Chamber and committees

There is a whole load of different things in there. I do not have the figures from 10 years ago to hand, but anybody would know what the increase in costs relates to. I will give you one reference. Between January 2022 and January 2025, the consumer prices index rose by 17.8 per cent. That figure is from the Office for National Statistics. To give you a comparator—one that is from not 10 years ago but only four years ago, as I think that everybody understands what has happened with inflation and cost increases in the period since then—the 2022-23 subsidy was £694.8 million, which, when adjusted, became £818 million.

We will have an increased spend, because we are improving services and doing work on peak fares, which we manage by looking at patronage levels. We have to have efficiencies within that. However, we should not underestimate the impact of inflation—a basic look at that will show that costs will increase.

I do not know or recognise the figure that you have provided for the costs, because I have not looked at those in particular. However, if you are trying to make an argument that somehow the franchising that we had previously was superior because it was cheaper, you might also want to reflect on what people’s experience was, what reliability and functionality were involved, and the circumstances in which the franchise came to an end—let alone the deficits and losses that various franchise companies experienced, which public funding does not account for. Quite apart from inflation, a whole variety of different costs is involved in rail services funding.

I am sorry, convener. That was not a short answer.

I was answering a very broad question that covered a period of more than 10 years.

For brevity, I point out that Douglas Lumsden has asked that question several times when I have attended the committee before, so I refer him to my previous answers in the Official Report.

The question has been asked before. We are investing in and improving rail services, particularly in Montrose and Arbroath and at the stations in Dundee and Aberdeen. Improvement work on rail is taking place, and we are investing in rail in the north-east.

Regarding what we have said about that, I explained the changes to our approach about 18 months ago. I am happy to write to the member again to reiterate what we are doing, but I stress that we continue to invest in rail in the north-east. The industry has told us that the best way to tackle the issue is to have planned, systematic investment that allows the best use of resources and the least disruption possible. I have been contacted by other MSPs in the area who are concerned about the disruption that takes place when improvements are made, whether on the rail track, to signalling or in various specific areas, but such work has improved journey times.

Some of those aspects of the rail improvements in Aberdeen and the region were agreed to in the regional deal. Improvements are taking place and investment is being made in specific locations. I will be happy to write to the member after the meeting, to give him more detail about where investment has been made. The overall question of what was going to be done and when was addressed some time ago in the committee. I am happy to refer to the Official Report of that meeting and to provide additional information to the member and the committee if that is required.

Convener, we have already written to the committee about that in relation to the impact of the A9 Tomatin to Moy project. Local firms are being used and there are local apprentices, labour and skills. That is the first of the latest sections. We can give you the information on that aspect again. However, on the overall procurement side, we have the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, which brings in aspects of community benefit. It is highly competitive, which is why we have tendering to ensure that we get best value from the tenders that are produced.

The new framework agreement and the form of capital funding that we are using will ensure that more Scottish firms and, potentially, wider UK firms will benefit from the A9 projects.

I refer you to the infrastructure investment strategy that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government produced. A number of different routes of funding will be used for all major infrastructure projects, including the Scottish Government bonds that the First Minister launched. Until we determine the correct procurement route for each and every one of our transport projects, it would be premature to say what will be used for which, apart from for those that have been determined to date.

As regards the business cases that have to be put forward and the value for money aspect, we have considered the mutual investment model, and we are open to using private funding. Indeed, we have done: there is a line of £147 million in the budget for next year, which concerns what has been privately funded. That must be appropriate, but the mutual investment model was costing 16 per cent more than what we had initially determined. That is a risk for the Government in relation to the availability of capital. The cost increased to 28 per cent, and that was one of the main value for money reasons we chose not to use that option for that particular route—although that does not stop future Governments using the mutual investment model across a number of infrastructure propositions at some point in the future. That is what the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government set out in the documents accompanying the budget.

If you are looking at the figures for support for sustainable and active travel, you will see that the outturn for 2024-25 was £122.7 million. In 2025-26 it was £135.9 million. For the coming year, it is up to £226 million. In addition to that, there are low-carbon projects. The increase there would include bus infrastructure. I have had discussions with the committee before about how we have combined those elements. It would make sense for local authorities for bid for some projects for planned-for integrated active travel and bus routes. Looking forward, we understand that some of that funding will be on EV aspects in particular. On active travel, we have tried to spend as much as we can when we can. The biggest frustration has been in not being able to pursue things during the year. Sometimes things have been late in terms of providing the funding through the door.

Is there anything else on active travel and the comparison? I feel reasonably comfortable that we are doing what we are spending money on. There has not somehow been anything reduced from that. The biggest challenge has been in the ability to plan for multiyear funding and the release of funding mid-year.

We will do that with final allocations. A lot of active travel has now moved over. I think that it was Patrick Harvie who led the change as to how that area was funded in tier 1 and tier 2, particularly for local government. What does that mean? It means that local government, which is closer to the projects, can determine what is required locally, rather than using Sustrans—now the Walk Wheel Cycle Trust—to do that, as it would have done previously. A great deal of the spend on that comes under tier 1 and tier 2. That goes back down to level 4, probably—and I have not been able to look at the table for that, particularly without my glasses on.

We are still determining some of that. We can write to you about the EV issues, but to take one example, £10 million of that will be for rural and islands infrastructure for EV. I am getting a signal from the convener that I should come back to him.

Through the consultation, I have heard from different people that there are opportunities there. We want to ensure that we do the right thing by the people of Scotland and by air passengers, and that we understand the airline market itself.