Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will speak to the amendments in the name of Ariane Burgess. I support the majority of the amendments in the group, and I particularly support the approach that has been taken by Maurice Golden and Sarah Boyack. There is a wider issue about the management of our marine environment, which the bill so far does not tackle, so we need to go further at stage 2.

Amendments 90 and 91 would strengthen the reporting on the status and condition of Scotland’s marine protected area network by giving Environmental Standards Scotland a formal role in assessing the network. The evidence that we have had from Open Seas stressed the lack of real protection that is being delivered by Scotland’s existing MPA network. The Government has acknowledged that MPAs might not be meeting legal objectives, so giving ESS a more formal role in assessing the network’s objectives and achievements would mean greater accountability for any marine-related targets that are set by secondary legislation.

Amendment 90 would strengthen the reporting by requiring ESS to report on whether there has been any deterioration in the MPA network. Amendment 91 would then require ministers to include in their reports to Parliament under the 2010 act a summary of the pressures and impacts that human activities are having on MPAs.

Amendment 92 relates to the national marine plan 2, which ministers are currently developing. The intention is for the new plan to set out ministers’ policies for how different sectors will interact in the marine environment. That is important, because we all recognise that there is a demand for access to marine space, from fishing to energy to recreation, and deciding what goes where is the critical role of that national marine plan. However, we are concerned that the current proposals from the Government suggest that the new national marine plan would significantly weaken protections, including by dropping the fisheries objective from the new plan entirely. Amendment 92 seeks to rectify that omission.

Fisheries management measures are deemed to be a national or regional marine planning matter under the 2010 act. They are part of the first national marine plan and the Shetland regional marine plan. The proposal, which attempts to treat fisheries management decisions as separate from the wider national marine planning, is concerning. We need to join things up here rather than put fisheries in a siloed box. Amendment 92 would make it clear that fisheries objectives are categorically part of the national marine plan and cannot be interpreted otherwise and removed at the whim of a serving Government.

Amendment 301 would make two straightforward changes to the current light-touch regulation of the wrasse fishery and finish the work that was begun by this committee and the Scottish Government in the area. First, it would close some of our marine protected areas and special areas of conservation to the fishery all year round—specifically, the SACs for which rocky reefs are a qualifying feature and the MPAs for which kelp and seaweed on sediment are a protected feature. Those are the MPAs and SACs for which the various commercially fished wrasse species listed in amendment 301 are the keystone species, which are hugely ecologically important to the future of those habitats. There might be a case for closing the fishery in all MPAs and SACs, but, in those specific areas, wrasse are absolutely integral to the survival of those habitats. You cannot protect rocky reefs or kelp forests and other seaweed habitats if the wrasse that they depend on can be taken away.

Amendment 301 would close the wrasse fishery during the five months when wrasse spawn and guard their nests. At the moment, the closed season is completely misaligned with the spawning season, again risking the future of the fish and the ecosystems that they are part of. Protecting vulnerable fish stocks during the spawning seasons is an absolutely fundamental part of good fisheries management. I am at a loss as to understand why that is not being applied in relation to the wrasse fishery.

We all know that wrasse are used in large numbers by the salmon industry for lice control, and, no doubt, the industry would like the fishery to be open all year round, to give it flexibility. However, that would not be in the industry’s interests if it intends to rely on wrasse for the longer term. It has been reported that local wrasse populations have collapsed in some areas. That is a dire outcome for important marine ecosystems, but it is also a problem for the aquaculture industry. We need better regulation in the area. I think that Ariane Burgess’s amendments take that final step and ensure that there is a sustainable recovery of our wrasse across Scotland.

I appreciate your giving way. I think that there is quite a link between the amendments in this group and what Ross Greer was attempting to do in an earlier group. Emma Harper has made a strong case for reforming the penalties and offences relating to salmon poaching. We see poaching in our MPAs, particularly off the Arran coast, and the purpose of Ross Greer’s amendments in an earlier group was to address that, but there was no commitment to work with him ahead of stage 3. Is that because the Government does not consider the issues that Ross Greer raised to be of concern, or is it because the issues are too hard or involve a different minister? I do not know, but I would like there to be progress in tackling such offences, which are serious regardless of whether they relate to our rivers or our seas.

Once again, we are doing a lot of heavy lifting in the committee this morning, are we not, convener?

