Chamber and committees

This is about local decision making. I am not going to take a command-and-control approach and say what local authorities should or should not do—it will be up to them to decide what they want to do. Local authorities have legislative provision that they can use, whether it is in the 2001 act or the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019. However, what has happened is interesting, because fewer people are coming into cities to work, which perhaps reflects Monica Lennon’s point about commuting. Significant numbers of people are still working from home; in fact, the census showed that about a third of people are still working from home. Obviously, the census was taken in 2022. Circumstances have changed, and we do not see any local authorities looking at workplace parking levies, for example.

The Labour transport lead in the City of Edinburgh Council is keen that we do not roll back from anything. He was concerned about whether a reduction in targets would have an impact on the council. It does not; it allows the council to carry on and do what it wants to do. Some local authorities are more keen than others that we set up the regulatory review, so that they can see what they might want to do.

My advice to local authorities is to ensure that they have good, strong public transport alternatives. In Edinburgh city, the Lothian bus system is strong, respected and very popular. The challenge will be in relation to what happens to the likes of East Lothian, Midlothian and West Lothian. The strategic transport plans that were set out previously in Lothian were for a mass transit system. The process does not necessarily specify one particular mode of transport, but the system has to operate across the region, not just in one city.

I suspect that that is a challenge generally with regard to our cities. The issue is not so much what local authorities want to do internally in the cities as how they work with neighbouring local authorities to ensure that everybody gets the benefits. A good, positive alternative in the form of public transport for people would be a requirement.

We are there to enable and support local authorities where we can, and we will respond to any proposals that come forward. I do not think that we have seen any firm proposals yet, but that is the general atmosphere. We are doing what we need to do to ensure that the regulatory checks are in place for certain approaches that local authorities might want to use, so that there is provision if they want to use legislation. However, they have to decide for themselves what to do—I cannot decide that for them.

I am trying to remember the figures from my budget appearance earlier this year—I will correct them if I am wrong. We have £27.9 million of funding for behaviour change and £20 million for the bus infrastructure fund. The remainder will be for active travel. Its funding is similar to that allocated in previous years and to what people have traditionally seen. Somewhere in there is the community bus fund, which I know is also very popular. That is a smaller amount.

The funding is in a good and positive place. As I have explained, it is combined for practical reasons, because it helps local authorities to be able to use the funding in a sensible and co-ordinated way.

No. As I said, the section 4 contract has been awarded, and we are moving to procurement on section 5. Anyone who travels the route, as you regularly do, will see the work that is happening now. You will probably start seeing the ground works on the Tay crossing to Ballinluig section, too.

One aspect that I am keen to ensure is well understood is that transport is not just about the functional delivery of services or roads; it also has a huge economic impact, not least of which is the number of people who are employed in the transport sector. We think that it supports around 150,000 full-time equivalent jobs and that it generates around £10 billion in gross value added. That is all set out in our report “Connecting Scotland—The Value of Transport”.

You mentioned the A9. Part of our aim with the Tomatin to Moy project is to ensure that it has a local economic impact, with local companies and local people being employed and opportunities being provided for people who perhaps might not get employment elsewhere. That has been a key requirement in the A9 procurement process to date, and local provision of labour and the use of local companies was evidenced by what I saw and heard when I visited the Tomatin to Moy section site.

On the challenges that we have in Scotland, the demand for construction in general is very strong. We are seeing that in the energy sector as well as in the roads sector; I know that the committee has taken an interest in energy in some of its recent inquiries. We want to get value for money, but we also have to anticipate construction inflation, which has exceeded levels in other areas and places pressure on that.

The point about the supply chain is really important. With regard to road construction areas, Transport Scotland has worked very hard on supply chain procurement for the different A9 sections.

The Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, which you will be familiar with, sets out the importance of community benefit, to the value of 10 per cent. That is set out more clearly in the provisions across public sector contracts that are our direct responsibility. Although I do not have them to hand today, I have seen figures on Tomatin to Moy and I can share that breakdown and the types of community benefits with you, which include benefits to local businesses that are involved in the delivery of different services. We can demonstrate that.

