Thank you, convener.

Yes. Indeed, in this year’s budget, there is £400,000 for that. We are working with an organisation—I am not sure whether it is the Energy Saving Trust—to fund the colleges. It goes back to Colin Beattie’s point, because that provision will also be needed for trucks and heavy duty vehicles. We are funding colleges in that respect; in fact, I have visited Borders College to see its work to train up car technicians to deal with not only traditional internal combustion engine—ICE—vehicles, but EVs, too. The project is good and has been well received.

Moreover, the additional funding that we have provided for the coming year will be for reskilling and upskilling, too. Part of our draft just transition plan for transport, which is currently out for consultation, is about how we ensure that the workforce is skilled up and ready to move into the EV space.

Would I like more funding for the transport budget? Yes. Would I like to use that funding for bus services? Yes. However, there are obviously competing demands.

I think that 74 per cent of public transport journeys are made by bus—is that correct?

In national planning framework 4, there is a focus on environmental sustainability, and the door is open for good decisions to be made by local authorities. There should be more proactive use of section 75 agreements in order to meet local transport needs and ensure integrated transport planning, because people expect to have active bus routes to locations. I do not want to make a particular criticism of the local authority in the case that Stuart McMillan mentioned, but those considerations must be front and centre. That is why partnership working is really important.

I refer the committee to a previous report by the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. When I was its deputy convener, that committee produced a very good report on local authorities being delivery partners in relation to net zero. The report covered issues relating to planning and other areas, because there needs to be partnership. However, partnerships need work; they cannot be taken for granted. That is why Gail Macgregor and I are working on improving the governance, as recommended in the report.

There is also the matter of the governance arrangements in relation to the work on climate change, which involves the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, the Acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy, Gail Macgregor and key members from local government. Car use reduction is just one aspect of the whole picture, but the holistic picture, which is what I hope we are giving you through this evidence, is that we are absolutely focused on that and are trying to improve it with our partners.

That might be a question for Gail Macgregor.

Do you want to say anything on that, Alison?

I am thinking about how to explain this.

The active travel funding has changed, which is reflected in the report. More of the funding now goes to local authorities, in particular at tier 1 through the active travel infrastructure fund, which is the bedrock of the active travel delivery system. There is also tier 2 funding. In March, we published the “Active Travel Infrastructure Investment Report 2023-24” on what was produced when. Your concern about data on the active travel side in particular will be reflected in that report, so we can send it to you. It was produced subsequently to the publication of the Auditor General’s report.

With regard to the impact, it has been interesting to see what is happening with the south city way. We are already seeing data coming from the Edinburgh routes, and from other areas; we will capture more data as things progress. People have to have the confidence to use those routes more—just because we build something, that does not mean that immediately, on day 1, we will get people using it. The usage builds up over time, although it is very encouraging to see the information on the Glasgow south city way, as has been mentioned.

There has already been more data coming through since the Auditor General’s report was published. I can send the active travel report that I mentioned to the committee. We will continue to get that data, because I agree with you—it is easier for me to argue for funding if I have the evidence of the change. That is important.

We also see that in Aberdeen, which was a good example that you used with regard to the increase in patronage by bus users, although Aberdeen is obviously facing challenges in respect of differing interpretations as to the impacts. We want to show evidence that more people are more prepared to use public transport.

There is also the idea of how we measure accessibility and reliability. For the major shift that we have talked about, reliability will make a difference. Again, the changes that we are trying to make in that respect include providing more flexibility. In some areas, especially those that do not have the same frequency of bus services that the cities have, whether people are able to know when the next bus is coming will make a difference as to whether they use the service. We are making part of the bus infrastructure funding that we are providing available for that type of use, for example.

That might be a committee recommendation.

We believe in using experts.

Oh, I am sorry. Did I get that wrong? I am not feeling 100 per cent today, as you might have gathered. My apologies, convener.