Chamber and committees

I will bring in Matthew Eastwood, but it might be helpful—

The VET scheme would operate separately from that; there is no interdependency. The VET scheme is achieving things, which is good.

On what the new UK Government’s view is on phasing out, that is a matter for it to relay. Labour had a manifesto commitment. It will be up to ministers to relay what their position is on timing or what they intend to do with that.

On Thursday, I met two of the new UK Government ministers, including the Minister for the Future of Roads. They have to address what they might do on the matter, but we will hear from them on that; it is not my place to speak for them.

You are correct that the target does not include homes or businesses; it is about publicly accessible charge points. On the expansion, one of the first things that I did when I became the Minister for Transport was to launch our EV vision for charging. With the target, we wanted to ensure that we maximised private as well as public provision. The EV infrastructure fund that we are rolling out as we speak will ensure that there can be a combination. It is about how we leverage private funding into the provision of publicly accessible charge points. We are well on the way towards meeting our initial 2026 target.

I was struck by figures from the Scottish Futures Trust that show that, in 2023, there was roughly £25 million to £30 million from private investment, which it anticipates will be £40 million to £50 million this year. I opened the rapid charging provision in Dundee, for example, which obviously has a private sector lead.

I think that your point is about the evolution of charging. Free charging was an incentive for people, and initially there was some free charging provision. We have just talked about private investment. There is a return from charging, and there are differences in pricing in the market. If you can use cheaper energy at home, particularly at the times when energy is cheaper, that is ideal. However, how can you charge your EV when you do not have access to a charging point in your driveway because you do not have a driveway? That is why I am particularly interested in what we can do for on-street charging.

There are some innovations in on-street charging that do not necessarily use domestic pricing. I give the example of Haddington, where the first conversion of Openreach’s green furniture into accessible charging points was developed. That helps people in a housing scheme in Haddington that is near the edge of the town, as they do not have to drive into town to charge.

We can get a sea change if we can support on-street charging. Funding has already been made available to enable factors to provide charge points at tenements, so they can be provided on a collective basis. We have already looked at how we can support people in that regard.

We either deal with where we are now or we determine that we want to try to cause a fight about the principle of decision making on the issue. It is the case that rail legislation remains reserved. That is why I am referring to the main piece of UK legislation that is coming and our opportunity to have full devolution through it. While UK rail legislation remains reserved, I have the opportunity to ensure that what is a temporary system of public ownership becomes a permanent system of public ownership. I am going to take it; I think that it is important that we take that opportunity.

I could have just said, “Well, that’s it. It’s the summer recess—they can get on with it at some point in the future and we’ll try to get some changes down the line,” but you know that when you have an opportunity for UK legislation—or, indeed, Scottish legislation—to deliver the policy output that you want, you take the opportunity. That is why, while UK rail legislation remains reserved, I want to make sure that the Scottish interest is protected, and the Scottish interest is protected by our recommending that Parliament approve, with legislative consent, the opportunity to make sure that the temporary public ownership of rail becomes permanent.

I will bring Bill Reeve in on that. However, our investment in Network Rail using the current system—remember that CP7 is the first control period that we are going into with public ownership—has gone up substantially. We have a pipeline of activity and works, so the investment is in place.

You are probably trying to get at the displacement of funding from the private companies and how the Government accounts for that. I can give you evidence on what we have done. We are the trailblazers in that area because we have done it for the past two years. I cannot speak for what the new UK Government will do: that would be speculation. From our experience, it should be positive, but I cannot give you firm commitments because I am not responsible for the UK Government’s decisions on the matter.

I ask Bill Reeve whether he can enlighten us about the private train operators’ investment.

There is indeed, and, to be fair, it started under the Conservative Government with the proposal to integrate track and train. Scotland has already done that. We work very well with Network Rail and ScotRail and that work provides efficiencies in investment and planning. I visited the control centre and discussed the multiple storms that we had last year and how we react when there are major weather-related disruptions. The integration of track and train is a positive step forward.

Members will be aware that the previous UK Government seconded Alex Hynes into the Department for Transport to work on the rail reform legislation. I gave evidence on that and I shared my evidence with the committee. That legislation is a step forward for England and Wales but I have concerns about how it might operate in Scotland. The incoming UK Labour Government has picked up the baton on that, and our understanding is that it will take forward a more substantial piece of legislation, which will be the formation of Great British rail. That is the legislation that the committee should take a close interest in. I certainly am, as cabinet secretary, because we do not want to see complete centralisation that would undermine the progress that we have made in integrating track and train.

We want to operate and co-operate with that in a positive way. I communicated some of my concerns to the then chair of Network Rail, Sir Peter Hendy, who is the new UK Minister for Rail, so he should be familiar with them. The issues and concerns that I expressed when I gave evidence to the UK Transport Select Committee just before the close of the UK Parliament still stand.

We have yet to see the substance of that legislation. Given the level of co-operation that we have engendered to date, I hope that there will be a practical way forward to ensure that my concerns will be addressed. Obviously, there is more to do. The bill is short and sharp; it is about bringing rail into public ownership at the end of each franchise.

More substantive rail reform legislation is still to come, and we will need to keep a close eye on that when it is published. In advance of that, I hope that the relationships that we have built to date, at both official and ministerial level, will stand us in good stead so that we can try to make sure that our interests in Scotland are protected.

There is much to do. I have met Louise Haigh. I would like to thank again the parliamentary authorities, the committee and the committee clerks for their co-operation on the LCM, because, obviously, we had to do this at pace during the summer, because Parliament was in recess, and I did not want us to be left out of it, which could have happened. I am very appreciative of my officials and of the UK Government officials. I am working with the minister to align things because something happened when our parliamentary terms did not align. That has been good co-operation.

I have not yet met Sir Peter Hendy, the new UK Minister for Rail, although I did meet him when he was in his previous position as chair of Network Rail. I hope and intend to meet him.

It will be an open procurement, to ensure that we have value for money and deliver what we need in terms of passengers, track and train. As you might appreciate, I do not want to comment on any individual company.

Any replacement will need to ensure that it supports a greener fleet. That is one of the clear points that I want to make. However, it will be an open procurement, so I cannot give a figure until the procurement is concluded. I hope that you can appreciate that. A reduction is my commitment, but I cannot say by how much, because the procurement is only just starting.