Fy wneud y byddai'r dweud o'r ffordd am y gael'r cyfeirydd nesaf o'r Ynahtzera Ddigon és Rwm enghyd êtesau'r Cymysgol. Dych chi'n gweithio i'r gwendidgo cyfnwynt i'r cyfrifoedd yma o'i cy lle gyda'r washedol yma, neu cyfrifoedd yma o gwzbwyr yn тыchwyntau cyrraedd cyfnodol, a cysylltu'r gwendidgo cyfrifoedd yma i ddrafeddau gwladdau cyfrifol i gyfrifodd cyfnodol. Do we agree to take these matters in private. We have a decision on whether to take our work programme in private at the next meeting. Are we happy to do that? We are happy to do that. Oedden di wrthyf sy'n gwerth companies, gwybod yie Strydymiad Aufi, wy answer o ffiguredd i ni wedi'i gw noono dros ymlaen wedi'i chyfnodol, i siaradol a chyfnodol i ni ran eich gwelwch, i chi i waeithio i eich gyflaen, a'i gwelwch i chi i gyd yn gy volunteering, cyhoeddfa cymaint, ac yn cymaint.  Mae dechrau i'r ysgolwyd, ond mae'n dechrau, gost, yn ogymell. Anna Dencham, ddechu'r Gwliodraeth y Lland Raffaith Rhaen i gymsaith Llywodraeth a Llywodraeth i gymsaith y Gwliodraeth, Simon Fuller, ddechu ddechu'r Gwliodraeth i gymsaith science and analytical services from the Scottish Government. Philip Rains, the deputy director for domestic climate change for the Scottish Government. Brendan Callaghan, the head of operational delivery for Scottish forestry, and Kerry Twyman, the director of finance and corporate services. Thank you for joining us this morning. I would also like to welcome Graham Simpson, MSP, who has joined us for this session. I will offer you the chance to ask one or two questions nearer the end of the session. As you will be aware, cabinet secretaries, I think I can refer to you in the plural, although I can't see Mary Gougeon. The way we propose to run this session is to initially put questions to both of you on areas where you have a joint interest. We will then suspend briefly before we take further evidence from Mary McCallan on matters specifically within her ministerial portfolio. I expect the latter session to be the longer of the two. Before we move on to questions, I would like to offer both cabinet secretaries the chance to make a brief opening statement. Mary McCallan, do you want to head off first on that? Yes, of course, convener. Good morning and thank you for inviting me to give evidence on my portfolio budget for £24.25. As you will have heard from a number of my colleagues, the budget has been developed in extremely difficult financial circumstances. The spending decisions of the UK Government mean that our block grant has fallen in real terms by 1.2 per cent since 2022-23, despite record inflation. Capital funding is due to contract by almost 10 per cent in real terms, something that is of particular concern to me, given that my portfolio carries roughly 40 per cent of the Scottish Government's capital programme. That is required by difficult choices and prioritisation towards programmes that most effectively deliver on the Government's key outcomes. To give the committee an overview, that includes spending of nearly £2.5 billion on our public transport system, including investment of over £1.6 billion to maintain, improve and decarbonise Scotland's rail network and extend peak fares removal pilot. We will also invest £430 million to support bus services and their users, providing access to free bus travel for over 2 million people, including all under 22s, with more than 100 million free journeys made since the scheme was launched. We will continue to invest in walking, wheeling and cycling, allocating £220 million in 24-25, as well as spending £435 million to support our lifeline ferry services. The safety of our road network has also remained a significant priority, and we are investing record amounts to maintain, adapt and improve our roads and make them safe for all users. That includes critical work on the A83 rest and be thankful, as well as the A9 jewling programme, with work to commence on the Tomato and Tamoy section and procurement on the three remaining southern sections. We are delivering on our commitment to protect our natural environment, halting biodiversity loss through our £65 million Nature Restoration Fund and Scotland's Biodiversity Strategy delivery plan, with a further £29 million investment to halt biodiversity loss in the coming year. We have ensured that our environmental regulators are well equipped to deliver the pivotal role that they play in maintaining a healthy and safe environment. We are investing almost £40 million in 24-25 to drive Scotland's circular economy, reducing reliance on scarce resources and waste. That is an overview, ultimately, despite the real and very, very trying funding constraints that have borne down on this year's budget. That broad and diverse portfolio prioritises tackling the climate emergency and supporting biodiversity, while delivering a safe, accessible and resilient transport network for the people of Scotland. That is the conclusion of my opening statement. I might, if you do not mind, hand very briefly to my colleague Phil Raines, who has a technical update for the committee's awareness. Would that not be appropriate if a question arises relating to it? I mean, that was quite a long opening statement. I appreciate that, convener, and I do not want to take up any more time than need be. This is about an inaccuracy in the published budget, which I should prefer to bring to the committee's attention. Ah, okay. On that basis, if you would like to come in briefly on that. Thank you, convener, and thank you for your forbearance. I'll keep this relatively short. It's come to our late attention, and regrettably, that a handful of the figures within annex J, which refers to the taxonomy, the net zero taxonomy, something that was discussed last week and indeed may be discussed in this session, were not quite correct. They were based on older figures that were used as part of the budget discussions. They are relatively minor errors, and we will be writing to the committee to correct it and also to correct the official record in terms of the publication as soon as possible. As a matter of urgency, we redid the analysis based on the correct figures to work out whether the overall conclusions that were set out in the annex J were correct, and we have established that as the case. So in a sense, the analysis is not affected by it, but however the figures do need correction. We will be writing to the committee to set that out, and I can only apologise for the errors that cropped into the documentation. Okay. I'm a little bit confused. When you say relatively minor, are we talking about thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions? We are talking about millions. Within a budget that is billions, so I'm using it in a bit. I'm a little bit concerned by this at this stage to get this, because the committee asked this question last week. I think it was Mark Ruskell was asking about annex J and the details within it. It now appears that we've based part of our scrutiny on something that is factually incorrect. We have only discovered this relatively late, and I can assure yourself and I can assure the rest of the committee that we have done the analysis to work out whether the overall conclusions made by annex J, in a sense, the numbers, the things that are set out as part of the level force and the level sort, the conclusions that were drawn within the annex J are still correct, and the actual numbers within the main budget document are absolutely correct. It's only a transposing issue, if you will, within annex J itself. Again, I offer my apologies for that. Okay, Philip. With respect, it's very easy for you to sit there and make those comments until we've had a chance to scrutinise it. We're not in a position to say whether we agree or disagree with you. I also understand the size of the Scottish budget and relatively minor to describe millions doesn't quite fall within my category of categorisation and money, so I think that the committee will want to reflect on this afterwards and see the annex J when it's resubmitted and we may wish to take further evidence on it. That will be up for the committee to decide, so we'll leave that there. I'm going to go to Marie Gougeon and offer you the chance to make a brief opening statement, if you'd like, Marie. Thank you very much, convener, and also to the committee members for inviting me to give evidence to you today. My colleague, the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, has just mentioned the difficult financial backdrop that we're facing in relation to this budget, and against that, the decisions that we've taken really are driven by our values and prioritise the three missions that we have. Of course, in my portfolio, the impact of Brexit continues to harm Scotland's rural and island businesses and communities, and it also creates new challenges every year for us to respond to, but the budgets that have been allocated to my portfolio are going to continue to make that really vital difference to our rural coastal and islands economies. As I did for the previous financial year and for this year, I've prioritised the vital direct cash