Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good. The issue will probably not be resolved before I leave the Parliament, so it is on the record that I have at least tried to get it resolved.

Unless there are any other questions from the committee, that brings us to the end of this session on transport. It has gone on slightly longer than you might have anticipated, cabinet secretary, but that is probably due to your huge, wide-ranging portfolio—I do not think that the committee can be blamed for that.

We will look at some subordinate legislation next. Before we do that, I will briefly suspend the meeting, because the session has been slightly longer than anticipated.

Welcome back. The third item on our agenda is consideration of a consent notification relating to a proposed UK statutory instrument. The instrument would amend the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) Regulations 2024, on which we took evidence on 3 September last year.

The amendments would enable the appointment of a producer responsibility organisation, a process that involves the UK Government legislating in a devolved area. The Scottish Government has said that it is content with the UK Government doing so in this case, and the reasons for that are set out in the notification that we have received. The committee’s role is to decide whether it agrees with the Scottish Government’s decision. We can express a view both on whether we agree in principle to the UK Government legislating in this area and on whether we agree with the specific manner in which it proposes to do so.

If we are content for consent to be given, we will write to the Scottish Government accordingly.? In doing so, we have the option to draw matters to the Government’s attention, pose questions or ask to be kept up to date on particular matters. If we are not content with the proposal, we can make one or two recommendations.?

It looks as though no member wishes to express any views on the instrument.

It is suggested in our meeting notes that, if we are content to agree to the instrument, we might pose the following questions. What functions of the scheme administrator might be delegated to the new PRO? How will the governance of the PRO reflect or ensure consideration of Scottish interests and circumstances? Are the proposed changes to modelling local authority costs expected to significantly impact the estimates of the funds that will be made available to Scottish local authorities? And has COSLA raised any concerns? Those questions seem relevant, but that does not affect the fact that, at the end of the day, we will probably agree to the instrument.

Is the committee content that the provision that is set out in the notification should be made in the proposed UK statutory instrument?

Members indicated agreement.

Again, I will sign the letter relating to that decision.

We will now move into private. I put on record that Monica Lennon will not take part in item 7 and that we expect Labour Party substitute Sarah Boyack to attend in her place.

Good morning, and welcome to the 30th meeting in 2025 of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. Our first item of business is decisions on whether to take items 5, 6 and 7 in private. Item 5 is consideration of the evidence that we will hear today on transport; item 6 is consideration of the committee’s work programme; and item 7 is consideration of our approach to the stage 1 scrutiny of the Ecocide (Scotland) Bill.

To ensure that we carefully adhere to the Parliament’s standing orders, I will split this into two questions. First, I will ask whether we are agreed to take items 5 and 6 in private, and then I will ask whether we are agreed to take item 7 in private, noting that Monica Lennon may not participate in that decision, purely because she is the member who is in charge of that bill. I will not quote the relevant rule, but I am sure that members have all looked it up, as I have. I hope that that is all clear.

Are we agreed to take items 5 and 6 in private?

Members indicated agreement.

I am sorry, but I will push you a bit more on that. Is the consultation closed?

How long will it take you to publish those responses? You will want a summary. We are going to get all the climate change plan responses within a month, we are told. You must be able to pull the responses together within a month, surely, and publish a summary of them?

I am glad that we are not opening up the debate about LEZs and how the money can be used. I remember that from when I was on the committee that did the Transport (Scotland) Bill and it was quite heated at the time.

It was. We are agreed on that.

Bob Doris, over to you.

Audit Scotland said in a report earlier this year that conflating active travel and sustainable travel makes it really difficult to understand the figures. Apparently, when it asked those in Transport Scotland to say what was active and what was sustainable, they scratched their heads, too. Will you define that for me and say how much of the £200 million is actually going on active travel?

Perhaps you could put that in a letter, because I am now even more confused. My maths is not good enough for me to work out exactly how the £200 million is split up. Perhaps we could have two charts to show the split, with one entitled “active” and the other one “sustainable”. It is quite a big sum.