Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank Audrey Nicoll for lodging the motion and for securing the debate, which has been quite fascinating. Members have underlined that non-native invasive species are one of the main drivers of nature loss in this country, but there is also synergy with climate change—the two work together to damage our environment.

In a week in which we have been intensively discussing the budget in the chamber, the issue gives us one of the clearest examples of the impact of preventative spend. If we can tackle non-native invasive species early, we will save society a huge amount of money further down the line.

A number of members have celebrated the work of volunteers, charities and partnerships. David Torrance mentioned the amazing work that is happening with restoration Forth. We are making progress. For example, big progress has been made in controlling grey squirrels, and there is good progress on tackling rhododendron and giant hogweed. All that work needs co-ordination and support, and it needs organisations such as the Forth Rivers Trust in my region, which does amazing work in bringing together landowners and volunteers to take action and tackle issues such as the expansion of giant hogweed. It has done that successfully in the Allan Water, but that has taken a huge amount of effort.

That takes me back to the point about funding that a number of members have underlined. This is about spend to save. If we spend money on tackling non-native invasive species now, we will save later. It is disappointing that there has been an in-year cut to the nature restoration fund, which was established when the Greens were working in government with the Scottish National Party. The minister needs to consider how we can reinstate funding, particularly the council funding strand, which has been cut. The £5 million is an absolute drop in the ocean in comparison with the public pay settlement, and we are stacking up costly problems unless we can empower councils to restore nature and tackle invasive species. It is really important that we do not lose momentum on that.

Members have received briefings from a number of charities that have called for multiyear funding, because we cannot tackle invasive species in only 12 months. Invasive species do not follow budget cycles. We need to look at growing cycles and ecological cycles. That means that multiyear funding is needed, otherwise the money that we spend in one year will be erased by the growth and distribution of species in the years that follow.

I will mention two species very briefly. According to a briefing from Woodland Trust Scotland, 140,000 hectares of rhododendron ponticum need to be treated, predominantly on the west coast, because the species is continuing to invade.

Funding is important, but it is not just about funding. We have an opportunity in the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill to place a duty and responsibility on landowners to deal with the species. We could also introduce a national register of ancient woodland. Of course, the Scottish Government could work with the UK Government to put in place a retail ban for the species, which would really help.

We also need to widen the debate. We have a list of non-native invasive species, but there are questions about non-native game birds, such as pheasants and partridges. More than 40 million game birds are released into the environment across the UK every year, yet we know from the science that there are concerns about the spread of bird flu and predation of reptiles, and that there is an ecological imbalance when we so many of these birds are roaming around our countryside and interrupting our natural ecology.

There is much to consider, particularly in the context of the proposed natural environment bill. The minister could and should consider licensing, particularly in relation to non-native game birds. I look forward to the issue coming back to committees of the Parliament and to our considering ways in which we can take on some of the challenges and provide some certainty.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on how it is supporting local transport authorities to franchise bus services. (S6O-03863)

Will the minister acknowledge the critical role of councils in co-ordinating the work and creating partnerships to do that work? Co-ordination is important here. Without that co-ordinating function, we can do a little bit of work on removing INNS in one area of land, but it can be undone by the extension and expansion of INNS to another area of land.

It is clear that our communities have suffered from years of bus services being run for private profit rather than in the public interest, so change is desperately needed in order that the public can take greater control over how our services are run.

The SSI that we are considering today would create a system whereby a panel of experts established by the traffic commissioner would have the final say on new franchising proposals. However, the previous traffic commissioner was reported as having made comments against bus franchising. Given that the stated objective of the traffic commissioner is to

“minimise regulatory burden on operators”,

that does not give confidence to transport authorities that their plans will be fairly judged.

Yesterday, the minister attempted to allay those concerns by pointing to future guidance, but it is not clear how such future guidance will address the fundamental concern. How will the public interest be reflected on the panel rather than its being dominated by members who have a largely technical view of bus operation that comes from their experience in a privatised sector? Unfortunately, there are even some in the private bus industry who, sadly, have stated that they see the proposed changes as a form of theft of their business model.

