When it comes to transport procurement, everyone will be aware that there are issues around what we can do in allocating procurement and ensuring subsidy control. It is part of the UK requirements that we must ensure that competition law is recognised and met. I am well aware that the member has a keen constituency interest in the ScotZEB programme. He will be aware that Alexander Dennis has received, by a clear margin, the highest number of allocations of any company in that area. As part of ScotZEB 2, as you identified, it is working on 44 zero-emissions double-decker buses as part of the successful consortium led by Zenobe.

In relation to ScotZEB 2, it is not correct to say that the rest of the buses are being produced in China. An additional 28 zero-emissions single-decker buses were originally going to be allocated to Alexander Dennis, but there was an issue around delivery to do with the lifespan of ScotZEB 2, so Volvo is producing those buses. They will not be made in China.

As to what can be done, there is still a desire by companies to expand their zero-emissions fleet. With ScotZEB, we have looked at—I am sure that the member will be very familiar with this—how we can crowd in private funding and use leasing to generate increased funding. That has grown, so we are encouraging bidders that were unsuccessful in the most recent round of bidding to work with interested funders to procure additional fleet. In that way, the private funding mechanism that we helped to develop and innovate as part of ScotZEB will be able to continue, regardless of the public funding that is available in that area. That is increasingly important. We are learning from that for heavy goods vehicles, which is an even more challenging area than buses. From next year, there will be funding available to identify how we can help with that.

With regard to fair work practices and how we can police a consortium that has submitted a bid, there is a degree to which we can do that, but the measures that we can take are constrained by the subsidy control regime. I am very supportive of investment in manufacturing in Scotland. I hope to visit Alexander Dennis at some point soon, at its invitation. Alexander Dennis is benefiting from ScotZEB 2, although it might not be doing so to the extent that some people would want. Companies such as Volvo have also received work through ScotZEB 2. Can we prevent people from procuring from companies outside Scotland? It is increasingly difficult.

Alison Irvine might have more to say on that.

I absolutely agree with that in relation to what we can do. We want to try to achieve that as best we can within the legislative constraints in which we must operate, particularly in relation to subsidy control. That is why, as you will be aware, there has been a substantial investment on the economic side of things in order to help to promote that and, in particular to support Alexander Dennis in the development of its capacity to meet new markets as part of transition. The point is that that is part of what the market needs and that includes moving into coaches. Again, it is about how we help to develop the capacity to deal with the new demands that the market requires.

I point out that Lothian Buses is successfully in public ownership and is recognised as one of the best services—if not the best service—across the UK in its provision.

Unfortunately, because of the challenges we had on funding during the last year, we were not able to progress the community bus fund, due to the fact that it would have been for new, additional work that was not already legally contracted.

On where the budget lies, generally we have more pressures on our resource budget than on our capital budget. The bus infrastructure fund will help to reintroduce support that local authorities are asking for on bus infrastructure and I want to try to be as flexible as I can to help support those things for which the community bus fund would have been used. I will give you an example—although, I am not saying this is how it would be used. Highland Council has purchased a limited number of buses for a limited number of routes in relation to Inverness—I am not sure whether it was the community bus fund that Highland Council used for that. However, that is one use of it.

There is a lot of focus on Glasgow and Strathclyde and the Strathclyde Partnership for Transport in particular, but all the regional transport partnerships are looking at what suits them; for example, SWestrans is looking at what the south-west of Scotland’s needs are.

I will try to be brief. Although we have had to pause—I used that phrase deliberately last year—the bus priority fund, there will be funding for buses that can be used for infrastructure and for what the community bus fund would have been used for. I am not currently in a position to tell you what that is, but that is what I will try to do with the budget for 2025-26.

There was some split. There was a small amount of revenue. Most of what the new fund can be used for is help for capital works that the councils are requesting and needing for infrastructure.

There is increasing interest from the private sector, as you will be aware. That was set out in our implementation plan, which we wrote to the committee about when we published it at the end of last year. On the 24,000 figure, in Scotland, it is as important to identify the location as it is the volume. In rural and island areas, there is a challenge. For next year, there is an additional £5 million for rural and island connectivity for EV chargers to deal with areas where there is a market deficit in relation to deployment. There is funding next year, particularly for rural and island areas.

