Seòmar agus comataidhean

It was my question, indeed—you have done well to dine out on it.

The position is clear from my point of view. It is a complex area, and it is a new and emerging technology, but it would be odd to have two sets of rules, effectively: a set of rules for automated vehicles and a set of liabilities and regulations relating to that; and a completely different set of rules for everybody else. It feels like there is the potential for mismatch. I hope that that would never happen, but clause 50 raises the spectre that that might happen, which would be problematic. If that summarises your concerns, along with the real examples that you have just given us, I can understand where the Scottish Government is coming from.

Further to that, I was thinking about speed limits. Could there be two tiers on speed limits for automated vehicles and conventional vehicles? In the devolved context in Wales, there is a national speed limit of 20mph in built-up areas. Could automated vehicles be run at different speeds under a different set of rules of the road under clause 50?

Okay, I will let that sink in a bit.

I have a final question about the broader policy context. I will play devil’s advocate and say that I see automated vehicles as a bit of a costly distraction. Where do they sit within the Scottish Government’s transport policy? We have major issues with infrastructure investment for conventional bus travel and I know that the Government is working hard to support the bus sector in that. Is bus operators investing in automated bus technology a realistic tangible option right now? Will the cost of redesigning streets and systems to accommodate such vehicles not be astronomical? I am interested in where we are right now and where we think this might be going in the future.

Welcome back to the committee. I would like to ask you about ScotRail’s off-peak all day fares pilot that will run until June. What are your thoughts on that? Could or should that be made permanent? Is that a good use of public investment, or are there other ways to support people’s return to the railways?

That would be interesting. Do you see the need for a simplification of the fare structures across the UK? My understanding is that the UK has some of the most complicated rail fare structures in Europe. Sometimes, we have the most expensive fares; sometimes, we have fares that are very good value. However, as Mr Samson said, it is quite confusing for commuters and travellers to work out how to get those good-value fares.

I want to ask you about the new normal as regards post-Covid travel patterns. Is that picture settling down? Is the peak still leisure driven? What has the impact been on your services over the past year? Is it now more of a fixed landscape? How are you operating within that landscape? I put that to ScotRail and to Caledonian Sleeper.

I just want to make a brief comment. It is important that the UK emissions trading scheme continues to align with the European Union emissions trading scheme. After all, as we have seen with the interaction between the Swiss and the EU schemes, the direction of travel seems to be to link the schemes at some point in the future, which will offer more certainty for business.

From what I can see, however, what is being brought forward in this instrument does not change that question of alignment. It does not alter the number of free allocations, for example, so I do not see any significant divergence arising as a result of it. That satisfies me that we have our scheme, and the EU has its scheme, but the potential to link them after the reform of the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement is still on the table.

I warmly welcome the inclusion in the bill of new powers for the SSPCA to tackle wildlife crime. I thank those who have worked on that and built up the evidence base over the past 13 years. Many of them are in the public gallery. It is testament to them that the case has won through and is now in legislation.

During those 13 years, disgraceful wildlife crimes have gone unpunished in Scotland because of the inability of the police to gather the evidence to secure successful prosecutions. Welfare inspectors have had their hands tied when called to the scene of wildlife crimes. For example, I am sure that many members will be familiar with cases in which inspectors have been called to a live animal that is caught in an illegal trap, only to find themselves unable to gather the evidence of other illegally set traps nearby. Given that such crimes occur in remote areas, that evidence has often disappeared by the time that Police Scotland officers can reach the scene—sometimes, days later. SSPCA officers have an important role to play in ensuring that the evidence of wildlife crime can be included in an official police investigation and a potential prosecution.

For years, I have called for an extension to SSPCA powers. In the previous session of the Parliament, I called for a Government task force to review existing powers. On entering the Government, Green MSPs ensured that that task force would report back in time to allow its recommendations to be taken forward in the bill. That is exactly what the bill does. It sets up a proportionate way forward on SSPCA powers—not replicating but enhancing the work of the police. The SSPCA does a fantastic job at present, but the extension of its powers will enable it to fill the gap in the existing law and aid the police in their investigation of wildlife crime offences.

If the members opposite are in any doubt about the absolute professionalism of the SSPCA, I urge them to go out with an SSPCA inspector, to see them at work and to see how they discharge their responsibilities. If they do that, they will see that the powers are proportionate and that the SSPCA is a professional body.

I look forward to the SSPCA discharging those new powers in Scotland. I urge all members to reject every amendment in group 8.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted no.

On timescales, you indicated that it took, I think, 10 years for Switzerland to strike a similar agreement with the EU to link their two schemes together. It feels like only yesterday we were in the EU ETS, so would it really take 10 years to conclude a negotiation, or would it be a lot quicker than that, given our current alignment?