My understanding is that, when it comes to the overall measurement, the Department for Transport always uses kilometres, because that is an international metric, but the issue that we have here is how we connect with people and take them with us. I genuinely believe that we need to make the target more realisable and understandable. I would prefer to talk about a 20 per cent reduction in car use generally. That will still be measured in kilometres, but we can talk about miles if people relate more to that and what it means.

We could also interpret that as saying that, if someone was commuting by car five days a week, Monday to Friday, and they voluntarily decided, as part of a behavioural change, to travel by train one day a week, we could look at that as a 20 per cent reduction in their car use for commuting. The issue is partly about how we take people with us and communicate what they can do individually, and that is where carrots and sticks come in. People have to want to volunteer to do that.

Lots of different things can be done on an individual basis. For example, a family that owns several cars taking the decision to reduce its car ownership can help with behavioural change. Lots of things can also be done with councils, which are already doing a lot of activity, particularly in cities.

I talk about a 20 per cent reduction in car use, because language matters, and I think that that will help us to take people with us in our action.

I agree, but, unfortunately, the Department for Transport, which helps with our data measurements, used kilometres under the UK Conservative Government and still uses them under the new UK Labour Government.

As you are aware, I became the Minister for Transport in June 2023, so I am looking back at what happened. As you know, that target was first set out in the climate change plan update in December 2020, and it had to be aligned with our commitment to evidence-based policy making. An extensive period of evidence appraisal took place prior to a public commitment being made on car use.

The evidence that informed the adoption of the target included the Scottish TIMES model, independent modelling on decarbonising the Scottish transport sector, published academic material, international evidence and the UK Climate Change Committee’s evidence on the requirements for a modal shift. The UK Climate Change Committee forecast that a 10 per cent shift away from car use was needed to meet the UK’s net zero ambitions at that time, but work by Professor Jillian Anable from the University of Leeds institute for transport studies suggested that a reduction in car use of between 20 per cent and 60 per cent would be required. All those different pieces of evidence formed the evidence base that informed the target, which was very ambitious and required transformational change.

As the convener pointed out, at that time—December 2020—we were in the pandemic period, when there had been quite a change, so it was probably not unreasonable to think that the world could change and that we could meet the target, even though it was ambitious. People might have different views, but that was the context in which the target was first set, and it was subject to a 12-week consultation thereafter. I, too, wanted to ensure that I was aware of the origins of the target, which I have set out.

I think that we will need to drop the target, or change it—“change” is probably the appropriate word. As I said in my opening remarks, we still want to support car use reduction. That is still an important part of what we want to do, but the figure of 20 per cent is not realistic and will need to be changed. Therefore, we will take the advice that we are expecting to receive in May from the Climate Change Committee—I have told you what the CCC has already said to the UK Government—and that will steer us.

That will not change our focus and drive to make a difference in policy terms and to work with local government, but it will make the target more realistic and therefore more achievable. We are in a different situation from the one that we were in in December 2020; we have had different experiences and demands. We can still make the difference that is needed to achieve our climate change targets. As I have set out, we are still committed to doing that and to achieving net zero by 2045. The climate change plan that will be developed following the advice in May will help us to deliver that.

I am not sure. I might ask my officials about the car kilometre metric but car use—

This last year is probably the one in which I have had the fullest involvement, as the cabinet secretary, in the preparation of budgets, although I had to manage decisions on some of the budgets that we had to deal with during the emergency measures in the previous financial year.

Transport is a large budget, but a lot of that has, understandably, to be spent on safety issues. We have £1.5 billion for rail, a lot of which has to be spent on the services that we provide under control period 7, with Network Rail providing the infrastructure and ScotRail providing the services. Rail and road safety is absolutely imperative for us, as one would expect from the Government.

One challenge that we have had, which is reflected in the report, concerns short-termism in budgets, in particular with capital spend, where we have applications and so on to go through. I am sure that the committee is well rehearsed on the point that one-year budgets are extremely difficult. It is a challenge for us to provide multiyear funding for active travel, and for bus priority routes and bus infrastructure, which is another good example. We are putting sustainable travel and bus infrastructure funding together, because local authorities can make some sensible decisions around combining active travel and bus planning. If they are going to do something to a route, they can do it once, rather than twice, so that gives them better flexibility. Nonetheless, that multiyear funding is a challenge.

