Chamber and committees

They are continuing. That is a matter for the employer and the trade union, as is appropriate. The public pay matrix was issued at the end of last week. With regard to the discussions with the rail unions, I cannot comment specifically on those with the RMT, but I understand that there will be engagement. I am not sure of the timescale for when the talks with the RMT will commence, but I reiterate that it is the responsibility of the employer to engage in those discussions with the relevant trade unions.

As a Government, our position is quite clear. Because of the constraints that we are under, there is a public pay matrix that—

My understanding is that that will be the case, because that is what happened last year when I had just come into post. I am assuming that the process will be the same this year.

As you might be aware, convener—and as, I am sure, the deputy convener is aware—my responsibilities are for the trunk roads network, on which we have spent some time. I am not, however, diminishing what is a local issue for a local authority. Every local authority will have roads that are, for various reasons, priorities for investment.

As far as improvement is concerned, we have a £10 million road improvement fund—I will correct that if I have got the number wrong—on which we work with local authorities. It tends to be used to address safety issues.

However, the solution to the problem that Ben Macpherson has identified has to come from the council. Nobody would expect me to impose solutions on local authorities without their having asked for that. I have not been approached by the City of Edinburgh Council on the issue. Even if I were to be approached, I know that there are similar issues in Glasgow and other places.

The issue comes down to how we improve the availability of capital investment to help our infrastructure. I will try to word this in a gentle way. Over the piece—by that, I mean over several UK Governments—there has not been so much focus on capital investment in infrastructure. As a result, we have not had consequentials with which to move towards making the major capital investment in infrastructure that we need, not only to fulfil our national responsibilities but to help to support work at the local level.

The question—as Monica Lennon’s was—is about how we increase the amount of capital investment that is available to local authorities. We cannot do that when we are facing a 9 per cent reduction over the next few years. I know that Ben Macpherson is passionate about his constituency, but I am not sure that the committee that scrutinises national policy is the right place to get a good answer to the question. Obviously, that is what you are looking for. However, if you have written to me, I will try to respond appropriately.

That is the bottom line. I have big responsibilities for all our public sector transport network and our trunk roads. I really sympathise, because I used to live in that part of Edinburgh and I am aware of the road in question. However, every city will have areas that face the same issue. Part of the solution lies in reducing car use and providing more public transport; however, I cannot spend time today dealing with individual constituency issues, and it is perhaps a bit unfair to ask me to do so.

I wrote to the committee because I was conscious that I was appearing today and I wanted to give some indication of where things are with the interim evaluation. I confirm that the interim evaluation has been published today on Transport Scotland’s website—I wrote today, or last night, to ensure that the committee is aware of that. I understand that there is a members’ business debate on the topic this week, too. For that debate and for my appearance today, it was important that the committee be informed.

I assure Monica Lennon that, if she looks on the Transport Scotland website—is it live, Alison?

“ScotRail Peak Fares Pilot— Interim Evaluation” is live now.

We need to continue with the evaluation. It has been affected by the pre-election period: we wanted to do a public survey in June: it will now happen in July and will inform decision making. In the meantime, the information in the interim evaluation and my letter to the committee will give you a bit of advance notice on what is likely to be in that report.

I am not saying that I am confident that it will be achieved. It will be a challenge—I am not saying that it will be an easy thing. In the past two weeks I have had a discussion with some members of the Climate Change Committee on what could be done on such issues.

I stress that taking such an approach should go hand in hand with improving public transport. If we want people to switch from car use to public transport, even if it is for one day a week or whatever, that is an equivalent factor in the balance. It is also important to consider whether we always have to use the car. There is a big challenge for all of us in examining our car ownership. I know that if, for example, people have young kids and have to go to lots of different places, having the use of a car for small journeys is helpful. However, in general, we want to encourage more active travel through walking and cycling. As my family and I did, people need to reconsider whether they need two cars or just one and whether that will help them to use public transport or share transport. There are also car clubs and so on.

A couple of weeks ago, I was at the launch of an EV charging facility for the use of Enterprise car club members. There are therefore different ways of reducing car kilometres. It is not just about aiming for the official international benchmark. At policy and personal levels, we must all consider how we travel and reduce our car use. In a country like Scotland, we will always have to have some car use in particular areas. However, the availability of EV charging facilities is a big challenge. That is why, as part of our focus on the climate change plan, expanding the availability of such charging, particularly in strategic areas and rural areas, will be a priority for the Scottish Government.

Alison, do you want to come in?

I am not in a position to give that date, but I am happy to follow that up with you. There are probably not that many things that I have offered to follow up with the committee, but that might be helpful. I will set out the stages and the timing. Because work on the medium-term and long-term solutions is being done at the same time, there is an interdependency; that is all set out in the timetable on the website that I referred to.

Perhaps we can take that in stages. Our 2045 carbon emissions target absolutely still stands, and it is the route map to it that will be altered—I understand that the committee recently discussed that with the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy, Màiri McAllan.

It is absolutely essential that we expand the EV charger network. One of the reasons why we had the climate change plan was to uprate the EV roll-out. One of the first things that I did when I came back into Government as Minister for Transport was to go to Dundee to launch our EV vision. We have 5,000 public sector charge points and we are on target to deliver on the vision of 6,000 public EV charge points by 2026. The Scottish Government’s investment in EV charging is in addition to the 20,000 domestic and business charge points funded by the Scottish Government.

It is quite clear that the development of EV charging will be through a public-private partnership, which a lot of local authorities have included in their plans. In 2023, the private sector invested between £25 million and £35 million in public EV charging in Scotland. This year, the Scottish Futures Trust anticipates an investment of between £40 million and £50 million.

Later this year, we will publish the implementation plan, which will be informed by all the local authority plans. To date, we have invested more than £4 million to help local authorities develop the public EV charging strategy and plans that you were referring to. Scotland’s 32 local authorities have all submitted their plans to Transport Scotland. We anticipate that another £7 million will be invested in that EV infrastructure funding as a result of what is happening in relation to the plans, so I can reassure you that we see this as a major step forward.

Reflecting again on my discussions with members of the Climate Change Committee just the other week about the anticipated target of 24,000, I can say that they are as interested in making sure that, strategically, those charge points are all in the right places as they are in the target number. For us, the extrapolation of 24,000 was on a UK basis. However, in terms of looking at Scotland’s geography—we make up a third of the UK landmass—where we have the charge points is going to be as important as the number that we have. I am acutely aware of that.

That is quite a long answer, especially when the convener was wanting a break, but I hope that it gives you the up-to-date position. We will absolutely be pressing ahead and I am very pleased that all the local authorities have submitted their plans.

There are lots of issues.