���˿���

It is a both/and situation. We have always had a policy of encouraging more people to use EVs, but there are also wider issues around trying to tackle congestion, encouraging people to have more active, healthier lifestyles and tackling the issue of particulates that are produced by tyres, brakes and so on, regardless of which vehicle is used.

The Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 probably provides more powers than the other acts. The City of Edinburgh Council was very interested in the workplace levy, but it then decided that it was not. Tools need to be available to local government, so that it can decide what to use.

It is fair to say that the politically combative atmosphere sometimes means that common desires to tackle climate change can be compromised, because the decisions can be seen to be too difficult for people to make at particular points in an electoral cycle. What has been interesting about the low-emission zones is that they have produced positive results in air quality, particularly from a public health point of view. You can see that from the Dundee studies. Four local authorities, all with different political make-ups, came together and shared their different experiences.

That is a good example of the common understanding that, for public health reasons, we need to tackle the issue of emissions in our city centres. Those local authorities have collectively done that in their own cities, and they have more flexibilities within that. That common purpose and cross-party approach to tackling a difficult issue is a good example of what can be done.

I hear what you are saying. With regard to the reference to the “lack of leadership”, I recognise that there is a challenge there, and I recognise, as the report does, that there have been changes in leadership. The delay that has been talked about is understandable at both local government and national levels. As this has been progressing, we have had different First Ministers, and, at certain key points—for example, when we were about to produce the route map and take it to local government—we had a change in First Minister. I think that that is an important point. As we know, there have been changes in transport minister, too.

Coming into this post, I have tried very hard to provide a bit of stability across the transport portfolio, but there have been delays. When we eventually took forward what we thought was going to be the route map, there had been a change of perspective—and perhaps a change of membership, too—by the time that we got to the local leadership in COSLA’s environment and economy board. I recognise that.

That is the perception, not the reality. In law, there is a requirement, particularly for low-emission zones, for that funding to go back into improvements in transport and to tackle those central issues. To be fair, that is exactly what the law said was required, and it is also the case in relation to a local authority introducing workplace parking charges. It would have to put that money back into transport, and I am very keen that that happens.

I use the word “punitive”, but I do not intend it to be something that would prevent things from happening. From talking to leadership in the City of Edinburgh Council—there is a Labour leadership and different transport authorities—I know that the previous convener was keen that we see the issue as being about how we invest better in public transport. If there are ways and means for local authorities to invest in public transport so that people have more reliable, affordable and accessible access to public transport, that is a way forward for the different measures that they may want to introduce. I went over the Edinburgh city mobility plan at the time—I do not want to speak for the council, so I am using its words.

My constituency interest is West Lothian, and we have a representative of Midlothian here. For members who represent areas outside cities, that is where the regional transport partnerships come in, because they bring together the cities with the surrounding council areas that have people who commute into the cities. The regional transport partnerships have a critical role to play, because individual councils may want to drive things forward but they also have to work with their surrounding councils.

In my very first meeting with the first Secretary of State for Scotland, I raised issues around the work on the A75 and capital infrastructure and in relation to the wider issues around growth deals, particularly the Borders railway aspect. In meetings with the second secretary of state, I also raised the first of those issues. Both issues have since been resolved.

My main concern is what would happen with regard to the Barnett formula in relation to investment if there were greater use of private funding for certain projects. I would be very concerned if that had a knock-on impact on Barnett consequentials for transport. In my liaison with the UK Government, I also met with one of the transport ministers at the British-Irish Council in Belfast about two weeks ago. I am trying to have regular meetings with all the ministers at different times, including Lord Hendy, the minister for rail, and the future of roads minister—I think that that is her title; it is a very interesting title.

Yes, we do, and, as normal, we will respond formally to Audit Scotland. We received the report in advance of the Climate Change Committee’s Scotland-specific advice on a number of areas, including car use reduction. We expect that in May and we will have to respond rapidly to it because, as you will be aware, the Scottish Government will produce its climate change report and plan on the back of that advice.

It is fair to say that it will be a challenge to work with local government on that. In the political space, you will know that, if we dictate what local government needs to do by law and in legislative requirements, we get pushback that we are not allowing local authorities to have the space to make their own decisions as independent bodies. At the same time, we are often asked to provide greater guidance and advice. We work in partnership with local government and, in this instance, when we were progressing towards a route map, our local government partners on the environment and economy board did not think that those plans were sufficiently strong enough for them to support, for understandable reasons, so we had to rethink what we were doing. I think that we have reached a far more sensible position.

