 Rwy'n meddwl i'r next item of business, which is a debate on motion 15243, in the name of Michael Matheson, on ultra-low-emission vehicles. I would invite all members who wish to speak in this debate to press their request to speak buttons as soon as possible. I call on Michael Matheson to speak to and move the motion in his name. In 2017, we announced our commitment to phase out the need for petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2032. Since then, we have seen huge shifts in the electric vehicle market, alongside new commitments to decarbonising transport, both from within the automotive industry and by the international community. By way of example, the number of EV models available is set to jump from 155 at the end of 2017 to 289 by 2022. Car manufacturers, such as Nissan and Volvo, anticipate that 50 per cent of all their sales will be of EV by 2025. Countries such as India, Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands and Ireland are proposing to ban sales of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030. The UK Parliament's Business, Energy and Industry Committee recommended that the UK Government bring its ambition for ultra-low-emission vehicles in line with Scotland's. Once again, we have shown that this administration's leadership on climate change and low-carbon technology is giving Scotland the competitive and comparative advantages that are needed to respond to today's global challenges and opportunities. Our commitment was also an important step in creating certainty for business during a period of unprecedented uncertainty and change. The Scottish Government's climate change targets, our energy strategy targets and our commitment to remove the need for new diesel and petrol cars and vans by 2032 all provide companies with a clear direction of travel. They show that Scotland is committed to pioneering a low-carbon future and, as a result, they mark Scotland out as a centre for low-carbon investment. What progress are we making on our 2032 commitment? I am pleased to say that we are fast approaching the installation of charging point 1,000 on the Charging Places Scotland network. That is an important milestone, meaning that the average distance from any given location to the nearest public charging point is just 2.78 miles in Scotland, the lowest in Great Britain, where the average is 4.09 miles. That reflects our commitment to bringing robust, reliable electric vehicle charging to people and places across Scotland. We are providing more funding than ever before to expand the number of low-emission vehicles on our roads through our switch on fleet and low-carbon transport loan. The latest SMMT figures show that 4.6 per cent of cars newly registered in Scotland so far in 2018 were low-carbon. There has also been a 46 per cent growth in registrations of ultra-low-emission cars in Scotland over the past year. That is 13 per cent—percentage points—higher than the rest of the UK. I am very grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way. As the owner myself of a hybrid vehicle in everyday use, I applaud the direction of travel, if I can use that pun, from the Scottish Government. I am also the owner of a classic car. I wonder if the cabinet secretary can give us a reassurance that the owners of classic and historic vehicles that require to run on petrol and diesel will still be able to use those after 2030. There is no plan to ban petrol or diesel vehicles, but he may have some difficulty in getting into some of the low-emission zones in our big cities in Scotland once they are introduced in his classic car. In the past year, we have supported orders for over 380 ULEVs across Scotland's local authorities and a further 120 in public sector fleets. We are also working closely with the emergency services to increase the number of ULEVs in their fleet, with plans to replace over 150 police fire and ambulance vehicles with ULEVs within the next 12 months. Those investments along with further planned support will more than double the number of ULEVs that we have supported in the public fleet to date. I am pleased to confirm that orders for the first fully electric vehicles in the Government car service have been approved and will enter service later this year. While our support has undoubtedly facilitated those successes, those achievements are a result of ambitious and partnership between local authorities, Scotland's public sector and the Scottish business community. Dundee has recently been named as Europe's most visionary city at the World Electric Vehicle Association conference in Japan. I am sure that the Parliament will want to join me in congratulating the city council, businesses and residents for their vision and determination to make it happen. I am more happy to give way to John Mason. John Mason. I thank the minister very much for giving way. He has mentioned electricity quite a few times. Does he think that there is a place for hydrogen in this mix? If the member bears with me, I will get to hydrogen because I believe that it has an important element to play. This year, we will expand the scope and ambition of our work so that Scotland is at the forefront of growth in the ULEV market. Our business community and workforce benefit from the opportunities that growth presents. Currently, transport accounts for some 37 per cent of Scotland's emissions. In 2016, road transport was responsible for 68 per cent of transport emissions. Those figures frame the challenge that we face. The need for focused action is clear, as is Scotland's potential to become an innovation centre in low-carbon transport. Scotland has one of the most highly-qualified working-age populations in Europe. We have more world-class universities per capita than almost any other country. It is my ambition to build on those qualities to support low-carbon transport. To do that, we must take a lead in key technologies of the future and do so in a way that benefits all of society. Scotland must be an investor and producer of the innovations that will shape the future, not just a consumer. In addition to Scotland's considerable expertise in areas such as battery technology, power engineering and manufacturing of buses and specialised vehicles, there is also enormous economic potential from the use of hydrogen as a low-carbon fuel in transport. We can build on existing projects in place such as Aberdeen, Fife, Orkney and Dundee to develop products, services, skills and expertise in hydrogen transport to benefit our economy and provide value to the wider world. I thank the cabinet secretary for giving way. I wonder if there is a risk in over-focusing on the types of locomotion, whether it is hydrogen or electric, at the exclusion of automation. The combined impact of automation and electric vehicles could have a transformative impact on our transport. Does that need to be taken into consideration? The member raises an important point. It has to be taken into consideration. However, the timeline for progress in some of those areas is different. That is why we need to take action now to make sure that we are putting the right infrastructure in place in order to make the best use that we can of those new and emerging technologies, while at the same time adapting to new technology as it progresses, particularly in the cav market, which I have no doubt in the years ahead will continue to develop at a very rapid rate. We must ensure that the increased demand on Scotland's electricity network is managed effectively and that networks are suitably equipped to support our mobility agenda. As we are working closely with network operators and other partners to understand the impact of VV uptake and to identify how innovation and smarter management of that can help to reduce the need for upgrades and the associated costs and disruption. That means that harnessing the opportunity that vehicles to grid, smart charging and grid technology can make and reduce the need for investment in the networks. However, new investment, including from the electricity network companies in Scotland, will be required to meet and manage the additional demands arising from the expansion of home and workplace charging. Scotland is well placed to suitably meet increased demand for electricity. We have a global reputation for renewable energy and an increasing uptake of EVs offers the opportunity to exploit more of our renewable energy resources. That is why we see economic as well as environmental benefits in making Scotland a nearly adopter of electric and low-emission vehicles. It is vital that we explore and understand how shifts in mobility will affect Scotland's workplace and skill base and take advantage of those shifts now. Work is already on going through the energy skills partnership and supported by Transport Scotland is linking up with business and automotive industry to create training opportunities for their staff. We recognise that this rapid period of innovation and change also presents real-world challenges. We will continue to work closely with our stakeholders to explore those and I am certain that Scotland's collective ingenuity will enable us to create opportunities for them. Alongside making progress on auto-low-emission vehicles, we also continue to take bold action across different modes of transport. We are helping bus operators to invest in new green buses to reduce carbon emissions and to improve the offer to passengers. We are introducing an improved bus services operators grant, the low-carbon vehicle initiative, from 1 April 2019. We will bring forward a new green bus fund with funding weighted towards the lowest-emitting buses. Investment in our railways will continue to be a priority for this Government, and the popularity of rail is expected to increase even further. As we prefer for the next rail investment cycle, we have a specific focus on low or zero-carbon hybrid electric battery trains and hydrogen fuel cell powered trains to complement the revolution in rail and the low-carbon electric traction. Transport Scotland and Scottish Enterprise have also been supporting the successive phases of Hi-C's hydrogen ferry project. The groundbreaking project is aimed at delivering the world's first sea-going vehicle ferry, powered by hydrogen, produced using locally generated renewable electricity. Autonomous vehicles, sharing and platform-based mobility services have the potential to revolutionise mobility partners' patterns with implications across private and public transport. The recent announcement of Scotland's first autonomous vehicle trial on the fourth road bridge demonstrates our commitment to understanding what those shifts will mean in practice. The automotive industry and the energy sector are dealing with considerable change, stemming from technological, environmental and consumer trends. We are responding positively to that change. Working with partners to ensure that the transition to a low-carbon economy is as smooth as possible and benefits the people of Scotland. I look forward to hearing the views of members across the chamber and to continue to make progress with this ambitious and exciting agenda. I move the motion in my name. Thank you very much. I now call Jamie Greene to speak to and move the amendment in his name. There is no better way to kickstart the new year by having a discussion around an issue that will affect not just this generation but future generations to come and that of climate change. Those benches will be supporting the Government's motion today, because I think that it would be childish to suggest that there has been no progress made on ultra-low-emission vehicles in Scotland. All parties in the chamber should absolutely unite in supporting this and any Government who moves towards a reduced-carbon transport network. However, our amendment, whilst acknowledging those efforts, recognises that there is still a lot of work to be done specifically around our remote rural and island communities, where there is still much worry about the move. I will touch on that in more detail, but I would like to to summarise some of the key points up front about some of the obstacles that are facing in terms of opening up the opportunity. There are issues that we cannot ignore, and we should listen to those concerns. The standardisation of charging points, location and quantity of charging points. The cabinet secretary made a lot of comments on the quantity, but people still have range anxiety in terms of acquisition of those new vehicles and where they think they can and will take them. Ultimately, it comes down to consumer choice as well. The range of vehicles available to you that will meet your needs of you, your family, your business and, of course, your personal choice. Those benches are fully committed to our climate obligations. Our recent environment and climate change paper set out a number of ideas and measures that we would like to introduce to encourage the take-up and growth of ownership of electric vehicles. I am happy to share some of those with the cabinet secretary. We have ideas around incentives such as free parking or use of specific lanes, the establishment of specific funds to help rural communities and the further availability of charging points at train stations, especially around railway car parks. A mandatory consideration of electric vehicles and all future procurement plans, specifically procurement plans of public bodies, where they will be purchasing large volumes of vehicles for their use. I am happy to share that. It may be incumbent on us as society's highest earners and representatives to lead the way in our choice of vehicles. We may go down the route of hybrid and electric first and show that we mean it. Jamie Greene Absolutely. The problem that I have with that, I can tell the member, is that, with the amount of miles and distances that we do, as many others do in their day-to-day lives, there simply are not any charging points near where the places that I need to be are. If that is a worry to us, then it is a bit of a worry to people outside of this chamber as well. That is an important point. I touched on it briefly, but range anxiety is an issue for people. The idea that you can travel hundreds of miles and have time to find a charging point is putting people off changing their vehicles. I think that there needs to be an appropriate number of charging points but also some standardisation on the technology that those charging points provide. If you run out of power in a rural part of Scotland, what happens if you find yourself in an area without phone coverage to seek for help? It is not just about making the points available and increasing the amount of points in a welcome any increases, but, as it currently stands, certain charging points are only available for certain types of vehicles, for example. 