On value for money, we will report on how that £30 million has been deployed and what additional funding has come in from the private sector. When I had a meeting with the Climate Change Committee advisers sometime last year, they said that they were a bit more relaxed about the 24,000 figure, and we will see what happens when the Climate Change Committee reports next year. The advisers thought that, given our geography, location will be more important for Scotland. The 24,000 figure was an extrapolation from United Kingdom-wide analysis. Bearing in mind that Scotland has more chargers per head of population than anywhere outside London, within the UK, we are in a strong position.

One of the disappointments of the trial is that it did not lead to the shift in people making the decision to travel by rail that we all wanted to see. There is a challenge in the temporary nature of the trial, although you will remember that the Scottish Government extended it, beyond what the Greens had negotiated, to the autumn, to give it more space and time. The result was a disappointment.

We have replaced the measure with other offers, including changes to the flexipass option. I have written to all members with the options and what that means. I think that we are discussing commuting. Eighty-six per cent of the commuting market can now use a flexipass. It has recently been expanded further to Perth, Stirling and Bathgate, for example. That is helping to provide reductions in costs. In some instances, that is cheaper than the peak fare—this is not always the case, but the cost is in the same ball park. It is still providing a subsidy and much reduced costs to the public sector.

Yes, I am monitoring that. I want to look at it over the piece. I want to see a more settled period, particularly over the autumn, to be able to do the right comparison. I am expecting to have information sometime around spring, I think. That might be an area in which the committee is interested. I would be happy to share that when we have an understanding of people’s behaviour and of the numbers of those returning to rail travel.

That is one of the challenges in the transport budget—full stop; end of story. Most transport projects are not deliverable year to year; they are long term. If we could get a three-year budget from the UK Government in its spending review, that might provide the opportunity for the Scottish Government to have more longevity in its funding. If that were realisable, it would benefit our portfolio, in particular, and it would benefit lots of other areas, too.

Yes. In the transport innovation space, I am not sure whether the Aberdeen bid has any joint application for EVIF funding in relation to hydrogen, but I do not think so.

Kevin Stewart makes a good point around perspective. I do not know how I can tie that back to our budget provision, but I will look into the point about permissions and so on in relation to what the challenges are. When I was still a member of the committee, before I became the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, we visited the hydrogen fuelling station and I was interested in the work that has been taking place in Aberdeen. However, I think that I will need to come back to the committee with regard to what strategic work has been done in that area.

Work on the route map has continued. You will be aware that the draft route map was published together with COSLA. We want to do that in partnership with local authorities. As you can imagine, local authorities will have different views. I know from my discussion with Gail Macgregor, the transport lead for COSLA, that she is very supportive. She has to take the route map through the COSLA process.

There has been a delay with regard to when I would have wanted the route map to be published. There are genuine issues. People wanted to see the research that was referred to, for example. Some of those who wanted to see the research were very positive and supportive of what is in the route map, and some of them were not.

We have helped to inform their discussions about that, but, more important, we have shared what our thinking is, and our officials have engaged actively. The ball is probably in COSLA’s court with regard to getting agreement with local authorities on a way forward.

From a national point of view, we know that local authorities are critical in some of these areas. You will recall that this committee’s inquiry in 2021—I think that it was its first inquiry in that year—was on local authorities and their partners delivering net zero. The route map is part of that. We have to respect our colleagues in COSLA and the time that they want to take in looking at that.

We are in the process of procurement for replacing the HSTs, which I announced to the committee at my previous appearance, I think. That is live and current. We will make the decision on that, and the funding that you have identified will support it.

You capture the challenges well. I am keen that my officials work with the rail unions on what the replacements will look like. I have had regular discussions with the unions on what their requirement is.

Whatever fleet is procured, we will certainly see reductions in carbon emissions. That is what is required. It is quite clear that we need to de-risk in terms of where we need to get to by 2045 to meet the overall national targets for carbon emissions. Rail will contribute to that, and 75 per cent of journeys by rail are already decarbonised.

In addition to the work on HSTs—Kevin Stewart’s particular interest being those that serve the north-east—and the other intercity routes, work is progressing on the suburban fleet replacement.

I am conscious of time so I will perhaps just identify the fact that part of our budget helps with the rail infrastructure to assist with the Fife and the Borders decarbonisation projects. There is substantial investment in feeder stations in Thornton in Fife and in Portobello, and we are investing in another feeder station, too. The Haymarket to Dalmeny work has already started, which will help with the decarbonisation of the railway in Fife. I know that that is not Kevin Stewart’s constituency area, but I am giving you an overview of the investment in progressing decarbonisation.