Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes. Indeed, in this year’s budget, there is £400,000 for that. We are working with an organisation—I am not sure whether it is the Energy Saving Trust—to fund the colleges. It goes back to Colin Beattie’s point, because that provision will also be needed for trucks and heavy duty vehicles. We are funding colleges in that respect; in fact, I have visited Borders College to see its work to train up car technicians to deal with not only traditional internal combustion engine—ICE—vehicles, but EVs, too. The project is good and has been well received.

Moreover, the additional funding that we have provided for the coming year will be for reskilling and upskilling, too. Part of our draft just transition plan for transport, which is currently out for consultation, is about how we ensure that the workforce is skilled up and ready to move into the EV space.

Would I like more funding for the transport budget? Yes. Would I like to use that funding for bus services? Yes. However, there are obviously competing demands.

I think that 74 per cent of public transport journeys are made by bus—is that correct?

In national planning framework 4, there is a focus on environmental sustainability, and the door is open for good decisions to be made by local authorities. There should be more proactive use of section 75 agreements in order to meet local transport needs and ensure integrated transport planning, because people expect to have active bus routes to locations. I do not want to make a particular criticism of the local authority in the case that Stuart McMillan mentioned, but those considerations must be front and centre. That is why partnership working is really important.

I refer the committee to a previous report by the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. When I was its deputy convener, that committee produced a very good report on local authorities being delivery partners in relation to net zero. The report covered issues relating to planning and other areas, because there needs to be partnership. However, partnerships need work; they cannot be taken for granted. That is why Gail Macgregor and I are working on improving the governance, as recommended in the report.

There is also the matter of the governance arrangements in relation to the work on climate change, which involves the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, the Acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy, Gail Macgregor and key members from local government. Car use reduction is just one aspect of the whole picture, but the holistic picture, which is what I hope we are giving you through this evidence, is that we are absolutely focused on that and are trying to improve it with our partners.

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.