Seòmar agus comataidhean

No, it is not acceptable, but a large part of the reason for that is infrastructure failures on the part of Network Rail. That has the biggest impact on operating the rail network. There is no getting away from that; it is standard understanding—and it is recognised—in the industry. If you do an analysis of the factors that have an adverse impact on PPM performance, you will see that the majority are infrastructure matters.

Let me finish this point, because I have a very good example. You might remember when we had difficulty with the high-speed trains coming in because Wabtec, which was responsible for the refurbishment of the high-speed passenger trains, was way behind in the programme. That had an impact on the availability of seats on particular routes, which led to overcrowding challenges. That was a ScotRail problem, because it was about rolling stock and the ability to have seats available. However, when it comes to issues such as points and line challenges, it is about infrastructure. Most people in the industry know that.

Right now, ScotRail does not have a rolling stock challenge or a crewing challenge; it has an infrastructure challenge. That challenge lies with Network Rail; we have an unacceptable level of performance because Network Rail views Scotland as a region and so does not make the level of investment in Scotland that would reflect the fact that we are running a national railway. Network Rail’s investment programme treats Scotland as a region.

We are getting into the space of negotiations with the finance secretary on whether there will be new funding for it. Right now, it is absorbed in our existing funding, within the climate change and energy side of Government, because, as you know, it is working on a shadow basis at present.

We have the strategic board in place. Over the course of this year, it will be setting out clearly the actions that we need to take in order to create the dedicated body. Once we have a fuller understanding of what exactly that structure will be like, we will be in a position to look at how we finance it. Whether that will be a combination of new funding and existing funding or whether it will come from existing funding will be determined once we get to that point. However, at present, the funding is being met from our existing budgets.

I think that you are confusing a number of different things. The public performance measure does not measure passenger satisfaction; it measures the punctuality of the train service. Through Transport Focus Scotland, ScotRail runs a passenger satisfaction survey every year—I would need to come back to you with the exact detail on that.

I recognise that a lot of passenger satisfaction will be linked to the punctuality of the train service, but there is a real danger in comparing the PPM performance for, say, January this year with the PPM performance for January 2022, because a whole range of different factors could have an impact on that. It is not about resourcing. Adverse weather could have had an impact, or there could have been industrial action taking place at the time—those are events that are largely outwith the control of the rail network. Therefore, making such a comparison is not meaningful.

If you look at the PPM performance over the course of a year, there will be months that are more challenging. Traditionally, the winter months are more challenging due to the impact of weather events on rail infrastructure, such as freezing points or slippage on the rail network, which cause problems for Network Rail and have an impact on trains. The vast majority of the impact on ScotRail’s PPM performance is due to infrastructure challenges rather than to a lack of rolling stock or crew, so—

We will have to wait to see how that work takes place over the year and whether we can break things down to the level that you are referring to—not just the capital investment programme but right down to the construction elements and so on. I do not know just now. We will have to see how that work is developed and taken forward in strands 2 and 3.

The intention is that strand 2 will expand the taxonomy and give more data and understanding to provide much greater scrutiny of what is happening in different parts of the Government and its spend in tackling climate change. Therefore, strand 2 should give us an extra layer and give committees an extra depth of understanding on that.

Obviously, strand 3 is to give us the net zero assessment, so that we can have that level of assessment, which will be really important. Again, on the back of the Climate Change Committee’s report published at the end of last year, which talked about having much greater transparency between policy options and choices and their impact, it is important that we have that in the budget so that you can see where we are spending and investing and how that is impacting on climate change.

Between strands 2 and 3, I would hope that we will have a much greater level of detail. I do not know how granular that will be, because I am conscious that it is a new area. It is being developed and managed. The more granular it is, the better. I think that it will help us all in scrutinising the budget, and in policy decisions that we take forward. I hope that we will get a level of detail that committees feel is sufficient for them to properly scrutinise the overall budget allocations.

Yes. A few metropolitan local authority areas in England already have bus franchises. I think that Manchester has one and that there are other big cities using franchising models.

I am not saying that that is the model that local authorities should use; I am saying that, from the engagement that I have had with local authorities, some of them are looking more at the franchising model than at setting up their own bus company because of the capital costs that are associated with doing the latter. It is a different model, and the bus support funding that we are providing allows local authorities to look at developing some of those models, to put more flesh on the bones of what they are thinking about doing and to take that forward.

Yes.

The first thing to say is that the gateway to delivering on the hydrogen economy is onshore and offshore wind providing cheap renewable electricity. Our priority has to be to make sure that we create the opportunities to produce that renewable electricity. That is one of the areas where Scotland is more advanced than many other European countries.

Many countries in Europe—and beyond—are setting very ambitious targets for the production of green hydrogen but, actually, many of their renewable energy projects are not in the consent process, have not been consented to, or do not have leased sites. They are quite a bit behind us, which is why, in some ways, we have an advantage. There are European countries that are in a good place but, for example, the ScotWind leasing round has already been completed, and we are one of the few countries that have got to that point. Norway, which also wants to go into green hydrogen production in a big way, has still to do that leasing round, so it is probably about two years behind us in that process.

That renewable energy element is really important. One of the elements of the budget is that we are creating much more resource in my directorate to support the consenting process for onshore and, in particular, offshore wind, so that we can deal with consent effectively and efficiently, while also dealing with the environmental aspects that go alongside that.

On the hydrogen element in particular, we are taking forward a number of pieces of work. It will be really important that we become not just a production basin but a manufacturing centre for the components, such as electrolysers, that go into the production of green hydrogen. That reaches outwith my portfolio, although I have a direct interest in that, which is very much within the economy side. My colleague Ivan McKee and I work very closely together on how we can maximise the opportunity not only to attract inward investment but to support businesses in Scotland that could pivot into hydrogen production. Last year—I think that it was last October—we published our hydrogen prospectus, which was a proposition that set out the opportunities for businesses in Scotland and beyond to look at manufacturing capacity that is being developed in Scotland. We have had quite a bit of development on that through Scottish Development International and Scottish Enterprise at an international level, which has attracted quite a bit of interest. SE account managers have also taken forward work with businesses that have engineering expertise but are not necessarily in the hydrogen space, to make sure that they understand that they could pivot into that sector. Last October, we held an event in Edinburgh that brought together interested stakeholders and companies from both the energy and manufacturing sides to discuss their prospects and to look at how we can scale up that opportunity. A considerable amount of work is now going on. You probably know SE’s six key priorities better than I do, but I think that hydrogen is one of them. From the point of view of SE and SDI, as well as trade policy, a significant amount of resource has been put into hydrogen, as it is a major strategic priority for us.

In my portfolio and in the trade portfolio, we are taking forward a specific piece of work to make sure that we dovetail all of that work collectively. We have a further meeting on that this month. We are combining the key elements of production and capacity on the energy side in Scotland, the businesses that want to go into it and trade, investment and business growth opportunities, so that it all starts to knit together in a way that is much more consistent in maximising the opportunity.

I am sorry if that was a long answer.

I am not sure what that £60.9 million is; I would have to look at the answer that the finance secretary provided. I would need to go away and check that. Off the top of my head, I do not have that information. Kerry Twyman might be able to say more about that.

It will.