I think that the UK Government should. To be fair to the UK Government, it has been in power only since July. I am sure that the issue will be at the top of somebody’s in-tray, particularly of those in the Treasury. I want to make sure that discussions are also informed by transport ministers.

Part of the work on that selection process will help identify what time reductions would be provided. On the update about the implications for journey times, we have already seen some improvement as a result of some of the investment that has taken place, but I will be able to come back to the committee in writing if there is anything additional to what I have set out to you in my answer.

I will approach the issue from two directions. Colleagues who remember when I was a member of the committee will know of my personal interest in hydrogen and its potential in relation to the wider energy mix of Scotland, our exports and demand from mainland Europe and Germany in particular.

On what can be done for Scotland, there is long-term potential around green hydrogen and how it can be deployed, particularly for the transportation of heavy goods, including maritime transport, in relation to which I think that it will be used at some point. Obviously, we are not in the lead on those areas but having the capacity for refuelling will be essential. That is why deep water ports are increasingly important from a global point of view. What is unfortunately happening with the polar ice cap will open up routes that previously were not there. In the long term, we are looking at 30-year cycles particularly for freight, which is relevant with regard to our moving into the hydrogen area. Might Scotland be well placed to take advantage of that, particularly with regard to the routes, but also with regard to the manufacturing of green hydrogen? How might that manufacturing capability be deployed in particular parts of the country? For example, might the north-east of Scotland be extremely well placed to take advantage of the opportunities?

I have taken interest in the development of hydrogen for rail and keep apprised of that. It might be used in some far north lines, for example, or lines that do not yet exist.

I want to see the use of green hydrogen in that vision of where the country could get to. I will not say that that is happening any time soon, but we should be exploring that. I am open to the issue and I engage with colleagues in the energy sector who deal more with hydrogen.

In the short term, we established a truck task force that looked at how we could map provision for a decarbonised approach to heavy goods vehicle transport, working with the sector—obviously, it is a commercially competitive sector, so there are issues around sharing data about where the optimum routes would be. The UK is interested in that work and would like to see it explored further. That task force also identified the potential for hydrogen fuelling as well as for electric power. That was a more immediate piece of work that has already reported. The work was done with Heriot-Watt University, and I am continuing to take an active interest in it.

The rates for reimbursement for concessionary travel are subject to negotiation with the Confederation of Passenger Transport and industry representatives, and they are agreed annually. To make changes to the reimbursement rates, amendments to secondary legislation are required annually—I think that there is a Scottish statutory instrument due to be laid in the Parliament on 27 January; I hope that I am correct about that—which this committee will obviously scrutinise. Part of the process is the negotiation of the rates, and, with the young persons scheme being a fairly new scheme, our experience of that scheme will obviously inform the level of reimbursement. That negotiation is happening now, and you can take a view as to whether that is appropriate.

The benefits of increased patronage and the increasing number of people using the buses are a behaviour change among our young people, who will continue to use the bus—that is the intention—and, I suspect, the fact that they are keeping some routes going. Many operators have reflected that the concession scheme has helped to support the bus industry, which was in a very difficult position during the pandemic, so it has been very welcome.

The issue with adjusting the reimbursement is that, if the bus companies say, “If you reduce the amount that you are investing, we will have to reduce our services,” that compounds the problem that Monica Lennon set out around the vulnerability of routes and weekend services in some areas. It is not an easy task to negotiate a level of reimbursement that the bus companies see as fair, meaning they will not reduce services, but that also provides value for the public purse. We are obviously learning lessons from the young persons scheme in particular.

It is not just about that line. We are looking at what the roll-out might look like on the suburban lines, too. There might be a different combination of trains at various times. We want a pipeline of work, so that the industry can keep the trains running. Once we know what we are procuring for the suburban lines and for the HST fleet replacement, that is exactly what we intend to happen. You are right about the need for clarity around what the disruption will look like, but I am sure that the deployment will be very much welcomed by everybody.

Obviously, we need to continue the services, so we would want to continue using the stock until such time as it is replaced.

Grid capacity is the single biggest issue that we face in our transport network and, indeed, in our decarbonisation work. I know that the committee has taken an interest in the issue; indeed, when I was deputy convener, we had a very short and sharp inquiry on it, because it does link with the wider issue of transport connectivity.

Along with Alison Irvine, the chief executive of Transport Scotland, I met with SSEN in relation to some of the wider connectivity issues, because we have a number of issues across different modes. However, you are right; we need to ensure, in particular, that there is capacity and that the capability to deploy is met. Clearly, local councils will be engaging on this, too, as they lead on such issues.

My concern is that, when it comes to the current UK provision and the decision making on priorities with regard to connectivity, we as a Government and as a Parliament collectively ensure that Scotland’s needs are properly met. The convener has previously pointed out the geography of Scotland’s rural and island areas, and we want these things to be deployed as well as possible.

However, this is a constraint, and if the committee wanted to look at the issue further, it could do so. I should point out that I do not lead on energy and grid connectivity, but I do make my interest known to colleagues and increasingly have more direct contact. We have agreed with SSEN to look more widely at some of the strategic issues in response not just to its needs but, more important, to the public’s needs with regard to grid connections.

Yes, it is, but it is also an enabler in helping deployment. Alison, did you want to come in?

I think that that is a very important point to identify. Even those of us who represent constituents in the central belt will know that, in rural areas, the availability of buses is important, and a number of us have reflected on that in the past in this committee. We must remember that we have a deregulated system of buses, in which the vast majority of bus providers are private companies.

As far as the funding model is concerned, you are right to identify that the vast majority of funding goes towards supporting our very popular and welcome concessionary scheme, whereby 2.3 million people in Scotland have free bus travel. Does the funding model allow us to use that funding to organise the system in a better way? It does not, because of the deregulated position that we are in. Can and should that change? Yes. That is why the committee has looked at all the different statutory instruments that have come forward under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019, which provides the opportunity for franchising and bus partnerships. Those regulations are now in place and local authorities have the power to establish such arrangements.

I am not pretending that that will happen any time soon, but there is a wider issue that I have asked Transport Scotland to work on with the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity, Jim Fairlie, who has direct responsibility for buses. I would like them to identify what we can do to make better use of, and to leverage, the investment that is provided to local authorities. However, the committee will be well aware that the legislation on concessionary travel is quite prescriptive in its provision of an entitlement and a funding mechanism, so making any strategic changes to that will be a task for the next session of Parliament. All parties should come together to look at how we can best use that heft of public investment to ensure that, as part of that arrangement, we have stronger provision in those areas where there are currently challenges.

The problem that we have is that bus patronage has gone down post the pandemic, and it is a struggle to get that back. You have identified that there is a vicious cycle here. People will not use buses if they are not reliable and the routes that take them where they need to get to have been lost. Through the work that we are doing at East Kilbride and Hairmyres, we are trying to make sure that we end up with a hub that allows people to use buses to access the rail infrastructure. That connectivity with other transport modes will be very important.

We cannot continue as we are. We need to bring about change, but we face challenges with regard to the pace at which we can do that and the levers that are available to us. Bettina Sizeland might want to comment more generally on our work in this area.

My recollection is that the community bus fund for the previous year was capital.