injection of £600 million that my portfolio makes into the economy for rural agriculture, marine and island communities, and we are now providing the most generous package of direct support for farmers and crofters anywhere in the UK. We are also committed to getting that money to people and businesses as early as we can every year and to help them meet the on-going inflationary cost of learning pressures. As the committee will be aware, my portfolio has expanded to include a responsibility for peatland, land reform and land use in forestry and woodlands, and I have committed to maintaining our record world-leading investment in peatland. Investment in new woodland creation planning will continue to contribute to our climate change targets and to our ambitions, but, as I said at my recent attendance at the rural committee, we have set very ambitious planting targets, and the level of funding that we can provide within the budget means that it is going to be extremely difficult for us to meet those. However, we are going to continue to build on the positive work that we've already done, and the planting levels achievable within this budget will continue to exceed other areas of the UK. I've also committed to delivering agri-environment investment, including the agricultural transformation fund, which is part of an overall budget of £30 million. We also have the Scottish Land Fund, which will continue to support many community groups to acquire those assets that will make a difference to them in tackling challenges within their communities. By maintaining the £14 million budget for Marine Fund Scotland, we are continuing to acknowledge the vital role that our seas play in supporting activity to improve and restore the marine environment, as well as supporting the wider economy in coastal communities through fishing and aquaculture, too. I will finish by saying that I think that I speak from my cabinet colleagues to say that this Government is committed to doing all that we can, with all that we have, to support our priorities in the rural industries and sectors, both through this as well as through other portfolios. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. I think that some of your officials are here in the room today. When you are answering questions, I don't know if you will be in the position where you can see them, but, if they indicate that they want to come in, I will try to indicate to you that they want to come in.  That is not a decision that I can make, cabinet secretary. So, the first questions will come from Jackie Dunbar, Jackie. Thank you and good morning, cabinet secretaries. My first couple of questions is going to be directed to the cabinet secretary for rural affairs in regards to the peatland and natural resources. My understanding is that there has been £250 million allocated over 10 years for peatland restoration. 66.7 million of that fund has been allocated over the last three years. According to evidence that we took from NatureScot, 40 million of it has been spent up to and including 2022-23. Can you tell me how much has been spent last year that is 2023-24? Yes. Thank you very much for highlighting that. We do have very ambitious targets when it comes to peatland restoration. So, when it comes to the overall budget that we have for peatlands available this year, we have £26.9 million available over the coming financial year. That has been published in the 24-25 budget, which is a 1% increase on the budget that we had available last year, which means that we should be able to plant roughly the same levels. So, when we look at the approvals that are coming through for the financial year 23-24, we are looking at nearly 10,000 hectares of planting there, which I believe would ensure that we are utilising the available budget. Sorry, I might have missed it. Did you say the figure for how much it was for last year? Sorry. Yes, I think it was £26.6 million that we had available in the budget for last year. Can you tell me what any of the underspends were used for? Were they used to help address the barriers for scaling up the peatland restoration, for example? That has very much been a focus. I think that we have had a number of issues when it comes to peatland restoration. Really, because ultimately it is an industry that is in its infancy, there has been limited contractor availability. It can only take place within a certain window in the year. Trying to overcome those challenges and build up the skills pipeline has been a key focus. We fund peatland restoration through peatland action, which funds five different bodies to take part in that work. That is not the only funding that is available, but there has been a big focus on skills to ensure that we are enabling the growth of the industry to meet the challenges and the scale of restoration that we need going forward. As I said, I touched on in my previous response to highlight that I do not know if Simon would want to come in and offer any clarification on the points that I have made. However, I believe with the budget that we had set out last year and the scale of the restoration that we would expect him to see and the approvals that we have in the pipeline. I believe that that would utilise the available budget that we have for peatlands. However, I do not know if Simon would have any further clarification in relation to that. As the cabinet secretary said, the budget for 2023-24 is £26.6 million. Although we cannot say definitively at this point in the year how much we deployed, we would expect the vast majority of that budget, if not all of it, to be utilised during this year. As the member said, there have been underspends in previous years. They have come down year in year, as the pipeline of projects has increased, as contractor capacity has increased, and so on. As a result, the budget is being fully utilised now. I am finding that a bit difficult to hear people today. I do not know if it is my ears or if it is the microphones. Is it slightly muffled? I am in agreement. I am Marie Gougeon. It is quite slightly difficult for me to hear Philip. If you just swing your microphone round in case you are about to speak at some stage, that would be helpful. I do not know if, on the sand thing, we can try. Could just be me. He will do what he can, is the answer. Jackie, do you have any further questions? Yes, sorry for that. Cabinet Secretary, as you said, natural resources in peatlands are within your portfolio. I understand what peatlands are, but can you expand on what is meant by natural resources? Yes, the natural resources part of the portfolio helps to fund areas such as wildlife management and biodiversity and those other parts within that as well. Again, Simon could probably elaborate on further information within that specific budget line, but that is largely what that covers. I would like to add some further points on that. As the cabinet secretary says, the natural resources budget line is quite diverse. It covers a large number of wildlife management policies. It also covers elements on biodiversity and also Atlantic rainforest restoration. That would be the third key element. I notice that the budget for that has been reduced to £4.5 million this year. Can you tell me what impact that is going to have? Yes, that has largely been due to the more accurately reflect the spend within that element. As Simon Fuller has just outlined, and of course the key point that I forgot to mention is in terms of the Atlantic rainforest, where we are continuing that investment. Parts of that budget have been underspent in the past. What we see set out in the published budget reflects more accurately what the spend will be within that area. Just before we leave the subject, I wonder if I could just check with the cabinet secretary. I think that your indication is that the money will be spent, the £250 million will be spent at the end of the 10-year period. Will we have achieved all the restoration that was programmed for spending that £250 million? Will the money be gone and we won't reach the target? Well, I certainly hope that we will, and I'm certainly doing, and we're trying to do everything we can to ensure that we meet that target. Of course, when you look at the restoration rates over the past few years, up until 2021 anyway, the average restoration that we would be seeing was about 1,500 hectares. Then from 2021 upwards, we really have seen big increases in the level of restoration. I think that goes back to the point that I was making in response to a previous question about us trying to scale up the industry, which is still in its infancy. After 2020, we've seen restoration rates increase from 6,000 hectares, then from 22 to 23, it was 7,500 hectares, so 35 per cent increase. Then we're on track this year to see that increase further to 10,000 hectares. I think that we are moving in the right direction when it comes to that. That's why continuing with this investment is so vital in providing confidence for the industry going forward, that we will be continuing that funding so that we can see that industry continue to grow and identify and deal with