Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 3, 2026

Official Report 617KB pdf

---

Draft Climate Change Plan

08:55

Item 2 is an evidence session on the Scottish Government’s draft climate change plan, which sets out how the Scottish Government intends to meet its carbon emissions reduction targets. The committee is leading a cross-committee effort to scrutinise the draft plan. The Scottish Government has said that it will lay a final plan by the end of March.

Today’s evidence session will focus on the transport aspects of the draft plan. I welcome Fiona Hyslop, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport; Philip Raines, deputy director for domestic climate change at the Scottish Government; Morna Cannon, director of environment, climate and sustainability at Transport Scotland; and Heather Cowan, head of climate change and just transition at Transport Scotland. Thank you all for attending.

Cabinet secretary, I think that you want to make a brief opening statement, so over to you.

Good morning. Thank you for the invitation to give evidence on the draft climate change plan, which sets out the actions that must be taken by 2040 to reduce emissions and meet Scotland’s first three statutory carbon budgets. As the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, I will discuss the transport sector’s contribution to the draft climate change plan. As the sector is Scotland’s largest emitting one, accounting for around a third of Scottish net emissions in 2023, decarbonising transport is critical to achieving our carbon budgets. As set out in the draft climate change plan, transport is expected to deliver a substantial share of the emissions reductions over the next decade.

We can take encouragement from the fact that key technologies for transport decarbonisation, such as electrification, are already here and are improving all the time. Nonetheless, substantial action will be required to deliver the transport emissions reductions that are envisaged in the plan. I want to be clear that we will deliver those in a way that is fair and part of a just transition.

Transport is a particularly challenging sector to decarbonise, because it is woven into many parts of people’s lives. It is shaped by how people live, work, learn and access goods and services. Therefore, decarbonising the sector will require a transformation of our economy and society that is underpinned by sustained investment, both public and private, in physical infrastructure. It will also mean the Government supporting people, communities and businesses to make more sustainable choices.

That is why public involvement and engagement are essential. Delivering a just transition to net zero by 2045 will rely on action from Government, businesses and households alike. I look forward to considering in further detail the consultation responses, and the reflections on transport within them, as part of the finalisation of the climate change plan. I also welcome the valuable scrutiny and input that the committee provides.

The draft climate change plan builds on the progress that we are making in the transport sector. It includes 28 actions for the sector, including measures that support modal shift through more sustainable forms of travel, as well as measures to encourage a more rapid transition to electric vehicles. Since the draft plan was published, we have continued to progress the delivery of policies that support those priorities. We have committed nearly £1.4 billion across the spending review period to low-carbon and sustainable travel, including active travel, bus infrastructure and support for zero-emission vehicles.

We recognise the importance of multiyear funding, particularly for infrastructure projects, and we are committed to providing as much certainty as possible while ensuring that our public finances remain on a sustainable footing.

On 1 April 2027, the Scottish Government will introduce an air departure tax, matching the United Kingdom Government’s air passenger duty rates and bands in the first year. We will then go further and introduce a private jet supplement within the air departure tax from 2028-29. We believe that those who choose to use private jets should pay higher rates of tax if they choose not to change their behaviour. That is in line with the polluter-pays principle and our progressive approach to taxation.

09:00

Although we remain firmly committed to delivering net zero and transport’s contribution in that regard in the draft CCP, that also depends on actions from those across society, including businesses, householders, commercial investors and local authorities.

The draft CCP is rightly ambitious on the scale of the emissions reductions that are required from cars and vans. Meeting the ambitions will require a continued joint commitment from the Government and local authorities to align national action with accelerated programmes to roll out public EV charging points, with support for cross-pavement charging and investment in projects that enable people to leave their cars behind.

We also need the UK Government to play its part, especially by using its reserved powers to ensure swift strategic upgrades in electricity networks and swifter connections, working collaboratively with devolved Governments on regulatory approaches to phasing out fossil-fuelled technologies, and making public charging more affordable. We continue to urge the UK Government to take a four-nations approach to broader motoring tax reform that balances support for electric vehicle uptake with support for car use reduction. Importantly, we need the UK Government to provide consistent signals about the transition to net zero transport. Recent decisions on policies such as the vehicle emissions trading schemes and pay-per-mile charges on electric cars undermine the clarity and confidence that people need to take action. We ask that devolved nations be included at an early stage in the development of all policies on transport decarbonisation.

I look forward to discussing with the committee the draft climate change plan, which sets out a strong and ambitious pathway for transport’s contribution to achieving our first three carbon budgets.

Thank you. I get to ask the first question. A huge amount of the plan, as far as transport is concerned, is based on getting electric vehicles on the road. Are the targets that have been set out deliverable? What will you do if they are not delivered?

We have statutory carbon budgets, so we are required in law to achieve them over the three periods. We will track delivery and, if we are off course, adjustments will be needed. Given the way in which the legislation has been established, we would need to adapt our transport policies or policies in other sectors to achieve the targets. That is what the adjustments would be.

On whether we can meet the targets, we are in line with what the Climate Change Committee has said. However, there are some differences, which is why the draft climate change plan has a greater focus on transport than on other sectors. Generally, in its advice, the Climate Change Committee anticipates that, as part of the transition, there will be far more of a shift from internal combustion engine vehicles to electric vehicles than was previously thought, so that is reflected in our proposals. That means that there must be a rapid uptake of EV cars and vans in particular, because that is the biggest area, but it is also important that we support the heavy goods vehicle sector to ensure that HGVs can continue that process, which is already taking place. We need to work with private investors and others to do that.

In relation to what characterises the draft climate change plan, as you have correctly identified, it anticipates that there will be far greater take-up of electric vehicles than was previously thought. The balance is more towards the shift to electric vehicles, but there is still a requirement for car use reduction, which is beneficial in lots of other ways. However, there is less emphasis on car use reduction and more emphasis on take-up of EVs.

That poses particular challenges for Scotland, given that we have extensive rural areas and a great reliance on cars, so the budget includes specific measures, which we have already started to roll out, on EV charging infrastructure in rural and island areas.

The opening question was about the context of the plan. We must move smartly and quickly in a lot of areas now in order to achieve the projected reductions that are anticipated in the future.

I will park HGVs, if you excuse the expression, because we will get to them later. Let us talk about EVs as far as cars and vans are concerned. You have told me what the problems are but you have not filled me with confidence that we are going to achieve our targets, and you have not told me what you are going to do if we do not achieve them. How are you going to make up the shortfall if it appears that we are not going to reach the target for EV take-up? Which other area of transport will be hit, as it were, in order to make up the difference?

I am not responsible for how you feel and whether I give you confidence or not, but I can tell you that the Government has set out a realistic plan that can be delivered. Further incentives, on top of what the UK Government has already provided, will be required. You will know that the UK Government provides a discount for EV purchases. We have provided more than £220 million to start a major shift and encourage people to take up EVs. We need to give them confidence in the EV charging structure, which is why we already have one of the most extensive EV charging structures outside the south of England. The UK Government has introduced regulations for reliability so, in future, there will be penalties if EV chargers are not reliable. Our biggest challenge will be the rural and islands infrastructure. We have put in place £4 million this year for rural and islands infrastructure funding, which has been taken up widely. Next year, there will be £10 million to ramp that up even further.

We are putting measures in place that will help with take-up. We are looking at the detail of the incentive programmes and we think that we need measures that complement the UK Government’s discount. I know that cross-pavement charging has been of much interest to the committee. Three local authorities have taken up the pilot scheme. The draft guidance is with local authority transport directors for review and will be published early in 2026.

If the targets are not being achieved, adjustments may need to be made on the behavioural side of things, rather than with the physical take-up of vehicles. The vehicle emissions trading scheme and the zero emission vehicle mandates will be the single biggest things that will make the shift that we require. We are part of a four-nation agreement with the UK Government on those schemes.

