Seòmar agus comataidhean

Alison Irvine can reflect on the amounts in capital and in revenue.

There was some split. There was a small amount of revenue. Most of what the new fund can be used for is help for capital works that the councils are requesting and needing for infrastructure.

That research informs our debate, but it is not Government policy. In looking at how we deal with national resourcing for transport, particularly road transport by car, a big issue is how the reserved powers of the UK Government are deployed in relation to fuel duty replacements. It is not just the UK that has to deal with that. Every country will have to identify how it moves from gathering revenue from individuals using carbon travel and what will enable investment in any new system or in any alternatives, such as public transport—which is a very effective measure—in order to reduce car use.

I raised the issue with the then Secretary of State for Transport and the previous ministers for transport in the UK Government, as well as with the current minister, the Minister for Future of Roads. I will certainly raise it with Heidi Alexander, the new Secretary of State for Transport, when I get a chance to meet her.

A UK Parliament committee has identified a big issue. The UK is about to lose £35 billion in fuel duty as sales of carbon cars decrease. This committee will also be involved in the vehicle emissions trading schemes and the zero emission vehicle mandate to reduce the sale of carbon cars and to phase them out.

My strong view is that we should not just leave revenue-raising replacement measures to the Treasury and the issue of how to replace £35 billion of funding for services to the UK Government. I am concerned that that is what will happen. I am constantly being told the issue is being referred to the Treasury. We should probably be looking at it more from how that helps to support the climate change agenda and what that means for road usage more generally.

The issue needs to be dealt with on a UK-wide basis. Last week, I had a very good meeting with Ken Skates, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales. At some point, I hope to get that on the agenda with the other ministers in the UK. The decisions will have to be made, so why not do it in a sensible way and try to take a four-nations approach? Of course, the levers in relation to and the decision making on what the replacement for fuel duty should be lie with the UK Government, but we have an interest in the matter and we should keep actively involved in it.

In terms of the scoping of that, I am happy to take advice from the committee. There is a range of things that can be looked at. That can best be done on a four-nations basis. I am not going to prejudice those discussions by speculating.

Every country in the world will have to look at the issue, so how can it best be done? We need to look at not only a budget replacement mechanism. We also need to look at how you replace fuel duty in a way that helps to invest in public transport or whatever.

When it comes to transport procurement, everyone will be aware that there are issues around what we can do in allocating procurement and ensuring subsidy control. It is part of the UK requirements that we must ensure that competition law is recognised and met. I am well aware that the member has a keen constituency interest in the ScotZEB programme. He will be aware that Alexander Dennis has received, by a clear margin, the highest number of allocations of any company in that area. As part of ScotZEB 2, as you identified, it is working on 44 zero-emissions double-decker buses as part of the successful consortium led by Zenobe.

In relation to ScotZEB 2, it is not correct to say that the rest of the buses are being produced in China. An additional 28 zero-emissions single-decker buses were originally going to be allocated to Alexander Dennis, but there was an issue around delivery to do with the lifespan of ScotZEB 2, so Volvo is producing those buses. They will not be made in China.

As to what can be done, there is still a desire by companies to expand their zero-emissions fleet. With ScotZEB, we have looked at—I am sure that the member will be very familiar with this—how we can crowd in private funding and use leasing to generate increased funding. That has grown, so we are encouraging bidders that were unsuccessful in the most recent round of bidding to work with interested funders to procure additional fleet. In that way, the private funding mechanism that we helped to develop and innovate as part of ScotZEB will be able to continue, regardless of the public funding that is available in that area. That is increasingly important. We are learning from that for heavy goods vehicles, which is an even more challenging area than buses. From next year, there will be funding available to identify how we can help with that.

With regard to fair work practices and how we can police a consortium that has submitted a bid, there is a degree to which we can do that, but the measures that we can take are constrained by the subsidy control regime. I am very supportive of investment in manufacturing in Scotland. I hope to visit Alexander Dennis at some point soon, at its invitation. Alexander Dennis is benefiting from ScotZEB 2, although it might not be doing so to the extent that some people would want. Companies such as Volvo have also received work through ScotZEB 2. Can we prevent people from procuring from companies outside Scotland? It is increasingly difficult.

Alison Irvine might have more to say on that.

The freight facilities grant is a bigger amount. When I have been talking to industry—

I absolutely agree with that in relation to what we can do. We want to try to achieve that as best we can within the legislative constraints in which we must operate, particularly in relation to subsidy control. That is why, as you will be aware, there has been a substantial investment on the economic side of things in order to help to promote that and, in particular to support Alexander Dennis in the development of its capacity to meet new markets as part of transition. The point is that that is part of what the market needs and that includes moving into coaches. Again, it is about how we help to develop the capacity to deal with the new demands that the market requires.

We need to determine what the market can deliver, and then identify how to get best value.

Let us see what the market comes back with.

The work that is being done, particularly in the Aberdeen area, continues to develop the scope of that £200 million investment in enhancements. The options selection process for the project concluded in 2023. The final package selected comprises signal enhancements, improvements to station layouts at Dundee, Aberdeen, Arbroath and Montrose, and specific capacity alternations including freight loops to facilitate the mixed operation of faster and slower trains on the same route.

On the challenges, you referred to a position in 2016. For a variety of reasons that I have relayed, involving the Scottish Government’s overall financial challenge, particularly with the capital reductions from the previous UK Government, some of the realisation of those rail investments will not have been made at the speed that we would have liked. However, as I said, that is the most up-to-date position that I can reflect on.