Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is important that immediate work be carried out. There will be work carried out in the short term for immediate use, particularly for MV Caledonian Isles, which I am sure that people will be pleased to hear has returned. There are also medium-term and longer-term aspects. One issue was that only the bare basics might have been done previously, whereas we think that more extensive work needs to be carried out to ensure that the port is in a good place for the longer term.

I am not going to give you a figure, because prices will have changed, too. One of the issues for the task force was to revisit the different prices that had come forward at the time. With regard to development of the business case, we are obviously aware of the degree and level of what is involved, but it all depends on the different stages—the work at Ardrossan will have to be done in stages.

They would have been put forward during the business case development, and the funding to go forward would have been authorised. I will try to come back to the committee with figures for the development that are as up to date as we understand them to be, but, as you will be aware, there are different aspects to the harbour.

Issues around board appointments are normally confidential. I do not know who has reported what and when. I would be concerned, not least for the individual, if rumour or gossip has turned up in reports. I do not think that it is fair to characterise it in that way.

I will be cautious, because this is a live negotiation and I want it to be successful. I will therefore not pass any comment. Members may, but I will be as objective as I can be in terms of where we are.

As discussed with the convener, we are in a good place with the heads of terms agreement.

In answer to Michael Matheson’s questions, yes, there is access to the data bank and, yes, I think that a clean approach that allows for no hangovers that could be problematic in the future would be desirable.

That is the detail that needs to be finalised before any purchase can take place. Michael Matheson’s analysis in relation to why that is important is correct, and it is part of the detailed negotiations that are going on just now.

It was quite a long inquiry.

I always oblige, convener.

I thank you and the committee for inviting me to the meeting. I have tried to keep the committee informed by regular correspondence on various significant developments. In these brief opening remarks, I will set out some of the Scottish Government’s key achievements.

The national transport strategy’s vision and priorities remain central to policy and decision making for the Scottish Government, as well as the focus of our regional transport partnerships and a wide range of organisations. We need that to continue, as that collaborative approach is key to delivering public transport provision for the people of Scotland and helping them to access services, education, employment and leisure in a more sustainable way.

Encouraging people to use public transport is fundamental to our vision. To support that, a number of commitments have been delivered, and there have been developments to improve connectivity, accessibility and affordability. I would like to highlight some of those. We have introduced free interisland ferry travel for young people and expanded the concessionary ferry voucher scheme to include islanders aged 19 to 21. The free rail travel pilot for companions for blind people has also been introduced, and we are working to launch the pilot scheme for free bus travel for people seeking asylum, as well as a bus fare cap that is to be trialled in one of our regions.

As members well know, peak fares have been abolished across ScotRail services, and we have opened new rail stations at Hairmyres and East Kilbride, with the wider East Kilbride enhancement project set to deliver electrification by the end of the year.

There have been a number of port infrastructure improvements supporting resilience for our communities. The strategic approach to the islands connectivity plan and the vessels and ports plan for the Clyde and Hebrides and northern isles networks were published in May, and the direct award of the Clyde and Hebrides ferry contract to CalMac Ferries was delivered last week. The new arrangements will see almost £4 billion of public funding investment over 10 years, moving from a commercial arrangement to a model that is fully focused on delivering a public service for the communities that depend on those ferry services.

Work is also on-going to prepare and develop the northern isles ferry service 4 contract, with services to be procured by 30 June 2028. Following her recent successful sea trials, the MV Isle of Islay will be handed over to Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd by November, and I look forward to seeing her service on the Kennacraig to Islay route.

On major projects, the £152.7 million construction contract was awarded for the fourth section of the A9 dualling programme, which is between Tay crossing and Ballinluig. We have published the A96 corridor review report and consultation, and we have engaged with local communities on resilience work that is on-going for the A83, as work has continued on the short, medium and long-term solutions.

One of my main concerns has been safety on our roads. Through the road safety improvement fund, £10 million has been allocated to councils for initiatives that address safety concerns across the local road network.

On bus and accessible travel, we have invested further in zero-emission buses. We have recently awarded more than £26 million for active travel infrastructure and construction projects across Scotland; established a working group to tackle antisocial behaviour; and welcomed two major bus operators to the national smart ticketing advisory board. We have announced £4.5 million of funding for rural and island electric vehicle charging, and launched the cross-pavement charging grant pilot programme. Further, £20 million is being provided to encourage and enable more households and businesses with lower incomes to purchase electric vehicles.