You are asking whether I have confidence in what is being put forward. I do not know whether that means that you do not have confidence in what the previous United Kingdom Government did to set the targets, but it is up to you to reflect what you feel about that. All that I am saying is that there are measures in place to deliver the targets. If those targets are not met, we have a legal responsibility to adjust somewhere else. Within transport, there would probably be more of a shift on the behavioural side. Across Government, we would have to assess what is happening in housing and agriculture, as you will know from the committee’s evidence sessions to date.

In fairness, cabinet secretary, I am trying to drill down on whether I can have confidence in the progress. My lack of confidence is sparked by the fact that the Scottish Government failed to meet its climate change targets and had to adjust the climate change plan, which we should have been considering more than 18 months ago. We are now in a position where we are looking at it in the back end of the parliamentary session.

I will park that for a moment. Could you explain the consumer incentives that are in place to encourage EV take-up? You say that you are talking about it and thinking about it. What will it cost and what are your proposals? Would you give everyone some money or a subsidy to buy an EV?

The previous climate change targets were set by the Parliament. Indeed, the extended targets were put in place as a result of pressure from Opposition parties. We are where we are, and I understand that you would have wanted the climate change plan earlier.

It would be sensible to ensure that all the incentives that are on offer are complementary. The UK Government is currently providing a discount of more than £3,000 for the purchase of electric cars and is running an advertising campaign to help promote that, and the Scottish Government is also embarking on the promotion of EV take-up. Part of that will address the savings that can be made, because that is one of the benefits of having an EV, if you can afford one in the first place. It is important to make it clear to people what they can save in terms of costs at the petrol pump.

Affordability is one of the big challenges, and there are those who might not be able to buy an EV new. That is another area that is yet to be developed. We have previously offered loans to encourage people to buy EVs. Latterly, they have been offered more for second-hand cars and also for vans. Part of our work with the Energy Saving Trust is to try to target EV take-up by those who might not be able to afford a new EV but who might be able to afford a second-hand one.

We have just secured the budget. You will want me to say what I am going to do and how I am going to pay for it. I would say that it is a chicken-and-egg situation, in that we have to have the funds to deliver what we want to deliver. However, we have secured funding that will help us to deliver it.

There are other things that help to encourage a reduction in emissions, such as the bus infrastructure fund, but consumer incentives targeting various areas will make up the vast majority of the work that we will do in that regard. I have not had advice on that yet, so I am not going to tell you what we are going to do, but there could be, for example, a subsidy to encourage take up, and the second-hand market is of particular interest. We also have to look at what the private market is doing and not have the Government cause displacement in that area. In the past, we have had scrappage schemes for taxis and other incentives to help to reduce costs.

The Government will do a variety of things. We have just secured the funding for that—I am confident that we have funding from the budget and the spending review that will help us to do it. As I said, we need to move pretty quickly on the transport side of things.

Cabinet Secretary, can I just drill down on that? I love figures, and I love looking at figures and finances. In the case of the second-hand electric vehicle market, could you explain what the Government thinks is a reasonable price for households to pay for an electric vehicle, considering that there is a cost of living crisis? How will the Government ensure that people can get to that figure? Will it make up the difference between the reasonable price and what it actually costs to buy an electric vehicle at the moment?

You might like figures, but I do not have figures to hand to give you an illustrative amount for different types of families and their incomes.

One of the challenges that we have faced concerns the ability of people’s income levels to sustain the credit ratings that are required for purchasing a car using a loan. We need to address that, and there have to be different ways of purchasing an EV.

The previous UK Conservative Government and the current Labour Government set targets for reducing the purchases of new non-electric vehicles—I emphasise that that is what the schemes are set up to do. The new purchases will end, so there will be more of a premium in the second-hand market, which we are already starting to see.

You are correct to say that there is a question about what the sweet spot would be in terms of the affordability for families of a second-hand car. Of course, if the second-hand car market develops, it will give more confidence to those who are buying their first, new electric car, because they know that they will have a resale price on it.

If you speak to the car dealerships, they will be able to give you average prices currently. However, the cost of EVs is generally coming down, and many people who are on a payment plan will find that the price of new EVs is not too dissimilar to that of petrol or diesel cars. The issue is how we make the switch to an EV more possible to more people on lower incomes.

The Government must have considered how many electric vehicles need to be bought across Scotland if we are to get to where we want to be on electric vehicles. It must have worked out what people will be able to afford, as that would enable it to understand what the uptake will be. I am concerned that, although there is an aspiration to get people to use electric vehicles, which I might sign up to, there is no way of making it financially achievable for the people who are being targeted to buy those vehicles. They just do not have the money. I am trying to work out if you have worked that out.

09:15

I will bring in Morna Cannon on that.

We are seeing some really encouraging movement on the prices of electric vehicles in the marketplace. For instance, we have seen evidence that the purchase price of one third of used cars in the marketplace is now under £20,000, and there are some very cheap new electric vehicles on the marketplace. I think that the cheapest vehicle on the market at the moment is priced around £12,000. That is encouraging.

As the cabinet secretary has alluded to, we are in line with the CCC’s assumptions on the pathway to reduction for decarbonising vehicles—cars and vans—and we have in mind a draft target to reduce emissions from cars in line with that pathway to 16 per cent of today’s levels, which equates to 90 per cent of all new car sales being electric.

There has been some assessment of the volume of sales required. As the cabinet secretary suggests, further detail is being developed on the consumer incentives to align with that pathway.

That is helpful. However, I am trying to get the cabinet secretary to tell me what the incentives will be. Will they be a percentage of the purchase price? A price of £12,000 might seem cheap, but to a lot of people that is unobtainable, as they do not have that level of resources.

That is exactly what we will be doing: we will be modelling what those incentives will look like. I have just secured the budget, we have just secured a spending review and we now have the draft climate change plan. A big focus, in aligning those, will have to be on EV incentives, which is why there is a substantial amount of funding in the budget precisely for that area of policy—not just for cars and vans, but for other modes as well.

I hear that, as somebody who is interested in financials. If you have secured the budget, you must know whether it will be sufficient to achieve the target. We will just leave that point there; otherwise, I could take up the whole evidence session on it, and that would be wrong.

Douglas Lumsden, I think that you want to come in on one or two other points.

Thank you, convener.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. In April 2024, you announced a commitment to deliver 24,000 new EV charge points by 2030. Can you give us an update on where the Government is with that?

We are currently at 7,400 public charge points, which is two years ahead of target. On the expansion of that, you will know that we have rolled out the £30 million to all the different local authority consortia. The most recent one to be announced was the Edinburgh and south of Scotland consortium.

You will also be aware that a significant amount of private funding is going into the public charging network across Scotland. According to the most recent figures, it is estimated that, in the past year, around £45 million to £50 million has come from the private sector. Privately funded and run public charging networks are increasingly developing all over. The growth and roll-out of that is expansive, and that will certainly help us to deliver the target of 24,000 charging points.

The figure of 24,000 is interesting in itself. We set that because that was what the UK Climate Change Committee had said that we needed. I think that it was a percentage of what the UKCCC recommended for the whole of the UK. I had a meeting with a sub-committee of the UKCCC, at which I said that it was a big, challenging figure. Members of the sub-committee were less concerned about the number of charging points; they were more concerned about their location, for Scotland in particular.

That is why the rural and island infrastructure fund for EV charging is so important. The £4 million that we put out in this financial year has been taken up, from the Borders right up to the north of Scotland and the islands. Because that is so important and so successful, and because we are more advanced in the delivery of it, we have £10 million in the budget to ensure that we can roll it out even further.

As far as availability is concerned, I was up at Halkirk over the summer, which is one of the furthest north places in Scotland where public EV charging is available. Obviously, people want public charging to be available where they need it to be, but it is increasingly being delivered by the private sector. We need to look at where the market failure might be in that respect. I think that we need to step away from the investment with the local authorities—that is well on track, and they need to start delivering on it—but we need to ensure that we tackle those areas that might not get private funding.

