Seòmar agus comataidhean

Electric vehicles have been mentioned a couple of times. We know that the Government’s target is to reduce car kilometres by 20 per cent by the end of this decade. Last week, we had a debate in Parliament about buses and the role of bus services. We have seen a big reduction in passenger journeys and the number of bus services over quite a long period of time. How confident are you that bus partnerships and the bus partnership fund will increase bus patronage across Scotland’s regions? How might those arrangements be improved?

Thank you.

Good morning to the panel. I want to pick up on transport. You will know that, in its inquiry report, the committee supported stronger regional transport partnership models to get a more joined-up and strategic approach to public transport and active travel at the regional level. The panel has talked a lot about alignment. That has been good to hear. What additional powers or resources do regional transport partnerships need to plan and deliver effective regional, public and active transport systems?

For clarification, is the £1 million community bus fund shared equally among the 32 local authorities, or do you all get a different share?

You have just reminded me that this is #lovemybus week. I believe that Mark Ruskell is promoting an event in Parliament this week. That is a reminder to colleagues.

I know that the deputy convener has questions on this topic, too. Carrots and sticks and behaviour change have been mentioned a couple of times. We have a big opportunity in that more people can access the national concessionary travel scheme—the free bus pass—including 22-year-olds and under, but we are also hearing about emerging bus deserts in some areas in Scotland where there are no or very few bus services.

To what extent is there a renewed appetite among people to use buses? Is there an appetite in our councils to get stuck in and run or operate municipal bus companies? We know about the powers in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 and the levers, but local government sometimes says to us that it does not have the funds or the capacity. Is there a willingness to do that, or is that just going to be too difficult?

It is lovely to be back at the committee. Thank you for all your work on the petition. That was an excellent panel. The evidence was very interesting and I have been taking copious notes. Ann Stark, the petitioner, and her husband, Gerry, are in the gallery today. I highlight Ann’s work in building research in Scotland and making connections with colleagues elsewhere.

On my reflections, convener, I was struck by our need to modernise, to keep pace and to address some of the future challenges. It was really interesting to hear the work that colleagues have been pioneering in the Lancashire region in England. Obviously, there are other examples down south. However, there is some really good practice there, and for us in Scotland—both the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government—there is a lot that I hope we can learn from.

It was interesting to hear from Ann Edwards that the service—which, as came across strongly, is being delivered in partnership with a number of different partners but working closely with communities—is cost neutral. That is an important point for all of us. Also, there is no cost to family members from having the scans undertaken.

On the workforce challenges for pathology and radiology, it feels to me like there is a framework that we can consider. If colleagues in the Scottish Government wanted to consider it, they might want to have a different approach. Clearly, there is a big role for a private contractor and the Scottish Government might want to consider something different.

We should remember why we are here. Richard Stark passed away almost four years ago. He was 25. That is no age at all. He was very loved by his family and it was only when Richard died that they started to realise and understand what can happen to each of us or to our loved ones when we die. There are big issues around bodily autonomy and choice. I heard colleagues say that families are all different and there can be challenges within families. However, the issue is not only having information but informed consent, choice and dignity.

Before I came in, I was looking on my phone at the petition that Ann Stark lodged. I think that there are about 570 signatures on it now. The number has gone up quite a lot in the past couple of days because there has been some publicity about the work that the committee is doing. The more that we have such conversations, the more people want to get involved. The point was well made that some families might not be that bothered and do not want to know but, for others, the situation will be deeply distressing. Therefore, it is important that we bring the matter into the light.

As members know, there are different aspects to Ann Stark’s petition. Today, the committee has rightly focused a lot on the experience of colleagues in England with the use of scanners. However, that reinforces to me the point that there are alternatives. Technology is advancing all the time. We have heard that not a lot of work is required to refine the skills of colleagues in radiology. We have a fantastic workforce across the UK, which gives me a lot of hope.

We could spend all day talking about the issues around human tissue and genetic testing that were brought out towards the end of the discussion. They are emotive issues and, if there are opportunities to inform other family members that they might be at heightened risk of a disease or condition, of course we want to get that information to them but, as the petitioner has always said, the approach needs to be proportionate. Routinely removing brains and doing fully invasive post mortems are not necessary.

As we have heard a number of times from colleagues, time is really important. It is the biggest resource that we have across the public sector. The teams that we have heard about today are dealing with the living and the deceased. They have incredibly important work to do and, if we can be more efficient and more people centred and can bring people’s human rights into the matter, we should.

I am here because my constituents Ann and Gerry, who are sitting behind me, have had a horrific experience. It is bad enough to lose a loved one and to lose a child, but I would not want any family to go through the trauma that they endured after Richard died. That is why I am glad that the committee has been diligent in the work that it has been doing.

The evidence session brought out some of the challenges. Of course, no one expects what the petitioner is asking for to be perfect and a panacea but it strikes me that, in Scotland, we have fallen a bit behind. Really good practice is happening in Lancashire in particular. We need to learn from that. I hope that the Scottish Government will take that on board.

Because Ann is persistent, which I always encourage, she wrote again to every MSP in the past few days and had a tremendous response. The matter resonates with colleagues because we all have constituents and families. It is really about our humanity. We want to be able to learn lessons and apply them to future medical practice and so on. The topic has been neglected in Scotland and the research is underdeveloped, but we now have good evidence and engagement with colleagues across the UK. I thank the committee for its time.

For clarity, is the Scottish Government for or against the Rosebank proposal?

As my final question, I again want to ask about Rosebank, as it is one of the biggest issues affecting energy and just transition at the moment. The issue is live and a decision is imminent. Is the Scottish Government in favour or opposed to the Rosebank proposal?

I will pass back to you, convener. Perhaps because I am remote today that position was not as clear to me as it is to others in the room, but I will listen back to the session carefully. Thank you.

I am grateful to Ragne Low for that update.

Cabinet secretary, you seem to be keen on progressing community wealth building through encouragement, which is fine, but we know that other countries have legislation in place. For example, Denmark’s promotion of energy act requires all new wind energy projects to be at least 20 per cent owned by local people. Would you be open to considering similar legislation for Scotland to mandate locally owned stakes in renewable projects?