Chamber and committees

The £500 million in support of buses is a long-term funding commitment. That was made before there were a lot of the fiscal pressures that we know all of Government faces in different areas.

In a previous appearance before the committee, I think that I said that I was frustrated that we have had to pause the bus partnership fund, because it is a helpful enabler to give confidence to the bus sector, which is really important, and to provide access improvements. When people see that they can travel more readily, we can see improvements. The experience in Aberdeen, where there has been a 25 per cent reduction in journey times by bus—that has benefited 600,000 people—shows the attractiveness of travelling by bus and switching from car, not necessarily for all journeys but for some of them. That can make a difference.

How do I transparently express that in the current circumstances in which we find ourselves? I am actively pursuing finding ways to reallocate funding or jointly fund with other projects that might help us to move forward in that area. I cannot give you a direct answer to the question, Ms Lennon, but I reassure you that I am trying to unlock that so that we can unpause the fund, because it is a vital connection. In tight fiscal circumstances, a lot of climate change and transport improvements that are not legally or financially contracted have been difficult for us to advance in the past year.

In all those projects, not least on trunk roads, it is clear that there are issues around making sure that planning purposes and processes are robust so that you do not get challenges and so on. I heard about the experience in Aberdeen, for example, when I visited to hear about the trunk roads there.

I declare an interest in relation to using the motorway network, convener, because I represent a central Scotland constituency and have been pursuing park and ride at constituency level for precisely those reasons. I declare that I am recused in my ministerial listings.

That funding has been paused. It is a process issue as well as a funding issue, and I know how important considering bus lane access to Glasgow and Edinburgh is for constituencies in the central belt. The committee will know that there are more advanced issues around bus lanes in Edinburgh, particularly in relation to coming over from Fife, but there are more opportunities there. I want to be careful in what I say, because I have a personal interest as a constituency MSP in those areas, so I defer to Alison Irvine, or whoever might be more appropriate, as she might be able to say things more safely.

Yes, indeed.

I will also say that ScotRail’s public performance measure is currently at 90.4 per cent, compared with the average of 87.1 per cent for Great Britain. In terms of how we drive that forward, passenger satisfaction is currently sitting at 89 per cent for ScotRail, compared with a GB average of 85 per cent. I want to press ScotRail to do more. Following the meeting with ScotRail and Network Rail, perhaps I can return to the committee with their assessment of performance and how they want collectively to drive forward the performance figure.

Am I allowed to ask a question, convener? We have previously discussed that the committee will probably have quite a key role in oversight of delivery of the A9 project. I am quite interested in understanding how the committee wants to work on that. I think that committees had similar functions in relation to the Queensferry crossing, which was another major exercise. It would be helpful to know, perhaps after the meeting, how the committee plans to do that.

I have already mentioned that we are looking to procure for the intercity fleet. Also, obviously, there is an issue around the suburban fleet. There is the related issue of the roll-out of decarbonisation, which I have discussed with the committee before. I am not in a position to give you any more information than I have given previously. I can say that the options for the high-speed train fleet replacement are currently being developed, and that an associated business case that will be prepared by ScotRail Trains Ltd and Network Rail will come to me for consideration.

Alison Irvine is probably better placed than I am to give you an update now. However, as I try to do regularly, I will ensure that I update the committee on key milestones, because I know that there is keen interest.

We want to have an efficient system of public transport, but we have different modes of public transport. Much of our public transport is run by private companies and the market in Scotland is, by and large, deregulated apart from in the Lothians. There have been improvements in partnership working with councils, as well as with the Scottish Government, on the investments to improve the bus stock, with low-emission buses being a particular focus.

In an ideal world, we would all want to have free public transport, but there are fiscal constraints within which we are operating, as well as the fiscal position under which the parties that are likely to form a United Kingdom Government are operating. During the pre-election period, I am probably straying too far with that remark. I will try not to do that.

There are international examples of free public transport. The provision of free transport for the under-22s is a good example of where we can provide that for a whole group in society and where that can help to form regular patterns and habits among a group of people.

Given that we are investing £430 million to help with free bus travel for young and older people, my challenge back would be to ask whether there is a subsidised system that we can put in place that would encourage more people to use public transport. I think that free travel is potentially unachievable in the current financial climate, although that could be an ambition for the future, and we see that in some areas.

Aberdeen had a period of free bus travel at the weekends to encourage people who may not otherwise have gone into the city to travel in for leisure reasons. That is a good example. I emphasise that we are seeing a big increase in the use of public transport for leisure as opposed to work—that is the big growth area. The challenge there is whether the public should subsidise public transport for leisure use. Actually, should we discriminate at all between travel for work and travel for leisure?

Just to speculate, when I was in Dublin, talking to the transport minister and the rail operator there, I was interested to find that they are considering how employers can help to subsidise and support travel. Many companies already do that for employees who use public transport, with loans and so on. We should think through what we can do to finance public transport, which could be provided either at a reduced cost or, in an ideal world, free.

Our choices are somewhat limited by the current fiscal constraints, but it was good to see that recommendation and interest from the people’s panel, as well as the understanding that, if we are to tackle transport emissions, we need a shift to public transport. That was the recommendation from the people’s panel.

No; it is the reverse.

That is a good question. Unless people are in the Lothian Buses area, they probably do not realise that that happens. Lothian is seen as the most successful municipal bus company, part of which comes from the simplicity of its fare structure. We are also learning from the experience in England.

We are working with partners in the Scottish landscape, including private bus operators in the deregulated market, to anticipate how that might encourage a modal shift. We see benefits in the Lothians because everyone uses the buses and that is not in any way differentiated, whereas, in other parts of the country, affluence can affect whether people use the bus or prefer to use a car. We also need availability. I am interested in whether having a flat-rate structure might help to support more bus use in rural or semi-rural areas. I am keen to see that, but we must work with operators to identify where that can be done.

There is a case for looking at regional discounting. There are already interesting developments in Glasgow. We do not want to displace activity that is already happening, but that might help to inform us about how to get a modal shift and whether cutting prices might help. We are looking at a £2 price but that already happens with most buses anyway: they do not necessarily cost £4.

The problem comes outside cities, where there are the complications of poorer bus availability and more expensive buses. I feel strongly that if we want to tackle child poverty we must encourage and support parents who want to get better-paid jobs elsewhere or who want to travel to employment or education. That is more problematic in rural and semi-rural areas than it might be in our cities. We are looking at all the different aspects to identify where it would be best to pilot flat-rate fares and whether they would make a difference.

We must bear in mind that 79 per cent of all public transport journeys are by bus, so I am very keen to focus on that this year

No, that is certainly not the case. Convener, you have asked me not to stray into the territory of announcements that I cannot make. That is why I said that I cannot give you that information. I have not seen it, so I am not in a position to tell you; even if I had seen it, I would probably be restricted in what I can say in this meeting.

We agree with you, because we think that, conceptually, it is the same thing, whether the act involves you as an individual or the automated vehicle. However, the UK Government is saying that there is a difference and that, because there is an automated driver, the offence does not apply in the same way. You are right; that is why we agree with you that—