I think that you have probably predicted where I was going with my questions. Providing charging infrastructure will be a lot easier in cities, but what is the strategy for ensuring that funding gets to rural areas and, indeed, to trunk roads? Those areas are harder to reach, and I imagine that private investors are more likely to invest in areas where there are larger concentrations of people. How is the Government making sure that the funding is being targeted more to areas where it is needed?

That is why we have the rural and island infrastructure fund, in particular, and the mapping of what is needed and where that need might be.

There is also location charging. We could be thinking about the tourist market in rural Scotland, and about encouraging and working with different destinations to have chargers, so that people can pick up their EV at the airport and be able to charge it in the different places that they visit. That is a target. I am also thinking of, say, small bed and breakfasts or other places that would want to encourage people to come, which could have EV charging. They could fit the eligibility criteria for the rural and islands infrastructure fund, too.

You mentioned trunk roads, which brings us back to those more dispersed areas where people might go. The question is: when people are travelling on those roads, will they want to come off them and be provided for? In Dundee, for example, there are numerous privately funded public charging networks alongside Costa Coffees and so on. Increasingly, we are seeing signs that say, “Wait and have a coffee”; in fact, I opened one such site near Glasgow airport, where people can have a Costa coffee. The fact is that the sites that are off trunk roads tend to be shopping centres and so on.

I frequently get asked about the A9. Interestingly, it was originally not supposed to have any service stations on it, so that people had to go into the streets of the neighbouring towns. We have a good map of the availability of EV charging on the A9 corridor—not on the A9 itself, but in Pitlochry, Dunkeld or wherever—that we can provide to the committee. Clearly, if you want to have a Costa Coffee/charging point off a trunk road, that will be market led; it is not something that we, as a Government, would set up, because it would be a private initiative. We are open to that sort of thing, but it would be up to those who were interested in that market opportunity to talk to the local authority about the planning for such a site, as well as to local landowners, in order to come up with a proposition.

When you talk to those who travel the A9 regularly—especially those who are involved in freight haulage—you find that they tend to charge their vehicles before and after the journey. The issue is one of range. Has the range of the vehicles got to such an extent that you can do Perth to Inverness comfortably? That will depend on what car you have, but there is a market solution to be had there. There is certainly a lot of activity and work taking place in that respect.

We need to think about where the Government should step in and where the private sector will step in. We think that there is an emphasis on that in the rural and island infrastructure fund, but there is an open door to anyone who wants to approach local authorities to develop such facilities, as they have done in cities, to a greater extent on trunk road corridors.

Coming back to the target of 24,000 EV charging points, I believe that you said that we are at 7,400 just now. Are you confident that that target will be reached by 2030, or are you more relaxed about it? Did you suggest that, according to the Climate Change Committee, it is a target that does not need to be met? I was not quite clear about that.

That was the impression that I got from the Climate Change Committee, but, of all the areas that we are going into, I am more confident about this area, because you can see what is happening and look at the trajectory. However, we need to put as much focus on location as we put on volume, if that makes sense. Previously, it was all about the numbers—we are doing well with the numbers, and I feel reasonably confident about our progress in that regard—but, actually, the biggest challenge for Scotland will be to do with the location of the charging points.

I have another question. Earlier, you said that public charging needs to be more affordable, and I completely agree. If you are lucky enough to have a charger at home, you might pay 9p per kilowatt hour, but if you have to use a fast charger, you might pay 10 times that amount. You mentioned the cross-pavement solution, which is fine for some people but will not be an option that is available to someone who lives in a tenement, for example. How do we get to a situation where charging is affordable for all and there is no equality gap, with someone who is fortunate enough to have their own driveway paying much less than someone who has to rely on public charging?

You have touched on the important point about the need for equity in the system and the need to ensure that the transition is affordable for everybody. That is the challenge.

On cross-pavement charging, the pilot for that in three local authority areas is doing well and is helping to inform the advice and guidance that will be given to all local authorities, based on the experience of those who know best: the local authority transport directors who come together in the Scottish Collaboration of Transportation Specialists. The guidance is in draft and has been sent to all the local authorities for feedback. We expect that to be published soon, which will mean that other local authorities that take up that approach can be confident that it has been researched and informed by the pilots.

We are not being product specific. In the rest of the UK, particularly in England, there is more of a restriction on what products can be used. The main issue is to make sure that there are no trip hazards and so on, as you would expect. Funding for the roll-out of cross-pavement charging is also being provided in the budget, which should be helpful.

As you suggest, the biggest challenge will be around cities, flats and so on. There is an issue to do with factoring and the responsibilities around what can be done in that regard. In some cities, there will be public charging in each street. That will be the sensible way forward for many places, but people will need to think about how to provide that physical infrastructure. As you said, using home electricity will help to reduce the cost.

Is it okay if I bring in one of my colleagues, convener?

It is up to you—no one is going to tell you that you cannot.

I was asking for permission to do so.

You do not have to. Please bring her in when you like; I will say if we are short of time.

There are a few points that are important to bear in mind. One is that a large part of the costs of charging is associated with the cost of energy, which is determined, at least in part, by decisions that the UK Government has made around electricity prices. We understand from the charging industry that standing charges for EV charging have risen dramatically—by almost 500 per cent, I think—since 2021. That involves decisions made by the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets.

We also understand that the UK Government has launched a review of the cost of charging. We are fully engaged with the UK Government on that review, which I believe will publish a report towards the end of 2026 and will have a bearing on the cost of EV charging.

But there is still a huge difference between charging at home and charging at a public charging point, regardless of the cost of electricity.

Indeed. Again, the charging industry has been clear that the additional VAT that is placed on public EV charging that you do not pay if you are a domestic customer is a barrier to uptake. We have called on the UK Government to review that position.

However, even if we leave that element aside, there is still a huge gap between charging at home and charging in a public place. I come back to the point that, if you own a driveway, it is probably going to be cheaper to drive an EV than if you do not.

09:30

You are stating the obvious—everybody understands and agrees that that is an important challenge. We do not have responsibility for energy prices. That is why I was saying that UK policy is a really important part of delivery, which is why we all need to work together to deliver decarbonisation.

It is important that the pricing is tackled. In one of the limited areas that we can do something about, as part of the budget, we introduced a 10-year tax relief for public charging points, which will reduce the infrastructure costs. That was one thing that we could do, and we have done it.

If the VAT change could be delivered, that would make a big difference, but we are not in a position to deliver that. Clearly, that is the responsibility of UK Governments. Neither previous UK Governments nor the current one have made that change. However, if we are to achieve the shift that needs to be made and are serious about acting across the UK, being realistic about energy prices and having powers over electricity costs and prices, particularly in this area, is something that has to be tackled. You make an obvious and important point, which I agree with.

I will move on to the next question. Some witnesses have told the committee that the draft CCP places too much emphasis on moving to EVs and that, instead, we should be reducing the number of miles done by motor vehicles of all types. How do you respond to that?

I understand that criticism. Previously, that would have been more of a focus, but we took advice from the UK Climate Change Committee—and I think that we were right to do so—which identified that the biggest and quickest way to achieve the shift that is required would be to focus on replacing petrol and diesel cars with electric vehicles. That is the policy context; we have understood that, accepted it and taken it forward.

That is why our target is to reduce emissions from cars to 16 per cent of today’s levels, but that does not mean that we will not do work in other areas, including supporting people to access public transport and make the shift to using their car less. In some areas, particularly in rural Scotland, that will not be possible because of the geography and the availability of public transport. That is more of a challenge in rural areas than it is in urban areas, as you know.

With regard to the funding that we have put forward, we have a big programme of support for public transport use. The under-22s scheme, which is extremely successful, is helping to support a new generation, from a behavioural change point of view, to form the habit of using buses. The concessionary scheme extends to over-60s in Scotland.

In other areas, we are continuing the electrification of rail and encouraging people to use rail. That is one of the reasons why we decided to take peak fares off our railways for good. That also encourages people to use public transport.

