That is an important question. I have been asked in the committee before about replacement of high-speed trains. We have taken the decision that ScotRail can go forward with procurement. It is going to run an open competition for replacement of trains, so it is not possible to say what type of trains they will be. That will be set out when it runs that competition. The requirement will be for trains of an intercity type to serve long-distance travellers, with corresponding levels of passenger comfort and amenities.

On timing, the procurement will start, in relation to the issue of contract details for the procurement, in the next few weeks. As a result of the procurement, there will be determination of what type of trains they will be. We certainly want to achieve carbon reductions. The extent of electrification that is required, for example, will be determined by the outcome of the procurement exercise. However, it is important to reassure you that the cost of infrastructure to support the replacement is part of our financial planning, so we have worked closely with the Exchequer and finance officials to ensure that the potential capital requirements are understood.

As I said, the type of train will be determined in the outcome of the procurement exercise. Any modern train will be cleaner and greener than its predecessor, so I say to members who have asked questions in the chamber about the comfort and experience of passengers that those things will also be improved.

I give the commitment, as I have done in my correspondence with the committee, that we will keep you updated on progress, which will give you some indication of the timeline. However, we are at the start of the process; I thought it important to come to the committee and let you know that the process has now started. We will keep you updated, which will give you the answers that you probably want as to when, where and so on, but we need to let the procurement exercise start.

The operation of track and train is still fully determined and fully decided by the UK Government, under the Railways Act 1993, and issues still have to be referred to, approved by or agreed by the UK secretary of state. The real problem that we had with the Conservative Government’s rail reform legislation last year was that even had we wanted to make decisions about franchising or other areas, we would have had to seek permission from the UK secretary of state. This is about making more permanent the powers that we have.

I will continue to have that discussion with the UK secretary of state as the UK Government’s second major piece of legislation on Great Britain rail reform comes through.

So far, to the end of March 2024, £20.5 million has been spent on bus priority measures through the bus partnership fund. That is in a capital space, so it is more about the physical infrastructure that is required.

On your point about additional funding to help in processing the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 regulations, that was more focused on the community bus fund. That has been used more recently by local authorities.

I hear what the member says about enabling support. Councils themselves, and councils through their regional transport authorities, may want to use that. There is something to say about how we can have better integrated support for the regional transport partnerships to allow them to make the decisions that they need to make. We support them in particular ways, including from capital infrastructure. I hear what the member is saying but, as we go forward, the case has to be made as to why that funding is important in such a tightly constrained area. I will meet the convener with responsibility for transport for Glasgow this week, and I am sure that they will pursue that issue with me.

I refer you to the latest audit report on that, which found Scottish Canals to be in a better and more positive state. There were issues to do with VAT and other areas that were particularly problematic, which the Scottish Government assisted it with. Kerry Twyman might be in a better place to say more about that, particularly from the accounts perspective. However, my understanding is that Scottish Canals is on track and in a better position than it was previously.

I am more than happy to look at any proposals or suggestions. As I said, Mr Fairlie leads on that area. However, I point out that there have already been major investments by Scottish Canals, supported by the Scottish Government, at the southern end of the canal network.

In more general terms, we should think about how we use our canal network more creatively. In Glasgow, in the area around Bob Doris’s constituency, there are major issues about how to tackle flooding and regeneration and redevelopment. Canals were our economic drivers in the past, and I think that they might have a new future, although that is all within the financial constraints and fiscal challenges—as you know, we have a 9 per cent capital reduction in our budget over the next few years.

I agree with you. However, a lot of the issue is to do with the technology of the ticketing system, which ScotRail inherited from Abellio. ScotRail knows that it must make changes to it. You are not the only MSP who has raised the issue with me. A number of MSPs have, and they have given good examples.

When I meet Joanne Maguire, the MD of ScotRail, I will ask about progress on the issue. I think that ScotRail is trying to address the issue, but I cannot give you the detail of how it is planning to do that. Once I have spoken to ScotRail, I would be happy to provide more information or to ask ScotRail to contact the committee directly to explain how it plans to change things. We might not be talking about an overnight change, because it is a systems issue. I will ask ScotRail to brief you at the same time, Mr Simpson.

I am alert to the issue. I share your concern, because the current situation does not make sense. We need to make sure that we have a fare structure that is simple and that, when people buy tickets, they can have confidence that they are getting the best value, because that will help to drive people on to public transport and to make them switch from the car to rail.

They are continuing. That is a matter for the employer and the trade union, as is appropriate. The public pay matrix was issued at the end of last week. With regard to the discussions with the rail unions, I cannot comment specifically on those with the RMT, but I understand that there will be engagement. I am not sure of the timescale for when the talks with the RMT will commence, but I reiterate that it is the responsibility of the employer to engage in those discussions with the relevant trade unions.

As a Government, our position is quite clear. Because of the constraints that we are under, there is a public pay matrix that—

My understanding is that that will be the case, because that is what happened last year when I had just come into post. I am assuming that the process will be the same this year.

As you might be aware, convener—and as, I am sure, the deputy convener is aware—my responsibilities are for the trunk roads network, on which we have spent some time. I am not, however, diminishing what is a local issue for a local authority. Every local authority will have roads that are, for various reasons, priorities for investment.

As far as improvement is concerned, we have a £10 million road improvement fund—I will correct that if I have got the number wrong—on which we work with local authorities. It tends to be used to address safety issues.

However, the solution to the problem that Ben Macpherson has identified has to come from the council. Nobody would expect me to impose solutions on local authorities without their having asked for that. I have not been approached by the City of Edinburgh Council on the issue. Even if I were to be approached, I know that there are similar issues in Glasgow and other places.

The issue comes down to how we improve the availability of capital investment to help our infrastructure. I will try to word this in a gentle way. Over the piece—by that, I mean over several UK Governments—there has not been so much focus on capital investment in infrastructure. As a result, we have not had consequentials with which to move towards making the major capital investment in infrastructure that we need, not only to fulfil our national responsibilities but to help to support work at the local level.

The question—as Monica Lennon’s was—is about how we increase the amount of capital investment that is available to local authorities. We cannot do that when we are facing a 9 per cent reduction over the next few years. I know that Ben Macpherson is passionate about his constituency, but I am not sure that the committee that scrutinises national policy is the right place to get a good answer to the question. Obviously, that is what you are looking for. However, if you have written to me, I will try to respond appropriately.

That is the bottom line. I have big responsibilities for all our public sector transport network and our trunk roads. I really sympathise, because I used to live in that part of Edinburgh and I am aware of the road in question. However, every city will have areas that face the same issue. Part of the solution lies in reducing car use and providing more public transport; however, I cannot spend time today dealing with individual constituency issues, and it is perhaps a bit unfair to ask me to do so.