³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Good morning to the panel. I am trying to get a sense of where the Government’s vision for buses is now. As Monica Lennon has just outlined, we can have municipally run services that are run in the public interest and owned by the public. We can have franchising in which regional transport partnerships and councils can control the provision of services in their areas or we can have the status quo, with bus services improvement partnerships trying to get fragmented services and fragmented public sector delivery working a little better. What is the Government’s vision? Which of those three approaches do you think is the way forward and which do you back?

That concerned pricing rather than the delivery model, which the fair fares review did not cover at all.

I will move on to the cabinet secretary’s announcement on climate change from a couple of weeks ago. As part of a package to reboot our action on climate change, a national programme of integrated ticketing was announced. It was, of course, announced previously—12 years ago—but it has not been delivered yet. That will probably need to be delivered on a regional basis and rolled out across Scotland. Which of the three transport partnerships that are mentioned in the statutory instrument will be the first to integrate ticketing in a pilot area and encourage people on to public transport?

I understand that there is already an element of integrated ticketing in Shetland, and Shetland is mentioned in the statutory instrument. Would it be possible to move fully towards integrated ticketing in Shetland, at least, and to support that delivery with a regional roll-out?

Thanks very much, convener. Sadly, I have the Climate Change Committee lurgy here at home.

I want to ask about the advice around the five-year carbon budgets and go back to the point that you made at the beginning of the session, Chris. What is the Climate Change Committee’s view on that? We have heard some criticism from Piers Forster about dropping the interim targets—2030 and 2040—but you have just said that moving towards a five-year carbon budget and away from the annual targets makes sense if the action is batched together into climate change plans and is backed up with strong advice from the Climate Change Committee.

Will you offer a bit of clarity as to your view on the interim targets, what happens to them and how they relate to the five-year budget?

When will you be able to issue that advice to both the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament? When we were setting targets in the 2019 act, we were perhaps not getting such formal, solid advice. If the Scottish Parliament were to legislate again on climate targets, we would need to have that cast-iron advice coming from the UK CCC in time to deal with that legislation.

We would expect that to come within the next climate plan. One of the criticisms that you made a number of years ago was that the previous climate plan did not have the numbers in it, so do you expect the next climate plan to have hard figures as to what each and every policy programme will deliver in the years to come?

I appreciate that and your points about needing to learn from the 2019 act and the process around setting targets in that regard.

You offered quite a few reflections on the early climate package that was announced last week around the intent to legislate and you have spoken at length about heat and the positivity around the heat in buildings programme and how that will get us on the right trajectory—not to meet the 2030 targets but certainly to meet the 2045 targets. Do you want to comment on any other elements of that package? You have already spoken about Grangemouth, for example. There is a commitment in the package to see a just transition plan for Mossmorran that will be early and involve workers. There has also been a commitment to finally roll out air departure tax. Do you want to reflect on anything else in that package as potentially signalling a change in Government policy or a welcome acceleration?

I want to ask about checks when things come the other way—from the EU to the UK—and whether that might change the dynamic a little bit. Scott—do you want to comment on that?

Fiona, you mentioned that your sector is a net importer. How do you see things panning out, once the checks are brought in?

I presume that for salmon and shellfish organisations there is less of an issue than there is for your colleagues who operate on the continent and import to the UK. However, that raises a question about how your sectors are working with your European compatriots, in the current political context, to affect EU regulations and to effect change.

Tavish, I am aware that the vast majority of salmon farms in Scotland are owned by Norwegian companies. Does the fact that Norway is in the European Economic Area give you an advantage in terms of being able to influence the European Union through that route? As a multinational industry, does that give you a voice beyond London?