Part of the work that we are doing on car use is the extensive support that we are continuing to provide, which is in the budget for active travel. That will help people to make other choices about how they might travel—for example, to mix their active travel with public transport and minimise car use where they can. We are still working in the car use reduction space. Our measurement is on emissions. For overall emissions, our target is for a 4 per cent reduction by 2030. The UK Climate Change Committee reflects that, and that extends to 6 per cent over the longer period.

Is that 4 per cent reduction a reduction in the number of miles done or does it apply just to the carbon emissions? That is quite important.

Our target is a 16 per cent emissions reduction. Throughout this year, I have always said that we would revise where we were putting it. Blunt car use reduction, on average, does not help in a country such as Scotland, where we have not just cities but extensive rural areas. The 4 per cent is about car use reduction. It will not all be about a straight switch to EVs. There will have to be some movement in relation to car use reduction, but that figure is much lower, as you will know, than what was in the previous climate change plan.

Is there anything else to add to that?

It is a 4 per cent mileage reduction.

A 4 per cent mileage reduction. Thank you.

On Douglas Lumsden’s analogies regarding who EV use is cheaper for, my point is that it is cheaper for people in Parliament because we get free electric charging here, which I have often questioned.

Sarah Boyack wants to come in before we leave the subject of EVs.

I will follow up on incentivisation. What is the Scottish Government doing about new and existing homes to enable people to install the conversion technology? All new homes have to have some form of renewables when they are built and there is a huge opportunity for conversion to EV use, as it is cheaper to charge at home using stored power. My question is about both new and existing homes. What are the incentives, particularly if homes have solar or access to low-cost grid electricity?

You make a good point about using interconnected energy sources within homes. I am not sure about additional incentivisation for equipment. Anyone who has bought an EV will know that equipment can be part of the deal in some cases, so we do not want to displace that aspect. We have, in the past, provided funding to help with some workplace and home charging, and that might be an incentive that we could have for those with driveways. I would put that into the category of potential incentives.

On integration with housing policy, Phil Raines looks at things across the piece and may know whether there is anything in that regard. That would make sense as part of the whole new-build area. However, I am not a housing minister, so I am not going to go into that.

I raise the issue because it has been raised with me by people who have bought a new house and then discovered that, even though they have solar panels, they have to invest a fair amount to get the converter in place and be able to charge a car. Should we not be making that standard for homes with drives, so that we take a more joined-up approach?

It makes absolute sense to put that in the planning regulations for new builds. I do not want to commit other cabinet secretaries to policy, but the more we can do to make that natural and encourage it from the start, the better. There is the issue of conversion for existing properties and the question of new builds. I am not familiar with the planning regulations for new builds, but we may be able to come back to you on that because it is a good point that has been well made.

We can follow up with the committee in writing, but it is worth remembering that, in 2023, we introduced new building standards for the installation of charging points at new buildings and in developments. As the cabinet secretary pointed out, we have given households a substantial volume of grant funding to install domestic charge points. The issue is under consideration as part of the development of the new consumer incentive schemes.

There is a more general point that is self-evident but probably worth stating. This is a draft climate change plan and the point of having a consultation and committee evidence sessions is to hear new ideas or things that we may have considered over time, but also to realise that someone may be making an excellent point linking different areas together that we need to think about. We welcome all those ideas so that we can consider them for the final plan.

We will come back in writing, but we will check the 2023 regulations to see if they are compatible with what Sarah Boyack is saying.

I look forward to hearing about new builds and hearing your thoughts about conversion for existing homes. That would be useful.

I know that you have the next question, Sarah, but Mark Ruskell has a quick question before we move on from EVs.

It is my understanding that the European Union has a regulation on the minimum number of EV charging points at workplaces, but that the Scottish Government decided a number of years ago not to align itself with the EU on that—we have not adopted that minimum. Could the Government think again about creating a requirement for EV charging at workplaces, perhaps offering a better electricity price or even free charging?

Part of that question relates to what the private sector and different partners can do to drive the installation of EV charging points. The Government could contribute to that as part of new planning regulations, which is obviously an option that is open for folks to consider. However, most workplaces that have extensive car use already provide EV charging locations. The question is whether we further encourage that provision—and, if so, how—or whether we mandate it. Your suggestion is that it should be mandated.

Yes.

I am not overly familiar with the 2023 regulations, but we can check with regard to planning approvals, some of which might also relate to local authority requirements. For example, Sky has just announced a big development in Livingston, so the question is whether the local authority’s planning conditions would require Sky to provide EV charging points at that new building.

There are different levers that can be pulled at different levels. I am not sure whether we would need to introduce anything at the national level, but something might be needed at the local authority level. It would make sense for employers themselves to provide EV charging points at workplaces—I do not know at what rate—or to work with partners to deliver them.

The other issue is co-location. We are trying to use our funding to help co-location—that is, to allow other types of vehicles to use the charging points. For example, the First Bus site in Glasgow has been opened up so that members of the public can use its charging infrastructure. We are seeing more use of charging infrastructure in different areas.

This is an important area, and we will take your point away and consider it. It may be that some things are already happening, but we will also check what is happening with employers and workplaces.

Michael Matheson wants to come in quickly, but I point out that time is marching on—sadly, the clock never stops for the committee.

Good morning. I want to follow up on what has been said about the £30 million investment in EV charging infrastructure that will be made over the next year. Will that be distributed to local authorities?

Yes. The investment was previously allocated, and it is now with local authorities. They set up consortiums, most of which involved different local authorities coming together. The consortium in the Highlands and Islands was one of the first, and, as I said, the consortium in Edinburgh and the south of Scotland was one of the later ones. Those consortiums are working with the private sector to identify where to have EV charging to allow for a geographical range.

That is helpful. Do we know how much of the capital expenditure from that investment is going into the local supply chain?

I do not know whether Morna Cannon wants to come in on that question. Clearly, it is for the consortiums to establish how they will deliver, because they are the delivery arms in relation to the supply chain. I do not have the details of that for each consortium. Is there any more detail that we can provide on that, Morna?

We can certainly provide some further information. I should say now that, although the £30,000 has been—

It is £30 million.

Apologies. Although £30 million has been indicated to all local authorities, we are still in the process of paying out grants to local authorities as each consortium moves into the delivery phase. As part of those arrangements with local authorities, we will clearly monitor and measure the deliverables of those contracts, including the installation of new charge points and wider co-benefits. We can write to the committee with further detail about that.

That is a requirement of all grants that come from the Government, so that we can identify what goes into local supply chains. Measuring that is an aspect of the general procurement condition of grants.

Just to be clear, do we set any specification in the grant conditions for the consortia to use local content when spending that money? It could be the case that the £30 million flows right out of the Scottish market to other contractors. Is there a percentage of how much of the grant must be allocated to local content?

09:45

No specific target has been set for local content as part of those contracts.

Why would we not do that?

I suggest that we write to the committee with further specifics. However, it is true that each of those arrangements with the local authorities seeks to maximise economic and social benefits, and we are in discussion with each of the local consortia partners about the best way to do that.

But you do not specify that.

It will be part of the general requirements.

Yes, but you set no limits or expectation levels on it at all.

Is that a wider question about local content in relation to funding that goes to local authorities? In which case, it may be a matter for—

Hold on. You are spending £30 million and allocating it to local authorities. I am asking how you maximise the amount of that capital investment that goes into the local economy, because we know that infrastructure investment is a multiplier in terms of economic benefit. Do you specify in the grant programme how much local content should be used in order to maximise that economic benefit? We are investing £30 million in EV infrastructure, but the danger is that the money flows right out of the country.

I know that there will be local content, because in all the places where there has been public investment, it is usually Scottish companies that deliver it. We can come back to the committee to give it an idea of that.

There are general rules around public grants. This is not a direct Government procurement. We are not doing the procuring; local authorities are, and the responsibilities for the procurement aspect will be governed by local authorities’ procurement rules. As the committee knows, many local authorities will have specifications in their procurement exercises. It is important to remember that difference between when we are procuring work and when we are giving grants to local authorities to do the procurement. However, we will be able to provide the committee with the assurance that there is local content as part of that. There are different ways of doing it. Transport Scotland, for example, has published a report on its own work in relation to procurement and local impact; we sent the committee a link to that after my previous evidence session.