There is a conversation to be had ahead of stage 3. I still believe that a restatement of the commitment to ban the supply of peat for horticulture is needed in legislation. Regardless of whether that restatement reflects a need to extend the readiness period or to deliver a transition, I think that the destination is quite clear—we are moving towards making horticulture peat free in Scotland. I think that everyone acknowledges that.

We should reflect on the fact that, in Northern Ireland, a date has been set. At the very least, we could get a consensus on that.

Both of the amendments in this group relate to delivering nature networks. As the Government rightly highlights, nature networks deliver multiple benefits beyond biodiversity: they store carbon; they mitigate floods; they regulate temperature in our towns, villages and cities; and they improve our mental and physical health. They are a keystone of the Scottish biodiversity strategy, because fragmentation of nature is a key driver of its decline.

Amendment 76 would introduce a requirement for ministers to report on progress towards the establishment of nature networks and on their effectiveness. Embedding a reporting requirement at ministerial level would ensure co-ordinated delivery that complements the bottom-up approach at council level. We are all aware of the excellent work that councils are doing on the ground to establish nature networks and to embed them in local planning. Without amendment 76, we risk nature networks being overlooked. The Government has set ambitious goals for the planning system to deliver positive effects for biodiversity and for private finance to support the ambitions of the biodiversity strategy, but, unless a strategically co-ordinated pipeline of projects is identified through nature networks, we risk missing those opportunities.

Amendment 77 would add a requirement for the forthcoming land use strategy to consider the ecological connectivity that is delivered through nature networks. The land use strategy provides the context for the major land use decisions that are needed to meet Scotland’s climate ambitions. Given that a key principle of the bill is the need to tackle climate and nature together, it makes sense to explicitly include ecological connectivity in the land use strategy. The strategy also underpins regional land use partnerships, which engage communities in shaping the land use changes that are required to meet climate targets. Elevating nature to the same level as climate in those discussions would ensure that communities are involved in the decisions, especially those on nature networks.

I move amendment 76.

I do not have an answer to that question, but we could certainly explore that in discussions with the minister.

I think that there is scope to reflect on the situation ahead of stage 3. Would you like to come back in, minister?

Speaking as a motorist, I welcome sensible investment in our roads, but building roads is not the only way to generate economic growth, and roads are not even the most effective transport infrastructure to achieve that goal. The evidence on the economic impact of road building is mixed. Analysis from the Institute for Public Policy Research shows that investing in roads does not deliver good value for money. Return on investment for road infrastructure is lower compared with other infrastructure investments, particularly in public transport. In a recent SWestrans board meeting, Transport Scotland officials noted that revenue spending on the A75 in the past two years would keep bus services in Dumfries and Galloway running for the next 300 years.

Unfortunately, I do not think that I have time to take interventions.

Of course, buses use the roads too, but the unprecedented growth in traffic and congestion is piling costs on to maintaining the network for all road users, and public transport is not being prioritised as was promised in the national transport strategy.

The notion that upgrading and dualling more roads in Scotland is the best way to boost economic growth and increase connectivity is disingenuous. Investment in our roads for maintenance, improved safety and climate resilience is absolutely necessary, but dualling miles of road to speed up journey times by a handful of minutes is not.

I will start on a note of consensus and refer to the points that Emma Harper has just made. I do not think any member in the chamber would disagree about the need for investment that she set out.

I have not yet heard a single member speak in favour of the Westminster Government’s proposed punitive tax on EVs. It singles those vehicles out and discriminates against them. To answer Jamie Halcro Johnston’s question, I do not know whether that represents a wider approach from the Treasury on demand management. However, if it does, it is starting at the wrong end. It should be starting with sport utility vehicles—SUVs—and not EVs.

The Treasury’s assumption is that driving an EV is low cost. It is low cost, but only if people are able to charge their EVs at home and get access to a low-cost tariff. When I charge my EV at home, I am paying about 8.5p per kilowatt hour at night, which means that my mileage costs are about 2p a mile. However, if I go to a public charger such as those provided by Perth and Kinross Council, I am paying 55p per kilowatt hour. We cannot get into a situation where the cost of EV use starts to creep up above the cost of petrol and diesel. That would absolutely stall the transition to EVs, and it would blow a hole in the Government’s climate plan. The cost of electricity is clearly a political issue, including in relation to the roll-out of heat pumps and the general electrification of our entire society, but it is a critical issue that we need to get right.

