There was funding in this year’s budget for some sections of the A96. I cannot tell you what will be in next year’s budget, because that is still subject to our one-year budget discussion.

I was straight with the committee in saying that previous commitments on the timescales for delivery of full dualling would not be met. People expect us to be straight with them, and that is what I was previously—in this committee, I think—to ensure that it was clear then.

I know that you will want to have information, but a lot of those things must be collectively agreed with Cabinet colleagues. As you will be aware, the budget is an on-going process. I am not at Cabinet today, but lots of discussions on budgets take place on a Tuesday morning, so, if the committee would like me to be part of those discussions, I ask it not to call me in for the next wee while, please.

Of course it needs to add up, but the whole point is that it can add up in different ways, and the increasing use of EVs as opposed to petrol cars is a significant development that the UK Climate Change Committee has mentioned. That will be reflected in the climate change plan.

ScotRail has a specific focus on delivery for customers, which has led to good and improving performance under public ownership. The fact that we have had a regular timetable this year will also help and is testament to what the rail unions feel is a good and constructive relationship with the Scottish Government, and one that has been enhanced by public ownership. I recognise the member’s previous role and his involvement in making that decision. All those things have helped with performance. Public perception of ScotRail is the best for all the major rail providers, with approval at 91 per cent, which reflects well on performance.

I am not saying that everything is good. There are still challenges and we still need to deliver on what we are investing in the system. We are working with Network Rail to invest in strategy and priorities, but it is not making the progress on performance that I would like to see.

The picture is certainly good in comparison with the rest of the UK, and public ownership has added to that. It is striking that the UK Government’s plans for rail reform seek to replicate what we have here and I emphasise to the committee that we will have to consider where the UK-wide legislation will have an impact on Scotland. I am spending a great deal of time on that area. Bill Reeve, whom you referred to, is director of rail reform and is dedicated to that particular area. I will keep the committee apprised of when you might expect to have information.

That is a segue into the issue of rail reform, which I will highlight to the committee. We cannot have any diminution of the powers that we currently have in Scotland. I am working hard and constructively with the Department for Transport, as are colleagues, to ensure that, but it is really important that we protect the powers that we have. A lot of our success in rail has come from agreement and alliance and from working together to plan activities. For example, we ensure that Network Rail works with ScotRail to avoid cancellations when works are being planned. However, as we saw with storm Amy, circumstances can cause issues on the network and can lead to cancellations. Sadly, there can be fatalities, which can also cause disruptions, so the picture for cancellations is complex but, by and large, I am pleased with ScotRail’s performance.

There is a lot in there. It is actually the Fife line; the Levenmouth line was capable of taking electric when it was originally opened.

We have just had a very pleasant celebration of the 10th anniversary of the Borders railway. Its electrification will involve the use of battery electric trains, which will also have level boarding and other aspects that will be very welcome for customers.

The decarbonisation plans for ScotRail will influence the climate change plan that we will produce—I know that the committee has been interested for some time about where the refresh of that plan is and what its timing is. I am sure that you will appreciate that it makes sense to incorporate in that our plans for the Fife and Borders lines.

The second part of your question was whether we are actively looking at alternatives. The obvious one is hydrogen. I know that you have been interested in hydrogen trains, both as a member and a minister. The Scottish Government is doing no immediate work on the provision of hydrogen, but your analysis is correct that, at some point in the future, we could certainly imagine that parts of the country where hydrogen is being produced would have access to use of that hydrogen for rail. However, that would involve a considerable amount of investment in the fleet.

I visited the prototype of a hydrogen train during the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—and I know that there is interest in helping to develop that, but I do not want to give you the impression that that is something that I, with my limited budget—however big it might be compared to others—can focus time and attention on at this point. However, your perspective is one that we should be open to.

We do not know, because we are not in charge of the UK legislation.

Bill, do you want to explain that?

Any national roll-out of communications will need to be done in conjunction with our road safety partnership colleagues, with COSLA and with SCOTS, but you are correct to raise that point about awareness.

I think that, by and large, people are very aware, because they are seeing the signage and seeing the changes, but the importance of it can and should be reinforced as it is being rolled out. I also recognise Monica Lennon’s point about road safety in a local context. If there is a 25 per cent reduction in casualties, that is not always about in-town fatalities, and there can be severe injuries. In terms of that reduction happening, consensus is really important.