We will follow up on that point, which was well made.

I was, wrongly, going to avoid Sarah Boyack. Back to you now, Sarah. I apologise.

I will ask about the car use reduction target, which I understand will not be set until the final version of the plan is published. Has the Scottish Government settled on a target? Can you explain the thinking behind the level that you have set or are thinking of setting?

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.

I wanted to follow up on the question because I heard it being briefly discussed earlier.

What alternatives will be put in place to enable that 4 per cent reduction? In relation to regional planning with local authorities, increasing rail capacity is an obvious issue. The ability to access rail travel is a major issue in my region and on the Borders railway and in Fife, with trains being filled up by commuters. There is also an issue in Edinburgh, with potential new projects, such as the south suburban railway, which would use existing infrastructure. How will you work with local authorities to ensure that you have the capacity in place?

Of course, the other issue is buses. The fact is that we have lost a large number of bus services. How do you work with bus companies and, indeed, local authorities in more rural areas—you mentioned that earlier—where lots of people do not have a choice? If you want to enable people not to use cars, or if you want them to have a better alternative, where is the regional planning to deliver that in practice?

09:45

Clearly, our regional transport partnerships are key to that, and in my time in post, I have had a number of meetings with them to look at joint strategic approaches. Indeed, many of them have put strong initiatives in place. They are very keen on the bus infrastructure fund, which has been not only restored but increased from £20 million to £60 million, which will help deliver the sort of fund that bus companies and regional transport authorities want to see.

What does the fund do? Well, if you are sitting in a car in a queue on the M8 or elsewhere, and a bus flies by, you will see how much easier and quicker it is to get in by bus. That is an incentive, too. That sort of thing is more of a challenge at local level, but you will be familiar with the range of powers that are available under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 and the regulations that you will have been considering as a committee.

The plugged-in communities grant fund is also important for rural areas. Again, that has been funded in the budget as another part of our sustainable travel approach.

With regard to rail capacity, new fleet is coming in, and that will help with frequency issues and the pressures on the Fife and Borders railway lines. We have already started to electrify the Fife line. I know that the closure of the line from Haymarket and Dalmeny was disruptive, but it was necessary; indeed, I inspected it just the other week. As for the Borders line, electrification will help by improving the service more generally. I should also say that the procurement of rail fleet will allow some fleet to be cascaded to help in other areas, and that is part of what we are looking at on an on-going basis.

As for planning, the ball is in the regional transport partnerships’ court. The South East of Scotland Transport Partnership has extensive proposals with regard to what it might want to see in that respect. It is leading that work, which is also referenced in the infrastructure investment pipeline that has been set out.

You have just talked about what partnerships might like to see, but surely we need to focus in on and target those areas where there is, in effect, already a lack of carriages and capacity on trains. I have heard of people in the Borders and in Fife not being able to get on the train, because it is full by the time it arrives. Where does that fit into your priorities in giving people alternatives to using their car and getting them to commute in those key areas?

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—

But my point is not about the cost to travellers—it is about the capacity of the service to enable them to use such alternatives.

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.

Finally, will the situation be monitored? As car mileage is reduced, you need to make sure that you are monitoring that that aligns with the availability of public transport—buses and trains.

Yes. That is measured, monitored and reported on in different areas. There have been fluctuations because the number of people who work from home will affect the number of people making journeys at particular times. Across public transport, we are seeing recovery to pre-pandemic levels, although the patterns and timing have changed. We are seeing more leisure travel in the evening, which is welcome, and at the weekends—people who are working from home might want to get out of the house and go somewhere else.

We are seeing change and the system has to adapt to the patterns of usage and patronage, as well as address capacity issues. I would not, however, underestimate the challenges facing the Edinburgh and Lothians region, simply because of the growth in the population.

We will now move to questions from Mark Ruskell, but I remind members that the clock is ticking.

Sarah Boyack talked about one side of the equation, which is about improving services, building capacity and putting in better quality infrastructure. However, the committee has heard a lot of evidence that that is not enough if we want to get modal shift. There needs to be some form of localised travel demand management alongside improvements in active travel, public transport and capacity. Does the Government support putting in local travel demand management, such as congestion charging and charging for workplace parking? Do you see that as essential if we are to meet climate targets?

It will be different in different parts of the country, and we will have to respond to local assessment of demand. In some areas, particularly in Glasgow and Edinburgh, there is an appetite for it, but local congestion charging will be up to the local authorities. The legislation that was put in place in—was it 2001 or 2003? I am looking at Sarah Boyack for confirmation.

It was 2001.

That legislation provided for congestion charging, so the law already exists, although it has not been used to date. At the request of those local authorities that are interested, we are assessing whether the current regulations are fit for purpose. Should local authorities want to use them at some point in the future, they will have to take people with them. The tool is available, but it is part of a mix.

If public transport can be made swifter because buses have priority in the cities, that is one of the single biggest things that can be done. Glasgow is keen on that, so the expansion of the £60 million funding for the bus infrastructure fund is particularly important there.

Different tools are available. Yes, we can reduce emissions by switching to EV, and that is a big area of focus, but that does not mean that we should not support the solutions that regional transport partnerships come up with for managing transport in their area. There is some interest in local travel demand management, and the tools are available for it, and we are making sure that they are fit for purpose should those local authorities wish to use them in the future.

If there is no uptake of local travel demand management—no congestion charging or other measures—will we be able to meet the targets in the climate plan?

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.

I certainly do not underestimate those benefits, but I acknowledge that the idea can be difficult to sell.

In other evidence that the committee has taken, Environmental Standards Scotland expressed concern about the Government not having ownership of individual programmes, leadership being a little weak in some areas and there being no contingency plans. It feels as though we are in a space where, instead of relying on local authorities to have a conversation if it does not happen, we expect something else will come up to deal with it. I acknowledge that it is hard, but I am struggling to see where the leadership is. If it does not happen, are we going to be reliant on peak rail fares going and everything else to try to get that shift?

10:00

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.

That raises the issue of multiyear budgets and investment in infrastructure and active travel, for which demand management measures can supply one source of revenue. What is your thinking on providing certainty for capital investment in active travel over time? There have been calls to move away from one-year budgets and seeing what is in the budget from one year to the next towards longer-term investment programmes so that we can get the supply chain moving. That would provide confidence for contractors that they can move fully into infrastructure.

You will know, because you sit on other committees and have many other interests, that multiyear budgets provide better value for public procurement, because they enable better planning and they create a better pipeline of experienced people who are doing the work. That has been a real challenge in recent years because the UK Government’s one-year budget has meant that the Scottish Government has had to establish one-year budgets. We have ended up with a lot of stop start, especially as we had an emergency budget from the UK Government at one point; we had to readjust everything and there were consequences. I absolutely understand the frustrations of those who have been trying to manage the situation and keep good and talented people working for them.

The 2026-27 budget has a proposed £226 million investment in sustainable and active travel. It will deliver our strategic commitments generally, which have been on-going for some time, as well as the commitments that are set out in the draft climate change plan. I am hopeful that we will be able to continue to provide certainty. I think that multiyear budgets are a better use of public funding, give more confidence and will deliver better results.

Active travel schemes are extremely popular in many different areas. Active travel can help by giving people alternative choices as they can walk, wheel and cycle, and they may use another form of transport at the end of their journey. It is also about connecting communities. I have seen first-hand that active travel is connecting many towns and villages, which is having a big impact on how people use their space. It also means that they can access things in their towns in a better and easier way. That is most evident for children.

Good morning. The convener said that we would return to HGVs, so let us do that now. Some argue that the uptake of zero-emission HGVs—electrically powered ones, in particular—is technically impossible. Could hydrogen be pushed as a potential fuel for HGVs? Could low-carbon fuels be considered as an alternative? Does the CCP reflect that?

