Chamber and committees

Okay—I will leave it there.

Okay. Thank you. Do you see any potential issues with the possible market distortion that Murdo Fraser alluded to?

You have talked about working collaboratively and in partnership with organisations and agencies across the board. The fair work action plan contains a commitment to making fair work the norm, and there are clear metrics and issues that will be monitored as part of that. However, is there sufficient detail in the plan to allow you to make that connection between monitoring the metrics and taking action to create the change that is needed and to achieve that ambition or aim of halving the gap in the next 14 years? Sometimes data is collected, but it happens without any action alongside it to nudge or shift things or get the change that we need.

Good morning, minister, and thank you for being here. I want to follow on from Murdo Fraser’s question about potential unintended consequences. Do you see any unintended consequences from the regulations for consumers?

There are people who say that we just need to replace internal combustion engine vehicles with electric vehicles. If we look back more than 100 years, we see that, when the Victorians were looking at their transport system and wanted to get between places better, one of their answers was faster horses, but that works only up to a point. Along came the combustion engine, which changed everything. We know that, with technology and the right kinds of investment, we can do that.

Fergus Ewing: Will the member give way?

It is interesting, and perhaps serendipitous, that this debate follows the ministerial statement on low-emission zones. I was heartened to hear the cabinet secretary state very clearly in that statement and in response to questions that the primary purpose of LEZs is to improve public health. It was not all that long ago that many people could not see the links between our transport infrastructure and individual and community health and wellbeing.

As my colleague Ariane Burgess said in her opening remarks, we understand that a well-maintained road network is important for our economy and our communities, but on its own it is not enough. Our transport system also has an impact on physical and mental health, on access to culture and leisure facilities, and on access to education and work. It has an impact on so many different aspects of our lives—in fact, it has an impact on pretty much every aspect of our lives.

Just as we need to have a joined-up way of thinking, we need to take an integrated and coherent approach to transport. As has already been highlighted, we should be doing all that we can to change how we use our roads. If we reduce the amount of freight and commuting traffic on our roads by shifting goods and passengers to rail, we reduce the building and maintenance costs for our road network and our local authorities. Modal shift for people and for goods is vital. It is good for safety, it is good for climate emissions, and it is good for efficient and effective use of public money.

Modal shift will also mean that we do not simply replace polluting vehicles with electric vehicles. Private car use does not always meet people’s needs, and we know that we can catalyse shifts away from car use if we provide alternatives. We see that very clearly in other parts of the world.

Fergus Ewing rose—

Our transport system is also a key driver of inequality in our communities.

The Tories might not want to listen to this, but the issue is one that fundamentally affects their constituents as well as mine.

The transport system is also a key driver of inequalities in our communities. Those people who do not have access to cars need to have access to affordable—the Scottish Greens would say that it should be free—public transport. We should be investing in buses and trains, and I thank Alex Rowley for highlighting the bus partnership fund in his amendment.

People in the lowest-income group use bus services more than three times as often as people in the higher-income groups. According to the Equality Trust, the richest 10 per cent receive £977.4 million in transport subsidy, while the poorest 10 per cent receive just £296.7 million. Road building is a subsidy for wealthy, usually white men, who are the main beneficiaries of reducing journey times between cities, so we really need to think about what our transport infrastructure should be there to do and who it is for, and to prioritise public investment accordingly.

Some roads will be necessary, so we need to make them as safe as possible. We have heard much about safety already this afternoon, but I will reiterate one point. There is substantial evidence that shows that speed is the primary cause of accidents on our roads. If we reduce speed, we save lives, and dualling roads does not reduce speed.

Our constituents and our communities deserve sustainable transportation solutions that benefit everyone. We must take seriously our responsibilities to those for whom the current systems do not work, and we must also take seriously our responsibilities to future generations by leaving a transport infrastructure legacy that supports a greener, healthier and more connected future.

And “What next?”

Thanks very much.

Arun Chopra, in your opening comments, you set out what the Mental Welfare Commission does, and it is helpful to see it in that context. You have very clear evidence of where the accountability and implementation gaps are, yet you also say quite clearly that the bill may not be the right route to a remedy. In the work that the Mental Welfare Commission does, where are the challenges around those gaps of implementation and accountability?