Seòmar agus comataidhean

There are different options, including electric trains with a better battery, that would allow some decarbonisation when we do not have full electrification. Across Scotland, that is exactly the territory that our officials are exploring.

I am not sure what has been communicated to the committee about the timeframe for that, so I will check. If we need to update—

In a carbon market, there is an issue around how we can try to reduce climate change emissions. Even if we wanted to do that, the question is whether Scotland would have the powers to do that under the current devolved Administration arrangements. Even on a UK basis, could that be done in a way that would not be to our detriment through unintended consequences and retaliatory action? That is the international issue of markets in relation to imports, exports, tariffs and so on.

I think that it is going to become an increasingly live issue if the world collectively gets serious about what it is doing to reduce emissions.

I have made it clear that the 2035 target for electrification and decarbonisation of the railway will not be met but that the target of 2045 will be met. Depending on what type of fleet replacement we have, that procurement will allow us to determine exactly what you are asking about and to spread the investment. The industry has told us that it would prefer to have a pipeline of investment.

Those of us who lived through the EGIP project will know that the disruption for regular rail commuters is substantial, and we see that at the moment in East Kilbride. A major electrification and enhancement project is currently taking place in East Kilbride and the line will be closed for a substantial amount of time. It will benefit everybody once it is done, but we have to plan for it. We are alive to the need to spread the investment and the disruption over a period and, depending on the procurement level, to de-risk it from being as disruptive as it might otherwise be. That is why the 2045 target makes more sense than the 2035 target.

There is increasing interest from the private sector, as you will be aware. That was set out in our implementation plan, which we wrote to the committee about when we published it at the end of last year. On the 24,000 figure, in Scotland, it is as important to identify the location as it is the volume. In rural and island areas, there is a challenge. For next year, there is an additional £5 million for rural and island connectivity for EV chargers to deal with areas where there is a market deficit in relation to deployment. There is funding next year, particularly for rural and island areas.

On value for money, we will report on how that £30 million has been deployed and what additional funding has come in from the private sector. When I had a meeting with the Climate Change Committee advisers sometime last year, they said that they were a bit more relaxed about the 24,000 figure, and we will see what happens when the Climate Change Committee reports next year. The advisers thought that, given our geography, location will be more important for Scotland. The 24,000 figure was an extrapolation from United Kingdom-wide analysis. Bearing in mind that Scotland has more chargers per head of population than anywhere outside London, within the UK, we are in a strong position.

One of the disappointments of the trial is that it did not lead to the shift in people making the decision to travel by rail that we all wanted to see. There is a challenge in the temporary nature of the trial, although you will remember that the Scottish Government extended it, beyond what the Greens had negotiated, to the autumn, to give it more space and time. The result was a disappointment.

We have replaced the measure with other offers, including changes to the flexipass option. I have written to all members with the options and what that means. I think that we are discussing commuting. Eighty-six per cent of the commuting market can now use a flexipass. It has recently been expanded further to Perth, Stirling and Bathgate, for example. That is helping to provide reductions in costs. In some instances, that is cheaper than the peak fare—this is not always the case, but the cost is in the same ball park. It is still providing a subsidy and much reduced costs to the public sector.

Yes, I am monitoring that. I want to look at it over the piece. I want to see a more settled period, particularly over the autumn, to be able to do the right comparison. I am expecting to have information sometime around spring, I think. That might be an area in which the committee is interested. I would be happy to share that when we have an understanding of people’s behaviour and of the numbers of those returning to rail travel.

Yes—the figure for 2025-26 is £414 million. A large amount of funding is going into concessionary travel.

There are a whole load of equity issues around bus transport. People on lower incomes are far more reliant on it. The committee that I know as the social justice committee—I apologise; I have probably got its name wrong—had an inquiry on employability, especially that of parents who are living in poverty. Transport has been identified as one of the key things that can make a difference in getting people into better paid jobs, education and so on.

I think that the issue of equity is extremely important, but the majority of people who use concessionary travel will be concentrated in the areas of higher population, which are our cities. The spend makes sense in terms of the numbers of people, but the pattern of concentration of population does not necessarily reflect the challenges that we face with regard to geographical equity.

However, I make it clear that what we do about that is an issue that needs to be looked at collectively, on a cross-party basis. We had a very good debate on the subject in Parliament last year. It was a debate without a motion in which members explored some of those issues. If we were to make such a shift, there would have to be a general consensus. We must protect people’s right to free travel, but we must also think about whether there is anything that we can do to get greater leverage. That would probably require legislation, which, at this point, will not necessarily be possible.

I hear what you say. All lessons will be learned and your advice is much appreciated.

There is funding in the ports and harbours budget line, which, as you will notice, is increasing.