You raise a number of issues. We should not be dismissive of the potential for electric HGVs, which there is active interest in and a market for. In relation to the location of the charging infrastructure, I have previously relayed to the committee the fact that we have worked with Heriot-Watt University on mapping where not only charging infrastructure for electric vehicles but, potentially, hydrogen fuelling points would need to be. The rest of the UK is interested in that work.

Although freight and haulage is quite a market-sensitive area, there has been a lot of data sharing, which I think is good for the sector. Members of the industry need to come together to plan where they want charging to be available.

Hydrogen might be more suitable for heavier modes of transport. It could potentially be used for shipping and for rail, in relation to which there have been initial pilots. In the context of freight transport and HGVs, there is limited focus on hydrogen use, although John G Russell in Lanarkshire has received UK environmental innovation funding, which it is using to trial a limited number of hydrogen vehicles close to the terminus.

I would not underestimate the potential for electric HGVs. I visited a forestry pilot, whereby a timber haulier is being funded by the Scottish Government, through Transport Scotland and the environment department, to use electric timber haulage vehicles. The vehicles are operating over short distances. The process is being tested and the finances are being looked at. The key will be the financial models that can be used.

I am not saying that there are no electric HGVs out there—I know that there are—but the industry says that it does not see them as a viable option at present, and others say that they are willing to explore other areas.

On hydrogen, we have only three or possibly four hydrogen refuelling stations in Scotland, two of which are in Aberdeen. Is that an impediment to making progress on hydrogen? Is the fact that the UK Government is still stalling on changing the regulation on hydrogen storage and transportation a problem? Is that holding back the possible use of hydrogen?

You obviously have a specific interest in hydrogen. We have supported hydrogen in the past, especially in Aberdeen. Indeed, the committee visited the hydrogen bus fuelling station in Aberdeen as part of its inquiry on working with local authorities to deliver net zero, which was one of its first inquiries in session 6. When I was a member of the committee, I was very keen for it to do that inquiry.

You touched on a very important point. I think that the UK Government will need to change its policy on hydrogen generally. The UK Government does not see the potential that exists for hydrogen in the way that it should. That relates to the wider energy situation. Given Scotland’s capability in renewable energy generation, generation of green hydrogen and generation of hydrogen for export, hydrogen has a big part to play in Scotland’s future, but I think that we are some distance away when it comes to its applicability to transport.

You identified the importance of the UK Government’s approach to hydrogen and its policy in that area, including in relation to technical safety. That is one of the big issues in rail. Some members will have visited the prototype hydrogen train as part of the exhibition at the United Nations climate change conference of the parties in Glasgow. Obviously, transportation safety will be paramount in that area. Scotland has taken a lead through the work that we have done with Heriot-Watt University to map where hydrogen and electric charging would need to be. That is an important area.

Your point about the viability of electric vehicles for hauliers is well made, and that issue is exactly why we are working with the private sector to look at finances. I spoke at an event at which we brought together financiers and the haulage industry. We have funding this year, as well as into next year, for work on HGVs and how to help to create the market in a sustainable and viable way. We have done that previously for buses, and we want to continue it for HGVs.

Morna, do you have anything to add?

It might be helpful to reflect on some of the market developments and the increasing viability of electric HGVs. Statistics show that, last year, sales of battery electric trucks in China were at 22 per cent. Closer to home, in Europe, more than 16,000 new zero-emission HGVs were registered last year.

That is all fine, but you are not yet convincing people here of that. That is the key point. It does not matter what is happening in China with electricity or hydrogen—we know that China is putting a huge amount of money into that. How do you change the minds of people here to meet the climate change ambitions?

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 draft CCP predicts that there will be zero reduction in emissions from aviation and shipping until 2040, which is a fair while away. We have discussed the possibility of hydrogen for shipping, and I am sure that the Government will continue to push that. Obviously, consideration is already being given to what can be done on aviation.

An early way of reducing shipping emissions would be to look at what is happening at the port of Aberdeen, for example, where onshore charging, or shore-to-ship charging, is reducing emissions dramatically. The port has an ambition to become a net zero port in the near future. Is the Government looking at helping to enhance shore-to-ship charging? Is there any help from the UK Government with funding that approach, which would reduce emissions greatly? It would be particularly beneficial to ports that are in the middle of cities or towns, such as the port of Aberdeen.

10:15

I cannot speak for the UK Government on what it is providing, but I will try to find out and let you know. The development of onshore charging at the port of Aberdeen is of course important, and the Scottish Government has helped to fund it. I am very keen that ports and harbours are not put to the back of the queue for onshore charging in any shape or form.

We are actively speaking with energy companies on distribution. One of the first things that I have said to the variety of UK transport ministers I have met is that the thing that will make the biggest difference in energy and energy transmission is distribution—where energy is and when. Those ministers need to be in the room with their energy colleagues for the discussions on that.

Kate Forbes chairs an offshore renewables ports and harbours group. Its members have come together themselves, and they are working actively in response to the proposition that, if we are generating renewable energy in Scotland, we have to benefit from it. Ports and harbours are critical to that, and the roll-out of onshore charging is key.

The measurements for aviation and shipping have been baselined already—Phil Raines and others will correct me if I am wrong. Much of that involves planning for technological changes in the future. For example, the work with ZeroAvia to help with activity at Glasgow airport has been supported and funded in part through a Scottish Government grant. If we can get the smaller planes that we use for our islands to use alternatives, we need to consider safety issues with hydrogen storage. Work has been done with academics on how to manage hydrogen safely on site, particularly at airports. There is potential there, and it partly concerns technological development.

On ports and harbours, I could not echo the points that you have made more clearly, and I do make those points on a regular basis to ensure that we get the benefits of the energy that we are producing and to ensure that we can electrify it.

You are interested in hydrogen. I was at a launch of a pilot project in Leith. The innovation involves taking green hydrogen from local sources for the electric charging of tugs. I will not exaggerate the size of it—it is a proof of concept. The UK Government provided some innovation funding for that, too. We need to ensure that we are complementary in what we are funding in the innovation space.

Before we move back to discussing HGVs, which we had not quite finished, Mark Ruskell has a question on shipping, I think—or has it been answered?

It is actually in relation to aviation.

Okay. I will go back to HGVs first, and we can then talk about aviation—just to keep the cabinet secretary on her toes.

The deputy convener has a question.

I will take us back to the subject of HGVs. Cabinet secretary, you will be aware of the evidence that we received from Logistics UK. I will not quote its representatives directly, but the bottom line is that they thought that the target that have been set for the electrification of HGVs was completely unrealistic and would not be delivered. I understand the attempts to get private investors to provide support, but, if I recall correctly, more than 60 per cent of our HGV providers or hauliers in Scotland are small businesses. An electric HGV is about double, if not three times, the price of a diesel vehicle. That is just not financially viable for those businesses at all, given the downtime for charging and so on. There was a suggestion of using low-carbon fuels as a transition, until the market becomes more mature and the price is more financially viable for that industry. Why not do that?

You are talking about the market using meantime technology, such as biofuels. You are right to identify that almost 80 per cent of road haulage firms in Scotland have five trucks or fewer. The financial models that we are working on must work for them. We have previously had a consortium approach with public money, where larger companies have to buddy with smaller companies to get resources.

On electric vehicle technology, Logistics UK is dealing with tight margins for operators in what is a highly competitive business. It is important to try to support that.

The UK Government has brought in a plug-in truck grant, so it is providing finance through that. We are involved in co-design—we are already actively talking with investors, fleet owners and charge-point operators about how we can ensure that private investment works. The issue is whether public funding should be focused on delivering reductions in carbon emissions for net zero or potentially be diverted into biofuels in the meantime.

The challenge with biofuels is energy management. In Scotland, among the different needs, it is aviation that will have the biggest requirement. There is a danger that the need to produce source fuel for biofuels—again, I am straying into territory that is outside my area of expertise—may cause extra pressure in other areas, whether in agriculture or elsewhere.

