Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am not sure that the climate change plan will go into detail about that assessment. The CCP will be about our plans to reduce emissions specifically, so it will not contain a detailed road-by-road analysis. For example, I do not anticipate that the A9 will be a specific feature of the CCP.

I will bring in Bill Reeve to expand on some of that, because he has had more contact with our officials who have been working with those from the DFT. I have met several times, including in person, Lord Hendy, the rail minister, to impress on him that there cannot be any reduction in our powers.

The concept of rail reform was initially established by the Conservative UK Government and was then picked up by the incoming Labour Government. We must ensure that Great British railways is accountable and responsible to Scottish ministers in any areas where we have strategic or financial responsibilities. We currently fund Network Rail by more than £1 billion a year and have set out our strategic requirements in connection with that funding, so it is only right and proper that we should have direct control of that part of the work. The key issue will be how that is set out in legislation. We expect legislation fairly soon but have yet to be assured that the executive devolution that we currently have will be maintained. I am spending a great deal of time on that.

I will bring Bill Reeve in to expand on that point.

You are entitled to have an opinion—

There can be a real shift in reliability because of the bus infrastructure fund leading to the provision of bus priority lanes and so on. We have seen the success of that in the reliability of bus services where there are such measures.

I would also support and echo your request for multiyear funding but, as you know, we are in discussions about multiyear funding in our spending review, our budget is coming up and there is the small detail of an election coming up, which affects future planning for the incoming Government. I am keen for us to have multiyear funding, and the convener was right to identify the fact that we could not follow through with all the funding for active and sustainable travel that we wanted to last year. We do not get as much value for money if we take a stop-start approach to these things. Local authorities want continuous rolling programmes because it helps with aspects such as staffing and delivery, and that is true for active travel routes as well as bus infrastructure.

As part of our climate change plan, if we want to see a shift to greater use of public transport, for lots of different reasons including emissions reduction as well as health and wellbeing and the vibrancy of communities, we need to give some certainty, because that will mean better delivery and better value for money from construction and design and so on. I would like to say yes, but that is a question for the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government rather than me.

I think that every MSP would say that bus is one of the issues that come into our inboxes regularly—everybody, individually, can see that. Anything that the committee can do to encourage members to be champions for bus, across the parties and with our other MSP colleagues, would be welcome.

On the change that we have to make, the vast majority of journeys on public transport are made by bus, and we have to encourage more people to make bus journeys. That means having more bus routes available that are meaningful for people based on modern-day travel patterns. I am afraid that, in some parts of the country, bus routes do not reflect what modern needs are. Increasingly, we see that the routes go from east to west across the central belt, whereas we need to have more routes going from north to south within Lanarkshire and West Lothian to reflect people’s patterns of need for leisure and for work.

Jim Fairlie is leading on that. The guidance is currently undergoing final engagement with the key parties that are involved in the franchising process, which include the Competition and Markets Authority and the office of the traffic commissioner for Scotland. Once that is completed, that guidance will be shared with the committee and others, including local transport authorities. The final timescales for publication will depend on the capacity of those stakeholders to consider and engage with the draft document; it will be issued in draft form.

You referred to the memorandum of understanding, and we are currently working with the UK Government on the costs of running the independent approval panels for the franchising process. Subject to negotiations being agreed with the UK Government, we will provide the committee with a copy of the memorandum of understanding for its awareness. We are in the final stages of that process.

it would be wrong to say that there has been no discussion. There has been some engagement on that proposal and we still intend to deliver that. I would be happy for my colleague Jim Fairlie to give you an update on where we are.

I think that everybody wants Strathclyde to be able to do what it wants to do in a positive way.

I do not recognise what you are saying, convener. Originally, only the council and Peel Ports were meant to carry out the investment. There were challenges in their doing so, which was why, eventually, the Scottish Government came into the task force as part of that partnership.

The level of investment required to reach the full amount would have been substantial and I do not think that Peel Ports was ever going to invest at the level that was required at that point. It is a private harbour, so that is always the challenge.

Chris Wilcock has been around a bit longer than I have. Do you want to reflect on that question, Chris?

As far as that sort of detail is concerned, it will be ready when it is ready. The heads of terms are in a good place. As for the transfer of funds, I reported to the committee that I had secured funding in this year’s budget to ensure the price and the purchase of Ardrossan harbour.