some of the issues that we've seen in terms of our ability to do that. Okay, sorry, if I can just drill down into that wee bit, 66.7 million pounds has been allocated and during the period we've managed to crack 18,500 hectares on the road to recovery. So when we spend the 250 million pounds, how many hectares of peatland do you think will be recovered, Cabinet Secretary? Sorry, I think that some of the figures that you've said there in relation to that, I don't know if you're including this current year, but that doesn't sound correct to me in terms of what we've already restored. I'm only going on the figures that the Scottish Government have given the committee, so I think that those are the figures that we were given. So I'm just asking you, when we spend the 250 million, how many hectares of peatland will be recovered? Well, ultimately the commitment was for 250 million pounds over the course of 10 years to restore 250,000 hectares of degraded peatland. So in relation to that, obviously it's not possible for me to say at the moment what that's going to look like in five, six years time, but I think what I am trying to set out today is, first of all, highlight the importance of that continued investment so that we continue to see that trajectory and the increase in that trajectory continue over the course of the coming years. Okay, I hear your comment. I think that my concern is that a lot of money has been spent or allocated and we're not near the target, but we'll move on to the next question, which comes from the Deputy Convener, Ben First. Thank you, convener. Good morning, both cabinet secretaries and to all your officials, and thank you for all the engagement and work that's been put into this budget, particularly in the challenging circumstances of a 10 per cent capital reduction. One of those areas of capital spending that I am very pleased to see progressing as the constituency MSP for Edinburgh Northern Leith is the investment in the Royal Botanical Gardens of Edinburgh, a 350-year plus history, over 13,500 plant species, many of which are endangered or instinct in their native habitats. The importance of this institution, as well as being a major visitor attraction, should not be underestimated. As part of that and protecting what the Botanics has for the future, the investment in the Edinburgh Biodome project is the Royal Botanical Gardens' biggest ever capital infrastructure project. As many will know, it aims to produce a world-leading facility for biodiversity research and for the public to be able to engage with more of what the Botanic does. Ms Gougeon, if you could update the committee on the future of the Biodome project and any commitments that the Scottish Government has made to help to secure its future, and will the £17 million allocation in capital funding in this budget enable the project to progress with its full original plans, noting what Audit Scotland said last year? I will echo all the points that you have made about the importance of the Royal Botanic Gardens in Edinburgh. Obviously, it has four sites across Scotland that it covers, but it undertakes such vital work in terms of the collections that it holds, its research capability, let alone the sites that it runs for visitors and the events that it runs within them. The budget, as the committee members published, will be aware that there has been a slight reduction in terms of £1.8 million, so that is a 5 per cent reduction, and that has been to the capital element of the budget. I want to highlight that the only reason that there is a reduction in the capital element of the budget relates to the phasing of the Biodome project, as that has been set out, so not a cut to the project, but just in terms of the phasing and how that is working out at the moment. That is why the spend is set out as it is. Over all, there is a £58 million contribution to the Edinburgh Biodome project, so £58 million of that has come from the low carbon fund, as well as a further £8 million from the Scottish Government. It is a hugely important project, and that is why the on-going commitment to the funding of that is so important and is going to be so vital for the Botanic Gardens going forward. Thank you very much for that, cabinet secretary. Just for clarity, it is understandable that, because of the staging and the phasing of such a big project, there are fluctuations in the figures year to year. Are you emphasising today that there is a commitment to progressing with the full plans that the Botanics agreed with the Government in the infancy of the project? I should say that in the context of when I recently met the Botanics, they emphasised to me how good the engagement with the Scottish Government was at official level and ministerial as well. Yes, absolutely, and I would just want to emphasise that point as well. I met with their board just before Christmas to really just to get an update on some of the key pieces of work that they're doing at the moment, but again, I would just re-emphasise that commitment from the Scottish Government that we are still committed to the Bions project. Again, we're only seeing the reduction in the funding because of the phasing of the project, but the overall commitment still stands. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Just before we move on to the next section, I want to make a declaration so members know that I have an interest in a family farming partnership. I also have an interest in fishery, a wild fishery, and I have an interest in trees although I haven't received any planting grant, I think, in the last 10 years, and I have no intention, as I said last week, of applying for a planting grant in the foreseeable future. So, just so that's on record and people understand that I do have an interest in land and the next question is therefore come to Monica. Thank you, convener, and nothing to declare here. Good morning to our cabinet secretaries and all our witnesses today. As you know, we've been doing quite a lot of work on biodiversity and scrutinising government proposals in that area. I'd like to hear from each cabinet secretary if you could both identify the key funding streams for the terrestrial and marine environments in both of your portfolios, which are designed to deliver on the biodiversity strategy. Come to Ms Gougeon first, please. Sorry, I wasn't able to unmute myself there, but in relation to biodiversity, obviously that cuts across both myself and the cabinet secretary for net zeros portfolios quite strongly. We've just outlined in some of the previous responses there in relation to the natural resources element of the budget and specific areas that that funds to. We also have probably a number of different budget lines within my portfolio where we're taking action on biodiversity, not least in relation to agriculture. Excuse me, Ms Gougeon. We've got an interference in the line. I wonder if we could just pause it. I'm struggling to hear the answer. Just before you go on with the answer in the question, cabinet secretary, could you just say a few words so I can see if the interference is still there? Okay, sorry. Can you hear me okay now? I'm afraid it's still there, so I'm just wondering. I think what I'm going to do is I'm going to suspend the meeting briefly and see if we can re-establish the connection and see if we can get the sound a bit better. I'm sorry, cabinet secretary, but we're not hearing all that you want to say, so we'll suspend briefly and we'll come back shortly. Okay, I think we're back in action. Murray Gougeon, can you hear me and can you say a few words just to make sure that I'm happy that I can hear you? Yes, I can, and hopefully you could hear me okay. That is a lot better with no interference, so we'll go back to the question that Monica posed, and just because there's been a bit of a break, Monica, could you start that one again please for us? Thank you, and welcome back, Ms Gougeon. I was asking about biodiversity, given the committee's interest in that strand of work, so it was to ask each of you to identify the key funding streams for the terrestrial and marine environments in both your portfolios, which are designed to deliver on the biodiversity strategy. Thank you, and just as I was touching on previously, and I don't know if you caught any of the first bit of the response that I'd given there, but obviously this is an area that cuts quite strongly across both my portfolio and that of the cabinet secretary for net zero as well, but I think if you're looking for specific funding where those budget lines might be, I think that one of the key lines we've touched on already in terms of the natural resources and that line within the budget there, but also when I look to the agriculture element of my portfolio, so we have around £30 million that's been made available there in terms of our agri-environment work, so a large part of that, of course, is the agri-environment climate scheme, which is about that climate mitigation adaptation, lowering emissions, as well as enhancing biodiversity within that. That's just one example, and there's also the specific funds within