1,000 charging points, while there are 3 million cars in Scotland, there are more than 1,000 petrol stations. We could see a scenario where people are queuing. Anecdotal evidence from other places that have done this, I have seen people queuing for up to four hours to get their car into the charging point. Even if the charging speed is increasing and getting better as technology improves, there is still a severe lack of space. We can set an example, and we should set examples, but the infrastructure also needs to be there. Ultra-low-mission vehicles will help us to achieve our ambitions, but the reality is that electric vehicles are currently accounting for less than 1 per cent of Scotland's nearly 3 million cars. Statistics recently released by Transport Scotland found that only 0.7 per cent of people said that they currently owned a vehicle, and only 40 per cent said that they would consider owning an electric vehicle. That 40 per cent is up, but it is still not enough. Considering that they might own one is not the same as going out and buying one. If we are going to meet our 2032 targets at the current rate, only 27 per cent of new car sales will be electric by 2030. That is nowhere near the target that is currently in place. As I said, it is about creating that culture and the infrastructure that is needed to make it easier for businesses, families and commuters like us to make that right choice. As the RAC Foundation said, we need to find the right charger at the right location with the right tariff scheme. Even then, it needs to be serviceable and not already in use by somebody else. There is welcome progress. The A9 electric highway is something that we should give credit to the Government for. It is a good idea, but it is just one road. I recall when I started on my transport brief asking some simple questions of the Government about how much future proofing has gone into some of the recent infrastructure projects that we have seen on the M8, the M73, the M74 and the AWPR. The very simple and short answer that I got back from my parliamentary question was that those motorways, although welcome, were not really future proofed for new ways and means of driving, whether that is automation or charging electric cars. I think genuinely that future proofing, road and infrastructure, needs to lie at the heart of future projects. It perhaps is too little too late in some parts already. We will support the Government in its efforts to encourage more people to take up electric vehicles, but more progress is needed. We need steps taken to increase charging points, specifically in remote and rural areas. We need to tackle the range of anxiety that I mentioned. We need to incentivise adequately and appropriately the take-up of electric vehicles. There are a whole manner of ways that we can do that. We also need a change in procurement strategy so that the public sector is leading the way at the heart of its purchase decisions. We should also provide adequate transition support for buses and taxis and encourage car sharing. We support this debate today, and we will support all of the amendments that have been proposed that are very constructive. I am looking forward to hearing some of the other members speak today, but our support comes with a very timely warning that, if current progress is not matching the shared ambition that I think we all have, that needs to change. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you, and I call Colin Smyth to speak to and move the amendment in his name. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Transport accounts for almost two-thirds of Scotland's greenhouse gas emissions, with road transport responsible for almost three quarters of that. If we are to meet our targets to reduce emissions, we need to transform our transport system, and switching to ultra-low-emission vehicles has a role to play in that transformation. However, the issue is not just about meeting environmental targets. Air pollution is a public health emergency. It is responsible for tens of thousands of early deaths each year across the UK. Poor air quality increases the risk of stroke and heart failure, and it causes and exasperates an ever-growing list of conditions such as type 2 diabetes, asthma, bronchitis and atrial ffibrillation. From low birth weight to dementia in old age, air pollution impacts on our health throughout our lives, but it has a disproportionate effect on the health of children and of older adults. It contributes to Scotland's shameful record on health inequalities, with deprived urban communities often experiencing the highest rates of air pollution. Reducing air pollution is a public health necessity, as well as an environmental one. Supporting the use of ultra-low-emission vehicles is an important part of that. Despite an increase in electric and hybrid cars in recent years, which is welcome, financial and practical barriers mean that they still make up less than 1 per cent of road vehicles in Scotland. The Scottish Government's overarching aim to increase the number and phase out the need for new petrol and diesel cars by 2032 is very welcome, but so far we have not had a comprehensive long-term plan from the Scottish Government incorporating all the incentives, infrastructure and technological developments that will be required to meet that aim. As a result, there remains a significant barrier to overcome. Recent research by the AI found that just 31 per cent of people want to own an electric vehicle, and crucially more than two quarters state that they are too expensive for them. We need to learn lessons from countries such as Norway, where ultra-low-emission vehicles now make up more than half of all new cars' purchase, partly due to a range of measures and incentives that have almost wiped up the differences in costs between different vehicles. We should ensure that incentives do not simply benefit those who can already afford a ULEV. More infrastructure investment is also required, not just in the number of public charging points whose growth has not kept up with the rise in the number of electric cars but also in new and innovative technologies. Last year, in Sweden, the world's first electrified road opened, which recharges the batteries of electric vehicles as they drive. Looking ahead, the tracked electric vehicle project proposes a new type of electrically-powered highway for electric vehicles with autonomous driving capabilities. Across the world, exciting and transformative work is taking place in Scotland must be at the forefront of that. It is not just about electric vehicles. As the Labour amendment highlights and other speakers have mentioned today, we need to consider how we can better support hydrogen-powered vehicles. Hydrogen-based systems are at the heart of the development of greener ferries, and my colleague Lewis Macdonald will highlight later how we have seen hydrogen-powered buses rolled out in the north-east of Scotland. Just yesterday, Alstom and Evershaw rail group revealed plans to introduce hydrogen-powered trains to the UK with the first expected to be on the tracks as early as 2022. That raises the fact that a holistic approach is needed to reduce emissions from transport that not only covers the use of ULEV cars but delivers a model shift towards the use of public transport, in particular environmentally friendly public transport vehicles. It was once said that a developed country is not a place where the poor have cars, it is where the rich use public transport. For far too many people across Scotland, public transport, particularly in many of our rural areas, is just not a feasible option. We can see that in the plummeting bus usage figures. The annual number of bus passenger journeys in the year is now 22 per cent lower than it was when this Government came to power. That is 107 million fewer journeys a year, yet bus fares have risen by 47 per cent in the last decade. Increasing use of ULEV cars, desirable as that is, will not reverse that decline, or indeed it will not reduce congestion, but supporting more measures to promote, for example, bus priority would reduce congestion. It is not just on our buses when we need to see public transport improvements. As I have already discussed today, performance in Scotland's real network is less punctual and less reliable than it has been for more than a decade. It fares have gone up by 35 per cent in the past 10 years. Rates of active travel, which is the ultimate form of healthy and environmentally friendly travel, remain too low. The recent increase in spending on active travel is welcome, but it is important to ensure that the benefits of this investment are widely shared. Disadvantaged communities in rural areas cannot be left behind. Roger Geffin, the policy director of Cycling UK, noted that UK cycling conditions still, and I quote, disproportionately deter young people, older people, women and people with disabilities from cycling. We cannot expect car usage to reduce without delivering improvements to the alternatives. In concluding, expanding the use of ULEVs in Scotland is a positive aim. I welcome the progress that has been made in recent years, and Labour will be supporting the Government's motion today, but we will also be supporting all the amendments that have been tabled, given the focus on the need to build on that progress. Usage of ULEVs remains below where it has to be if we are to meet our ambition on the issue. The Scottish Government needs to provide a long-term plan, setting out in detail the measures that will be taken to deliver its target that the need for new petrol and diesel cars will be obsolete by 2032. Beyond that, we must develop a more sustainable, integrated and affordable transport system in which public transport and active travel are realistic alternatives to the use of the car. Presiding Officer, I therefore move the amendment in my name. Thank you very much, and I call on John Finnie to speak to and move the amendment in his name. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I do move that amendment in my name. I commend the Government motion, in which it talks about an unprecedented period, and it most certainly is an unprecedented period. I suspect that we are talking about slightly different things, and it is the climate change that is the global challenge that presents for us that we need to consider as well as the many commendable things that are mentioned here. The climate bill, as it stands, and draft, is insufficient as far as the Scottish Green Party is concerned. We need a climate emergency bill. The net zero emissions by 2040 boost to 2030 targets and introduce a range of policies to make sure that changes are not put off in the next decade. Also, in those radical policies—some of them have been alluded to by the previous speaker, Colin Smyth—it is about an attitude. The transport policy seems fixated on road building. Another announcement yesterday, the Scottish Government proudly trumpeting £40 million on another new road. What happens is that you build roads and people drive on them. We spent £3.25 million completing the M8, which is already on every morning, and there is congestion on the M8. We need to take a different approach to things. A lot of what has been said seems presupposes more of the same, just a different mode of propulsion, while that is not going to work. It is to the Scottish Government to enjoy the support of all the opposition parties for their main road building programme, as they know that they do not enjoy our support for that. We consider many of them to be vanity projects and expenditure in my area of up to £60 million, which, in Transport Scotland's own figures, the trunk link road takes people between two points. 12 seconds quicker is an obscenity, and it is an obscenity that we look at. We also need to look at the whole system of inspecting, repairing and replacing, because the Scottish Government, with its commitment to all the massive funding of the trunk road network, although the road network is the responsibility of local authorities, the fabric of that is decaying, and we heard a report yesterday about that. That is where the inspection, repair and replace come in. The Scottish Green Party is not against expenditure on roads, but we would want to maintain our existing infrastructure before we consider anything else. Health has been alluded to by a number of the speakers, and air quality is very important. Thousands of people die every year as a result of air quality. I want to name three locations in relation to that. I want to mention Academy Street in Inverness, the town that I stay in, and the fact that the local authority is quite the reverse of discouraging private motor vehicles into that area. We are recently trying to encourage them in their mistaken bid to increase shopping fruit fall in the town centre, as they saw it. Scotland has a crying need for us to reduce the number of areas where air quality damages, particularly the old, particularly the informant, particularly the young people. I also want to mention air quality in the democratic republic of the Congo, because if some of you will be aware that the cobalt mining that is required—I am covered in an article today, indeed, by the daily record, and if I read an extract from that, I quote, "...enhelish dusty mines, children as young as 10 scraped fragments of cobalt from the dirt and into sack with their bare hands, inhaling poisonous and metallic particles." So we do need to change the system and we do not need to replace one system with another. I listened carefully to what the cabinet secretary said in relation to buses, and he made a number of very important points. I have got the details here of the money that has been expended in relation to that. He did not mention bus patronage, and if we are going to change, we need to get people on to buses. I know that there is a transport bill, but it is not ambitious. Some of us want to make it more ambitious. The challenge with bus travel that we heard repeatedly from all the witnesses coming to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee was that congestion is an issue. It holds up buses and, of course, there are mechanisms in place in the form of bus lanes, gates