Seòmar agus comataidhean

I was keen to have a pilot, but it proved particularly problematic because of last year’s emergency measures. It was very difficult to get financial approval for anything that was new or additional due to the adjustments that had to be made, particularly around the autumn budget. There were other pressures as well.

There are challenges with undertaking pilots. As we know, if you have a pilot then do not continue it, that can cause issues from a passenger perspective.

The bus companies are less than enthusiastic, so—this takes us back to the deputy convener’s point—what leverage we can apply? Currently, there is no provision in the budget for a pilot to cap bus fares, although I would note that the vast majority of the fares in Scotland are under £3.

We are in the process of procurement for replacing the HSTs, which I announced to the committee at my previous appearance, I think. That is live and current. We will make the decision on that, and the funding that you have identified will support it.

You capture the challenges well. I am keen that my officials work with the rail unions on what the replacements will look like. I have had regular discussions with the unions on what their requirement is.

Whatever fleet is procured, we will certainly see reductions in carbon emissions. That is what is required. It is quite clear that we need to de-risk in terms of where we need to get to by 2045 to meet the overall national targets for carbon emissions. Rail will contribute to that, and 75 per cent of journeys by rail are already decarbonised.

In addition to the work on HSTs—Kevin Stewart’s particular interest being those that serve the north-east—and the other intercity routes, work is progressing on the suburban fleet replacement.

I am conscious of time so I will perhaps just identify the fact that part of our budget helps with the rail infrastructure to assist with the Fife and the Borders decarbonisation projects. There is substantial investment in feeder stations in Thornton in Fife and in Portobello, and we are investing in another feeder station, too. The Haymarket to Dalmeny work has already started, which will help with the decarbonisation of the railway in Fife. I know that that is not Kevin Stewart’s constituency area, but I am giving you an overview of the investment in progressing decarbonisation.

Decarbonisation is a long-term project. It is not even a three-year timescale; it involves a longer time period. Kerry Twyman might want to comment on how, over the piece, the Scottish Government manages an annual transport budget—obviously, we get annual allocations—when a lot of what we have to consider concerns big-budget issues that must be dealt with over not only the next three years, but the coming five or ten years.

The business plan will have looked at the different areas of investment is how I would put that.

The modal shift revenue support scheme is not in the budget, but the freight facilities grant is. The freight facilities grant is a larger amount—about £4 million, I think, but I can be corrected—that is for modal shift from road to rail and, potentially, to water as well. It is a bigger amount.

We have increased funding in the ferries line for a variety of reasons.

That is one of the challenges in the transport budget—full stop; end of story. Most transport projects are not deliverable year to year; they are long term. If we could get a three-year budget from the UK Government in its spending review, that might provide the opportunity for the Scottish Government to have more longevity in its funding. If that were realisable, it would benefit our portfolio, in particular, and it would benefit lots of other areas, too.

Yes. In the transport innovation space, I am not sure whether the Aberdeen bid has any joint application for EVIF funding in relation to hydrogen, but I do not think so.

Kevin Stewart makes a good point around perspective. I do not know how I can tie that back to our budget provision, but I will look into the point about permissions and so on in relation to what the challenges are. When I was still a member of the committee, before I became the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, we visited the hydrogen fuelling station and I was interested in the work that has been taking place in Aberdeen. However, I think that I will need to come back to the committee with regard to what strategic work has been done in that area.

Work on the route map has continued. You will be aware that the draft route map was published together with COSLA. We want to do that in partnership with local authorities. As you can imagine, local authorities will have different views. I know from my discussion with Gail Macgregor, the transport lead for COSLA, that she is very supportive. She has to take the route map through the COSLA process.

There has been a delay with regard to when I would have wanted the route map to be published. There are genuine issues. People wanted to see the research that was referred to, for example. Some of those who wanted to see the research were very positive and supportive of what is in the route map, and some of them were not.

We have helped to inform their discussions about that, but, more important, we have shared what our thinking is, and our officials have engaged actively. The ball is probably in COSLA’s court with regard to getting agreement with local authorities on a way forward.

From a national point of view, we know that local authorities are critical in some of these areas. You will recall that this committee’s inquiry in 2021—I think that it was its first inquiry in that year—was on local authorities and their partners delivering net zero. The route map is part of that. We have to respect our colleagues in COSLA and the time that they want to take in looking at that.

Hydrogen is considered to be more appropriate for heavy goods vehicles. We recently published one of the outcomes from the zero-emission truck task force, and we are the first in the UK to plot where EV charging points and hydrogen stations need to be for HGV fleets. It is a mixture of both. We asked where that infrastructure should be, logistically, if we had it. That required information to be shared, which is quite a challenge given the competitive HGV market. However, we worked well with the sector. There is speculation about the use of hydrogen elsewhere, but that is less the case with cars and vans, and the instrument is about cars and vans.

Before I became responsible for this area, my understanding was that the schemes were always meant to be technology neutral, and instrument ensures that they are. As you point out, the original order would have precluded hydrogen, but the order that is before the committee includes it.

I think that we have some way to go before we see the development of hydrogen in cars and vans, which are the subject of the scheme.