I am not here to disagree with the Auditor General’s comments; I am not here to contradict what he said in any way. However, as far as his comment about moving away from delivering the target is concerned, I read that—I might have been incorrect in doing so—as being more about the policy intention as opposed to the practical data, but I might have misread the way in which the report was produced.

Perhaps I can help by telling you what the City of Edinburgh Council and Glasgow City Council have said about the matter. In its city mobility plan, the City of Edinburgh Council says that it has committed to using

“a range of demand management tools, such as timing windows and access restrictions, to manage these vehicle movements.”

It notes that

“Demand management tools are widely used across the city, for example, through the imposition of parking restrictions and the operation of bus lanes.”

The council has indicated that

“One of the tools that could be explored to support demand management is a ‘pay as you drive’ scheme”

to reduce the number of cars in the city and to generate revenue

“to improve sustainable travel modes.”

That does not mean that the council is going to do that, but it wants to have the powers to do it. It has checked the legislation and regulations that have existed since 2001.

In Glasgow City Council’s city government budget proposals for 2024 to 2027, it is noted that

“A project team will also be formed to progress business cases to utilise current and upcoming powers from the Scottish Government that have the potential to generate additional revenue for the city, including but not limited to the Transient Visitor Levy, Congestion Charging and the Workplace Parking Levy.”

Those powers already exist—the transient visitor levy already exists, for example, but the council needs to decide how to use it.

It is a situation in which local authorities—obviously, Glasgow and Edinburgh are the biggest cities in Scotland—can decide what they want to do and see whether they already have sufficient powers to do what they want to do.

Yes, and we should remember that two councils have set targets of a 30 per cent reduction rather than a 20 per cent reduction.

We have seen substantial change in some parts of the country. For example, in the city of London, there are measures in place that have been controversial, but which have been successful in reducing car use. I think that London has managed to achieve a reduction of about 19 per cent. That is the type of activity that would be required across Scotland, and, as I said, there is a difference between doing things in a city and doing things in rural areas.

Car use in Scotland is currently contributing significantly to carbon emissions, and that must change. In 2022, car use accounted for 39 per cent of all transport emissions in Scotland, and for 12.4 per cent of total Scottish emissions. However, Scotland is a rural and sparsely populated country, so we will always need vehicles—including cars—to enable people, goods and services to get around, to and from Scotland and beyond. Therein lies our challenge but also an opportunity for safer, fairer and healthier communities.

We need to encourage more people out of their cars, to use public transport where they can and to switch to zero-emission vehicles. That requires investment that also benefits those without access to a car, not least so that people see the alternatives to car travel as affordable and sustainable.

The Scottish Government remains committed to reducing car use, and we are working with COSLA and the regional transport partnerships to take forward recommendations from Audit Scotland’s report. National Government cannot do that alone and, later this spring, we will publish a renewed policy statement with COSLA on car use reduction. The evidence shows that reducing car use also means reducing demand. Local authorities have powers in areas such as parking and planning to develop schemes locally. However, so far, only a few have shown interest in doing so.

As I advised Parliament on 6 March, we intend to review the target of 20 per cent by 2030, informed by the forthcoming Scotland-specific carbon budget advice from the United Kingdom Climate Change Committee. UK Climate Change Committee advice outlines that improvements to make buses and active travel more attractive, affordable and accessible will allow 7 per cent of car demand to be switched to public transport and active travel by 2035, and that there is potential for the UK Government to go a further 3 per cent on modal shift, through things such as reducing congestion.

When we set the 20 per cent target, it was ambitious, but that level of reduction will now not likely be required. However, even with the switch to electric vehicles, there is still a need for car use reduction, due to the emissions reduction benefit as well as the wider societal benefits. We therefore continue to invest to provide alternatives to travelling by car. In 2025-26, we will invest £263 million in sustainable travel measures, including putting more zero-emission buses on Scotland’s roads, helping local authorities leverage more private investment for electric vehicle charging and creating more safer and improved routes for walking and cycling.

Last month, I joined Xplore Dundee to welcome 12 new electric buses that had been partly funded by our Scottish zero-emission bus challenge fund, in which every pound that has been invested has attracted a further £3.20 in private sector investment. Scotland’s zero-emission bus fleet comprises 800-plus electric buses, while more than 200 million free bus journeys have been made by under-22s, helping them to choose to travel more sustainably from a young age.