the marine directorate as well, which contribute to enhancing biodiversity. Of course, trying to tackle the climate and nature crises that we face is a key element of our blue economy vision, and we also have the £14 million which has been put in place for Marine Fund Scotland when it's really about supporting those projects right across our fisheries, seafood, aquaculture too that are going to deliver on our blue economy vision, so there are specific projects that can be funded within that that are focused on biodiversity. We also have funding when I think of particular species, I know that in relation to wild salmon, for example, we had a wild salmon strategy and we'd also introduced the implementation plan in relation to that as well, and work through that we've supported with about £1.5 million of funding, but I think that's where, no doubt, the Cabinet Secretary for Nature will touch more on this as the nature restoration fund has been really critical to all that as well, so while I have these particular budget lines within my own portfolio, when I look at some of the wild salmon work, some of that has been funded, all the funding for that has been enhanced through the nature restoration fund where that's looked at, I think, planting further upstream, and we've also seen schemes in relation to farming and agriculture that have been funded through the nature restoration fund as well, but as I said, the Cabinet Secretary for Nature for Nature may want to set out more on that. Thank you so much for the question and just to add to what Ms Gougeon has already set out, I would probably point for the most concise overview to the environmental services line within my portfolio budget, that overall is seeing a 4 per cent increase across the lines on average. Within that, I would draw out the last point that Ms Gougeon was making there, the nature restoration fund. That, of course, is our multi-annual £65 million fund for which around £29 million is proposed to be made available in the coming year for nature restoration fund purposes, for biodiversity strategy purposes, and that's a 5 per cent increase on that particular line from 23 to 24. I would also point to the funding for our national parks, the Cairn Gorms and Loch Lomond on that budget line, and again a slight increase on last year, a 1 per cent increase across the piece. I think that it's also important to draw attention to the public bodies within my responsibility, NatureScot and SEPA, although principally NatureScot, in respect of Ms Lennon's question, is seeing an increase of 6.7 per cent on its funding from last year, a 7.3 per cent for SEPA, but as I said, I think that NatureScot is the most important to that particular question. Thank you. I may come back to the issue of SEPA later on. If I can, I just want to ask about one aspect of the budget. We know that there have been large reductions in woodland grants and agri-environment funding in the rural affairs portfolio, I will say that for shorthand. Back to Ms Gouge on how confident are you that these sectors will be able to deliver the really important work on biodiversity and climate needs with smaller funding pots? There's no doubt that quite the significant reduction that we've seen in the forestry grant scheme in particular is going to have an impact, not least on us meeting our targets, as I set out the rural committee last week, as well as in my opening statement to the committee. I would say in relation to the agri-environment climate scheme that you've mentioned there, in particular. The funding that we have available for that runs on five yearly contracts, so I think that between 16 and 17 million of that are previous contracts that have been agreed, but the funding that we have available for the agri-environment scheme, which is probably one of the key schemes that we have for delivering on our climate and in nature ambitions in relation to agriculture in particular, will enable us to fund, I think, the vast majority of applications that we've seen two aches over the course of 2023. But there is no getting around it. I mean, I'm not particularly happy sitting in front of the committee today with the cuts in the capital that we've seen. I know that Ms McAllen said at the start of the meeting just that the context that we're facing in relation to the overall budget, and no doubt you'll have heard that from the Deputy First Minister last week as well, but I think particularly for my own portfolio, where about two thirds of that is ring-fenced when we were members of the EU, and we had that certainty of funding over a seven-year period, we would also get that funding through as a mix of resource and capital, when as a replacement funding that we get from the UK Government only comes through as resource. So it's the capital element of the budget where we really do see those significant constraints and why we are trying to manage that as best we can across the portfolio and really try and focus and prioritise on these key schemes that we do not make a difference, as well as ensuring that we're maintaining and building on the momentum that we've seen in relation to, you know, whether that's forestry, whether that's peatland as well. So we are trying to do the best that we can within the budgets that we have available. Thank you. You were quite honest about issues that you're not happy with. We've heard from a number of unhappy stakeholders since the session that we had last week with the Deputy First Minister, because one of the examples that we looked at was the woodland grant funding known as the forestry grant scheme, and that raises a cut of 41 per cent, which is huge. That's roughly £32 million in the next financial year. We're aware of the annual underspend that has been occurring in that area, but that would still double that area of underspend. So we've heard from Woodland Trust Scotland, who is very concerned and stopped climate chaos Scotland. Cabinet Secretary, we've been asking a lot about confidence in meeting emissions reduction targets, but do you agree with Woodland Trust Scotland that the proposed cut will only serve to make the gap between the targets and delivery even wider? First, I'll just say that I completely understand the concerns that have been expressed by stakeholders. I think that we had been disappointed with the overall planting rate that we saw last year, which did fall short of, well-filled, far short of our expected targets. That's why I'd held a Woodland creation summit just earlier in December last year to try and get to grips with what the key issues were that led to that, how we can try and address that and really try and scale that up going forward and get closer to meeting some of the targets that we've had. I mean, notwithstanding that, and the budget pressures that we're currently facing in relation to Woodland grants, in particular, as you've highlighted, the overall budget for that is down by 40 per cent. I think that that event was really vital in helping us identify what those challenges are, and I think that it still gives us a lot to build on and highlights a lot of work that we can do. But undoubtedly it means that we would be unable to meet our planting targets for the current year. But I think that what is really important for us from now on is ensuring that we can still plant and get as many trees in the ground as possible. At that summit, we'd actually had a record number of approvals in the pipeline. It was over 13,000 at that point, and I think we're now looking at closer to 14,000 hectares worth of approvals there. So we want to make sure that we are fully utilising the budget that's available over the course of this current financial year, but also looking to the budget that is available to next year to see, and I know that there's been discussions with partners in the sector as well, as to how we can look to best utilise that and really try and keep that momentum going as best we possibly can. Overall, within that context, I think that we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that we are still doing a huge amount of planting when you look at the levels being planted across the UK and Scotland. We're planting 62 per cent of what's being planted across the UK in total, so while there's no getting away from the impact of the budget and what that's going to do this year, I think it's important not to forget the real progress that we've made when it's coming to really try and develop the industries, develop the sector and really try and increase the rates of planting. I think that we'd all welcome the fact that there's been that summit and that engagement and a recognition that there are challenges, but while some progress may have been made, the amount of new woodland created has fallen over each of the last five years. We can't just look at one single year, that's been the direction of travel, so I can understand why stakeholders who have expertise and operate on the front line are writing to this committee, because they know that you're coming here today, Cabinet Secretary, and they're saying that they're really worried. They're asking that, if