and priority light systems, but that affects people. People are not going to get a bus between places if they can walk quicker between them. The mode of propulsion is a factor, but it is not the way ahead. The new technology, and if I compare it, because without me being too parochial, the electric A9, how about the Highland main line, the railway line that runs right beside the A9? If you compare the £3 billion expenditure that is expected to be put in place in respect of that and another £3 billion across the A96, compare that with the fact that we are going to have diesel locomotives with a 30-40-year lifespan, and I am all in favour of reusing and repairing, but it is not like with like. In the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, we are sick of me talking about rail, but the reality of the situation is that 25.3 per cent of the rail network in Scotland is electrified. That is really good. No per cent of the Highland main line is electrified, with no plans so to do. Of course, the benefit of electrification that applies in relation to road travel applies equally in relation to rail travel. I want to touch briefly on the automotive industry, because it is clearly a very powerful lobby. I am one of the many people who feel quite let down because I thought that they were doing the right thing a number of years ago by buying a diesel vehicle and, in fact, possibly stole to buy a diesel vehicle only to be told they are a dirty polluter. There is an issue of confidence and confidence in what we are being told, and that will apply to some of the new technologies as well. Although I am not in any way technical and I hear what people say about hydrogen, we need to have a very clear evidence base for all future decisions. I will leave it there just now. Thank you. I can now call Liam McArthur to speak and move the amendment I thank the transport secretary for bringing this motion, allowing us to start 2019 with this important debate. In the context of the recent lack of progress that we have seen in reducing emissions in the transport sector, the question of how we accelerate the take-up of ultra-low emission vehicles is taking on a greater significance, importance and urgency. I recognise and welcome many of the steps that have been taken and were laid out by the transport secretary earlier, as well as the proposals of where we go next, including the electric A9 and moves to create low-emissions zones in various cities across Scotland. I am slightly concerned that the Government's motion comes across as a little self-congratulatory and left unamended risks for sitting complacency, which in turn would see Scotland fail to achieve what we should be aspiring to achieve. Therefore, I think that it is encouraging that a range of amendments have been lodged by colleagues across all of the other parties that have passed would make, I think, a more meaningful statement of intent by this Parliament on an issue that, in Jamie Greene, reminded us rightly, commands strong cross-party support. I will address the proposal set out in my own amendment shortly, but before assessing what we need to be doing going forward, I think that it is perhaps reflecting for a moment on where things stand at present. Yes, progress has been made in terms of the take-up of electric and other low-emissions vehicles over recent years, supported by a welcome expansion of the Charge Point network. However, before we get carried away patting ourselves on the back, we should reflect on how that measures up in comparison to what has been happening elsewhere, particularly in Europe. The truth is that we compare favourably with very many, but fall well short of those who are leading the way to the Netherlands. As a prime example, in eight years, they have gone from 400 Charge Points to 18,500. In Scotland, we sit around as the transport secretary reminded us, touching on 1,000. Norway, Denmark, Switzerland and Austria are similarly ahead of the game. As for take-up of low-emissions vehicles, Norway has successfully gone from 1 per cent of the overall carpool in 2014 to 10 per cent by 2018, with more ambitious targets for the phasing out of diesel and petrol vehicles. Again, that shows what can be achieved with the right level of political ambition supported by a mix of legislation, policy and incentives. We need to scale up our ambitions. We need to do this to meet our environmental objectives. We need to do it to capture the economic opportunities. We need to do it to deliver the social and health benefits to, as Colin Smyth's amendment rightly points out. Air pollution is a killer. It contributes to around £40,000 premature deaths in the UK each year and costs the NHS billions. That is simply unacceptable. It is also unsustainable. Having criticised the self-congratulatory tone of the Government's motion, I am hesitant about reminding the chamber that Orkney continues to have the highest proportion of EVs of any community in Scotland. However, as the transport secretary will be aware from our recent meeting with representatives of the Orkney Renewal Energy Forum and Orkney Islands Council, there is unquestionably an ambition, a desire and a strategy for going much, much further. That illustrates perfectly the point that is made in today's motion about the leadership that is being shown by local authorities and other organisations, not just in Orkney but across the country. In Orkney, through the efforts of the council, OREF and others, we are seeing the focus now extending beyond merely an expansion in the take-up of low-emission cars and buses. Projects are well under way to develop the next generation of hydrogen-powered ferries, while discussions about low-emission alternatives on our lifeline air services are also taking place. Harnessing Orkney's abundant renewable resources to cutting-edge innovation will enable the islands to continue identifying solutions to the challenges that we face from climate change through to fuel poverty in turn. I have no doubt that those can have a wider relevance in application over time. To make all that happen, however, will require more flexible and a long-term approach to public funding. That is a point made during the recent meeting that the minister and I had with local Orkney stakeholders. So, too, were concerns about the way in which the current charge point network functions. I know that the transport secretary plans to review the current network, how it is used and how it might be made to operate more effectively. I very much welcome that as part of an exercise in making sure that we have the right chargers in the right place and funded in the right way. At present, a lack of public confidence in range and reliability continues to hold back efforts to encourage take-up of low-emission vehicles. Combatting those perceptions and building that confidence will require a charging network that is fit for purpose. We cannot just replace the petrol station model. We need to be more creative, reflecting current patterns of usage, including the extent of charging at home. We will also need to take into account the increased demand on our grid and establish smarter ways of meeting that demand. Whatever the charge point network looks like in future, however, reliability will be critical. For whatever reason, possibly poor back office systems, faults are not being properly logged and then tracked by charge place Scotland at present. Communication with users and even owners of the charge points is inadequate and remedial action is not taking place in a timely fashion. That is not good enough and undermines that public confidence. We must do better. The CPS contract is up for renegotiation in the near future and there is a perfect opportunity to get things right. I therefore urge the transport secretary to set up an expert panel, including user groups, such as EVA Scotland, ORF and others, with a practical interest in developing the service to help inform the process going forward to ensure the specifications for the next contract and to address the shortcomings of the current one. Finally, I urge the Scottish Government to work closely with UK counterparts to put in place a range of incentives that can stimulate take-up of ULEVs. That needs to involve creative use of the taxation system, as well as properly targeted grants. Those are the sorts of measures that can build public confidence, enabling Scotland to raise and realise our ambitions in an area in which we should aspire to not just be good but world-reading and move the amendment in my name. Thank you very much. I now turn to the open part of the debate. Members have five minutes to make their contribution. Julian Martin is to be followed by Edward Mountain. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and happy new year. Scotland has got one of some of the world's most ambitious targets when it comes to making our country a low-carbon economy. As a convener of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, it goes without saying how passionate I am about making sure that we meet those targets. However, as a rural MSP, I am equally as passionate that, in doing so, rural communities should not be disadvantaged and should always be at the heart of any just transition decisions. Quite simply, if rural communities are not included, we just will not get there. In the past decade, we have made huge strides towards the amount of ultra-low-emission vehicles on Scottish roads. We are looking at about 10,000 at the moment last year compared to 495 vehicles in 2011. I am one of the drivers that has made the leap, a driver key in Nero, one of the lowest-emissions hybrid vehicles that you can get in the market. However, my aim is to switch to fully electric once my lease is up and the charging infrastructure is in place in my rural community as part of the Government's investment in charging stations. It is the objective of the Scottish Government that, by 2032, into perpetual diesel cars and vans, will be phased out altogether. That is a laudable goal, but for those of us in the areas of Scotland that are ill-served by public transport, life of that car would be nigh on impossible. I have but one railway station in my constituency's largest town of Inverury, and that is 25 miles away from the second largest town, which does not have one or any of the other towns in my constituency. Roodle areas need greener options, and you should not have to live in a city to be part of the carbon reduction revolution. I very much wanted to be part of that revolution, my whole working life, but in the 10 years of commuting into Aberdeen with small children, babies in the back of my car, it was simply impossible for me to use public transport when I had to get to nurseways and childminders as well to Aberdeen College, and that was somebody who really wanted to do it. On October last year, I was in Iceland and speaking to the Environment Minister, Gumindor Grubransen, about his Government's decision to ban the registration of all new petrol and diesel cars from 2030, with a view to the country being electric only from 2050. A small independent country in Iceland can take all the legislative and policy steps that are necessary to make that, but it is still a really ambitious policy, brave decision that they have made. It is very ambitious, but it was not done carefully. It is potentially inequitable, particularly for low earners. To achieve a shared carbon emissions ambition, Governments have to ensure that they are financially possible for all motorists to move from petrol and diesel vehicles to ultra-low emissions if it is to work. Aberdeenshire East, the constituency that I represent is one where the public transport system is also very radial. The vast majority of buses head in towards the city of Aberdeen, but for someone commuting between towns of Elland, Tariff, Meldrum and Veruri, or Mum and Dad, dropping their kid off at nursery of the kids at school, they simply cannot wholly use public transport to do that. Those bus routes either do not exist or they have a skeleton timetable. Speaking to my son about this, he has recently moved to Edinburgh as a child who has had to use buses his entire teenage life, the Aberdeenshire bus. One of the best things about studying Edinburgh, he says, is the buses. It has been part of their life. There have been unreliable buses in Aberdeenshire messing up their day. When I first got elected, that seemed to be the major case lot that I used to get from him and his friends about the buses. Moving on to my nearest city, the Scottish Government has committed to making Aberdeen one of the four low-emission zones in Scotland. The proximity of the harbour to the city centre often means that there are freight lorries that account for a percentage of the city's traffic, and those often cause the most emissions. It is also hoped that a new Aberdeen western peripheral route will also ease that congestion massively, moving the majority of heavy vehicles out of the city altogether. Cabinet Secretary, we are pleased to hear that we have already seen the benefits of that, not having to sit in traffic in a city that you do not even want to go to to get from two rural locations north and south of Aberdeen. It is not just a case of improving your journey time, but also making a big difference to the emissions as well. In Aberdeen city, of course, we have also got hydrogen buses that have been in use for a number of years. On the last year, a new hydrogen refuelling station was open to the public, which allowed for the refuelling of cars and for vans, as well as trucks and buses. We know that transport contributes to more than a quarter of Scotland's greenhouse gas emissions, with the road sector accounting for the largest proportion of those. Cars, lorries, vans, buses and motorcycles in 2015 alone emitted 9.6 megatons of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere. We need to tackle that. Like Iceland, the topography of our country means that we cannot live without cars. Low-emission vehicles are the future for communities such as mine. If we achieve our goals, they must be affordable to all motorists. I look forward to seeing how we as a nation will be a leader in that regard and can sign carbon-emitting cars for commuting to history. Thank you. I call Edward Mountain to be full by George Adam. Thank you, Presiding Officer. First of all, I would like to refer members to my register of interest, specifically farming. The way that the world is travelling is changing. The wheel has not been reinvented, and