In 2023-24, Scottish Government investment delivered more than 115km of new and improved active travel infrastructure, with much of that providing safer routes to school for children, benefiting their wellbeing and helping to protect them from the risk of harm and vehicle accidents. Last month, I joined young people in Milngavie to see how it is safer for children to walk, wheel, cycle or scoot to nursery and primary school. That is healthier and helps to make children happier, which is an important factor. Cutting car journeys and reducing emissions allow us to not only address the climate emergency but improve the health and wellbeing of people and communities and make communities safer for people to live in.

That is the context for our evidence to the committee.

No, it is not. That has been a challenge for society across many areas. When the target was set, I was Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Fair Work and Culture, and I was clear that it was an opportunity to try to make a change. However, society has changed, and it is difficult to interpret a lot of the transport data, because of the change in people’s work patterns. Virtual and home working has affected how many times people travel. We also know from rail and bus services that, increasingly, weekends are busier, because people are working from home during the week and they want to enjoy their leisure time at the weekends.

Generally, fewer people are travelling, because of the wider societal impacts, but I do not think that the step change that many people would have liked has happened. Although car use is down by 3.6 per cent in comparison to 2019 levels, there has not been the complete change that many people had hoped for. That is not specific to Scotland; it is the case across the world.

I accept the recommendations of the report. That is what we do, and we take action on them. We can maybe question the rationale in the thinking.

There are two things. How do we take people with us? We need to get people to look at reducing their car use. Longer journeys contribute more to car kilometres. I would be better bringing in my officials to speak to the analysis of the data, but that is measured by agreed metrics that are used in Department for Transport assessments. Remember, I gave you the figure of 3.6 per cent reduction to date and that figure comes from using those data metrics. The issue then is that we cannot distil our individual policies on DFT metrics, if that makes sense. Does anyone want to help me on this?

As we have discussed, integrated ticketing is not necessarily about concrete ticketing—it will be more about the digital platform that is used, and the device. We have our advisory board and we have recommendations. Part of that involves taking along a lot of private sector operators; Gail Macgregor talked about the bus sector, which is privatised. We are trying to get everyone in the room. We are getting advice from representatives of all the different sectors, but regulations will probably be needed.

Alison Irvine might want to reflect on what will be required in that regard. However, we are making progress. Integrated ticketing is already operating on a regional basis in many parts of the country.

Yes. I do think that rail should be fully devolved to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government. As you will be aware, the UK Government is currently considering rail reform legislation for Great Britain, and I have been keeping the relevant committee—the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee—apprised of my engagement in that respect. I have been very pleased to have engaged a number of times on the issue with the new Secretary of State for Transport, Heidi Alexander.

As this is perhaps somewhat separate from what is in the audit report, to be fair, I will try to keep my comments brief, convener, but we are seeing some challenges in what could be put forward for England and Wales, which might reflect what we are operationally trying to do in Scotland under the current devolved powers by having as much integration between track and train as possible. However, what we are able to do in that respect is limited by our legal powers and locus, and if there is vertical integration in the UK, that will give us an issue unless it is properly addressed.

That said, we are constructively engaging with the UK Government to identify within its proposals a Scottish solution that would help us ensure that we had such integration. Currently, there is an alliance or co-operation agreement between Network Rail—although it is a reserved body, it is funded by us for what it provides through an agreement under CP7—and ScotRail management to get as much integration as possible.

This is a big issue, but I am sorry, convener—

The issue is whether we would have spent time during the research asking people how long their car journey would have been had they not taken the train. I am not sure that we would have gone into that detail when asking people whether they would have used their cars previously. It comes back to the point that we are trying to reduce car use.

On how car use is measured, the Department for Transport measures it. That is how we get our data. The underlying data is measured in car kilometres, and that is how we measure the global aspect year on year. However, I do not think that we asked individuals how long their car journey was and that might be the point of Audit Scotland’s criticism.

We did measure car kilometres and we can give you the evidence of the difference between those measurements because that is part of the Department for Transport’s global assessment of car kilometres. I do not know whether my officials have anything more to add on that, or whether I am correct in what I am saying about the research.