It is a combination of a number of those things. Obviously, I do not want to retrofit a decision that was made in 2020, but we are dealing with the elements of it in the here and now. I think that the target is unachievable, and I think that it is going to be unnecessary. I want to have a bit of realism and pragmatism around the issue, and I want to take people with us. That is why we will see a change.

I will give you some examples. There are low-emission zones exemptions for blue badge holders. We have been very aware of some of the tensions in that regard, because some people need to use cars. On your point about rural and island communities, the lack of public transport availability means that more people rely on cars, so we are looking at policy measures to help with that. For example, in those areas, the approach might not be to reduce car usage but to switch to EVs. Again, I am pleased to say that we are going to be able to reintroduce our EV loans, but we are specifically restricting those to people on a reduced income and people in rural and island communities.

Those are two very practical examples to address exactly what you are saying, which is that we will have to be responsive to individual needs, that there will be more challenges and that car use reduction might not be as applicable or as achievable in rural or island areas as it is elsewhere. There will therefore need to be a greater shift to EV use and support in those areas, which is why we have the EV charging fund for rural and island areas and the specifically targeted loans to help people who want to make that shift.

I think that that is her title—I do not want to mis-title her. We have engagement, but, by and large, the funding for transport will come from the budget that we currently hold in devolved areas.

We have more charging points per head of population than any other part of the UK outside the south-east of England, and we have more rapid chargers. I go back to the point about the geography of Scotland and the fact that the funding that has been provided for local authority consortiums has also been supplemented by rural and island EV funding.

I think that you asked whether we accept the report, and the report has recommendations on the job of Government. The Public Audit Committee does this all the time; its role is to look at what Audit Scotland is recommending. We are taking forward the recommendations in the report.

On the findings, I can question a number of issues. For example, there was consultation when the climate plan was produced in December 2020 that included that ambitious target. That ambitious target is the challenge. We had ambitious targets to try to reach.

On leadership, I have explained that there have been changes in leadership not only at Government level but at local government level. There has been a change in the cohort of councillors during the period.

Did we have a plan? Yes. We had the draft route map that was produced in February 2022. There was extensive consultation and involvement, including of the leadership of Transport Scotland, the relevant ministers and the relevant COSLA and local council representatives at that time, during that period for delivery.

All the things that can and could be done—such as developing guidance and the toolbox and all the things that we would expect as part of that—have been worked on and developed. However, the key issue is about getting approval for what is a bold and ambitious target to deliver on. Are we doing things to help deliver it? Yes. Have we provided leadership? Yes, we have.

Almost half, if not more, of the general public across Scotland have free access to buses through the most generous concession system. Are we ensuring that there is resource and funding in the budget to help with active travel and bus priorities in these difficult times? Yes, we are. The Government has done a variety of things to provide leadership.

To boil down to the specific issue of the ambitious target of reducing car kilometres, there were challenges in providing an agreed route map and delivery at all levels. The central issue is that the Government cannot do this on its own. I am not blaming local government at all—it has a place and perspective and is absolutely key to delivery. However, if local government is not comfortable with what is put in front of it, we have to respond to that.

Has that caused a delay with regard to the plan, the route map and so on? Yes, it has. Would we have a different route map if we are trying to achieve a 20 per cent reduction, whether that is in miles, kilometres or use, compared to what we would do to achieve what the Climate Change Committee has advised the UK Government? We are still awaiting the advice to Scotland but, if that changes, of course our route map and delivery plan will change.

We are still committed to car use reduction, even though the vast majority of emissions reductions will be met by other means. Also, as you know, we do not have control over some of the issues that are in the report. Some of the major issues are about motoring taxation, such as road tax and fuel duty. On that specific point, from the start, I have actively engaged with transport ministers in the previous Conservative Government and now the Labour Government. I am also seeking agreement with Welsh and Northern Irish ministers. We have discussed the issue at the British-Irish Council, because some of the issues will need a four-nation approach to have the best effect. I am very keen for that approach to help in this area, but it has to be done collectively.

There has by no means been an absence of activity, but has there been agreement? That is the core issue in the report: has there been collective agreement on a way forward? We have not been able to achieve that, despite how positively received the draft route map was in January 2022.

Our evidence is the increase in public transport use.

I am suffering a bit.

Sometimes.

Separately from the context in which you put that question, I think that we do need to improve and change things, and there is a constant drive for improvement. However, you should not diminish the changes that we are making and have made already. For example, when it comes to rail traffic, 75 per cent of passenger journeys are on electrified lines. The electrification of the East Kilbride line is coming, and we have completed the electrification of the Barrhead line.

We are also seeing the latest iteration of the vehicle emissions trading scheme—on 7 April, the UK Government issued its response to the UK-wide consultation on that. A load of different things are happening that are resulting in a shift to electric transportation. As I mentioned, there is the increasing electrification of our bus system.

However, we are talking about how people travel, and giving them alternatives. It is interesting to see the data in the report, including data from the Glasgow south city way, where we are seeing significant changes in commuting times and in how people are using the new provision there to cycle, with investment support from the Scottish Government.

Do we need to see quite a change? Yes. Are we taking steps to bring about that change? Yes. Do we need to do more? Yes. That is the whole point—we want to drive forward that agenda. However, it is not without its challenges. In particular, to reflect on Councillor Macgregor’s point, if we look at the geography of Scotland, we see that there are big challenges in rural areas. That is one of the reasons why we think that, if there is going to be a continuing reliance on cars, we need to invest in advance of demand. We have worked with local authorities on funding and support for electric vehicle charging, such that we have match funding from the private sector, which is good. However, in our budget that has just been approved, we have funding for rural and island EV charging in particular, because we might not get the same market uptake there as we might do elsewhere.

We have not got our advice yet, but our reading of the climate change advice that was given to the UK Government in February leads us to think that the level of car use reduction that is indicated by the target will not be needed in order to meet the emissions reductions that we need. That is probably the core issue. We still want and need to reduce car use—that has a variety of impacts—but, as I said at the beginning, I want to be clear that the vehicle emissions trading scheme and the switch to EVs will probably do far more to reduce emissions than was anticipated in December 2020. That is what leads me to say that the target is not only unachievable but unnecessary.

That does not mean that we do not need to reduce car use. We still do, but we should do it in a different way.