a 90 per cent reduction in emissions. That is important for public transparency. This is not about setting up a shadow set of targets to run alongside the budget. It is important that the public and stakeholders can see how far on or off track we are on the original and important targets that were set.

I welcome amendment 3, which tightens up the language that Graham Simpson sought to introduce at stage 2. It will also ensure that we get more detail on the policies that the Government intends to introduce whenever the draft carbon budget is presented to Parliament.

Amendment 8 would require ministers to set out in a statement to Parliament their plans for holding public consultations on future climate change plans. I lodged a similar amendment at stage 2. I thank the cabinet secretary for continuing that discussion with me ahead of stage 3.

It is absolutely clear that the Government must lead a national conversation on the transition that we as a society need to make. We also need to respond to public concerns and accept the public’s challenge to go further.

A range of approaches have been tried, including deliberative democratic approaches, citizens panels and citizens assemblies. Ultimately, it will be for the Scottish Government to decide how it wishes to engage with the public on the tricky, difficult and challenging decisions that need to be made. It is important that we get social licence from the public to make those changes. Involving people directly and as early as possible in those conversations is really important.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“minimise regulatory burden on operators”,

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

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

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

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

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