I will make sure that, at our next meeting of the road safety partnership, we reinforce the point that the committee is of the view—if you are collectively of this view—that looking at how we can reinforce that point nationally in communications might be helpful.

That was an interesting contribution from road policing.

The original target of a 20 per cent reduction in car usage by 2030 was set during the pandemic when there was a substantial reduction in car usage and an anticipation that it would go back to previous levels.

As members might recall, I took quite a bit of flak during the summer for recognising that the target was not achievable and that it might also not be needed because of what is required for the future. I had to make that clear at the time because Audit Scotland had written a report. We all knew that the Climate Change Committee’s advice was going to be way off what we expected would be needed when the original target was set. The fact that the UK Climate Change Committee’s advice on Scotland’s carbon budgets indicates that Scotland now needs a 6 per cent modal shift from car to public transport and active travel by 2035 is, as you have stated, a big difference from the original target.

I am currently revising what we will be producing, which we need to do as part of the climate change plan. I know that the committee has spent a lot of time looking at what might be anticipated in that plan. As part of the preparation for the climate change publication, I have received a submission, which I will look at any time now. We need to look at whether the appropriate measure to look at is car use or car emissions reduction, because what we are trying to do with car use reduction is to reduce emissions. Going back to the partnership aspect, COSLA is key to that work.

We do not anticipate all parts of the country being able to change at the same level or to the same degree; our cities will perhaps be in advance of other areas, and we will always need car use in rural areas. As transport secretary, I have been quite clear that I anticipate that.

There is a bit of a challenge in that, in the Climate Change Committee’s view, there will be limited car use reduction because people will effectively just move from petrol and diesel vehicles to electric vehicles. Its view is that there will be limited reduction in cars—full stop—and that they will all be EVs. I think that that is ambitious.

We will have to consider what we need to do to meet our carbon budgets. The 6 per cent modal shift requirement is low, and we need to think about how it will impact on emissions. There are other reasons why we would want to encourage car use reduction generally by encouraging public transport use. We know that using public transport is a healthier way of travelling in terms of walking, wheeling and cycling. In some parts of the country, we will clearly need to have continuing extensive car use—that can be through EVs, but, as we are aware, we need to make sure that we have charging infrastructure that meets requirements. That is why, as I have said to the committee before, we are providing £30 million outwith local authority funding to develop that, in addition to the new rural and islands EV fund, as the market will not necessarily support charging infrastructure in some of our rural and island areas.

The situation is difficult and complex. There is a world of difference in what the Climate Change Committee is saying now compared with what it said previously. I need to make sure that, in the climate change plan, we present that new target to everyone.

This is about local decision making. I am not going to take a command-and-control approach and say what local authorities should or should not do—it will be up to them to decide what they want to do. Local authorities have legislative provision that they can use, whether it is in the 2001 act or the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019. However, what has happened is interesting, because fewer people are coming into cities to work, which perhaps reflects Monica Lennon’s point about commuting. Significant numbers of people are still working from home; in fact, the census showed that about a third of people are still working from home. Obviously, the census was taken in 2022. Circumstances have changed, and we do not see any local authorities looking at workplace parking levies, for example.

The Labour transport lead in the City of Edinburgh Council is keen that we do not roll back from anything. He was concerned about whether a reduction in targets would have an impact on the council. It does not; it allows the council to carry on and do what it wants to do. Some local authorities are more keen than others that we set up the regulatory review, so that they can see what they might want to do.

My advice to local authorities is to ensure that they have good, strong public transport alternatives. In Edinburgh city, the Lothian bus system is strong, respected and very popular. The challenge will be in relation to what happens to the likes of East Lothian, Midlothian and West Lothian. The strategic transport plans that were set out previously in Lothian were for a mass transit system. The process does not necessarily specify one particular mode of transport, but the system has to operate across the region, not just in one city.

I suspect that that is a challenge generally with regard to our cities. The issue is not so much what local authorities want to do internally in the cities as how they work with neighbouring local authorities to ensure that everybody gets the benefits. A good, positive alternative in the form of public transport for people would be a requirement.

We are there to enable and support local authorities where we can, and we will respond to any proposals that come forward. I do not think that we have seen any firm proposals yet, but that is the general atmosphere. We are doing what we need to do to ensure that the regulatory checks are in place for certain approaches that local authorities might want to use, so that there is provision if they want to use legislation. However, they have to decide for themselves what to do—I cannot decide that for them.