On governance, I should explain that Gail Macgregor—I hope that you will bring her in shortly, because I do not want to be speaking for her—and I co-chair the national transport strategy governance board, which involves the Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland, or SCOTS. We also have experts from local authorities, which have transport expertise, and from regional transport partnerships who can advise us.

We have decided to have governance in relation to car use reduction. There is a working group to work out an agreement on a policy statement, so that we have joint agreement on we want to do, and a delivery plan, or plans. The reason why I say “plans” is that one concern was that a one-size-fits-all approach will not suit Scotland. We all know that, realistically, there is a big difference between car use reduction in cities and in rural areas, and that it is about taking people with us. The feedback is that we need something that is more reflective of different communities, which is what we are developing. I therefore suspect that we will have different plans for different parts of the country. The regional transport partnerships, which are made up of councils from the relevant areas, will be part of that.

The big challenge is that we have to take people with us on this, so that approach is a better and more realistic way of doing things. We will have more realistic targets, and we will review the targets. We will not be able to deliver a 20 per cent reduction in car kilometres. I read the Official Report of the meeting when the committee discussed the issue previously, and I noted that Mr Simpson raised the issue of why we use kilometres. That is to do with measurement issues, but my reaction on coming into this brief was that, if we are trying to take people with us, using kilometres in a country that uses miles does not connect. It is car use reduction that we are interested in. I say to Mr Simpson that I had thought of that previously, but I am glad that he agrees with me.

That is our challenge in relation to climate change. If we are to make sure that the climate deniers do not get their place, and that we deliver what we want to achieve, we have to take people with us. We are therefore reappraising what we are doing. That is reasonable, as the draft route map was produced in early February 2022, which was just before the council elections. There has been a lot of time since that initial route map was produced, and we have a new cohort of councillors and membership of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

That was quite a lengthy answer, but it gives the committee an overview of where we have been and where we have got to.

Gail Macgregor might want to comment on that. There is an issue about community bus transport, but there are also issues about mobility as a service. There are some interesting projects around the country in that regard, such as the work that is being done in East Lothian around hospital visits.

Another challenge concerns responsive access and how we can ensure that bus services take into account our current usage as opposed to historical uses. In certain areas, the routes were determined to serve a previous industrial need, but people are now using buses for different purposes. We need to think about how to ensure that services are responsive in that regard.

That is worth bearing in mind in relation to the funding that I have just talked about for rail, because the number of journeys that are made by bus is extensive. However, as you are aware, the bus system was privatised in the 1980s and there are different operating models in use. There are powers that allow other models to be used. For example, Highland Council is pursuing a more local authority-run approach, Edinburgh uses a different model to operate Lothian Buses, and the Strathclyde Partnership for Transport is investigating franchising. The 2019 act provides for that and the associated regulations are there to help changes be delivered.

You talked about reducing costs or providing more services. With regard to encouraging more people to use cars less and use public transport more, I think that bus transport is our main solution. However, there is a challenge in terms of funding. We invest a lot in bus through our concessionary travel schemes, we have supported bus services with the network support grant, and we are continuing to support the underlying aspects—that goes back to the pandemic challenges, as well. The biggest challenge for us is to do with how we can better use funding for bus services to provide that certainty of delivery for the good people of Gourock and elsewhere. We do not have the immediate solution to that, but it is the biggest challenge that we face.

I ask Alison Irvine to come in on that.

People have different views on it. Such change was always ambitious. When the target was set, people might have thought that there would be more substantial change in car use, because car use had dropped off a cliff, for different reasons. I understand why people would have thought that. In addition, as the convener said, in the context of the climate change emergency, there was a substantial call on everyone to take action.

At that time, we did not have the zero-emission vehicle mandate or the vehicle emissions trading scheme, and it is fair to say that there was probably less realisation of how much change there would be. It is interesting that the advice that the UK Government received in, I think, February was that a substantial reduction—an 86 per cent reduction, I think—is expected because of the electrification of cars, trucks and lorries by 2040. I will correct my figures if I have not got that absolutely correct.

In that context and at that time, the target was probably not seen as being as unrealistic as it might have been seen in subsequent years.