the engine that powers the wheel has been the thing that is being reinvented. There is a general switch over from petrol and diesel to electric vehicles. Sadly, that is only in its infancy, but there is an area of inevitability about the scale of this change and how it will increase. Is there any right that the Government prepare the way to ensure that our road networks are fully up to speed? That is why I cautiously welcome the Scottish Government's plan to add the extra 1,500 electric charge points across Scotland. It is a start, but is it enough? I think that the answer is no, especially in rural areas. The Scottish Conservatives have set out the need to increase charge points in our small towns and rural areas where long journeys have become and are the norm. Without the right infrastructure, increasing the number of electric cars on our roads use will continue too slowly, and we need to stop that. Reports have shown that, while 41 per cent of people will consider buying an electric car, there are less than 1 per cent that own an electric car. That is a huge gap, and that is what we all have to address. In rural areas, car drivers feel that they cannot use an electric car to do the school run, or to get to work, or to make a hospital appointment. I am afraid that they will stick with petrol and diesel. It is as simple as that, because there are a few other options. We should not just be focusing on car users either. Small businesses face the same problem. They need vans and lorries to get their goods to the market, please. In the rural economy and connectivity committee, we heard evidence that it would take up to 38 vans to redistribute food from an articulated lorry. Thus, if there are not sufficient vans and electric ones at that, then we are going to continue to have lorries entering potentially some of the most pollutist areas of Scotland. We need to get on and move the industry and the haulage industry away from diesel. What is noticeable is that there has been, in my mind, a lack of support for small business, as well as farm business to transition to ultra-low-emission vehicles. We should not forget that farmers and other farm vehicles, which only make up 2 per cent of the vehicles on our roads, but that is around 58,000 vehicles of working day and night to put high-quality food on our plate. The farmers are reliant on cheaper red diesel to operate the full array of farm machinery to grow and to harvest food. I believe that the farming industry as a whole will require support to adapt to the process and timescale that the Scottish Government has set out. The Scottish Government needs to be working with industry leaders to find a way forward. It can be done, but it needs a concerted off effort. Today, we are seeing ourselves congratulate ourselves on setting a target, but it is the delivery of that target, which is going to be so important. We have a long way to go, there is much more to be done. What is important is that we as a Parliament take the lead in this, and we work together to try and reduce our emissions across Scotland. George Adam is with Claudia Beamish. For once, my previous employment is of some use in a debate in the Scottish Parliament. At that point, I would like to record for the record, because people very lazily say that I form a used car salesman. I never sold a used car in my life. My involvement was in corporate fleet, and at the time when I was involved in the industry, which was 11 years ago, 80 per cent of the market was made up of fleet and corporate, and only 20 per cent was made up of retail. It is unusual, because people expect to walk into a car showroom and buy a vehicle, but the thing that you have to look at is that the volume was in that 80 per cent, not the profit. The profit was in new poor guys turning up at a dealership and walking in and trying to get a car there. When you look at it from that perspective, one of the negatives that people constantly say about electric vehicles is the cost, how much they cost. My argument would be that, as someone who has worked in the industry, this is in the beholden of the manufacturers themselves. The manufacturers have the opportunity to discount the vehicle to such a way that they can get market share. They have done it in the past, and model share makes sure that they get models in certain ways. There is a responsibility to the manufacturers themselves when it comes to electric vehicles. The other problem that we have is one that has already been mentioned, which has been that of battery power itself. I think that the most popular car in the UK for electric vehicle is the Nissan Leaf. It has a 250-mile range, but we all know in reality that that is not necessarily the case, because it depends on your driving style, on the road you are on. It depends on what you are going through in the weather and how much power you have to use. I could probably struggle to get a vehicle from Paisley to Edinburgh and back in one charge. That is a problem from the start. I can only think of how that would affect someone living in a rural environment. One of the other issues that we have is that the battery is a technological one, and it is one that we could probably solve as the technology gets better. John Finnie quite rightly said that the component parts that are made up of these batteries are some of the problem. If we are looking for a sustainable future, it is those who control the batteries and control where they go that is going to control the market. Manufacturers have worked that out. Elon Musk is having a difficulty—yes, it is difficult—to start a company from zero to somewhere overnight with Tesla cars, but he is not actually delivered in any of the targets that he has said is a manufacturer. Now, he is probably getting more chance of reaching Mars with his other project than he has of reaching some of the car vehicle targets that he has made. In all honesty, that is what the motoring press would tell you. I just read yesterday the fact that Netherlands and Norway—Norway is the biggest market for Tesla in Europe—neitherlands nearly beat them, and there were just 100 cars shot because companies like the major rental companies bought 8,585 vehicles. Those are the kind of things. When I go back to the corporate ideal in the corporate world, that is what is going to make the difference. When we get the industry in the corporate world to think that way and look at those vehicles as a way for going forward. However, the Scottish Government cannot achieve that all on its own. It will need to work in collaboration with transport companies and industry and bus and haulage companies in particular. However, one of the interesting things that has happened is that it spoke to Craig Allen, who runs Paisley taxi companies, one of the traditional Hacney companies. He bought one of the new London Carbs, the electric ones. They are not called a London Carb company anymore because although they are traditionally the old Hacney cab, they have moved on. They are now called the London Electric Vehicle Company because they have seen the change. They are a major market where they supply. Legislation has changed so dramatically that they have had to change how they do and deal with their business. I use that as a perfect example of how legislation can make a difference in the future and how we can, in this place, dictate to those involved in the industry and manufacturers to change their ways. However, so much so, that the new TX was manufactured at a new facility in Anstrey, near Coventry, purpose-built with a £325 million investment. That is the biggest investment in a UK car plant in the past 10, 15 years. It shows you that, if we as legislators can make those changes, however small and however way we can do that. One of the other interesting things that I got in touch with some of the companies ironically, the ones that I used to work for and never got back to me, I do not know what that says. However, the one in particular that was quite interesting was Nissan in itself, because they actually talked about how they are a market leader, how they see, they are actually its Renault, Nissan and Mitsubishi Alliance, and they say that they have sold 490,000 EV vehicles worldwide. However, they said, in addition to that, as a leader in charging infrastructure, Nissan has more than 2,300 quick charge stations in Europe, which this number is predicted to increase to 5,500 by 2020. It shows you that companies are actually making that. They are moving that way as well. I think that it is a case of us making sure that we work with them and we work as legislators to do our job, and then we can actually make that. I do not see the problems that other colleagues say. I think that we can get that right, and I can almost guarantee that come the next round of cars that we are all buying, the vast majority of which are all buying electric vehicles. Thank you. Claudia Beamish will be followed by John Scott. Ultra-low emissions vehicles, as we are hearing this debate, are a really important part of a reimagined and progressive transport system for Scotland's future. Many of us consider environmentalism when taking our daily transport decisions, and many of us also enjoy a higher quality of life. Will we not be surrounded by diesel and petrol cars when making journeys or trying to enjoy the outdoors? A future, as such, where ULEVs are an accessible and affordable aspect of transport, combined with a far improved public transport and active travel provision, is a very positive one indeed. I just point out that I read yesterday that Luxembourg is actually making public transport free, so there is a thought. Scotland should be continuing to work across government, local authorities, energy and transport companies on the further development of all those innovative technologies. Is a car still modernity's icon of freedom? Ask Ludwig Hunter Tilney from the Financial Times. He's the pop music critic, actually. He reminds us of Chuck Berry singing Riding Along in My Automobile as the ultimate cool in 1956. He goes on, even when reality involves traffic jams and honking horns, driving has been made to seem liberating. Yeah, the Beatles chorus in Drive My Car. But things are changing culturally, as he points out. When radio DJ Jeremy Vine, a prominent cyclist, wants to abolish the term drive time radio, as he says that it celebrates a former transport that kills 1,700 people a year on the UK's roads. So, to truly move towards a transport system fit for the future, we need a full modal shift of our transport systems to step away from the saturation of cars and vans. There is still a massive improvement that this Government and Scotland has the power to make. Low-mission zones should be an important part of that delivery, but the opportunity has not yet really been realised with the first in Glasgow being renamed a no-ambition zone by Friends of the Earth Scotland, though more robust plans are being developed. Funding is still a concern. Just yesterday, I joined colleagues from Scottish Labour to demand that the ScotRail franchise be taken back into public ownership. We need to turn around this often chaotic service that we are paying for anyway. Instead of making it work, instead we should be making it work for passengers, our environment and for the working people on the railways. The chamber should also recognise the impact of delivery vehicles and the need for consolidation hubs with connected final mile arrangements. I welcome the briefing from UPS, which calls for the Government to support an innovative urban delivery system such as walking, cycling and delivery logistics. I would add small van low-emission vehicles. I would welcome comment on that from the minister. For too long air pollution, as we have heard from Colin Smith and other colleagues, has perhaps been considered a necessary evil to continue to enjoy the ease of diesel and petrol vehicles. The damage air pollution causes to our health communities, commuters and the more vulnerable, old and young is surely a strong motivating factor to move towards ULEVs. In 2014, pollutants in the air contributed to over 2,000 deaths, and there are schools within 150 metres of illegally polluted streets in Aberdeen and Edinburgh and Glasgow. In its 2018 progress report to Parliament, the UK Committee on Climate Change placed transport as the Government's biggest sectoral challenge. That transport emissions, even excluding international aviation and shipping, increased between 2015 and 2016, is a mockery. As the climate change spokesperson for my party, I can celebrate the target to phase out diesel and petrol cars by 2032, but there still needs to be a more strongly robust Scottish Government plan in our view. There has been much discussion about charging points infrastructure today and elsewhere, and we have a planning bill moving to stage 3. Should there be an obligation through the planning system for new-build housing, commercial and public buildings to have incorporated charging points with a lead in time? My thanks goes to Smart Energy GB for highlighting the role that a smarter electric grid could play in that. Whatever the fuel, congestion, our towns and cities is unpleasant and it is frustrating. For shorter journeys, the Government needs to make active and public transport the easiest and most attractive way. I want to say something very briefly about rural issues. While rural poverty can be hidden in small pockets, there are real difficulties for many in rural areas. I believe that there is a case to be made for interest-free loans, for low-income rural dwellers to get modern wheels where public transport will never go. John Scott is followed by Stuart Stevenson. I begin by declaring interests of the farmer and as a historic rural dweller and owner of a rural business. I also say that I welcome this debate today in ultra-low-emission vehicles. Certainly this debate is appropriately timed, being held only eight days after the introduction of Scotland's first low-emission zone in Glasgow on 31 December 2018, thereby delivering on the last day possible on the Scottish Government's commitment to introduce an LEZ in Glasgow in 2018. Without doubt, transport and the use of low-emission vehicles will have a very important part to play in keeping greenhouse gas emissions to amendment. While today's debate has largely focused on low-emission car use, it is important to note that emissions will need to reduce significantly from other modes of transport to make future climate change targets. In