the resource allocation is not increased, what action will the Government take to focus on woodland types that provide the greatest emissions benefit? So I think people are quite realistic that this 41% cut isn't going to be massively reduced, but what other actions and mitigations are you going to take? Well that's the exact work that's happening just now, because I think that I'd announced some changes to the forestry grants scheme last year, because obviously we want to see more riparian planting, we want to see more agroforestry, I think the grants and the rates of grant that we've made available for those smaller schemes as well are really hugely important and to try and encourage that and that we continue that encouragement going forward as well. So again it's about the engagement that we have with the sector now to see how we can best utilise that available budget that we have, and again I would just come back to that is why the summit that we had in December was so important, because some of the actions that were identified around that were about improvements that we can make to the woodland development process, how we can really try and help and better develop people across the sector as well, so all of that work can continue and of course I think we would all be wanting to see the full utilisation of the budget that's there to ensure that we are getting as many trees in the ground as possible and that work will very much continue from here. I just want to make sure that we are utilising the available budget that we have as best as we possibly can and of course we will be engaging with our key stakeholders as we look to do that. Okay, thank you Ms Goodart. I want to now turn to Ms McAllan, because I think the committee we are keen to better understand how Cabinet secretaries are working together to ensure that biodiversity and climate goals in the transport net zero and just transition portfolio are supported by funded actions in the rural affairs land reform and island portfolio and just generally across government that we do get that proper alignment, so you know we just focus on that example about the 41% reduction you know on woodland grant schemes. Ms Goodart clearly isn't happy about that situation, you know Cabinet Secretary, you can't be feeling great about it either so how are you making sure that you are working together and fighting your corner in Cabinet because clearly this budget is going to make it harder for you to deliver on the targets and policies that you have in front of you? Thanks Ms Lennon, no I think that's a really accurate observation about you know both Ms Goodart and I have talked about and the DFM talked about this being you know singularly the most challenging financial landscape in the devolution era and for my task in climate change we all know that that is a task that requires you to do everything everywhere right across the piece, so when there are financial challenges across the piece of course it's going to be a concern for me because so many interventions are needed to deliver on climate change. I'm not going to take the opportunity to theorise on Ms Gougeon's budget but you're absolutely right that there are implications for me and in particular in this year as we develop the climate change plan so I will have to consider the development of the climate change plan in light of one year's budget but also remembering that it is a plan out to 2040 it's a generational plan and I have to be realistic about what's affordable and what's doable in the next coming years but equally I don't want us to be utterly restrained in a plan that goes right out to 2040 by the financial circumstances that we have that we're facing just now. There's one theme right across the piece that I think needs to be explored and is being explored in order to try and not allow us to be affected detrimentally by this and that is the leveraging end of responsible private finance. We'll see that in nature with some of the work that Ms Gougeon and Ms Slater are overseeing. It's a theme in what I'm trying to do in the decarbonisation of transport. We now need to realise that we must make progress on climate change but equally scarce public funds will have to be utilised where they are most required and we will have to seek to leverage in responsible private finance both individual and institutional. We'll have to move on to other members' questions and I'll come back later with some of mine but on that point about private finance I think everyone recognises that public finance alone isn't going to get us to net zero but on private finance are you concerned with some of the reports we've seen even in recent days about some of the investment decisions taken by the Scottish National Investment Bank particularly around degradation house funds around forestry and how that might be undermining our objectives around land reform, around community wealth building and just transition when we see that some of these investments might be more beneficial to funds sitting in New York than to communities here in Scotland, is that something that you're actively looking at? Well certainly my view and when I used to sit as Ms Gouchon's junior minister with the land reform responsibilities and oversight of investment in natural capital which I don't have now incidentally it was absolutely my view that we should as a government set our expectations of what responsible private investment in nature looked like that's why I oversaw the launch of the principles for responsible investment as part of the the end set. I absolutely trust the national investment bank to do their job and to make their decisions on a commercial basis I'm not going to I get I'm not going to comment on the work that they do but for the government's purposes we absolutely do have expectations and they have been put in training a piece of work that I started when I was the minister for environment. It was Douglas Lumsden MSP who raised concerns last week that the advisory board that should be in place on the legislation isn't yet in place. Just finally then on Gresham House fund and Scottish National Investment Bank, Ms Gouchon, the fair it had a big report in the last couple of days.  I'm not sure if Ms Gouchon can hear me or she can. Sorry, I didn't mean to come off mute there. No, because I do think you raised a really important point and I suppose I would largely echo what Ms McAllen has set out there too but I think I would just want to touch on a couple of pilot projects that are under way at the moment and really are key to ensuring that we get this right. I mean I think we've talked about many times before that the level of public investment that we need to address the challenges that we're facing is never going to be enough so it's we I think private investment is going to be a critical part of that but it's ensuring that that is done in a responsible way and that communities do see the benefit of that that is really important. So of course we have the there are a couple of pilots under way with NatureScot at the moment so one of those is I think a £2 billion private investment project which is really centrally focused on the principles for responsible private investment that Ms McAllen talked about as well and that she was responsible for for bringing forward and implementing in her previous ministerial role and ensuring that we get that right right from the start that there is that engagement with communities are very much part of that process and see the benefit of it. I'd be happy to follow up with the committee and provide more information on that pilot in terms of how it's going but I believe it is operating quite well at the moment but we also have the pilot fund I think there's £3 million available as part of that at the moment and its investment in Nature Ready Scotland as well which again there are I think nearly 30 projects that are underway as part of that as well again with these principles very much at the forefront and to make sure that we do get that private investment right and you're absolutely right in relation to where we want to be with land reform ultimately what we're setting out in the goals that we want to see with that so that's where I'm keen that any sort of investment that we see aligns with our ultimate goals and visions and what we're trying to achieve in that respect. Thank you back to you, convener. Okay just but just before we leave the forestry planting issue I mean the government's long signaled their intention to plant more and more trees I think since 2016 when I was elected and only in two years since then if we met the planting targets in fact I think we're 17,600 hectares behind where we should be so there's an industry out there that's gone out and grown all the trees based on what your planting targets are and it now appears from reports that they're going to pulp them and destroy them because they can't plant them because there's a shortfall in the planting grant. What's your message to them Ms Gougeon? Again that is where the engagement that is happening right now and how we move forward with the available budget and having