Seòmar agus comataidhean

So, is the way in which those in customer-facing roles can be deployed part of on-going discussions with rail unions?

In response to the convener, you clarified earlier your role in relation to peatland restoration, which is a shared priority across Government, with various ministers feeding in. Why has peatland restoration been so difficult to achieve at the scale at which we need to achieve it if we are to tackle the climate emergency? What is the problem, and what can be done to increase the rate of restoration?

Is there a role for private sector natural capital investment in peatlands? Obviously, its focus so far has been on woodlands, but what about peatlands?

Thanks.

Minister, my first question is about the pilot project to remove peak rail fares, and the preparedness for that. Have any challenges in that regard been identified up front by ScotRail or Transport Scotland? If so, how are they being addressed as we move towards 2 October?

Another issue that has been highlighted in the media around the UK is the closure of ticket offices. You said previously that there will be no closure of ScotRail ticket offices, and certainly not during this session of Parliament. Can you clarify what the Government’s thinking is on other changes, such as reductions in opening hours?

We now have the strategic framework and delivery plan in relation to the other crisis—the biodiversity and nature crisis. Do you see key opportunities there? I highlight aquaculture in particular, because we still see widespread community concern about its growth in Scotland. There is a view that it is not being appropriately regulated, and there are criticisms of CES and others in that regard. Given that challenge, and other challenges and opportunities, could and should CES be doing more to deliver our biodiversity strategy?

Yes—I am sorry about that.

That was a helpful piece of information, convener. I am content to agree with the Scottish Government’s recommendation.

However, I was a bit alarmed by the letter that we received from the cabinet secretary, particularly the paragraph about the national air pollution control programme legislation, which is not included in this measure to retain EU law. The cabinet secretary says:

“this is the last opportunity to seek preservation of the air quality provisions through a UK SI. By choosing to omit these air quality provisions ... the UK Government is creating unnecessary uncertainty while it develops replacement ... proposals.”

She also says:

“Although the provisions fall within devolved competence in relation to air quality, it would not be possible to make a preservation SSI in relation to these provisions as they confer functions on the UK Secretary of State – and not Scottish Ministers”.

I am really concerned about this, because we are reaching a cliff edge on 31 October. The secretary of state could retain important EU laws that protect human health and our environment, yet it looks like those laws will not be retained. The UK Government and, indeed, the Scottish Government have the opportunity to work together on a replacement framework that would help protect human health and the environment, but there is no sign of that, so those important laws will go. It is not just parliamentarians who are raising those concerns—Environmental Standards Scotland and non-governmental organisations have raised them, too.

I am really concerned about that cliff edge. As we know, air pollution does not respect boundaries; it crosses them. Having a UK framework is important, as it is across Europe. Notwithstanding the fact that the committee has written to the UK and Scottish Governments, I am really concerned that this law looks like it is set to go on 31 October. We have, at this point, no understanding about what will be brought in to protect our human health and environment in the interim, however long that might be.

I join others in thanking Gillian Mackay for her leadership on the issue inside and outside of Parliament. She has worked with tireless campaigners such as Laura Young and the many health and environmental groups and organisations that back the call for a ban on disposable vapes.

Whenever change is proposed in this Parliament, particularly on increased regulation, we often get calls of “Catastrophe!” from whatever vested interest is resistant to the change. However, what is really striking about the call to restrict vapes is that there is not much of a debate at all; there is a lot of unanimity on the issue. I am the 10th speaker in the debate, and every speech so far has backed the call for a ban on disposable vapes. I am sure that that point will not be lost on the minister in closing the debate.

That unanimity is all the more remarkable because there has been a huge lobbying effort from the vaping industry over the past five years in this Parliament. Brian Whittle talked about his experiences of how that has played out, and I, too, went through several years of seeing constant requests in my inbox from public relations firms fronting up vaping companies that wanted to meet me.

It is probably because vape products are so uniquely problematic that we have that unanimity of concern. That is why 29 out of the 32 local authorities across Scotland have passed motions calling for vapes to be banned or controlled. If you wanted to sit down and design a cheap disposable product that litters the countryside with plastics, electronics and batteries, causes a fire risk, cannot be recycled or reused and puts young people at risk of bronchitis, breathing problems and nicotine addiction, it would be the perfect target for a ban, but that is exactly what disposable vapes are. As lawmakers, we are still catching up with the reality of that.

It is clear that communities are seeing the impact everywhere—for example, Fife Street Champions picked up 664 disposable vapes in one month this spring. A Keep Scotland Beautiful survey shows that 44 per cent of people see disposable vapes littering their communities far more often. I am sure that many of the coastal communities that will be involved in the Marine Conservation Society beach cleans in the next week will see increasing numbers of vapes on their beaches.

All that builds up to the staggering national picture that we have heard about in the debate. Zero Waste Scotland estimate that 2.7 million vapes were littered in Scotland last year alone. That is hardly surprising, given that there has been an 18-fold increase in the use of disposable vapes from one year to the next.

The health impacts on young people are truly concerning, precisely because we do not know what kind of ticking time bomb exists here—a point that was made very well by Rona Mackay. This is yet another example of why following the precautionary principle is so important. Corporate interests should not be allowed to mess around with the unknown long-term health of our children, just because there is a big short-term market opportunity.

I again thank Gillian Mackay for leading this debate, and I certainly look forward to the minister’s response on what the next steps in banning vapes in Scotland and across the rest of the UK will be.