that context, we have to look at aircraft design, where technology is currently looking at and leading to the development of hybrid aeroplanes. We need to look at trains, where innovative thinking is developing the use of hydrogen as the next generation fuel of choice, with trains already in service in Europe using hydrogen as a fuel instead of diesel, where electrification is not an option. We also need to take a realistic look at shipping, particularly ferries, as it is mentioned by others, and also a huge producer of carbon. Without doubt, the potential for the use of hydrogen as a fuel on board ships is a growing opportunity as well. Turning now to low-emission vehicle use in Scotland, we have heard today that the Scottish Government is pinning its hopes on phasing out petrol and diesel car use in Scotland by 2032, which is only 13 years away. Certainly, that is an ambitious target, but the important point is that it is achievable. The answer to that question is that it is entirely a function of investment. The technology that largely exists to deliver on this 2032 target is a welcome fact, and we are not depending on future inventions to meet ambitious targets arbitrarily set. However, I am not certain that the scale of investment proposed thus far by the Scottish Government matches its ambitions. The cost of incentivising and delivering on the 2032 target will fall more and more on the Scottish tax payer, therefore. For most, at the moment, hybrid and electric cars are currently unaffordable. Although many would be happy to use electric and hybrid vehicles, most are not able to afford to do so. Of course, the Scottish Government may propose by legislation and punitive taxation to drive current vehicle types from our roads and encourage modal shift on to buses, trains and bicycles, but that will require a willingness to change from the people of Scotland that currently does not exist with electric vehicles, representing less than 1 per cent of ownership, as it has already discussed. Low-emission zones in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, and Indeed will be an early test on how the Scottish car driving public will react to low-emission zones and, by extension, the use of low-emission vehicles. Difficult, as the problem of either modal shift or affording electric cars will be for city or urban dwellers, it will be significantly more difficult for those living and working and running businesses in rural Scotland, as others have referred to. Bus usage is falling across much of urban Scotland—it is becoming almost non-existent in rural Scotland—a real problem, and Colin Smyth referred to that. Networks of electric vehicle charging points will be created reasonably enough in our towns and cities and on our busiest road routes. I welcome the start of electrifying the E9 before Christmas. I welcome to the Scottish Government's ambition to eliminate range anxiety for electric car users by 2022, and that will certainly be essential if ownership of electric or hybrid vehicles is to increase from its current very low ways. People will not switch to electric or hybrid vehicle use unless and until that reassurance is in place. If that happens by 2022, I will of course be delighted, but it will mean that, at that point, only 10 years will remain before the 2032 target is to be achieved. In conclusion, while we support—in principle, the Scottish Government has pushed towards the uptake of low-emission vehicles of all types—the people of Scotland will not expect to be seriously out of pocket, particularly rural Scotland, if they are expected to change their habits of a lifetime. The people of Scotland will need to be persuaded towards doing the right thing for the environment rather than coerced or bullied into a position that many currently do not adhere to. I must tell members that I am very tight with time, because with the statement to follow at 4.30, I call Stuart Stevenson to be followed by Lewis McDonnell, Mr Stevenson, please. Presiding Officer, I declare that I am the honorary president of the Scottish Association for Public Transport, the honorary vice president for the rail future of the UK. I listened with interest to George Adam on the subject of taxis. I recall six years ago, when I was across giving evidence to the Irish Parliament's rural committee, that I travelled back to airport in a Nissan Leaf electric vehicle. The driver told me that he could drive all round Dublin and do all his transport on a single charge. The technology team with us a while, and early adopters, he was actually given this taxi by Nissan to prove that it could do this. He was really enthusiastic because he got the car for nothing, but it was a good example. It is worth saying that the Tory amendment talks about standards for charging. I think that that is a proper thing to engage. I am just very uncertain as to whether we are yet ready to set what the standard is. There is DC charging, there is AC charging, there are nine different physical connections that we can make in different charging points. We have 150 kilowatt charging points that are coming in this year. We have 350 kilowatt charging points that will come in in about one year or 80 months. The standards are probably not stable enough for us to choose the winner. We can set a way forward, however, because we can have standard of physical connection. That would be helpful. We could have standard of the logical messages that travel between the charging station and the vehicle that is being charged. We could build in to a standard future proofing that means that it will accommodate future changes. It is time to do that. It is worth going back 100 years ago, when electricity to domestic premises and industrial premises—there were no standards—every electricity company had a different plug design. Some of them were DC, some of them were AC. They ran in different voltages and to different fusing standards. Some of them had no fuses in their systems at all. We are in that era that we now need to move out of. I suspect that I do not have time to forgive me. Claudia Beamish talked about planning and domestic houses. I know that my colleague Richard Lyle for some time has been banging on about, councils could do it now, could not make it a planning condition for new developments that they put in terminals. I think that that would be a good idea. Liam McArthur, I had not realised that Orkney had the greatest density of electric vehicles. I did look because of his amendment, and I saw that there were seven charging points in Kirkwall, so I was going to wind them up on that, but I now discovered that there is a perfectly good reason for that. I, of course, look forward to the Loganair islanders becoming electric aircraft in about three years' time. The new Audi e-tron is 408 brake horsepower. The islanders require 520 brake horsepower, so it is well within the compass of what is available and working now. When you put electric engines in the islanders, they will reduce the weight, so it would be easier to fly on them. By the way, the top speed of the islanders is about the same as the new Audi, which has over 200 mile range. A lot is happening in public transport in the central belt. We have new electric trains. Yesterday, my journey down to Parliament, I had an HST—loved it—down to Aberdeen on the Inverness to Aberdeen line. I'm still a classic. I'm not yet refurbished, but it's still super. A 170 down to Edinburgh, but a lot of those are HSTs, and a 385-year railways are absolutely super. They're not perfect everywhere, but my journey is by goodness—I wouldn't go back 10 years for anything. We're talking about ultra-low-emission vehicles. Nobody has mentioned ferries—we've got the first electric ferries. Oh, I beg your pardon. I saw it in the corner of my hand go up. Electric ferries, we're doing that. Nobody has mentioned electric bicycles, because getting more people on to electric-assisted bicycles would help people's exercise, but it's another way in which we might help things. Getting involved in transport is an almost instinctive thing. My first motorised transport was my pilot, which is known as a bogie or a kerte. We used to put the motor more in front of the toes around the back garden. It's amazing that we didn't kill anybody with the blades going. This is an excellent debate. I look forward to my next vehicle being an electric one in about two years' time. I hope that everybody else does the same. Thank you. I now call Lewis MacDonald. We follow about Angus MacDonald. Mr MacDonald, please. Thank you very much. It is scarcely 100 years since transport in the western world was revolutionised by the rise of the internal combustion engine, decisively replacing horse power for the first time in history. Now, according to insiders quoted by the Financial Times at the end of December, we may have reached another milestone, the point at which global demand for vehicles powered by internal combustion engines will begin to go down. Predictions even a year ago were that the era of petrol and diesel would come to an end in the foreseeable future, but that demand for internal combustion vehicles would probably not peak until the 2020s. Experts now believe that the year of peak demand may, in fact, have been the year that just ended in 2018. Just as the rise of the internal combustion engine reached a point when that became unstoppable, so the rise of alternatives to the internal combustion engine will also reach a tipping point, and that already is not far away. Action to support electric vehicles is welcome, but it would be a mistake to put all our low-emission eggs in a single electricity basket. While an infrastructure for charging electric cars is important, a different approach will be required to tackle the largest and most polluting internal combustion engines. Those include diesel-fuelled buses and trucks and diesel locomotives on our railways. There is increasing evidence that the most efficient way to phase out those vehicles here and around the world will be by developing hydrogen as the low-emission fuel of choice in public transport and freight. On a global scale, Japan leads the way. The local authority in Fukushima, for example, is building a new hydrogen production plant on a site originally zoned for a new nuclear power station. The fuel source in that case is electricity generated from solar panels, while Japan is also pioneering the production of hydrogen from human waste. One expert reckons that biogas extracted from sewage sludge could power nearly 2 million hydrogen fuel cell vehicles across Japan in the near future. The athletes village for the 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Games will be powered by hydrogen from Fukushima. For the first time, hydrogen will be the fuel of the Olympic torch itself. What the Japanese Government and business want now is to promote global collaboration in order to grow hydrogen technology while cutting costs. That is where Scotland could and should come in. The cabinet secretary has referred to Aberdeen, which has built up the largest fleet of hydrogen-powered buses in Europe with Scottish Government support. The vehicles that are owned by the City Council are operated by First Aberdeen and Stagecoach alongside conventional diesel fuel buses. Hydrogen buses require a hydrogen fuel point, which the council provides at Kitty Brewster, which has already been mentioned. That fuel point, in turn, has allowed the use of hydrogen to fuel cars and vans, too. The next stage could be hydrogen production, fuelled by renewable electricity generation. Major new offshore wind farms, such as Aberdeen Bay, will generate more power at some times than the grid can use. Like solar power and biogas in Japan, offshore wind in Scotland can be the feedstock for hydrogen production to fuel buses and trucks and much else beside. Those developments will need willing partners, hydrogen technology companies, renewable energy generators, local authorities such as Aberdeen City Council and the Scottish Government, too. If Scotland is to be a producer as well as a consumer, we certainly cannot afford to stand still. The land of lower Saxony in Germany deployed the world's first hydrogen train last September, replacing diesel locomotives on 100km of non-electrified tracks close to Germany's North Sea coast. Alstom, which also builds France's TGVs, expects to deliver 14 hydrogen trains to lower Saxony by 2021. Even closer to home, plans were revealed only this week for hydrogen-powered trains on the Greater Anglia network in England, replacing diesel but using locomotives that were originally built for electric trains some 30 years ago, with a range of 1,000km similar to an diesel train and a maximum speed of 87mph, again similar to an diesel train. Create the campaign for rail electrification in Aberdeen to Edinburgh, as long argued for extending the infrastructure for electric trains north of the central belt, but now hydrogen offers another option. That option is the 21st century steam train, where the only emissions are steam and water. Just as Scotland should build on its strong position in hydrogen bus transport, so we should look to lead the way in hydrogen trains on the three quarters of the Scottish rail network that have not been electrified. I am sorry, I must be very firm. I want to get everybody in who has been sitting waiting to debate. Angus MacDonald, followed by Finlay Carson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Scotland, as a nation, is changing in many ways. Change in most circumstances is welcome and the changes that we are seeing in the advancements of our infrastructure is something that we should all be proud of and proud to support. Of course, the driving force to coin a phrase behind many of the changes that we have heard about so far is a rapid pace of technological advancements and the growing popularity of low or zero-carbon emission vehicles. As we have heard earlier, Scotland is at the forefront of those changes and we are doing more now to embrace support and enhance our infrastructure to allow this to happen than ever before. In 2011, the commercialisation of electric vehicles was limited to only a few very expensive types. The technology that had been around for decades had only started to become more accessible and affordable for large-scale production. By the end of 2011, 495 ULEVs were licensed in Scotland. Now, if we fast forward to quarters 3 in 2018, that number has increased by over 2,000 per cent to 10,360. At the same time, we have seen our