Moreover, Transport Scotland has produced a document that sets out its procurement work—I have it in my inbox and want to study it at greater length; I do not know whether Fiona Brown is familiar with it. We could send the link to the committee, and you could read about the work’s impact.

There was funding in this year’s budget for some sections of the A96. I cannot tell you what will be in next year’s budget, because that is still subject to our one-year budget discussion.

I was straight with the committee in saying that previous commitments on the timescales for delivery of full dualling would not be met. People expect us to be straight with them, and that is what I was previously—in this committee, I think—to ensure that it was clear then.

I know that you will want to have information, but a lot of those things must be collectively agreed with Cabinet colleagues. As you will be aware, the budget is an on-going process. I am not at Cabinet today, but lots of discussions on budgets take place on a Tuesday morning, so, if the committee would like me to be part of those discussions, I ask it not to call me in for the next wee while, please.

Of course it needs to add up, but the whole point is that it can add up in different ways, and the increasing use of EVs as opposed to petrol cars is a significant development that the UK Climate Change Committee has mentioned. That will be reflected in the climate change plan.

ScotRail has a specific focus on delivery for customers, which has led to good and improving performance under public ownership. The fact that we have had a regular timetable this year will also help and is testament to what the rail unions feel is a good and constructive relationship with the Scottish Government, and one that has been enhanced by public ownership. I recognise the member’s previous role and his involvement in making that decision. All those things have helped with performance. Public perception of ScotRail is the best for all the major rail providers, with approval at 91 per cent, which reflects well on performance.

I am not saying that everything is good. There are still challenges and we still need to deliver on what we are investing in the system. We are working with Network Rail to invest in strategy and priorities, but it is not making the progress on performance that I would like to see.

The picture is certainly good in comparison with the rest of the UK, and public ownership has added to that. It is striking that the UK Government’s plans for rail reform seek to replicate what we have here and I emphasise to the committee that we will have to consider where the UK-wide legislation will have an impact on Scotland. I am spending a great deal of time on that area. Bill Reeve, whom you referred to, is director of rail reform and is dedicated to that particular area. I will keep the committee apprised of when you might expect to have information.

That is a segue into the issue of rail reform, which I will highlight to the committee. We cannot have any diminution of the powers that we currently have in Scotland. I am working hard and constructively with the Department for Transport, as are colleagues, to ensure that, but it is really important that we protect the powers that we have. A lot of our success in rail has come from agreement and alliance and from working together to plan activities. For example, we ensure that Network Rail works with ScotRail to avoid cancellations when works are being planned. However, as we saw with storm Amy, circumstances can cause issues on the network and can lead to cancellations. Sadly, there can be fatalities, which can also cause disruptions, so the picture for cancellations is complex but, by and large, I am pleased with ScotRail’s performance.

There is a lot in there. It is actually the Fife line; the Levenmouth line was capable of taking electric when it was originally opened.

We have just had a very pleasant celebration of the 10th anniversary of the Borders railway. Its electrification will involve the use of battery electric trains, which will also have level boarding and other aspects that will be very welcome for customers.

The decarbonisation plans for ScotRail will influence the climate change plan that we will produce—I know that the committee has been interested for some time about where the refresh of that plan is and what its timing is. I am sure that you will appreciate that it makes sense to incorporate in that our plans for the Fife and Borders lines.

The second part of your question was whether we are actively looking at alternatives. The obvious one is hydrogen. I know that you have been interested in hydrogen trains, both as a member and a minister. The Scottish Government is doing no immediate work on the provision of hydrogen, but your analysis is correct that, at some point in the future, we could certainly imagine that parts of the country where hydrogen is being produced would have access to use of that hydrogen for rail. However, that would involve a considerable amount of investment in the fleet.

I visited the prototype of a hydrogen train during the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—and I know that there is interest in helping to develop that, but I do not want to give you the impression that that is something that I, with my limited budget—however big it might be compared to others—can focus time and attention on at this point. However, your perspective is one that we should be open to.

We do not know, because we are not in charge of the UK legislation.