Seòmar agus comataidhean

In relation to a section 8 order that was issued this month, you said:

“NatureScot cannot be satisfied that effective deer management will be put in place to address risks of significant impact on peatlands, woodlands and other habitats”.

What does the proposed new section 6ZB of the 1996 act add? It is about restoration. Does it change the nature of your consideration of the section 8 powers? It seems that you are already acting where there is deterioration as well as an urgent need for restoration. I am struggling to understand how the proposed new section 6ZB adds anything significant. Maybe you can explain.

We are interested in those sections of the bill that relate to deer management, as the convener described. We are interested, in particular, in your comments on the incorporation of nature restoration as a ground for intervention—we discussed that in the previous session; the proposed changes to the control measures; and NatureScot’s ability to recover the expanded costs.

I see that Mr Orr-Ewing would like to go first.

I am interested in Grant Moir’s point about public institutions effectively doing a lot of the planning in this area. If a national park has a herbivore management strategy—Cairngorms has one, but I do not know whether Loch Lomond and the Trossachs has one yet, and maybe there will be one for Galloway in the future as well—that is a plan that is in place. Under the bill, FLS will have to facilitate the delivery of that as part of the park plan, so public institutions will be working to deliver that. Does that help to guide and steer the public interest? Could that be used, through the code of practice, as a way for NatureScot to consider how private actors in that space link in with the objectives?

I am thinking about the status. You have a park plan and a herbivore strategy. Should those have weight? How should that be taken into account when NatureScot makes decisions to require those with private interests to take action that aligns with the public interest in a plan that has gone through a democratic process, been approved by a park board and everything else?

Would it not be easier to say that deterioration and restoration are part of the same picture, and that what we need is deer management and nature restoration orders? That would encapsulate everything rather than having a quite outdated system that is based on preserving remnants of biodiversity and then trying to bolt on something that is more about restoration and improvement? It feels quite confused.

Would you expect more or less potential risk of judicial review as a result of the bill, or do you think that there will be enough certainty with the bill and the code of practice so that everybody will know where they stand and it will be clear that a section 8 order is a section 8 order?

I am thinking of examples from over the years. Would you say that that was the case with the Ardvar estate a number of years ago, when there were questions about why NatureScot was not using section 8 powers to intervene? Was it because the estate was so deteriorated that damage was difficult to prove?

No. I do not have any time—sorry.

We need to deliver the right models for those local authorities to cut congestion and raise money. Encouraging people to choose to leave the car at home is not only good for the climate; it is about cleaner air and safer streets, a healthier society and a stronger economy. There is lots of evidence from around the world—including from Europe and other cities across the UK—on where reducing road congestion has been beneficial for the economy. However, we need champions to lead the debate with facts. We need a cross-party effort, not just here at Holyrood but at Westminster and in our town halls.

The issue is also about fairness. Car-dependent transport systems drive economic and socioeconomic inequalities. One in five households in Scotland does not have access to a car. Car use is lower among women, disabled people and older people, and those groups are likely to rely more on public transport. Simply pointing to a growing number of EV charging points really patronises the people who cannot drive.

We can do better. The Government needs to empower the councils that are ready and willing to take action now to create vibrant and inclusive places where the car is the guest and communities can grow and thrive.

I do not have time, unfortunately.

Choices need to be made. I ask the minister to reflect on the construction of the cross-Tay link road: £120 million is being invested in that transport infrastructure to benefit motorists. However, there are already starting to be congestion issues around Perth and Bridgend, which that bridge was meant to resolve.

We need to move away from going one step forward and one step back. We need to address the issues.

This is not a new debate. Back in 2006, the first ever climate inquiry in this Parliament recommended road user charging. It set the Executive a timescale of 10 years to get it right—the Executive had until 2016 to bring in a fair system of road user charging. That date has passed and we are now nearly 10 years on from 2016—it is nearly 2026 and we still have no more progress in Scotland on road user charging.

It will take calm heads and cross-party working in order to make progress on this. Perhaps it will take the kind of leadership that was shown by Douglas Lumsden when he was a councillor: behaving rationally, taking your party-political hat off and looking at the issues that need to be addressed. We see that kind of leadership in councils from time to time. The conversation with COSLA is really important because it is clear that there are those in local authorities who need, and want, to tackle traffic congestion using a range of measures.

I urge the Government to make progress in areas in which there is consensus. A regulatory review is looking at powers of road charging. We could be looking at simplifying the traffic regulation order process or decriminalising road offences. I think that there are areas of consensus among councils and the Government that we can use to make progress.

I welcome the minister’s support for the re-regulation of buses. I would urge him to make that process as simple as possible. It is clear that we need public transport to be run in the public interest, and we can only really achieve that if we have public and community operators in that mix.

This is a short debate, but I am sure that we will come back to this subject between now and the end of the parliamentary session.

It is clear that there is no war on the motorist, and it is a bit silly to suggest that there is. However, I absolutely think that, every single day, motorists face congestion misery on our roads, so we should be tackling congestion. We can do that only when the costs of public transport fall relative to those of the private car and when better reliability, punctuality and frequency make bus and rail the natural choice for commuters, where they have that choice available.

Facts are really important in this debate. I ask members to reflect on the fact that, since the Parliament was established, the number of cars on the roads has increased by 38 per cent and mileage has gone up by 16 per cent, while the cost of motoring has decreased by 19 per cent, rail fares have increased by 31 per cent and bus and coach fares have risen by an eye-watering 102 per cent in real terms. It is clear that successive Governments have prioritised car dependency, and that people who choose or rely on public transport are continually being disadvantaged by Government policy.

Transport is the biggest climate polluter, and private cars pollute the most. Actions are needed to reduce private car usage and demand—otherwise, other parts of our economy will have to pick up more of the burden in getting to net zero. A traffic reduction target, backed by deliverable actions, is needed now more than ever. Dropping the 20 per cent target is a real backwards step that sends out the wrong message, removes the focus and undermines the partnership action that is needed on the ground to prioritise public transport and active travel.

We have been subject to a blizzard of local press releases and election pitches this afternoon. I agree with Paul Sweeney that the motion that we are debating is somewhat “facile and disingenuous”. We need a more measured debate on the subject. I ask the minister to acknowledge that, on transport policy, we are taking one step forward at a time and then, often, one step back.

I give the example of bus use. Free bus travel for under-22s is a fantastic scheme and I know that the minister backs it. He recognises the benefit that it has brought to young people. It has also increased bus use by 29 million journeys. However, at the same time as we have been rolling out that successful scheme, we have seen bus journeys decline by 20 million because of road congestion and the failure to tackle traffic congestion, which we are discussing this afternoon. That is undermining the hundreds of millions of pounds that have been invested in bus users and the bus network every year.

We need to see what, back in the day, was called policy coherence—that is, where one policy is not undermining another one. We cannot have a transport policy based only on having more of everything that everybody wants. Choices have to be made. That is why we have a transport hierarchy and it should be guiding investment. When the Confederation of Passenger Transport Scotland gave evidence to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee this week, it stated clearly that competition from cars was the primary influence on bus use. Unless we tackle that issue and level the playing field, we will not see a rapid increase in bus use.