I think that Morna Cannon previously helped to explain what targets we will set. There will be a 16 per cent emissions reduction target, but we are also setting a 4 per cent car mile reduction target.

There are challenges around whether that is enough and whether we should encourage a greater reduction; I know from the committee’s evidence sessions that some people think that it should be greater. It is not only about emissions reduction as there are other reasons as to why we would want to consider that. Road safety is one, and, given that there are particulates that people are still concerned about, health and wellbeing is another.

I know that the issue of where we are now and where we might move to is up for public discussion. I also suspect that political points will be made by different political parties.

We have ensured that rail prices, particularly for commuters, are cheaper with the removal of peak rail fares. The average saving is 17 per cent, while in the Glasgow to Edinburgh corridor, it is 48 per cent—

I understand. All I am saying is that, if you reduce the cost, you will increase the number of people who want to use the service, which is a good thing. I see that regularly on the Glasgow to Edinburgh line. However, there are limits to the number of carriages that any particular train or, indeed, station—the issue actually tends to arise more with stations—can take.

The extensive investment that we are making in rail electrification and the new fleet is also about making improvements. As far as capacity is concerned, you have talked about the length of trains and the number of carriages, but the fact is that different carriages will have different numbers of seats. I want to be careful not to get this wrong, because it is getting into a certain level of detail, but it is likely that the replacement fleet, which we are also procuring for the Fife and Borders lines, will have more seats in the carriages. The issue is the number of carriages that will be available, but improvements in frequency as well as the improvements that electrification can bring—and which we are already seeing on the East Kilbride line, which has just been electrified—will help in that area.

There is a general challenge in the south-east of Scotland, though, as a result of population increases and the major housing developments that are being approved right across Midlothian, East Lothian and in my own constituency in West Lothian.

Do you mean the 4 per cent car mileage reduction? I do not know. We would need to look at the projections for individual cities. There are other reasons to do it, however, such as improving quality of life and dealing with particulates. We know from international information that reducing car usage in a city enhances economic growth and footfall in hospitality, leisure and so on. There are costs and benefits in all of these policies. We should not underestimate the benefits of doing these things for reasons other than reducing emissions.

The biggest reliance is on people switching to EV cars, which is still car use. We are not saying that people cannot use cars. As the previous and current UK Governments have said, we are saying that we need to make the switch to EVs in order to tackle climate change and reduce vehicle emissions. However, it is not the only tool. Obviously, it is quite controversial. In the debate that we had on congestion charges, just about every party, including the Labour Party, were agin it at that point. There is a question about how we can take people with us on challenging things.

A national body such as ESS may want centralised national enforcement and national leadership and so on. However, if everything was done centrally, we would not take people with us, which we will have to do. The best way to do that is in partnership. I have had quite good and challenging discussions with local authorities through the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and regional transport partnerships. You should not think that local authorities do not want leadership in this area; many of them want support with what they are doing. Some of the active travel infrastructure that has been built is extremely popular and local authorities are pleased with and proud of how they are delivering that. Local authorities have been crying out for the bus infrastructure fund for some time. Obviously, financial pressures and the cut in our capital budget generally meant that there was a real challenge with that, but we are now back on track, which is very good.

From all my time in government, I know that, if we can do things in partnership with people, we are more likely to achieve an effective result. I would rather do things with, rather than to, local authorities.

I think that the people you are talking about are the haulage companies, and we are talking directly with haulage companies and hauliers. The Road Haulage Association attended the session that we had here in Edinburgh just a few months ago, along with major haulage companies that are interested in the area. It is about how to get the finances to stack up, which is one of the interesting lessons from the timber pilot that is operating in Inverness. We need to know what the sweet spot is that makes it make sense. You are right that, until electric HGVs make sense financially, people will not do it. That is why we are engaging, putting in resources, time and effort, and working with the sector to help convince people that it is possible.

However, it is not just a case of convincing people—they are interested and they know that there will be a requirement. We should remember that the UK Government will be looking at mandates in relation to HGVs, and it is starting progress on that. I suppose that it is a pincer movement—it is about demand but also other areas.

You talked about biofuels, which are important. Obviously, we want aviation as the key market for that. However, there are challenges in a country such as Scotland with regard to where the main focus of that should be. There is also potential for rail, relating to some of the lines that will not be electrified any time soon.

The target was adopted by the United Kingdom Government, and the Scottish Parliament agreed to it. I go back to the convener’s point: if we do not meet it in this way, what are we going to do instead to meet our statutory requirements?

If you tail off in the bus sector or in freight by going not for zero emissions but for a 70 per cent reduction in emissions or whatever, where else are you going to find your carbon reductions? Are you going to have far more heavily enforced demand management, or will you look at agriculture instead or put more severe requirements on housing? Those are genuine questions, but part of the planning is to look at what is understandable, fair and just, and at ensuring that you can deliver to meet what is required.

We have given the bus industry substantial support, and we will continue to do so, but we have to work with it to reach the targets. If we do not reach them, we will end up not making our emissions reductions and, indeed, not tackling climate change, which the Parliament has made clear that it wants to do.

There are measures to tackle aviation emissions, but I think that they are driven more by the technology side of things—I am looking to my colleagues to come in on this, too. As I have said, those emissions have been baselined into the plans as they stand.

Initial measures are being taken in the budget, but they will not come into effect for a few years. For example, it was announced as part of our proposals that we would be taking on the powers with regard to air departure tax and shifting to air passenger duty, and there are also the proposals on private jet use. I should also point out that my role as Cabinet Secretary for Transport has been to ensure that Highlands and Islands airports are protected, and that exemption is absolutely critical.

We are also working with an industry that is changing. People have strong views on aviation, but the shifts in emissions reductions are there; they might not be there to the extent that some might want, but things are shifting. The main focus has been on ensuring that we can take the powers that we need, and we will use them responsibly. For a start, we will be matching the UK Government in the first year. There is a consultation out on that just now, which you can obviously input into.

In what way? If you are talking about cross-border travel, I should point out that timetabling is a UK responsibility. There are still certain reserved matters in that respect. Indeed, if I am allowed to say so, convener, I am keen for the committee to have the opportunity to look at the rail reform legislation before dissolution, because it is important that we finish our piece of work on that, if we can. However—and this is my segue, convener—cross-border issues are a key aspect of rail reform and of where we will be in the future, and we will have to work with the UK Government on those issues.

The question, then, is whether we should subsidise people to travel by train to London. If we are using public money to do so, we are not using that money to do all the other things that everybody else wants us to do. That choice is there, but the point is that it might be a challenge to do what you are suggesting on a cross-border basis.

That said, your point about encouraging more people to use trains more often is well made, and I support it. It is a really important thing for us to do. As for how we do it, though, the devil is probably in the detail. It comes down to choices: should we subsidise, say, rail commuters, or should we subsidise buses and make sure that there is more rural bus provision? These are choices that we are all going to have to face in the future.

We will come back to you on that.