We need careful management of the source product for biofuels, looking at how and where it might be used. Again, I stress that it is open to the committee to have a view on whether we should focus on what we are really trying to do, which is reducing carbon emissions to reach net zero, as opposed to investing in the meantime fuels. As I said, however, there might be potential in some areas, such as rail, for moving heavier goods.

My understanding is that these low-carbon fuels reduce carbon emissions by between 70 and 80 per cent. We need to be realistic with regard to the industry, but there is a drive, for example through project willow, to secure opportunities in the Grangemouth area for things such as biofuels.

On the issue of sustainable aviation fuel, I suggest, to be realistic, that we will not produce much of it this side of 2035, going on the evidence that the committee has heard. However, the climate change plan is silent on biofuels, while we have an industry telling us that we need them. From the committee’s point of view, we are trying to understand why it is silent on that aspect when the industry is saying, “You’re gonnae have to do this”, and when project willow is supporting the idea of investment in these areas. It feels as though there is a mismatch. That is reflected in the overemphasis on the need to electrify HGVs, when the industry is basically saying, “It’s not gonnae happen.”

There is no reason why we cannot have meantime fuels, as I said—I understand that. The issue is where public funding should go, or whether it should be down to the market itself.

The committee is well placed, as the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, to look across the piece. You speak to all the cabinet secretaries, and I think that it is important for the different parts of Government to be aligned and to act in parallel on all these things, including project willow, which is still live and active. The strategic planning on energy, transport and net zero has to be aligned across Government.

I think that it is fair to question where biofuels sit within that, but that probably requires a genuine public discussion about where public funding should go. Should it go towards net zero and achieving statutory carbon budgets, or should it be used to subsidise biofuels for the haulage sector, which will take us some of the way there but will not enable us to reach our statutory targets?

The issue is the projection: can we do enough, and do it fast enough, to meet what are stretching targets? It is a genuine open question, and views on that from the committee would be very welcome.

My final question in this area is on the bus industry, in which, as you know, I have a long-standing interest, given that Alexander Dennis is based in my constituency. There is growing concern within the industry that the 2035 target for no diesel buses is, again, unrealistic and could actually harm the industry, including the manufacturers. There is a view that we should be taking a much more tailed-off approach, rather than a cliff-edge approach, to that. In order to support the bus manufacturing industry in Scotland and the UK, would the Scottish Government be open to looking at going down the route of taking a tailed-off approach to the ending of new diesel buses, rather than having industry face a cliff edge?

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.

Thanks.

Mark Ruskell has a quick question on aviation.

We have talked about the role of travel demand management in surface transport, but I see no such approach in relation to aviation. Is that just in the box marked “too politically difficult”? How are you leading that conversation? After all, you cannot ignore the fact that aviation is a major contributor to emissions, and there is nothing in the plan that suggests what the reduction in those emissions is going to be. I have to presume that other sectors will just have to pick up the slack.

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.

Should you be encouraging people to get the train to London, for example, instead of flying? Is that something that the Government could, or should, do?

We are doing that in lots of different ways. In my regular trips to London, I use the train, because I can work on it and it is convenient. I come back to your point about using a service that reduces emissions—when I can use that service, I do so. It is not always possible, but when it is, I do.

This is not about your personal choices, cabinet secretary. It is more about the Government’s leadership in this area.

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.

Before I bring in Bob Doris, cabinet secretary, I wonder whether you can answer a question. Page 28 in annex 3 of the of the climate change plan says that the total benefits for transport in the period 2026 to 2030 will be £4,334 million. Can you tell me how that figure is made up, please?

What timeframe are you talking about?

I am talking about 2026 to 2030; I want to know how the Government got that figure.

10:30

I will ask Phil Raines to explain the financial aspects of how the figures are put together in relation to the transport baseline. If I am correct, you are talking about what is on page 28—the 2026 to 2030 total benefits and total costs.

We will come to net costs in a minute.

Well, that is what I was saying.

I am looking at the figure for total benefits. Where is that £4 billion figure from, and what is it made up of?

I am not an analyst, but I can say in general terms how the Government got to that figure.

Reducing road emissions is the biggest action that needs to take place in transport, and from 2026 to 2030, savings related to EVs will mainly consist of the benefits to individuals and households. Usually, there are two categories of savings; savings that will happen on running costs, and—

Benefits? What are the benefits?

The benefits are the savings. The benefit will be that it will be cheaper to run an EV for that period than it would be to run an ICE vehicle. The capital cost will come down over time as well, so it will be cheaper to have the vehicle for that period too. I am looking at my colleagues, and, yes, I think that that is largely the case.

If you also want to know what the percentage of that is compared to the other aspects of transport benefits and such things, we would have to come back to the committee on that, but that is the basic principle.

I understand that, but I have heard different answers from different people. Apparently, there are some benefits to the health service and some benefits to this, that and the other. Therefore, it would be helpful, Philip—or the cabinet secretary if it is not possible to ask Philip to do this—if you could come back to me and explain to me how, over that period, that £4 billion is broken down. It is probably too complicated to go through, but I would like to know how it is apportioned.

We will come back to you on that.

On the net costs of the climate change—

Perhaps I can make just one comment about what we can come back on.

That amount that you quoted is financial savings. Health benefits are separate. They are real, and we are doing work to quantify the other co-benefits—there is a whole category of other indirect benefits. However, just to be clear, the figure does not include the health benefits. We will come back with analysis of the number that you quoted.

That would be very helpful, so that I can understand what the £4,334 million during that period is made up of. That would be good, because I like delving in.

The net costs are £3,343 million. What are the total costs?

That is math—it is a basic mathematical thing. We have presented the net costs because the Climate Change Committee and the Scottish Fiscal Commission have looked at the net costs. To get the net amount, you take the gross cost and you deduct the benefits. If we have the net cost figure and the benefits figure, we can get to the figure for gross costs. I could do the maths here, but I would hate to be embarrassed.

Thank you for the lesson, which I had many years ago when I did my basic accountancy training, so I am quite happy with that. However, I would like to know what the total costs are that allow you to come up with that net cost. I would also like to know who is going to pay the total costs. Will it be the taxpayer, the Government or industry? All I am asking you to do is break it down so that I can understand the figures. I understand that you cannot give that to me now—no one can. However, I will be very happy to see it in a paper after the meeting, so that I can see how the figures match up.

Perhaps I could be specific on your point about who pays. We are not setting out the distribution of costs for a number of reasons. One is that it is difficult to predict, and it would probably be misleading for us to do so, who would pay those costs, particularly if such a prediction covered the whole period of the climate change plan. We cannot say what the UK Government might do next year and the year after, which might affect how much the public sector and the private sector have to do. We cannot predict the contributions that the private sector might make on, for example, EV infrastructure and a lot of the other things that we have talked about today. We could just put our finger in the air, but putting our finger in the air is not what we will be doing for the climate change plan, so we have not set out a breakdown of costs. As for the total costs, the gross cost figures, as you call them, are a matter of simple mathematics: there is nothing hidden, and we are happy to come back on that.

As with all good exam questions, even if you do not get the right answer, you should show your working. That is all that I am asking for.

In the end, and as the cabinet secretary has made entirely clear, rather than it being a matter of telling people what to do, the thing is to encourage them to follow you. If you are to encourage people to follow you on the journey to net zero that is being suggested—and it is a journey—they have to know how deep they will need to put their hand in their pocket to pay for it. That is what I am trying to get at.

You have some questions to ask, Bob.

I have one specific question about electric vehicles. I do not know whether we have covered it already, cabinet secretary, but it is linked to the point that the convener has been making.

There was a discussion earlier about the cost of new electric vehicles, and I thought that we could take the time, during the meeting, to check the market. There is some evidence to show that electric vehicles are now cheaper in the used market than internal combustion engine vehicles. One periodical suggests that, over a five-year lifespan, used EVs could be £5,000 cheaper to run than ICE vehicles. I am putting that on the record because the market will dictate much of what the costs and benefits are. I have no doubt that the periodical that I am looking at is encouraging people to switch to EVs. I do not know how robust those figures are—or, indeed, all the figures that have arisen in the exchanges that the committee has been having with you and Mr Raines.

