Seòmar agus comataidhean

That might be a question for Gail Macgregor.

Just to keep the focus in this session on the report, I should say that it is clear that we have to reduce car use—full stop—whether we are talking about EVs or otherwise. Obviously, we do not want to disincentivise people from using EVs. We want to encourage that sort of thing, which is the point of your question.

As for promoting such moves, I was speaking only yesterday at a net zero event at Dynamic Earth that involved industry, and that issue was part of the discussion. We want people to switch to EVs, but we also want to reduce car use in general, because that will help to alleviate congestion and will lead to people using public transport more, as it will be more affordable, reliable and accessible.

It is that combined picture that we are working on, but on your specific question about whether we are working with industry, the answer is yes.

Sometimes.

Separately from the context in which you put that question, I think that we do need to improve and change things, and there is a constant drive for improvement. However, you should not diminish the changes that we are making and have made already. For example, when it comes to rail traffic, 75 per cent of passenger journeys are on electrified lines. The electrification of the East Kilbride line is coming, and we have completed the electrification of the Barrhead line.

We are also seeing the latest iteration of the vehicle emissions trading scheme—on 7 April, the UK Government issued its response to the UK-wide consultation on that. A load of different things are happening that are resulting in a shift to electric transportation. As I mentioned, there is the increasing electrification of our bus system.

However, we are talking about how people travel, and giving them alternatives. It is interesting to see the data in the report, including data from the Glasgow south city way, where we are seeing significant changes in commuting times and in how people are using the new provision there to cycle, with investment support from the Scottish Government.

Do we need to see quite a change? Yes. Are we taking steps to bring about that change? Yes. Do we need to do more? Yes. That is the whole point—we want to drive forward that agenda. However, it is not without its challenges. In particular, to reflect on Councillor Macgregor’s point, if we look at the geography of Scotland, we see that there are big challenges in rural areas. That is one of the reasons why we think that, if there is going to be a continuing reliance on cars, we need to invest in advance of demand. We have worked with local authorities on funding and support for electric vehicle charging, such that we have match funding from the private sector, which is good. However, in our budget that has just been approved, we have funding for rural and island EV charging in particular, because we might not get the same market uptake there as we might do elsewhere.

We have not got our advice yet, but our reading of the climate change advice that was given to the UK Government in February leads us to think that the level of car use reduction that is indicated by the target will not be needed in order to meet the emissions reductions that we need. That is probably the core issue. We still want and need to reduce car use—that has a variety of impacts—but, as I said at the beginning, I want to be clear that the vehicle emissions trading scheme and the switch to EVs will probably do far more to reduce emissions than was anticipated in December 2020. That is what leads me to say that the target is not only unachievable but unnecessary.

That does not mean that we do not need to reduce car use. We still do, but we should do it in a different way.

I will give you some examples. There are low-emission zones exemptions for blue badge holders. We have been very aware of some of the tensions in that regard, because some people need to use cars. On your point about rural and island communities, the lack of public transport availability means that more people rely on cars, so we are looking at policy measures to help with that. For example, in those areas, the approach might not be to reduce car usage but to switch to EVs. Again, I am pleased to say that we are going to be able to reintroduce our EV loans, but we are specifically restricting those to people on a reduced income and people in rural and island communities.

Those are two very practical examples to address exactly what you are saying, which is that we will have to be responsive to individual needs, that there will be more challenges and that car use reduction might not be as applicable or as achievable in rural or island areas as it is elsewhere. There will therefore need to be a greater shift to EV use and support in those areas, which is why we have the EV charging fund for rural and island areas and the specifically targeted loans to help people who want to make that shift.

I accept the recommendations of the report. That is what we do, and we take action on them. We can maybe question the rationale in the thinking.

Yes. I do think that rail should be fully devolved to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government. As you will be aware, the UK Government is currently considering rail reform legislation for Great Britain, and I have been keeping the relevant committee—the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee—apprised of my engagement in that respect. I have been very pleased to have engaged a number of times on the issue with the new Secretary of State for Transport, Heidi Alexander.

As this is perhaps somewhat separate from what is in the audit report, to be fair, I will try to keep my comments brief, convener, but we are seeing some challenges in what could be put forward for England and Wales, which might reflect what we are operationally trying to do in Scotland under the current devolved powers by having as much integration between track and train as possible. However, what we are able to do in that respect is limited by our legal powers and locus, and if there is vertical integration in the UK, that will give us an issue unless it is properly addressed.

That said, we are constructively engaging with the UK Government to identify within its proposals a Scottish solution that would help us ensure that we had such integration. Currently, there is an alliance or co-operation agreement between Network Rail—although it is a reserved body, it is funded by us for what it provides through an agreement under CP7—and ScotRail management to get as much integration as possible.

This is a big issue, but I am sorry, convener—

The issue is whether we would have spent time during the research asking people how long their car journey would have been had they not taken the train. I am not sure that we would have gone into that detail when asking people whether they would have used their cars previously. It comes back to the point that we are trying to reduce car use.

On how car use is measured, the Department for Transport measures it. That is how we get our data. The underlying data is measured in car kilometres, and that is how we measure the global aspect year on year. However, I do not think that we asked individuals how long their car journey was and that might be the point of Audit Scotland’s criticism.

We did measure car kilometres and we can give you the evidence of the difference between those measurements because that is part of the Department for Transport’s global assessment of car kilometres. I do not know whether my officials have anything more to add on that, or whether I am correct in what I am saying about the research.

It is a combination of a number of those things. Obviously, I do not want to retrofit a decision that was made in 2020, but we are dealing with the elements of it in the here and now. I think that the target is unachievable, and I think that it is going to be unnecessary. I want to have a bit of realism and pragmatism around the issue, and I want to take people with us. That is why we will see a change.