Seòmar agus comataidhean

One thing that the Government has committed to and which is very welcome is a trial introduction of capped bus fares. Will the Government consider how that works with free bus travel, to help people who have reached the age of 22 and therefore no longer get free travel? How will the pilot’s findings feed into wider consideration of how we make more travel free and affordable?

I want to make a couple of brief comments in relation to the LCM. At the outset, it is deeply disappointing that the LCM has come to the chamber without any proper scrutiny at all. It appears that these expedited LCMs are becoming part of routine practice. Every time that this happens, it undermines the Parliament while strengthening the executive power of the Scottish Government and the Westminster Government.

From what I understand, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill wants to simplify the bus franchising process in England; his bill now includes a provision to end the procurement of fossil fuel buses no earlier than 2030; he wishes to extend this power to Scottish ministers; and the Scottish Government has worked with the UK Government on an amendment to achieve that.

That is all fine, and I agree with many of the comments about bus policy that were just made by Paul Sweeney. However, I cannot genuinely reflect in this debate on the views of Scottish bus operators and manufacturers about the provision, and I cannot say in this debate whether 2030 is too late or too soon. The reason why I cannot do that is that there has been zero scrutiny by a committee. I also cannot reflect on whether there were other opportunities through this UK bill to, for example, expedite the simplification of the bus franchising process in Scotland or any other related issues—again, because there has been no scrutiny.

The Scottish Greens will be voting for this LCM, but I have to say that patience is wearing very thin. I hope that the Conveners Group can discuss this recurring issue of expedited LCMs, and that the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee can continue to reflect on the continued unravelling of parliamentary protocol in this Parliament.

I am reading the submission from the Institute for Public Policy Research in Scotland. It says that MSPs will have to decide to approve the carbon budgets

“effectively in ignorance of the policies they would then have to support in order to see the budgets delivered.”

The lack of information is concerning, and it perhaps plays to those, such as Mr Lumsden, who want to weaken ambition for the carbon budget, rather than people such as me, who want to strengthen that ambition.

No climate change plan—not even a draft one—has been submitted. We have only an incredibly thin indicative statement. The Government has rejected the advice of the UK Climate Change Committee on livestock and on peatlands, and policies on heat and on traffic reduction have been dropped. There is no energy strategy as yet. When it comes to Peterhead power station, there is uncertainty about the existing power station, let alone the prospect of a second one.

There are a lot of unknowns here and, quite frankly, I do not know whether this carbon budget is ambitious enough, because it lacks the transparency that successive committees of this Parliament have called for in advance of setting targets, objectives and aspirations around climate change. Although I will not vote against the budget, I find it very difficult to vote for it, because, without that detail, I do not know what it is that we are voting on at this point. I will therefore abstain.

Thank you. Gabi, would you like to come in?

Are there any other thoughts on that from the panel?

Should we be measuring, for example, the carbon impacts of dredging and trawling on the inshore? Is that the kind of approach that we should look at in Scotland? We do not have mangrove forests, but we have seabeds.

Is that correct?

Are you open to listening to what the air-source heat pump sector is saying about the cost of electricity and the effectiveness of its technology? I see a huge amount of misinformation and lobbying around the heat in buildings bill to, in effect, portray air-source heat pumps as being highly expensive, particularly in the context of the electricity bills that many households face, but that does not match the reality of the technology that is being installed in Scotland.

If the sector comes to you and says, “There are some assumptions in your climate change plan and in the heat in buildings bill that are not right. We think that we can go further with the technology that we have”—

We have the industry coming into Parliament tomorrow to talk to MSPs about the misinformation that is out there. I am concerned that that has perhaps influenced Government policy in a way that has led you to reject the advice not only of your officials, initially, but of the UK Climate Change Committee.

No, I think that we can just move on.