���˿���

Thank you for that, Mick. I think that we all want to see improving industrial relations.

The deputy convener has talked about the importance of looking to the future. I am not sure whether Mick Hogg can still hear us, because his screen has frozen. I will keep going unless I am told otherwise.

That is good. Thinking about the deputy convener’s important point about the future, I know that Scotland’s four rail unions—the RMT, Unite, the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen and the Transport Salaried Staffs Association—have published the report, “A Vision for Scotland’s Railways”. I am interested in hearing what the other panel members think of that report, but first of all, will Mick Hogg clarify whether trade union representatives will sit on the new publicly owned ScotRail? Has that been confirmed?

Does Robert Samson or Michael Clark have any views on the vision for Scotland’s railways? After all, there are a lot of recommendations in the document.

I am grateful for those responses. You have given us food for thought. There are things that Government can do, but there is also clearly a lot that we can do as members of the public to put pressure on retailers.

I want to return to public transport. You made some important and good recommendations on that, and there are things that we can get on and do right now. Last week, we had a session with some of the children from the Children’s Parliament, and they made some points about making it easier to read and navigate timetables. That fits in with what you say about the Oyster card and making it easier to use public transport. I think that we would all agree with that.

Joan Lawson talked earlier about people on lower incomes and people who just miss out on benefits. In that context, what are your ideas about making public transport as affordable and accessible as possible for as many people as possible? The everyone aboard campaign is trying to extend the national concessionary scheme to people aged 26 and under and people who are on low incomes and on benefits. However, when there is a line in the sand, there is always someone who misses out. What model could we use or work towards to ensure that people are not priced out of public transport?

Good morning, everyone. I agree with our deputy convener, Fiona Hyslop, that the work that you are doing is fantastic and we hope to have on-going engagement and dialogue with you. Your challenge to us, as parliamentarians, and to the Government is so important.

I also agree with the points that have been made about the contribution that the children have made. They are fantastic. I have been out and about locally, speaking to schools, and I think that children really get that this is about not only climate justice but social justice.

I was interested in the comments that Ellie Clarke and Lewis Elliott made about food. I know from speaking to young people when I do school visits that they are active in collecting food donations for local food banks and charities. They are aware of poverty, including food poverty, and of the amount of food that is wasted, even in their schools, and they feel frustrated by that.

How does the assembly believe that we can better address that? Other parts of the world have legislation that tries to ban food waste and contains quite serious measures. Is there more that we can do to reduce food waste in Scotland?

I am watching the time and the convener’s eye, but I have another question related to that. We want to make it more affordable to use public transport, but, in my community and across many parts of Scotland, the service just does not exist—bus routes have gone and it is not easy to use public transport. How can we ensure that we have good public transport across the country, particularly in rural and island communities?

Thank you, Susie, and thank you, Ellie, for being so honest and being a very strong advocate for active travel and public transport. Please do not apologise or apportion blame to yourself for moving to a rural area. We need to hear the voice of rural Scotland, too.

Good morning. Minister, we all acknowledge that you were appointed to your post only last month. It must be challenging to take on a brand new brief, so I think that we all want to cheer you on in that, because the issues that you are grappling with are so important.

However, it is apparent to me, and possibly to others that—based on the questions that we have asked you this week and last week and your letter to the committee—you are struggling to give us some basic answers and are relying on your officials, who are, I appreciate, working hard behind the scenes. It is really important that we get this right. There is a cost of living crisis, and although the public in Scotland absolutely get that we have a climate emergency, they want to be taken on a journey that is fair and just.

The Scottish Trades Union Congress represents more than half a million workers in Scotland and, in the past week or so, it has said that Scotland’s public transport is not up to scratch. It is very concerned about the cost of living crisis and believes that the workplace parking levy will penalise workers. Those are the genuine concerns of trade unions, which want climate change action to happen and better public transport. What discussions have you had directly with the STUC, in your new position, about its concerns? What reassurance can you give workers today that the workplace parking levy will not push them further into poverty, amid a deep cost of living crisis?

We need to have this discussion in the context of the pandemic, Covid recovery and the cost of living crisis, and we must show that the Parliament and the Government are listening to the people who will be directly affected. For me, the starting point is the workers who the levy is aimed at. We do not know how many workers would pick up the cost, but we can see that business is also very concerned.

Graham Simpson has been very honest in saying that he is opposed to the levy no matter what. I would like to get to a place where I could support a workplace parking levy in the future, but I agree that, as has been said, we have to be able to demonstrate that public transport is affordable, accessible and safe for everyone who needs to use it. I am concerned that discussions have not been taking place in recent weeks with the STUC and workers on the front line.

I do not agree that the decision today is a judgment on the ability of local government to make good choices for local communities.

I believe that we should be trying to take action in this Parliament that does not exacerbate inequality, so we should take a rights-based approach.

On the points that have been made about exemptions, it would be unfair if police officers in Glasgow were exempt but police officers in Edinburgh were not. There are some basic things that we should get right at a national level. I wonder whether the Government should reflect on that and set guidance nationally so that some broad principles are agreed. That would help local authorities in future if they think about delivering such a scheme.

I have some trouble with the discussion about modelling. My understanding is that modelling is about looking at events, including ones that have not happened yet, and at different scenarios. For me, the Scottish Government should have looked at the Scottish context, including the policies and infrastructure that we already have, and done some modelling to examine behaviour change.

I think that we are focusing too much on the Nottingham experience—Nottingham is a city that I know very well through family connections—but I would like to know more about what analysis has been done of possible scenarios in Scotland.

We have to recognise that bus fares and train fares are rising, that cycling infrastructure is not good enough, that people—particularly women—do not feel safe walking through the streets to work. The National Union of Students will, in 50 minutes’ time, arrive at Parliament to stage a protest about the poverty that students face, and it has also raised concerns about the workplace parking levy. It would be remiss of us as legislators and parliamentarians to turn our faces away when people express those concerns and simply say, “Well, that legislation was passed a couple of years ago.” We have to take responsibility now.

I agree with the motion to annul the instrument. We should take time to try to get this right. All the discussions that we have had around the climate emergency and what should happen after the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—have shown that people want a just transition and bold action, but that they do not want those who have done the least to cause climate change to bear the burden.

One of the things that came up during COP26 that sticks in my mind concerns Prestwick airport, which the Government owns. People can fly into that airport on their private jets for business meetings and park there for free, but we are potentially asking low-wage workers and people on the minimum wage and zero-hours contracts to pay to park at work, and we cannot give them straight answers in that regard.

Those are some of the inequalities that I would like to be addressed, so I will support the motion to annul the instrument.

Will Mark Ruskell give way on that point?