those conversations is going to be absolutely critical because we want to ensure I mean as I set out in one of my previous responses we have 14,000 hectares worth of approvals coming forward we want to make sure that we get all of that planted and that we're utilising the available budget as best we can now that means that there could potentially be some tweaks within that in terms of how we've previously awarded funding to how that might go forward to make sure that we're really maximising the impact of that as much as we possibly can. Ultimately we do not want to be in the position where we've really helped to drive forward the industry and whether that's nurseries, wider industry, timber, as well as the encouragement that we've tried to do with farmers and crofters to see more agroforestry in the riparian planting that I talked about as well. We don't want to see that scale back, we want to really try and continue with the momentum that has been building. You're absolutely right and that we haven't met each of our planting targets over previous years. Again that's why I'd said we've had the Woodland summit towards the end of last year to really try and address what was a significant shortfall from the target of the previous year but we'd be very much again being encouraged by the level of approvals that we've seen come through for this year so that's why I want to make sure we're utilising all the available funding that we have and we will very much continue to work with the sector to ensure that we're all working together to try and really deliver on the goals that I think we all want to see and we want to see a thriving forestry sector. It's worth so much to our economy as well as to our timber supply, not least when you look at the climate impact of all of that as well so we want to make sure that we're working together with them going forward. Cabinet Secretary, I hear what you're saying. My concern is the forestry industry isn't something like a tap, you can't turn it on and off when you want it and a huge amount of preparation goes into reaching your goals so they need to be long-term goals otherwise we're never going to achieve them and maybe we can agree on that because I see you nodding and I'm sure you'll be working on the work that was undertaken by Mr McKinnon on the forestry report to ensure that it's easier to plant trees rather than more difficult to plant trees which might give the industry some confidence now. The next question comes from the deputy convener, Ben Matheson-Ben. Thank you, convener and put some question for you, cabinet secretary, in the room with us. Scotland is rightly well known for its remarkable nature and that's part of its attraction and also what makes it a great place to live. We're also increasingly being known for having a remarkable renewable industry, a growth in net zero technology development and installation of technologies to produce renewable electricity from onshore wind to offshore wind to other technologies like tidal and that requires development of our ports and a whole range of other infrastructure projects. Last week, when I was engaging with the cabinet secretary for wellbeing, economy, fair work and energy, both at committee and in the chamber as well, we discussed the need for NatureScot and the marine directorate to have sufficient capacity in its planning and licensing teams to support the Government's net zero infrastructure ambitions and indeed Scotland's more widely ambitions in this place. Both in terms of scale and pace to ensure that renewables are scaled up in harmony with nature and that we, where it's appropriate, deliver the projects that so many of us, whether that's developers, the energy industry and the government and the populace, want to see. I just wondered if you could comment on budgetary terms how you look at those infrastructure ambitions across government and between your directorates to ensure that we're avoiding consenting or licensing bottlenecks, which can be costly, but also ensuring that there is robust consenting but these decisions are made and supported by good evidence and done as quickly as possible so that we can realise those projects and Scotland's potential. Thank you very much, Mr MacPherson. I wholeheartedly... I'm just going to clarify. Murray McCallans is going on that, Murray. Gougeon, is she beating you to the button? She'll go first and then you'll get a chance to come in. Sorry, Murray. I was a bit confusing with the same names and everything. I think that the question is really welcome because I think that the fact that Scotland in renewables has been discussed in respect of your discussions with the Deputy First Minister, with the Cabinet Secretary for Energy and now with me and I presume with others, it demonstrates how multifaceted it is, but also what a strategic priority it is for government and for the committee and for the communities that all of us represent. It is one of the single greatest socioeconomic opportunities that we face in Scotland and, of course, is central to our work on combating climate change. For my part in this portfolio, again, I think that it's important to state that I have responsibility for co-ordination of the net zero achievements across the Government, but for portfolio responsibility for transport, heat decarbonisation, et cetera. Energy sits with Mr Gray, as you know, rural affairs with Ms Gougeon, but it's my job to co-ordinate that response. For energy purposes within my portfolio, you're absolutely right to mention that one of the main interfaces is about consenting and about the interplay between protecting the environment and ensuring that we can move through the consenting and construction and operationalisation of our energy projects. Two examples that I could draw your attention to, first of all, with NatureScot. I mentioned that they had had a 6.7 per cent increase in their budget this year. One of the—this is to reflect an increase in responsibilities. One of the principle of which is their role with habitats assessments in respect to the development of offshore wind. So my expectation—and I will set this out to them—is that part of that will go to recruitment to make sure that there is capacity there to deal with those applications as promptly as we need them to. Another example, within an area shared with Ms Gougeon and I, I would point to Marine Scotland following the completion of the leasing round of Scotland Wind Round 1. The Government moved to create a Scotland direct threat within the Government, headed up by Michelle Quinn, who has got a huge amount of experience in infrastructure development in Scotland. That again is to make sure that there is that real laser focus on moving through the very complex procedures that are required to realise that potential. That is just two examples from my portfolio. Thank you. Cabinet Secretary Gougeon, did you want to add to that? Yes, I did. Sorry for launching myself into that question there, but I was really just wanting to touch on, I think, the final point that is being raised by Ms McAllan there in relation to looking at it from a marine directorate perspective. So there had been an increase in budget for Marine Scotland last year specifically in relation to that. In relation to the overall marine directorate budget, there has been a slight decrease in relation to that, but that has been because of a number of different, whether that is recruitment controls, operational efficiencies that have been looked at in terms of generating some of those savings, but there has been a real focus on maximising the income streams to the marine directorate as well. Obviously, they have revenues that come in from commercial science activity. There is the licensing fees, energy consenting fees, but it is also important to highlight just the sheer scale of the work that the marine directorate undertakes. You talk about the offshore and consenting and the energy consents, which is a huge element of that work as well, but we also have another vitally important component, which is marine science and research. In relation to our fisheries and seafood as well, there is also the enforcement and compliance costs within the marine directorate too, so I really just wanted to add some more of the context there and set out the overall budget position within that. Thank you both. That is reassuring that there is both that attention and investment and also the co-ordination across Government, including the creation of a Scotland directorate. Most welcome. I just emphasised the point because some of the feedback from those developing renewable technologies has been on certain projects to date. There has, in their view, been delay, which has added to inflationary costs, etc. It is a risk for our development of our renewable potential. The consenting process being unnecessarily slow, but I also appreciate the time that it takes to create expertise to develop capacity in terms of recruitment. I am glad to hear that there is the work that is on-going and that it is very much something that you are both focused on. I wholeheartedly agree that I had the pleasure