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.

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.

A 3.6 per cent reduction in car use since 2019 is still a reduction in car use.

I am not sure that I necessarily agree with that point, because it was considered and it was part of the evaluation. I reiterate that I wanted the peak fare reduction pilot to be a success, and it was extended not just once but twice.

You will be familiar with the fact that we reckon there was an increase in rail demand at that point of 6.8 per cent. That represented around 4 million extra rail journeys over nine months, of which 2 million were journeys that would previously have been made by a private car. That is in the context of around 5 billion private car journeys annually, and it represents a reduction of less than 0.1 per cent of car-based carbon emissions.

Part of the assessment and the evaluation was to ask people whether they would have previously travelled by car, to identify whether there was a modal shift. That was one of the key points. In fact, if you go back to the original launch of the pilot, you will see that modal shift was clearly set out as one of the main aims. The interesting thing is that since the pilot ended, rail use has increased.

The pilot attracted people to rail to try to reduce their costs, which is why I wrote to every MSP identifying flexipass use and season tickets. We have seen almost a doubling, in fact, of the number of sales of flexipasses and season tickets. Price does have a part to play, but it is a fact that we have had an increase in rail patronage even after the pilot ended.

Was modal shift part of the original intention of the pilot? Yes. Did the pilot achieve the shift that we wanted or desired? Unfortunately, and regrettably, no. However, patronage of rail has increased. We want to encourage more people to use rail, and it is good that more people are using rail.

We are making changes—

I think that that is an eternal challenge not just for this area of policy, but right across Government. When it comes to capital funding, we are looking forward to receiving the UK Government’s multiyear capital assessment over the summer, which will be helpful more generally.

I will give the example of the funding for bus priority measures, which I am very supportive of. I have explained why that was one of the funds that we had to pause. I deliberately use the word “pause”. Why did we have to do that? When I came into post, I was struck by how long it had taken some local authorities to develop their plans to spend that money. That is not a criticism—I understand that there are planning issues when it comes to activities such as prioritising bus lanes. That funding then had to be paused. However, with regard to the funding that has been allocated to that this year, because the schemes that had been prepared are ready to go, we will be able to progress those. Last year was a very difficult year, but we have tried to bridge that.

That is why the partnership with local government is really important. We know that we are all heading in the same direction when it comes to what we want to achieve. There are schemes that are ready to go because the preparation has been done. It is important that the funding for active travel, in particular, goes directly to local government, because that allows local authorities to build experience and expertise that are transferable. However, until such time as we can provide the certainty of multiyear funding across Government, that area will be a challenge, because a lot of the funding is for new infrastructure.

Once an active travel network has been built, it can be built on further. Local authorities and local communities have a great deal of ambition and enthusiasm in that regard. I visited Clackmannanshire, where work is being done to connect towns. I also visited Milngavie, where a lot of the traditional routes are to Glasgow. People forget that active travel can help people to travel within communities that do not have established bus or train routes. Active travel infrastructure is reconnecting communities, which is good from a societal point of view.

Active travel funding has a big impact on those communities in which it is spent, but we want to provide a bit more certainty. Although I am not able to provide more certainty with regard to multiyear funding at the moment, the move to a common platform and the changes that have been made in relation to the new tier 1 and tier 2 funding for active travel will allow local authorities to plan a bit better. Councillor Macgregor might want to reflect on that.

Do you have to?