infrastructure improved and grow to accommodate such an increase in the uptake of those vehicles. You are never too far from the nearest public charging point, for example, with motorists on average 2.78 miles away from their nearest point, as the cabinet secretary mentioned in his opening speech. However, what he did not mention is that the average across Britain is 4.09 miles. While there is much progress to be made, we are still ahead of the game, at least in the UK. In addition, with the Scottish Government's Charge Place Scotland live interactive map providing real-time information on the position and status of each public charge point, it is clear to see the progress that is made in the face of a rapidly advancing area of transportation. Clearly, the motion that we are debating today refers to the electric A9 that I use often to head to Aleppo, an innovative and welcome step in the right direction for ULEVs and further progress towards phasing out the need for new petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2032. As part of this project and with funding from the Low Carbine Travel and Transport Challenge Fund, which is part of the ERDF, Falkirk Council has received funding to build a 20-unit electric vehicle recharging hub at the Falkirk stadium, which will be powered by a 168 panel solar canopy. Not only is it lowering the carbon footprint of the motorist, but the power will be generated from a sustainable source as well. Similar hubs will be placed along the entire route that the A9 from, as I mentioned, Falkirk stadium all the way to Scrabster Harbour, allowing urban and rural communities and businesses the opportunity to access EV charging points. Now it would be remiss of me to speak in this debate on the subject of ULEVs without mentioning those vehicles, which hold more than six or eight passengers. Of course, Scotland's road network does not just accommodate cars, but our network of buses works hard to get people to where they need to be on a daily basis, not always as efficiently as we would like. That is something that can be worked on. As an aside, I will be happy to see the transport bill contain provisions to bring bus routes into the hands of the public, or at least local authorities, ensuring that services are focused purely on passengers, and not for profits, but that is a topic for another day. Presiding Officer, when we look at buses in Edinburgh here, for example, it is clear to see that there are a few of them without the trademark noise and smell from the traditional diesel engine, which leads me to another Falkirk district connection, the advent by local bus builder Alexander Dennis of their ADL in viral range of vehicles. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will not mind me giving ADL, situated in his constituency, a plug, given that the large number of the workforce is resident in my constituency. However, with a single deck in viral 200 model available in an electric variant and the double deck in viral 400 models available in biogas, hybrid and recently announced hydrogen fuel cell variants, those are all low and zero emission solutions to the decarbonisation of our road transport networks. Incidentally, I very much welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to continue the green bus fund. ADL are clearly beneficiaries as well as other bus builders of that fund. Presiding Officer, I am aware that I am running fast out of time. To close, Scotland is a small nation that has always had a reputation for being innovative and ambitious. It is no different from the Government's ambition for ULEVs and our communities, and it is thanks to the work of the Government and its partners that we are building a country fit for the future, whatever may lie ahead of us. I call Finlay Carson, who is followed by John Mason. Mr Mason will be the last speaker in the open debate. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on what is a hugely topical subject. For me, it is important for two main reasons. First, as a member of the Clear Committee, he is currently scrutinising the climate change bill, but also as an MSP for the rural constituency of Galloway in Western Fries. While the cabinet secretary correctly paints an improving picture regarding the introduction of ultra-low emission vehicles, in reality progress has been painfully slow. In a frighteningly short 13 years, the Scottish National Party Government planned to phase out new petrol and diesel vehicles in favour of electric vehicles and a bid to hit its ambitious low emission targets. Currently, however, only 1 per cent of almost 3 million cars on the road in Scotland are electric. Of course, we welcome the commitment to phase out petrol and diesel vehicles, and I know that the SNP will point to the fact that UK Government plans are eight years less ambitious, but we have yet to see detail from the SNP Government on how it will, in practice, achieve its earlier 2023 target. We need to know what it will mean in practice for car and van owners and what national and local infrastructure will be put in place. We do not have detailed information on the proposed LEZs in our cities. Indeed, even in our largest city of Glasgow, where a low emission zone has recently been rolled out, the Strathclyde partnership for transport has warned that significant investment will be needed to ensure that buses in the city will meet the required standards by the end of 2022. If significant investment is needed in our cities, just how much will be needed to ensure that this transition works in rural areas? What infrastructure needs to be put in place so that rural communities are fully prepared? Planning future infrastructure in rural areas must be urgently addressed for the whole of Scotland to be successfully involved in the transition to an electric future. We have all seen the headline hitting announcements surrounding the A9, but even with that there was little detail on the Government's electric highway plan, which formed just a single sentence in the programme for government document in 2017. So what is the national plan? We need to ensure that drivers have the information and support to give them confidence to travel the country without experiencing range anxiety. With the Port of Cairnwraen in my constituency, the road-haulage industry is hugely important to the local economy. The Scottish Government must outline plans on how it will support this industry in transitioning to low-emission vehicles. Load-haulage companies using the major trunk roads such as the A77 and A75 need to have confidence that they will, and the new age of electric, not only be sustainable environmentally but economically. They need to get this transition right first-time round cannot be understated. The Scottish Conservatives Environment and Climate Change paper sets out a range of measures that would encourage and accelerate the uptake of electric vehicles. We have outlined plans to establish a fund that would expand electric charging points in small towns, rural areas and train stations. Having greater access to charging points as soon as possible will help to give rural constituents confidence that electric cars will be an alternative option sooner rather than later. At the moment, with range anxiety, I am not convinced that the thought of switching to electric cars is one that many of my constituents accommodate at the moment. Our paper outlines plans that would require all public bodies to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of replacing existing fleets with electric cars. The clear report into Air Quality Scotland recommendations goes some way to addressing the challenges and opportunities of the inevitable transition to a low-emission future, which will have great economic but also secondary benefits for our health and communities. Deputy Presiding Officer, it is time for the SNP Government to stop coasting and start to accelerate down the road of opportunity to clean our greener Scotland before we miss the proverbial bus. Thank you very much. Our call on John Mason. Mr Mason, three minutes please, last speaker in the open debate. Thank you very much. I understand that our focus today is probably on road vehicles, but as others have mentioned, trains are also vehicles by my understanding, and the increasing electrification of the network is a tremendous way of reducing emissions. I suppose that I am like many people, someone who is a little bit skeptical about some of the promises made in favour of new technologies. Let's see how it works out in practice. However, I have a friend with an electric car who took me out for a run, and I have to say that I was very impressed. For me, that is one of the key challenges in switching to an electric car. Can it get me from Glasgow to Inverness without a charge? And if it does need a charge, is that going to be fast and dependable? I think that's what range anxiety means in the Tory amendment. For a driver like me who is open but skeptical, we need to get the infrastructure in place, and we also need to build up public confidence in that infrastructure. As we are mentioning the A9 quite a lot, particularly between Perth and Inverness, I think that the lack of service stations is definitely a problem. I realise the desire to give support to local communities rather than having people bypass them. However, I have to say that, if I am heading for Inverness for work or whatever, I do not want to begin to put Lochry or Raveymore and getting bogged down with tourists, either to buy petrol or to charge my electric car. Please do not get me wrong, those are nice places, but I do not think that they fulfil the role of service stations. Battery technology is clearly one of the challenges in all that. I understand that that would be one of the reasons why hydrogen buses have been trialled in Aberdeen as an alternative to electric vehicles. I have to say that hydrogen appeals to me for a number of reasons, although I accept that technology may not be as far advanced and the cost may still be higher than using electric vehicles. Wind power is becoming our staple renewable along with hydro, but one of the challenges is clearly how to store the energy, even if it can be generated very cheaply. However, another option is to use electricity from wind power to produce hydrogen through electrolysis. It seems to me that, as a number of advantages, including it is easier to store than electricity, speed of refuelling and, potentially, has multiple uses, including replacing natural gas in the grid. I do not want to use up all of my huge amount of time that I have available. I am not quite ready yet to replace my petrol car with an electric one, but I am open to the possibility and a bit of persuasion. I think that I am, maybe, like others in the public, like that. I suspect that I am not unusual and that a fair number of the public are waiting to see how things develop. Thank you very much. Regrettably, four members are not in for closing speeches. I will be naming them at the end. One is just shot in. That is fine. If you are recharging, you should have been in here before. I call Liam McArthur, close to the Liberal Democrats. Ms McArthur, a tight six-minute squeeze. Thank you very much, everybody. I would like to have started with a declaration of interest as an EV or even a ULEV owner. I am not that yet. I have been weighing up over the last year or so the advantages and the potential disadvantages. I certainly hope that, later on this year and by the time, we have the next debate on the topic, to be able to, with some pride, declare that interest. I think that Gillian Martin was absolutely right to set down that challenge in terms of the leadership that we should be taking. The cabinet secretary indicated that the Government carpool is soon to go out to procurement of EVs. I mean, I would observe that we are some way down the course, and this is hardly a leadership position that the Government is taking in that respect. I think that the importance and the function of that leadership was summed up very well in what I thought was an excellent speech by George Adam. The leadership that corporates can take through their purchasing process, through their leasing arrangement, but the leadership that we as policy makers and legislators can take in terms of sending a clear signal of where legislation and regulation is going and allowing vehicle manufacturers, component manufacturers, time to innovate and respond to those public policy messages. I thought that the cabinet secretary very fairly set out some of the signals in his opening remarks of the progress that has been made and reasons to take encouragement. I think that all of those were entirely legitimate. We are seeing that in terms of the take-up of the ULEVs. We are seeing it in terms of the expansion of the charging network. I think that, in relation to some, we are showing a competitive and a comparative advantage. I would, however, perhaps observe that whether or not the yardstick should be the rest of the UK or those who are genuinely out in front in that respect, such as Norway and the Netherlands, which were mentioned by a number of colleagues in their contributions. It is very much in our own interests. Again, a number of contributors to the debate have pointed to not just the environmental imperative and the benefits that arise from pursuing that path, but the economic advantages that come with it and the benefits in terms of social and health improvements. Again, I very much welcome the contribution made by Colin Smith highlighting the impact of air pollution and the impact on health inequalities. The premature deaths that result from that and the billions of costs to our NHS each year. I welcome to the contribution that was made by Jamie Greene in highlighting the specific challenges in remote and rural areas. Those are ones that I would very much accept. Gillian Martin, likewise, called on rural areas being able to play their full part in this green revolution. I echo those sentiments entirely. That range anxiety, the reliability anxiety, is perhaps more keenly felt in those rural areas. I would say that the Orkney perhaps stands as an example of a rural and island area that really has embraced the take-up of EVs and has seen that pushed out into other areas of transport. I think that there are ways of overcoming that anxiety. I would probably extend an invitation to Stuart Stevenson to the inaugural Loganair inter-island flight in two or three years' time in that electric aircraft. We have talked about