In relation to electric vehicles and the just transition, I am conscious of the conversation that we have been having about the challenges facing people in remote and rural areas and about the specific actions that the Government has taken in response. I represent a high-density urban area, with many tenements. You have said to Mr Lumsden that it is self-evident that there will be more challenges in certain areas. I accept all of that—and I am sorry that I am taking so long to get to my point—but I would be keen to know how all of this will be monitored. What if we find out that certain households will have to pay more, will have less convenience and will be more price sensitive? Those households tend to be in lower-income areas with higher-density populations. How will that be monitored or captured? Will the Government take corrective action in future? If, in three or four years’ time, we see an inequity for my constituents, what actions can the Government take to correct some of that?

In your initial point, you set out how the cost issues—and the benefits—have been shifting, even just in recent years, so predictability is even more challenging over the longer term. The move is happening, however.

Your point about monitoring is really important. I am keen that we capture information about EV use through the Scottish household survey. It will be possible to drill down into that information to identify areas where uptake has not been as high as elsewhere. Some areas in particular cities have lower levels of car use and ownership anyway. That is an obvious point. We need to monitor the situation in different parts of the country.

On the point about working with local authorities, in their transport planning, they will want to monitor use in different areas for approvals. As the planning authorities, they will be giving approvals to EV charging points and so on in different areas. I also note the guidance from SCOTS for cross-pavement charging. I do not want to add to the work required here, but I suspect that that will include factored properties in the future, including tenements, as we consider how best that can be done.

You are right about identifying whether people are losing out and who is benefiting most. The issue affects everybody—it has an impact on everyone. There has been a suggestion of using the census to do that, as that would give us information on uptake if we want to do future projections. There are different means and methods by which Government produces and should produce statistics. The Scottish household survey is quite good, as it drills down into different communities.

That is helpful.

My only additional question on that relates to how local authorities are key partners here—and three local authorities are involved in the pilot that you mentioned earlier. Local authorities sometimes collect data in different ways. A local authority may make a case to the Government about the particular impact of the just transition in its area. Indeed, 32 local authorities may capture that data in different ways, and it will perhaps be a challenge for the Government to work out where the greatest need is. Will there be consistency in local authority data?

You may be aware that the Scottish Government, jointly with COSLA, has invested in a research institute, through the University of Edinburgh, called the Scottish Climate Intelligence Service. The service supports local authorities in building capacity to collect that data across a whole range of climate change measures and encourages them to do so consistently. The service has been supported through the climate delivery framework and the climate delivery oversight group, of which the cabinet secretary is a member. That work is under way in order to encourage local authorities, with the support of COSLA, to be able to provide that data and to bring it together so that it can be compared and used.

One of the strongest recommendations in the committee’s report on local government and its partners in delivering net zero was that the Government should support that service. That is therefore a result for this committee and the Parliament from that early recommendation.

I am looking around at committee members and I think that everyone has finished asking questions on that issue. We therefore come to Sue Webber for a couple of questions.

I will carry on with the theme of electric vehicles. Cabinet secretary, you spoke a lot about confidence in the EV charging network. Before I come on to reliability, I will speak about variability in charging. Often, local authorities determine how much people pay on local chargers, whether it is a 7KW, a 22KW or a 50KW charger. We also have the private companies that are investing in this area. There are a million and one different apps—I certainly have one on my phone—to figure out charging, and you do not know what you will be paying until you turn up. That does not help with the equity element.

What are you doing to encourage the local authority consortiums to have a much more standard rate, for example, and to allow people to charge for 90 minutes and then return the same day? At the moment in Edinburgh, you cannot go to a 50KW charger and charge for 90 minutes and then come back.

Clearly, again, it is about working in partnership with local authorities. There are decisions that local authorities can and should take themselves for their local areas. Getting local government to work together on commonality is perhaps an aspect that you might want to encourage COSLA to pick up. Sue Webber will know that that the regulations around EV charging networks are reserved. I think that the previous Conservative UK Government brought in regulations in November 2023 to enforce standards of performance for EV chargers. A lot of chargers are community based or in rural areas. We would not want people to not comply with the new regulations and those charging points to close. We have therefore supported a transition to what is now required, which includes contactless payment. Contactless payment is increasingly popular, and app use is extensive. More of the regulations are becoming enforceable, and with enforcement come penalties for the charging networks that are not complying, in order to raise the standard of delivery.

Sue Webber mentioned variability, and there is a market element to that. More private companies have been involved and they must have their margins and so on—I understand that. I have spoken about the 10-year EV charging point rates relief that we have announced, which will be helpful.

However, the point about commonality of standards is a good one, particularly in relation to local government. People are familiar with the places that they go to, and the standards should be similar. However, companies will have worked out their own finances, their margins and the suppliers. The point about whether we can enforce the same prices for charging, for example, goes back to Douglas Lumsden’s point. We are not in charge of electricity pricing, which is, again, a reserved matter.

West Lothian Council has the same standing charges as the City of Edinburgh Council, but people pay different rates to charge on the public networks. That is where I was going. Someone can sit on a charger in West Lothian for far longer and return more quickly than they can in Edinburgh. That variability in standards is what I was trying to get at.

You mentioned the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, but I want to move on to the issue of confidence. People turn up at local authority-run public charging networks looking for 50kW chargers, but only one in five of them is working. What can the Scottish Government do to ensure that, when someone taking their £12,000 electric vehicle from Perth to Inverness on the A9—they will not get there in one go; they will need to pull over at Pitlochry—every single charger will be working when they pitch up, or will they have to wait an hour before they can get on?

10:45

As I said, the UK Government is responsible for the regulations on charging infrastructure. Its new regulations penalise providers, whether they are local authority or private sector, if the chargers are not working at the required delivery level. That should change the performance of UK charging structures and was the right thing to do. Taking a sledgehammer and a cliff-edge approach to that would have meant that a provider would immediately be fined £15,000 a pop—I am not quite sure how much the penalty is for not delivering.

We monitor that through ChargePlace Scotland. Again, there is a transition to other forms of delivery. The performance rates are high, although, as in the past, it only takes one bad experience to knock people’s confidence. I understand that, but you should have confidence that the Conservative UK Government’s regulations and ChargePlace should help with enforcement.

I can assure you that, as a second EV owner, I have had many poor charging experiences in Scotland.

The draft plan went out for consultation at the beginning of November. My understanding is that the consultation closed on 29 January, or thereby. The committee wrote to ask the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy what was going on and whether she could keep the committee updated. Here is your opportunity, cabinet secretary. I am sure that you will have been following the transport issues in the consultation very carefully. Have you seen any key issues coming back from the public consultation that you will want to reflect on as the climate change plan moves from draft to full?

Nice move, convener, but it is a bit challenging. I did not receive the results of the transport elements of the consultation over the weekend. I will take a keen interest in the responses on transport and come back to the committee to share them. I would like to be able to do that now, but it is perhaps unfair to ask because, in preparation for this meeting of the committee, I have not been delving into responses that have not yet been presented to me. However, as you are seeing Gillian Martin, the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy, next week, you will be able to go through what is next in terms of the process.

The point is that, in the same way that you have been rushed since the end of consultation, the committee will be rushed in looking at all the consultation responses. I do not even know how many there are. Maybe Philip Raines knows. Are there lots?

I do not have the exact number, but we are taken with the enthusiasm of the responses that came in, particularly towards the end of the consultation. Can I suggest that Ms Martin picks that up next week and gives an update on the consultation responses?

That would be helpful. It is useful for the committee to know what the responses are so that, in the same way that the Government will consider them, we can consider them when we write our report for the Parliament.

Cabinet secretary, thank you very much for that session, but you are not off the hook yet. There will be a short pause and we will meet back here at 10.55. I suspend the meeting to allow a changeover of witnesses.

10:49

Meeting suspended.

10:56

On resuming—