Seòmar agus comataidhean

The example of Lumo is interesting because a lot of people benefit from being able to get reduced fares as a result of an operator coming in from outside, and I am sure that you will bear that in mind.

My question relates to the issue of money operating in a round-robin fashion. Network Rail gets around £2.1 billion a year from train operating companies, which helps to finance Network Rail, and about £58 million comes in from freight. If you take the train operating companies out, they will no longer be making contributions, so the money for Network Rail will have to come from the Government.

I know that you will probably say that the Government already gives money to private operators to run the services, but are you convinced that the proposal will not lead to increased costs for running the track, given that more than 50 per cent of Network Rail’s budget currently comes from private operators? Are you satisfied that funding for the railway lines will not decrease?

Douglas Lumsden wants to say something, too.

I am definitely going to leave it at that; that is all the questions from the committee.

We will move on to agenda item 4, which is a debate on motion S6M-13568, which calls on the committee to recommend approval of the draft regulations. I remind members that only they and the cabinet secretary can speak in the debate. I invite the cabinet secretary to speak to the motion if she feels that it is necessary or just to move the motion.

Motion moved,

That the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee recommends that the Environmental Protection (Single-use Vapes) (Scotland) Regulations 2024 [draft] be approved.—[Gillian Martin]

I say at the outset that there are a lot of moving parts in the regulations. We have heard from all the committee members about the difficulties of identifying the different types of vapes and whether they are reusable or single use.

What would concern me more than anything else is if not everyone in the United Kingdom went forward with the approach on 1 April next year. That would cause me grave concern. However, as an individual, I am perfectly happy to support this on the basis that everyone will move forward on the same date.

Given the points that have been made, as the legislation progresses and comes into force, it would be helpful for the committee to be kept aware of how it is actually working and whether it is achieving its aims. Does anyone want to ask the cabinet secretary anything that they have not asked already or to make a comment? Bob Doris has his hand up.

The committee is agreed, and we will report on the outcome in due course. I invite committee members to delegate authority to me, as convener, to approve the draft report for publication.

Members indicated agreement.

Our next item is consideration of a type 1 consent notification for a proposed UK statutory instrument. On 5 June, the Minister for Climate Action notified the committee of the UK SI. The instrument will involve the UK Government legislating within devolved competence and it seeks the Scottish Government’s consent for it to do so.

The Scottish Government proposes to consent to the instrument, which, as the clerk’s paper explains, would require producers of products to pay the full net cost of managing their packaging at the end of life.

The committee’s role is to decide whether it agrees with the Scottish Government’s proposal to consent to the UK Government making those regulations within devolved competence, and in the manner that has been indicated. If members are content for consent to be given, the committee will write to the Scottish Government accordingly. In so writing, we have the option to draw matters to the Government’s attention, pose questions or ask to be kept up to date on relevant developments.

If the committee is not content with the proposal, it may make one of the two recommendations that are outlined in the clerk’s note. We can recommend that the provisions should not be made at all, or that the Scottish Government take an alternative legislative approach—for example, by bringing forward its own Scottish statutory instruments.

I hope that that is all clear. To help to inform our decision, we have invited the cabinet secretary to stay and give evidence. I am not going to welcome you back again, Gillian, but you are here with us.

We are also joined by a number of Scottish Government officials. David McPhee is doing a third tour of duty in his role as deputy director for the circular economy; Alex Brown is, I think, joining us for the first time as circular economy policy officer; and Carolyn Boyd is on her third tour of duty, too. Thank you for joining us.

I now move to questions from members, with the first question coming, I believe, from Jackie Dunbar.

Yes, please.

As there are no other comments, we move to item 6, which is the debate on motion S6M-13501, which calls on the committee to recommend approval of the Companies Act 2006 (Scottish public sector companies to be audited by the Auditor General for Scotland) Order 2024.

I invite the cabinet secretary to move the motion.

Motion moved,

That the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee recommends that the Companies Act 2006 (Scottish public sector companies to be audited by the Auditor General for Scotland) Order 2024 [draft] be approved.—[Gillian Martin]

Motion agreed to.

Yes—the one that you are asking now.

We will write to the Scottish Government to that effect.

That concludes our meeting in public. We will now go into private session.