the Charge Point Network as being critical to addressing that range anxiety. Angus MacDonald highlighted the Charge Place Scotland map, which is beneficial, but it is only beneficial insofar as it is accurate in real time. I think that there have been enough concerns raised over the piece to suggest that that is not always the case. I think that what we need is, in the new contract with CPS or whoever, specifications that are informed by users who have the experience to ensure that those problems are addressed going forward. Much of the focus has been on electric vehicles, of course, but the potential role that has been played by hydrogen has been emphasised by many, particularly when it comes to public transport through buses and ferries. It is not just the mode of propulsion. John Finnie made a fair point in suggesting that, whatever the technology, there is a need also to see a shift on to public transport. The provision of public transport, frankly, in some areas where it does not currently exist, has been a forward-looking way of starting 2019. It has been consensual. I think that there has been plenty of food for thought over the course of this afternoon, but I think that the consistent message from most speakers has been, as much as we welcome the progress that has been made, it is imperative that we raise our ambitions, that we show and we see real leadership for the environmental, for the economic, for the social and health benefits that derive from that. I think that there is cross-party support for that. I look forward to working with the cabinet secretary's officials, with colleagues who have contributed to the debate, to the councils, to the other organisations who are indeed taking leadership in this, so that we can deliver the ultra-low emission future that we absolutely need to see. Before I call John Finnie, can I say of the three culprits who came in together? I have only had pen on paper from one. I think that the other two ought to be applying pen to paper to explain why they did not have the courtesy to be in at the beginning of Mr MacArthur's closing speech. It is a courtesy not just to me, but to the chamber and to the member. I now call on John Finnie, Mr Finnie, six minutes to close for the Greens. Thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer. I think that it has been an interesting debate. I think that there has been a wide range of views. A lot of them are consistently voiced. I thought that the cabinet secretary started off and gave us a lot of technology. I think that I said it at the outset that I am not a very technical man. I like simple things. I like buses, I like trains. I hope that perhaps in closing up that the cabinet secretary, or indeed if it is the minister, can perhaps talk about bus patronage, because there is a concern that the Scottish Government seems quite resigned in accepting of the fact that it continues to drop. Likewise, congestion, which I alluded to in the implications for bus patronage connected with that. I also alluded to trains and diesels. I am glad that my colleague George Stevenson enjoyed his trip yesterday. Indeed, I saw him share that with the public. I will not be overly graphic, but just say that, given the actual model, I hope that he did not make full use of the facilities, because that would be to the disadvantage of our very welcome rail workers. The cabinet secretary always used the phrase, transition to a low-carbon economy. It is a really good phrase. I actually like the word just transition added in front of it, and that is the name of a report that the Green MSPs commissioned a few years ago. I would like to think that you have read it and digested it fully and will act on its content, cabinet secretary, because what we all want is a just transition. That does not come about by commending tax breaks for fossil fuel multinational corporations, so we need to have consistency of approach. That also applies to incentives, because I heard a great number of members talk about incentives, including Jamie Greene talked about incentives that he suggested free-packing. We might like to speak to some of the very large corporations that run very large carparks to see if they would be up for that, or, more likely, as others, does he mean that the public purse pays for that? We must understand that if we are having public expenditure and freeing someone of the obligation to pay a charge is the same as having an expenditure, we must understand who the beneficiaries of that are. Of course, there is a wider benefited community if we have people encouraged to use low-emission vehicles. A number of people talked about that. Gillian Martin and Claudia Beamish talked about the rural-urban dimension. I am a car owner and, as many people have said, you cannot live in the country and not have a car owner via car owner. There are very many challenges, but what we have to remember, is that there is a sizable portion of our rural communities who are not car owners. Thirty per cent of households in Scotland are not car owners. If all our policies are directed around a presumption of car ownership, that is not healthy. There are some important things to embrace about understanding that some things that many would think are very simple have consequences. I think that the statistics that we heard from Edward Mountain about how many vans, for instance, are the equivalent of a heavy goods vehicle. That is important information that we need to digest. It is absolutely important information. Of course, that would apply. I far sooner see it in a container on a train, but the reality is that we do rely on motorised transport and will continue to rely on motorised transport, regardless of the mode of propulsion. Like others, I found George Adam's speech possibly the most interesting of today. I thought that understanding the relationship with markets—it is not something that I always would imagine—I would find myself saying that. I thought that that was very interesting. The percentage of fleets versus personal ownership and the potential to drive policy using that approach, I found very helpful. I thank him for that. I do not know whether I conclude that I will be more or less likely to buy a motor vehicle from him, but I will probably be more likely to buy it. I turn to comments from my friend and colleague Claudio Beamish, who mentioned deaths and the 2,000 deaths from emissions. The statistics about the proximity of schools to many of those areas of high pollution is hugely important. Of course, that will play a part. I did not mention the climate change plan, but no policies on the curbing private motorcar use and little on improving bus services. Indeed, as the draft budget stands, it is a £7 million cut. Again, that will not help at all the third of households who have no access to motor vehicles. Indeed, my colleague Mark Ruskell said that the plan bizarrely assumes that even more traffic in our roads with ministers pinning hopes in a magical overnight switch to electrical vehicles. That is not going to happen. I am pleased that my colleague John Mason mentioned rail, and I think that that is helpful. I want to mention Professor Phillip Alston and his UN report, and it has been much quoted by the Scottish Government. He says that transport, especially in rural areas, should be considered an essential service equivalent to water and electricity, and the Government should regulate the sector to the extent that it is necessary to ensure that people who live in rural areas are adequately served. Abandoning people to the private market in relation to a service that affects every dimension of their basic wellbeing is incompatible with human rights requirements. I hope that we would all agree that. In conclusion, in case I have been perceived as being very negative, I think that, as our amendment says, we recognise the important role that vehicles can play in decarbonising the transport sector. That will not affect congestion and will not have a great impact on improving road safety, unlike my colleague Mark Ruskell's bill on 20 Mile Island. I hope that the Government lends the report on that. The Deputy Presiding Officer Thank you. You must continue there. Thank you very much. I now call Daniel Johnson to close for labour. Six minutes please, Mr Johnson. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I have hugely enjoyed this afternoon's debate, and it is one that comes, indeed, as something of a relief. I think that we are all too used to debating matters of the constitution and various political crises, but this is a debate that actually I think is almost overdue because the issues raised in this topic and others, I think, are hugely important in terms of Scotland's future and the economy of this country and how people work and live. I think that there is an opportunity cost to these other things that are going on. Some of the issues that have been raised this afternoon have been about the need to actually really bring forward solid plans to make sure that we embrace the opportunities and benefits that we have in front of us, because I think that it is all too easy to talk about electric vehicles and low-emission vehicles and look at that as some sort of lifestyle choice between different types of cars, but it is actually much more profound and fundamental than that. What we are talking about is the glue of our economy, how we move around the transportation, how we both move ourselves but also how goods and services are delivered, is of fundamental importance to the economy. Many people have raised congestion through this afternoon's debate. Congestion costs the economy between 1 per cent and 2 per cent of the entirety of GDP, so getting a change like this right is of huge importance for the future of the economy and how people work. Likewise, 10 per cent of people work in transport and distribution, so, again, when we are contemplating the shift away from hydrocarbon-based vehicles, it is of huge importance not just about how we get to work but also how all our goods are delivered around the country. I think that that richness and the breadth of that debate has come out this afternoon, but I would also just like to, in a sense, focus this debate around the comments made by John Finnie and Liam McArthur, because I think that between them—and it is not just bad habits from the Justice Committee coming out here by referencing both of them—I think that the two points here is that, first of all, this has to be seen within a broader context. Yes, many of the things that we are doing are good, but as Liam McArthur put it, they are not at the very best that they could be. Norway, a country of five million people, has the largest market for EV vehicles in the whole of Europe. The number of EVs sold in Norway outstripped that of the entire UK year before last. I think that the UK might be on a par now, but that is quite unbelievable. That is where we need to look at the size of the opportunity and making sure that we are at the very best. Likewise, I think that John Finnie is right that we need to make sure that we are not just replacing locomotion. That is why I raised the issue of automation, because if all we do is simply replace petrol and diesel-powered vehicles with battery-powered ones, I think that we will be missing a trick. We will be missing an opportunity. We will certainly be missing an environmental one, and I think that many colleagues have raised the issues around air quality and climate change, both of which are of profound importance. However, if you include automation, you have huge possibilities of increasingly improving the efficiency of how our roads are used, and that brings those additional benefits. Automated vehicles use our roads more efficiently. However, human drivers are prone to all sorts of errors and inefficiencies in terms of the way that people drive. Automated roads, where the road space is allocated more efficiently, where vehicles talk to one another in real-time sharing data, have a huge possibility of huge economic advantages. While I agree with the cabinet secretary that there is an issue around when these technologies are coming online, if we are talking about 2032, we are talking about similar and overlapping timeframes. Talking about the switched EV without looking at the impact of other technologies in general, but of automation in particular, is potentially a mistake. Overall, a number of people have commented on the need to go further than the targets that we have in place. The 2032 targets are laudable. They are important. It is hugely important that we are ambitious, but we must go further. We need a robust plan that integrates targets along those lines and along with what has emerged in this afternoon's debate, Three Eyes, one around investment, investment in the infrastructure that is required, incentives for people to switch. With those three eyes, investment, incentive and infrastructure, we will deliver the change that we need. Much has been made about the number of charging points and whether those are sufficient. I think that that is hugely important. As I understand it, those targets would only mean that there would be one charging point for every 3,000 drivers. That is insufficient. I think that many number of speakers have brought it at that point. Beyond that, we need to think about how those charging points are powered themselves. Uptake of EVs is estimated to increase power consumption by 25 per cent, and much of that being a very different type of usage because of the high drain that rapid charging requires. We need to look at the underlying infrastructure requirements, the need for a smart grid, but we also need to look at the full spectrum of requirements, which are the points that are made about hydrogen for freight and heavy goods, long-distance vehicles and transport, which are hugely important and well-made. We need a plan that integrates all of those things across all of those areas so that we get it right. It is not just simply about targets, but we are learning from some very good examples that we have in Scotland, such as the A9 and Dundee Council, but we also make sure that those are extended so that the whole of Scotland can enjoy the benefits of the switch to electric vehicles. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. As we have heard from members across the chamber, we are all committed to moving towards a low-carbon economy, and ultra-low-emission vehicles are very much part of that journey. In the new year, I would like to echo the good will, shown by other members in the chamber on our first debate back, by commending the Scottish Government for their pledge to expand Scotland's electrical charging infrastructure between now and 2022, so that range anxiety will become a thing of the past. This is particularly welcome in rural areas, where the uptake of low-electric vehicles is considerably lower than urban areas due to range anxiety. As my colleague Jamie Greene noted in his opening speech, the Scottish Conservatives have set out a number of measures in our environment and climate change policy paper published in February 2017 to encourage the use and ownership of electric vehicles. Those range from new incentives such as free parking, the use of bus and taxi lanes by electric vehicles, establishing a fund to provide charging points in small towns, rural areas and train stations, a requirement for all public bodies to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of replacing vehicle fleets with electric vehicles, and providing support to transitioning buses and taxis to be powered by renewables. All of that requires significant investment. I am pleased that the UK Government has committed to investing more than £1.2 billion in the industry, as well as working with private investment. Unfortunately, the uptake of electric vehicles in Scotland is nowhere near where it needs to be to achieve the SNP Government's aim to phase out new petrol and diesel cars by 2032. With electric vehicles accounting for only 1.77 per cent of new vehicle registrations in 2016, up by just 0.09 per cent from 2015, at this rate it will take 1,000 years for the SNP to achieve their goal, worryingly possibly after Tesla reaches Mars as the experience of former car salesman George Adam pointed out. I know that SNP members such as Angus MacDonald drew attention to the fact that their aim to phase out diesel and petrol vehicles is eight years before the UK Government. However, we have seen little detail on how the SNP Government plans to do that, and it is clear that whatever initiatives that they have in place to increase electric vehicle uptake, they are simply not working, perhaps with the exception of Orkney, as Liam McArthur was keen to note. A move to low-emission vehicles does not necessarily mean a straight switch from diesel to electric, and other subjects such as hydrogen, batteries and automated cars and roads have been touched on and are probably subjects for another day, given the reduced time for debate today. I know that a couple of them were mentioned by John Mason. However, one area that is in taxis and the energy-saving trust currently offers interest-free loans to enable owners and operators of hackney cabs to be replaced when they are more than eight years old with new and efficient models. However, the scheme does not pay for the conversion of vehicles, and I would be grateful for any update on discussions that the cabinet secretary or minister has had with the energy-saving trust so that perhaps Stuart Stevenson can take a similar electric taxi journey sometime in the near future and the north-east. The FSB has also called for the Government to lend to support for a switch to low-emission vehicles through a £15 million low-emission zone support fund, and that would enable small businesses to invest in cleaner fleets coinciding with a roll-out of low-emission zones. As Finlay Carson noted, for many in rural parts of Scotland, having access to a vehicle is vital for personal and business purposes. Right now, the infrastructure is just not in place to give our rural constituents the confidence that they can switch to electric vehicles—a point correctly made by Gillian Martin—and I hope that she can switch to an all-electric vehicle sooner rather than later. Edward Mountain also highlighted how the farming industry is heavily reliant on diesel-operated machinery and will require considerable support in order to help to achieve low-emission targets. I joined him in calling for reassurances that the phasing out of petrol and diesel vehicles does not adversely affect our rural communities, nor in public transport, as Lewis Macdonald highlighted. My colleague John Scott mentioned transport and the use of low-emissions vehicles will have a very important part to play in keeping greenhouse gas emissions to a minimum. I point Claudia Beamish, Colin Smyth and David Johnson—all very much emphasised, and we have support from this side. Right now, we are not where we need to be. SNP Government has failed to meet targets under the European Ambient Air Quality Directive for Nitrogen Oxide, even though the deadline for compliance was back in 2010. Our environment is fragile and we must do what we can to protect it. Some good examples were set out by John Finnie, so, like him, I urge SNP Government to do more than make pledges. The switch to low-emission vehicles will require a collaborative effort across the public and private sector. Right now, this Government is not leading the way in lowering emissions and further action is needed to incentivise Scotland to make the switch. To conclude, I would like to say that we all share the same ambition and we would all support deliverable measures. We have heard to write this largely consensual debate until some aspects of Mr Burnett's speech, but he did have some warmer words for us as well. We have been making significant progress on our ambitious agenda as a country to decarbonise transport at home for domestic users but also to provide infrastructure for visitors to this country to access that as well. In respect of Jamie Greene's concerns—indeed, other members across the chamber's concerns around range anxiety—it is important to stress that, as the cabinet secretary said, while setting out that 1,000 public charging points have been established in Scotland to date, that excludes consideration of the additional £350 workplace charges that we are funding in additional £5 million that we are investing in. Further 1,200 domestic charging points to add to the current £461 workplace charging places and 1,928 domestic charging places that were in place at the end of 2017-18. I apologise if we have not given the full extent of the figures, but there are much more than the 1,000 public charging places that we have already invested in and will continue to do so. As the cabinet secretary has stated, there are now over 10,000 ultra-low-emission vehicles in public sector fleets—sorry, 1,000 ultra-low-emission vehicles in public sector fleets in Scotland. The support that is available to businesses and individuals looking to make the switch to an electric vehicle or other low-emission vehicle has increased dramatically from £8 million to £20 million. Indeed, I would draw members' attention and get further detail to two members of the funding that we provide to the low-carbon transport loan that the cabinet secretary referenced, because that can provide up to £35,000 to cover the cost of purchasing a new pure electric or plug-in hybrid vehicle and up to £10,000 to cover the cost of purchasing a new electric motorcycle or scooter for those who are interested in that. Indeed, the budget for active travel to address points that were raised by Claudia Beamish and Colin Smyth has doubled from £39.2 million in 2017-18 to £80 million for 2018-19, so we are recognising the important points that they raised about investing in sustainable active travel and encouraging people to lead more healthy lifestyles. We have also finalised the eighth round of the green bus fund that is referenced by the cabinet secretary and anticipates supporting over 125 new green buses in that round. Those are just a few of the highlights from an increasingly ambitious agenda. I would like to mention an international dimension, and members may not be aware that the Scottish Government is playing a leading role under the under-2 coalitions zero-emission vehicle project. I heard directly the support for the work that we are doing with the under-2 coalition when I visited San Francisco for the Global Climate Action Summit, which was put in place by Governor Jerry Brown. Our energy strategy that was published just over a year ago included our ambition to decarminise the whole energy system. We now have a target for the equivalent of 50 per cent of the energy for Scotland's electricity heat and transport consumption to come from renewable sources by 2050, and a key component of meeting that target will be the extent to which we can shift our energy for transport from fossil fuels to low-carbon or renewable electricity or indeed hydrogen, which many members have mentioned today. As members have said, transport accounts for just 25 per cent of our energy use but 37 per cent of our climate emissions, so clearly we do recognise the importance of tackling that very important statistic. The shift to electric vehicles also gives us an opportunity to use more of Scotland's abundant renewable energy resources while reducing our fossil fuel consumption. Orkney is a very good example that Mr MacArthur referenced in terms of the work that is being done there to do exactly that. That raises questions, though, for our electricity networks, which will need to meet and manage the higher demand. We are working closely with Scotland's network operators and with National Grid to share evidence and analysis, including data from our Charge Place Scotland network to make sure that transition to electric vehicles is carefully managed and that we limit the impacts on the network through smarts and other innovative charging technologies. Would he accept the point that has been made by members in different parts of the chamber that that renewable energy does not just directly support the electricity network but gives Scotland the feedstock for hydrogen production with even wider uses? Indeed, I am happy to do so. I will come on to that in more detail shortly, but I recognise Mr MacDonald's interests and other members across the chamber. Indeed, because of the capacity constraints, we have been innovating in the production of hydrogen in the big-hit project in Kirkwall and the surf and turf project in Kirkwall, using surplus tidal energy that is produced in EDE and wind energy that is produced in EDE to produce storage of electricity in the form of hydrogen. It is very positive work that we have been doing. If I may very briefly… Liam McArthur. I thank the minister for taking the intervention. I would point out that the surf and turf project is based in EDE rather than necessarily Kirkwall, but could he give an undertaking that in the future contract with Charge Place Scotland that users will have a meaningful input into that so that we can learn some of the lessons from what has happened in their current contract? I can certainly give the member assurance that officials from Transport Scotland have been engaging with Charge Place Scotland on the problems that have arisen in Orkney and, indeed, between Orkney and the central belt, which he referenced in previous questions. I am certainly happy to take that point up with the member in my Eileen's portfolio of discussions with him and, indeed, the cabinet secretary, who has been actively engaged in that. The Scottish Government wants to transition to a low-carbon economy to be a just one as well. We also have established the Just Transition Commission, led by the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform. That will consider employment, economic and social issues together with the development of climate change policies. We want, therefore, for the transition for our transport sector that will be one that ensures that no-one is left behind as our technological and economic landscape develops. That is a very important aspect. I know a number of members. John Finnie, Claudia Beamish and others have referenced that in the debate today. In the time that is left available to me, I just want to respond to some of the other points that have been referenced by members in the chamber. On the islands aspect, in reality, I have touched on that, but I think that the projects in Orkney are giving us some major lessons about how we can make rural and island communities benefit from the transition. I would like to highlight, though, that, in terms of the points that were made most laterally by Daniel Johnson and by Liam McArthur, the respect of using Norway as a comparator, Norway has significantly increased the uptake of ULEVs through a combination of tax and VAT on EVs and incentives such as free parking, which have been referenced by members in the chamber today. I recognise that. The Scottish ministers do not have any locusts on VAT or indeed import tax, as this is a reserved matter, so we need to work with UK Government to try and get our support of fiscal environment in place to encourage a higher take-up of EVs there. In terms of points that have been made by Ed Mountain, I recognise the issue that he raised around rural sectors. I am happy to discuss any ideas that he might have on that. Tax allowances might be something that could be looked at at a UK level, but we are certainly keen to discuss what measures could be put in place. I want to highlight to Colin Smyth, who was worried about the lack of apparent strategy in his perception that, as the cabinet secretary referenced, the national transport strategy and the network vision statement that I will be publishing later this month will give more detail on the necessity for investment in infrastructure to support EVs and, indeed, to support the roll-out of vehicles more widely. At the time that I have available, just one minute left, I want to highlight the work around hydrogen. I think that it is an important point that has been raised by members here today. We have companies such as Hyundai who are investing £5 billion in R&D in the area around hydrogen and currently produce models. Hyundai and Toyota are two other major manufacturers that are known to be interested in rolling out hydrogen models. Clearly, that is an indication of significant money in the automotive sector that is being directed towards hydrogen. I take the point that has been raised by members about heavy goods vehicles and other transport options. That is why the work in Levenmouth, in particular, looking at commercial vehicles and refuse collection vehicles will give us some advice about how that technology can work there. I will wind up, Presiding Officer, because I know that there is important business to come. Thank you very much. Thank you. That concludes the debate on ultra-low emission vehicles.