The minister said that the issues in question could have been debated in 2019, when the Transport (Scotland) Bill was considered, but SPT raised strong concerns in evidence at the time. In the original consultation on the bill, it was ministers who were to make the final decision on franchising. The switch to the use of a panel in the final 2019 act was warmly welcomed by private operators, including FirstGroup. Today, we know that the panel system has been discredited and that new models of partnership between national and local government appear to be the most effective and most robust way of introducing franchising. According to an adviser to the Welsh Government, the Scottish Government’s on-going commitment to the panel process leaves Scotland as a backward-facing outlier on bus reform in the UK.

Yesterday, as we have heard, the NZET Committee could not have been clearer in its support for new bus franchising and municipal models, but we need to ensure that the legislation that underpins that mission actually works. Therefore, the Greens will vote to annul the SSI, and it is up to the Government to consider whether improvements can be made to the panel process or whether a change through primary legislation is now needed.

Regardless of the outcome tonight, SPT will, I believe, continue to work on franchising over the next two years, even though no guidance on that is currently available from the Scottish Government. I, too, spoke to the chief executive of SPT this afternoon. As it is unlikely that any decision on any proposal that emerges from SPT’s work will go for approval until summer 2027, there really is time for the Parliament to fix the problem. I am sure that SPT and others will be prepared to work with Transport Scotland and ministers on further necessary reforms should primary legislation be needed.

I am happy to speak to amendment 62. The climate change legislation relies heavily on the advisory body, the UK Climate Change Committee, which we all recognise provides really invaluable formal advice as well as really invaluable informal advice to Government and this committee. It is fair to say that, over the years that the CCC has been in operation and since the Parliament and Government have engaged with it, there have been issues relating to its capacity and resources and, because of that, with how responsive it has been in providing the advice that is needed at the right time, given changing circumstances.

If we think back to 2023, when the climate change plan was delayed, Chris Stark was vocal in saying that the delay had thrown out the CCC’s work programme as well as the window that was available to it to provide advice for the Scottish Parliament on our emissions reduction progress. In effect, we have been in a position in which the level of advice that the Parliament was expecting has not been available, because of the CCC’s capacity and its work programme.

We were in a similar position with the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019, in that the CCC was unable to provide formal advice on the 2030 target because it was still completing its work on the peatland inventory. When we set the targets for 2030 under the 2019 act, we did not have full advice from the CCC. That was not the CCC’s fault; it was to do with its capacity and work programme.

I lodged amendment 62 because the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021 provides that, whenever Environmental Standards Scotland produces its annual report, it must communicate a statement to the Parliament on whether it has adequate resources to discharge its responsibilities. We cannot require something similar from the UKCCC because of how it is set up, although I think that it would be preferable if it could publicly talk about any capacity or resources issues that it has. My amendment is competent in that it requires the Scottish Government to report on whether there are capacity issues and to consult the CCC in doing that.

In relation to the risk, you will understand that there is concern about the panel model, and there is not good evidence that that kind of system has worked well across the United Kingdom. However, your key argument is that going down the panel route reduces the risk of legal challenge. What evidence do you see for that?

Yes—briefly.

Would it not have been better for the Government to have come to the committee today with a far clearer articulation of what will be in the guidance? I know that preparing it would have put a lot of pressure on the minister and officials, but it would have been better to see the guidance. Then we could have made a judgment about whether it offered some reassurance on the integrity of the panel.

I appreciate the minister giving way. It has been a very challenging session.

You are rolling with it; that is great. I have just one point for clarification. Your official mentioned in the earlier discussion that one more piece of legislation is required to bring in the provisions for franchising. I would like to hear a commitment that that work will continue.

I welcome you saying that, even if you do not need to supply the guidance if the SSI is annulled, you will still work on the guidance and it will still be available for the traffic commissioner.

Some of the concerns that are being raised today come down to the independence of the traffic commissioner and their appointment. The minister will remember that the previous commissioner did an interview that appeared to be quite prejudicial towards franchising. That has really riled people, who want franchising to happen because that is in the public interest. What assurances can you give that the incoming traffic commissioner clearly understands their responsibilities and clearly understands that the policy priority of Government and this Parliament is for franchising to work successfully in Scotland, as is the case in Wales, where there has been a strong public commitment to that?