We have also established the heavy goods vehicle market readiness fund to provide £2 million to support collaboration to identify investment in HGV decarbonisation.

We have published our aviation statement, which outlines the specific actions that we will take to encourage decarbonisation and increase international connectivity.

As you will be aware, we face many challenges across all modes. We continue to work together with partners to take forward a range of vital steps to address those challenges and deliver our commitments.

Finally, earlier this year, we published our report “Connecting Scotland—The Value of Transport”, which provides a broad framework for understanding and illustrating how transport contributes to Scotland’s growing economy. That is a useful resource for decision makers, both locally and nationally, to draw on.

I understand that the committee is eager to explore many of those issues and others. I look forward to answering members’ questions.

On the latter point, there has been extensive feedback, as you can imagine. Obviously, there are different types of single-carriageway rural roads, and we must look very closely at what the change will mean in practice. There are certain roads on which we need further engagement.

There is a general consensus on what we can do with changing the speed limit for HGVs. I want to consider that properly. I have not had the report on the consultation as yet, but I look forward to receiving it.

Any national roll-out of communications will need to be done in conjunction with our road safety partnership colleagues, with COSLA and with SCOTS, but you are correct to raise that point about awareness.

I think that, by and large, people are very aware, because they are seeing the signage and seeing the changes, but the importance of it can and should be reinforced as it is being rolled out. I also recognise Monica Lennon’s point about road safety in a local context. If there is a 25 per cent reduction in casualties, that is not always about in-town fatalities, and there can be severe injuries. In terms of that reduction happening, consensus is really important.

I will make sure that, at our next meeting of the road safety partnership, we reinforce the point that the committee is of the view—if you are collectively of this view—that looking at how we can reinforce that point nationally in communications might be helpful.

That was an interesting contribution from road policing.

The original target of a 20 per cent reduction in car usage by 2030 was set during the pandemic when there was a substantial reduction in car usage and an anticipation that it would go back to previous levels.

As members might recall, I took quite a bit of flak during the summer for recognising that the target was not achievable and that it might also not be needed because of what is required for the future. I had to make that clear at the time because Audit Scotland had written a report. We all knew that the Climate Change Committee’s advice was going to be way off what we expected would be needed when the original target was set. The fact that the UK Climate Change Committee’s advice on Scotland’s carbon budgets indicates that Scotland now needs a 6 per cent modal shift from car to public transport and active travel by 2035 is, as you have stated, a big difference from the original target.

I am currently revising what we will be producing, which we need to do as part of the climate change plan. I know that the committee has spent a lot of time looking at what might be anticipated in that plan. As part of the preparation for the climate change publication, I have received a submission, which I will look at any time now. We need to look at whether the appropriate measure to look at is car use or car emissions reduction, because what we are trying to do with car use reduction is to reduce emissions. Going back to the partnership aspect, COSLA is key to that work.

We do not anticipate all parts of the country being able to change at the same level or to the same degree; our cities will perhaps be in advance of other areas, and we will always need car use in rural areas. As transport secretary, I have been quite clear that I anticipate that.

There is a bit of a challenge in that, in the Climate Change Committee’s view, there will be limited car use reduction because people will effectively just move from petrol and diesel vehicles to electric vehicles. Its view is that there will be limited reduction in cars—full stop—and that they will all be EVs. I think that that is ambitious.

We will have to consider what we need to do to meet our carbon budgets. The 6 per cent modal shift requirement is low, and we need to think about how it will impact on emissions. There are other reasons why we would want to encourage car use reduction generally by encouraging public transport use. We know that using public transport is a healthier way of travelling in terms of walking, wheeling and cycling. In some parts of the country, we will clearly need to have continuing extensive car use—that can be through EVs, but, as we are aware, we need to make sure that we have charging infrastructure that meets requirements. That is why, as I have said to the committee before, we are providing £30 million outwith local authority funding to develop that, in addition to the new rural and islands EV fund, as the market will not necessarily support charging infrastructure in some of our rural and island areas.

The situation is difficult and complex. There is a world of difference in what the Climate Change Committee is saying now compared with what it said previously. I need to make sure that, in the climate change plan, we present that new target to everyone.