Seòmar agus comataidhean

Unfortunately, what we received from the UK Government’s spending review was not as positive as you are making out. In fact, the sum is negative in resource terms, particularly for transport, although it is positive for capital. Another concern about the UK Government spending review is that the health capital consequentials are negligible. We anticipate that the UK Government will finance health capital through resource funding, which has consequences for how we then manage our budget. I am trying to dampen your expectations.

As you clearly said, we have to engage not only with local and regional transport partnerships but with the bus sector and the private companies that operate our bus services. That engagement must take place so that we can deliver on the commitment that was made, which it is our intention to deliver.

Obviously, campaigners want to campaign—that is what they do. On the idea that the guidance is six years out of date, Monica, I think that you are perhaps stretching things. The legislation was passed by this Parliament—

No, there was not. The legislation that enabled franchising was passed by the Parliament in 2019, which was good. The statutory instruments that are required to put everything else in place have come through this Parliament and are already delivered. That is a good thing. With regard to the choices that are available to local authorities and regional transport partnerships, Strathclyde Partnership for Transport, in particular, has done the work. At the last regional transport partnership meeting, I had a presentation from SPT on what it is proposing. It has agreement from all the local authorities, which is a strong position to be in, but it has to do that in a way that is robust and does not leave it in the situation that has happened elsewhere of there being a legal challenge from private operators that do not want to co-operate. That is a very real risk, and SPT is very conscious of what it needs to do. You and campaigners are criticising Strathclyde Partnership for Transport mistakenly when it has actually produced what people want it to produce, namely a blueprint to take things forward.

As you said, SPT has not come up with what it anticipates the figure will be and what it will be able to publish with ministers. That will be part of its engagement, but it has to be a decision that is owned by the regional transport partnership, which is made up of all the local authorities in the Strathclyde area. It would have to look at the costings, and it is not there yet. That is how I would describe the situation.

I do not have any bus officials with me, because we thought that we were going to go into other areas and that we would be finished by now—I know that the committee might still want to go into other areas.

I have not had those discussions with SPT, and I lead on the budget areas. Unless and until we have a business plan, or even an ask, it is very difficult to say—it is all hypothetical. SPT cannot have those discussions until it has come up with its own costed plans.

The report from CMAL—which is negotiating on our behalf, as the appropriate body to do so—is that the discussion on the heads of terms is well advanced. Clearly, some of the property—that is, the assets—has not been the subject of any transactions since the 19th century, and when it comes to the final agreement we want to ensure that the detail of that is all provided for. I think that Peel Ports would reflect that the process needs to be done properly and negotiated in a way that delivers a good contract. That is what we are proposing.

Why is that important? It is important, because there is a limit to what the Scottish Government can invest in any private organisation. The limit is about £60 million—

Car use in Scotland is currently contributing significantly to carbon emissions, and that must change. In 2022, car use accounted for 39 per cent of all transport emissions in Scotland, and for 12.4 per cent of total Scottish emissions. However, Scotland is a rural and sparsely populated country, so we will always need vehicles—including cars—to enable people, goods and services to get around, to and from Scotland and beyond. Therein lies our challenge but also an opportunity for safer, fairer and healthier communities.

We need to encourage more people out of their cars, to use public transport where they can and to switch to zero-emission vehicles. That requires investment that also benefits those without access to a car, not least so that people see the alternatives to car travel as affordable and sustainable.

The Scottish Government remains committed to reducing car use, and we are working with COSLA and the regional transport partnerships to take forward recommendations from Audit Scotland’s report. National Government cannot do that alone and, later this spring, we will publish a renewed policy statement with COSLA on car use reduction. The evidence shows that reducing car use also means reducing demand. Local authorities have powers in areas such as parking and planning to develop schemes locally. However, so far, only a few have shown interest in doing so.

As I advised Parliament on 6 March, we intend to review the target of 20 per cent by 2030, informed by the forthcoming Scotland-specific carbon budget advice from the United Kingdom Climate Change Committee. UK Climate Change Committee advice outlines that improvements to make buses and active travel more attractive, affordable and accessible will allow 7 per cent of car demand to be switched to public transport and active travel by 2035, and that there is potential for the UK Government to go a further 3 per cent on modal shift, through things such as reducing congestion.

When we set the 20 per cent target, it was ambitious, but that level of reduction will now not likely be required. However, even with the switch to electric vehicles, there is still a need for car use reduction, due to the emissions reduction benefit as well as the wider societal benefits. We therefore continue to invest to provide alternatives to travelling by car. In 2025-26, we will invest £263 million in sustainable travel measures, including putting more zero-emission buses on Scotland’s roads, helping local authorities leverage more private investment for electric vehicle charging and creating more safer and improved routes for walking and cycling.

Last month, I joined Xplore Dundee to welcome 12 new electric buses that had been partly funded by our Scottish zero-emission bus challenge fund, in which every pound that has been invested has attracted a further £3.20 in private sector investment. Scotland’s zero-emission bus fleet comprises 800-plus electric buses, while more than 200 million free bus journeys have been made by under-22s, helping them to choose to travel more sustainably from a young age.

In 2023-24, Scottish Government investment delivered more than 115km of new and improved active travel infrastructure, with much of that providing safer routes to school for children, benefiting their wellbeing and helping to protect them from the risk of harm and vehicle accidents. Last month, I joined young people in Milngavie to see how it is safer for children to walk, wheel, cycle or scoot to nursery and primary school. That is healthier and helps to make children happier, which is an important factor. Cutting car journeys and reducing emissions allow us to not only address the climate emergency but improve the health and wellbeing of people and communities and make communities safer for people to live in.

That is the context for our evidence to the committee.

No, it is not. That has been a challenge for society across many areas. When the target was set, I was Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Fair Work and Culture, and I was clear that it was an opportunity to try to make a change. However, society has changed, and it is difficult to interpret a lot of the transport data, because of the change in people’s work patterns. Virtual and home working has affected how many times people travel. We also know from rail and bus services that, increasingly, weekends are busier, because people are working from home during the week and they want to enjoy their leisure time at the weekends.

Generally, fewer people are travelling, because of the wider societal impacts, but I do not think that the step change that many people would have liked has happened. Although car use is down by 3.6 per cent in comparison to 2019 levels, there has not been the complete change that many people had hoped for. That is not specific to Scotland; it is the case across the world.

I will leave it there, then.