With regard to discretionary spend, I assume that the committee looked at some of the challenges last year, in particular where there were in-year changes to the Scottish Government’s budget. A lot of that came from the UK Government at the time and was outwith our control. That meant that we had to adjust our spend, and it was easier to adjust what was seen as uncommitted spend that had not been legally contracted. Unfortunately—I feel very strongly about this—that meant that there were big challenges for our active travel and bus funding, because that spend was not already contractually committed.

Climate change challenges, by their very nature, mean that we will have to do things that we have not done previously, and do more of them, including on active travel and bus. I welcome anything that the committee can do to help in that regard. As the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, I am very keen to try to embed climate change funding as part of our budget funding more generally. The new carbon budgeting, and other aspects that are coming in, will—I hope—reinforce that position, but it is a challenge.

Just to keep the focus in this session on the report, I should say that it is clear that we have to reduce car use—full stop—whether we are talking about EVs or otherwise. Obviously, we do not want to disincentivise people from using EVs. We want to encourage that sort of thing, which is the point of your question.

As for promoting such moves, I was speaking only yesterday at a net zero event at Dynamic Earth that involved industry, and that issue was part of the discussion. We want people to switch to EVs, but we also want to reduce car use in general, because that will help to alleviate congestion and will lead to people using public transport more, as it will be more affordable, reliable and accessible.

It is that combined picture that we are working on, but on your specific question about whether we are working with industry, the answer is yes.

I hear what you are saying. With regard to the reference to the “lack of leadership”, I recognise that there is a challenge there, and I recognise, as the report does, that there have been changes in leadership. The delay that has been talked about is understandable at both local government and national levels. As this has been progressing, we have had different First Ministers, and, at certain key points—for example, when we were about to produce the route map and take it to local government—we had a change in First Minister. I think that that is an important point. As we know, there have been changes in transport minister, too.

Coming into this post, I have tried very hard to provide a bit of stability across the transport portfolio, but there have been delays. When we eventually took forward what we thought was going to be the route map, there had been a change of perspective—and perhaps a change of membership, too—by the time that we got to the local leadership in COSLA’s environment and economy board. I recognise that.

That is the perception, not the reality. In law, there is a requirement, particularly for low-emission zones, for that funding to go back into improvements in transport and to tackle those central issues. To be fair, that is exactly what the law said was required, and it is also the case in relation to a local authority introducing workplace parking charges. It would have to put that money back into transport, and I am very keen that that happens.

I use the word “punitive”, but I do not intend it to be something that would prevent things from happening. From talking to leadership in the City of Edinburgh Council—there is a Labour leadership and different transport authorities—I know that the previous convener was keen that we see the issue as being about how we invest better in public transport. If there are ways and means for local authorities to invest in public transport so that people have more reliable, affordable and accessible access to public transport, that is a way forward for the different measures that they may want to introduce. I went over the Edinburgh city mobility plan at the time—I do not want to speak for the council, so I am using its words.

My constituency interest is West Lothian, and we have a representative of Midlothian here. For members who represent areas outside cities, that is where the regional transport partnerships come in, because they bring together the cities with the surrounding council areas that have people who commute into the cities. The regional transport partnerships have a critical role to play, because individual councils may want to drive things forward but they also have to work with their surrounding councils.

In my very first meeting with the first Secretary of State for Scotland, I raised issues around the work on the A75 and capital infrastructure and in relation to the wider issues around growth deals, particularly the Borders railway aspect. In meetings with the second secretary of state, I also raised the first of those issues. Both issues have since been resolved.

My main concern is what would happen with regard to the Barnett formula in relation to investment if there were greater use of private funding for certain projects. I would be very concerned if that had a knock-on impact on Barnett consequentials for transport. In my liaison with the UK Government, I also met with one of the transport ministers at the British-Irish Council in Belfast about two weeks ago. I am trying to have regular meetings with all the ministers at different times, including Lord Hendy, the minister for rail, and the future of roads minister—I think that that is her title; it is a very interesting title.