of attending the Scottish Renewables Offshore Wind and Dinner last week to accompany their conference, which the First Minister spoke at. What Mr Macpherson has narrated was reflected in the conversations that I was having with developers, with supply chain representatives. Definitely a feeling of, we must speed this up, we must refine the processes, but equally an acknowledgement that that is because we are pioneering here. Scotland being the largest floating offshore wind leasing round in the world, we are doing some of it among the first times, but that does not take away from the fact that we must refine it and we must speed it up. I think that you want a brief supplementary and then I am going to go to Douglas. I am good to hear about the increasing budget for Nature Scott and the strategic focus of that on particularly bringing down consenting times and contributing to that renewables growth, but I just wanted to ask Mary Gougeon about the pressures that exist within the marine directorate. You have already talked about the increasing revenue that is coming in through licensing, which is good, but are there particular pressures there in terms of the breadth of work that the marine directorate is undertaking right now? I am particularly thinking about fisheries, the need to make good on the commitment to introduce a cap on the inshore that is science-based, so that will require investment in terms of the fisheries science. Are there particular stretches within the next year that the marine directorate is facing? Of course there are, because I think that it is a highlighted in my previous response. It is a very busy directorate and there is always a lot of work that is being undertaken. We have to prioritise within that in terms of the work that is undertaken and where that real focus needs to be, but what really guides us within that is the, I talked earlier about the blue economy vision and really embedding the outcomes that we want to see from that and really being a focus for our work. When I was at the rural committee last week as well I also spoke about the science and innovation strategy, which is guiding how we prioritise our work in that area too and where the key areas of focus are going to be. Obviously, because we do have limited resource, we cannot undertake all the science and research that ideally we would like to, we have two research vessels. I think our overall spend on science is over £20 billion, about £10.5 million of that is in relation to fisheries, and we also have the cost of the two research vessels within that, which creates about £6.5 million of funding as well. That is why the science and innovation strategy is really important, because what it talks about within that is how we can best utilise the academic and science research expertise that we have within Scotland, really map the work that is on-going at the moment, look at how we can better coordinate and collaborate with different partners in Scotland, as well as looking internationally as well and see where we can really maximise on the benefit of the work that we are doing. I think that that was in the science and innovation strategy that was just launched in Aberdeen a couple of weeks ago. I think that that is really key in focusing science on how we move that forward. Of course, Scotland has such a vast sea area and enforcement and compliance in terms of our marine protected area network is also critical importance. When you look at what we have to fund within that, we have 18 area offices, two surveillance aircrafts, we have three marine protection vessels, all of which, of course, must be funded. I think that the total cost around that is about £30 million, and we have two ribs as part of that. It is a huge area to cover, and that is why when I talked about the operational efficiencies that the marine director has been looking at, it is really trying to best focus and utilise the resources that we have. In relation to enforcement and compliance, that is a greater focus on using intelligence and doing risk-based analysis before deploying vessels and aircrafts. The whole way of working is being considered across the peace in the marine directorate, which is how those savings have been identified, as well as looking to maximise the income streams that they have available. I am going to encourage everyone for short questions and perhaps very short answers where possible. I am going to get into trouble with my committee members and cabinet secretaries. The next question is from Douglas Lumsden. I will address this to Mary McCallan. How confident are you that the spending decisions taken in the 24-25 budget set a course for meeting the interim 2030 and final 2045 emissions reduction targets in Scotland? Thank you, Mr Lumsden, for the question. It is one that has certainly dominated my thoughts a lot as we have been developing the budget. First of all, again, I would just come back to that point of context that I made earlier. We are still dealing with annualised budgets, self-contained within one year. As you rightly point out, the interim target is 2030 and the mid-century target is 2045. On one hand, I am planning policy over a generation. On the other hand, I am having to think very carefully, as you are right to point out, about the implications of one year's budget on that. Despite the exceptionally difficult circumstances that we have faced, I am comfortable that this budget has gone as far as possible to supporting climate change objectives. I set out at the start that my three principal objectives were, first of all, to meet my legal and contractual obligations, secondly, to have a safe and reliable transport network and, thirdly, to make sure that we were responding to the climate emergency. The work that we have done with the net zero committee on the joint budget review has allowed clarity on the extent to which the budget supports climate objectives. Of course, we know that £4.7 billion is the figure that has overall been identified as positive actions within the whole budget supporting climate change. Of course, there are key examples that I would draw out from that—heating buildings, active travel, flooding as a key adaptation move, public transport, concessionary travel, et cetera. I will let you come back in. Yes, and I will come back. You said earlier that we must make progress in climate change, so it is surprising that when we look at the budget in terms of the resource and capital, the figures that we have got from SPIC show that resource and capital together, in terms of real terms, budget is up, but when we look at the transport net zero and just transition budget, it is actually down in real terms by 1.8 per cent. We can look at lines like the agree environmental measures. That has had a huge cut. Woodland grants have got a huge cut, so I am just trying to work out. As you have said, climate change must make progress, so how do we make progress when we see cuts to the overall budget in terms of the transport net zero and just transition? We have also, as we heard right at the start, in terms of the climate change assessment figures of the budget. They are incorrect, so how do we match those two things together? Just finally on that point, which I was referring to, to Phil Rhanes' point at the beginning, those issues were brought to my attention minutes before coming to see you today. I am really concerned that it is absolutely clarified to you later on today. I will make sure that that is done. As Phil said, my understanding is that the figures throughout the budget are absolutely accurate, except for some in NXJ, which are draft figures and not the final ones, but I will absolutely ensure that that is clarified for you. Ultimately, I have £4.6 billion for transport net zero and just transition, part of an overall Scottish Government budget. Through the joint budget review work, we can identify that £4.7 billion is positive for climate action. That is, I think, 75 per cent of capital spend, a smaller percentage of revenue spend, but ultimately much of that revenue spend is health services and social security and staff, et cetera, as I know that the Deputy First Minister took you through. One observation that I would make is that, if we assess real-term spending against the Treasury, JDP deflators, we can see real-terms cuts to services coming to Scotland. By not matching real-terms spend over two years in 24-25, UK Government's transport resource investment is down 40 per cent. Their environment, food and rural affairs is down 12.4 per cent. Energy security and net zero is down 14.1 per cent. Of course, that has knock-on consequences for what I am dealing with, but I believe that, even in those very difficult circumstances, that draft budget allows me to maintain safe and reliable transport system and rises to the climate emergency. Even the Scottish Fiscal Commission figures are showing that in real terms, your budget is 0.9 per cent bigger. That is why it seems surprising to me that we see rises to many budgets, but in terms of the transport net zero and just transition budget, that is cut. Rural affairs, land and reforms