Members mentioned all sorts of projects during the debate, and many projects are mentioned in the motion and the amendments. However, I am disappointed that not a single member has mentioned the A83. All the projects that have been discussed are partly about safety, and they are also about making the roads faster, but people in Argyll are completely and utterly cut off when the Rest and Be Thankful is closed. We need to get serious about investment in climate adaptation, because a lot of our roads are simply going to crumble away as we start to go beyond 1.5°. We are seeing more extreme weather events, and the Rest and Be Thankful is a classic example of what can happen.

We need to get real about the economic impact and the cost of road-building programmes. I am seeing an increasing proportion of Government revenue going on servicing the private finance initiative and other models that were used to procure roads in the first place. We do not want to get to a situation where the entire transport budget is eaten up by more and more projects that become harder and harder to maintain and build. There is no magic money tree here.

I go back to the exchange that I had with Finlay Carson. Let us consider the costs of projects that have being named in the debate—£3.7 billion for the A9 from Perth to Inverness, up to £5 billion for the A96 from Inverness to Aberdeen, £64 million for the A77, and £50 million for the A75. That £9 billion of spending on four major road-building projects in Scotland is an exorbitant amount. It is the equivalent of 200 years of the Scottish Government’s budget for all road safety interventions on all roads.

Jamie Greene talked about a moral imperative. There is absolutely a moral imperative to invest in all roads in Scotland. Over the summer, very sadly, I attended a fatal road traffic accident on the A85. Wherever such deaths occur, there are too many. We need to be cutting casualties and making our roads safer—and I am referring to all roads. There is a need to invest here. I accept that there is a need to invest in the A9. There is a need to invest in junctions and a need to invest in parts of the A9 that are currently dualled but where there have still been accidents. However, that needs to be investment in what works, and it needs to drive down the casualty rate.

I want a national transport strategy that is reasonable, sensible and evidence based and that starts to push some Government funding towards projects that will work—ones that will improve safety, keep us connected and, ultimately, get us to a better place as a nation.

Every project needs to be considered on its own merits. If the member were to look at the A9, he would see that its cost benefit ratio did not stack up initially. I am asking for all transport infrastructure projects to be considered fairly against each other as to whether they are delivering the best value for the public pound. Numerous studies have shown that investing in public buses and trains connects people with economic and education opportunities, boosts productivity and aids connectivity, which all contributes towards growth.

There are also clear environmental and health benefits of investing in and encouraging a shift towards sustainable transport. We all know that private car use is responsible for about 60 per cent of road transport emissions, compared with the 6 per cent of emissions that are created by public transport.

Obviously, we have a lot of roads in Scotland—31,700 miles of roads, to be exact, which is enough to travel the circumference of the earth one and a half times. If we compare that with the 1,752 miles of Scotland’s railway network, it is clear that upgrading and dualling the A75, the A7, the A96 and the A9 will not enhance connectivity.

I absolutely accept that we need investment to dual key sections of trunk roads, alongside junction improvements and bypasses to relieve town centres of traffic congestion. However, we do not need investment to build wider roads everywhere that will ultimately result in more traffic congestion and higher maintenance costs.

We need investment in accessible, affordable and reliable public transport. That means upgrading the Highland main line, for example, and delivering projects such as Newburgh station to connect communities to the rail network and create fresh economic opportunities. It means investing in bus services so that they are reliable, affordable services that everyone can access, which is especially important in rural communities, where those who depend on public transport can become socially isolated. Bus priority measures should be delivered in our cities, so that buses can quickly pass traffic jams. The pause in the Government’s funding for those investments was damaging. Delays and congestion have only helped to accelerate the withdrawal of services by private operators that are solely focused on profitability.

In conclusion, we need a Government that is prepared to break the cycle of declining bus services and commit to financially supporting public transport to deliver franchising and public control for bus services, alongside investment in rail and active travel. I look forward to a national transport strategy that goes back to the principles of good transport planning, rather than a slanging match about the dualling of roads in Scotland.

I move amendment S6M-20057.2, to leave out from “recognises” to end and insert:

“believes that future transport investment must prioritise sustainability, equality, public transport and active travel over large-scale road building, and further believes that investment in roads should improve safety, address maintenance backlogs, deliver climate resilience on vulnerable routes, including the A83, help prioritise road space for buses and be matched with ambitious investment in rail, including upgrading the Highland Mainline and reconnecting communities, such as Newburgh, to the rail network.”

Finlay Carson has made a strong case for dualling the A75, but the cost of that would be £50 million and Governments need to prioritise investment. The cost of dualling the A96 would be up to £5 billion—that is £5,000 million. Does he not see that the political priorities are for the A96, not the projects that he has put forward?