on islands budget is cut, so it is political decisions that you have taken that may hinder our response to climate change. The figure that I have for my overall budget is up 1.1 per cent, but we may be talking about cross-purposes with inflation taken into account in different figures, so I will certainly check that out. As I said, £2.5 billion on public transport, £308 million on active travel and low-carbon transport, £358 million to decarbonise our heating buildings, £225 million on environmental services, £91 million on flooding and coastal change and increases for both my environmental public bodies in a very difficult budget settlement. I think that that is a reasonable position to have come to. Is a woodland grants cut going to help or hinder climate change? Just as before, the decisions on woodland, it is not right for me to speak to them in a budgetary sense because they are misguasion's responsibility, but I accept my overall responsibility for climate change, which makes them relevant to me. As I have said, I will have to consider what is likely to be achievable in this year as I plan the climate change plan, but equally, it goes to the point that I made before about the need for responsible private investment across the piece in order to rise to our climate objectives. That will be required in nature, just as it is in transport, just as it is to decarbonise our buildings, and policy teams across government are turning their minds to how we realise that. As you mentioned, cabinet secretary, can you confirm the climate change plan that we are still awaiting will have figures in it so that we can see what is required to achieve the targets that are being set? Come back to me if that is not the question that you asked, convener, but the climate change plan, a draft of which is due with this committee by no later than November this year, will set sectoral envelopes, as plans have done in the past, will identify policies that are capable of reducing emissions, commensurate with those envelopes and will set that out in detail to allow you to scrutinise that. I think that November is quite tight if we scrutinise it within the time period that is given and for it to go back to the Parliament. I would hope that, as a committee, we might get it before November, having looked forward to it before Christmas. What I am trying to work out in my mind is the figures to achieve the target, the actual cost to achieve the targets. That will be in the climate change plan. I am going to let my colleague Phil comment. Sorry, I thought you meant the emissions reduction figures, but I am going to let Phil comment on the costs. We can about the cash to achieve the targets, cabinet secretary. We are on money today. So, convener, pick up two points. One is, as the cabinet secretary said, no later than November, so our firm intention would be to get it to show the firm respect to the committee to give you the due consideration, the ability to be able to examine that as appropriate. The legislation says the draft needs to be there by November, so that is why we are repeating that back. The legislation also says that the climate change plan pretty much has to show your homework, and that includes the cost. That includes how much it is going to cost going forward out to 2040, including the impacts all the way and what each measure needs to achieve. That needs to be very clear and set out in the plan because that is what the legislation requires. The figures are in there and it will be no later than November, hopefully much earlier. Monica, you have got some questions before I end this session with cabinet secretary. Thank you, convener. Just thinking back to Douglas Lumsden's line of questions, Mr McAllan said that we need to think about private finance and helping us to make important policy aims. I wonder if enough thought has been given to opportunities to make polluters pay and to incentivise emissions reduction in the design of revenue-raising measures. Are there any examples that you could give us today? Yes, sorry. I did not catch the first part of your question, but I absolutely understand what you are asking. Yes, there are. I would point to maybe two examples that come to mind. First of all, with SIPA, 50 per cent of SIPA's revenue is raised from charging regimes for those that they regulate. That is an example of making polluters pay for the public service that SIPA provides, a very successful one, one that has seen SIPA's overall revenue increase of late and the proportion of that being somewhat public spend and some of it raised from those that they are regulating. Another example that I might point to is work that Ms Slater is taking forward within my portfolio on extended producer responsibility, much of which I know that the committee is looking at in respect of the circular economy bill and waste route map. That and the sums that could be raised from polluters in that work would be another example, I would point to. Identified in terms of what the minimum and maximum range of that could be? Sorry, in what regard? Has any modelling been done to identify how much could be raised from those examples that you have given? I do not have them in front of me, Ms Lennon. I am sorry. I could certainly find just from auditing the figure, for example, that SIPA has raised in respect of its charging. I know that the financial aspects of the circular economy bill are something that the committee is looking very closely at. Indeed. I talked about confidence levels earlier on. How confident are you that spending decisions taken in the 24-25 budget set a course for meeting the interim 2030 and the final 2045 emission reduction targets in Scotland? We are already working on very ambitious targets, which is absolutely right. I mentioned earlier how the scale and pace of climate change means that we need action right now across the peace, economy and society. It is an enormous task that none of us should seek to minimise, and I am not going to do that. I cannot pretend that a near 10 per cent cut in what is available to me in terms of capital spend is not going to have an impact on that when it comes to expensive projects such as the decarbonisation of transport or our heat and buildings work. I have done my very best with what I have had available to me. I will seek to fill the gaps where necessary by leveraging funding from elsewhere in the private sector, both institutional and individual, and by using public money to the very best that it can be used and stretched as far as it can go. On that, you will be aware that last week's session with your colleague, Cabinet Secretary for the Wellbeing Economy and the Deputy First Minister, we looked at the Scotland auction and the money that has been raised so far. I will not underrate all of what was discussed because I am sure that you have been briefed on that, but concerns have been raised that money that has been promised would be used for the energy transition and for green policies. We now know that it has gone into the general budget, and we know about the £56 million from the emergency budget review. Given the challenges that you have and the realistic view that you have given us today, do you share those frustrations and concerns that that income is not being used directly for policies and projects that will have a direct benefit in terms of our climate and nature aspirations and targets? Are you able to give any update as to whether you have been given any reassurance that that money will return to the intended budget lines? I am aware of some of the discussion that was had last week with the DFM and Mr Gray. The first thing that I would say is that Scotland is supporting my budget in the sense that it is supporting the Government's budget as a whole in the most difficult circumstances that we have faced in devolution. The second point that I would make is that the value of Scotland is much greater than the sum of its parts. We are talking here about option fees, there is then rental income and then there is the real prize of unlocking the supply chain opportunities in the tens, 20s of billions of pounds. Of course, it is the whole Government's objective that we realise that, not just mine, not just Mr Gray's, with energy responsibility. Some of that money is supporting net zero interventions, including, for example, the money that Mr Gray has been able to make available to support the development of the supply chain. In future, I would like to see a ring-fenced sovereign fund for the purposes that support my portfolio, but I am absolutely confident that the whole Government is committed to realising the opportunities of Scotland and other strategic net zero investments and that Scotland is already supporting that work. What conditions would need to be in place for something like a sovereign fund, as you have described it, to be agreed to and operationalised by the Government? That would just be dependent on discussions at the time. I do not think that it would be helpful for me to speculate about that. However, as I say in my view just now, is that Scotland is already supporting the Government's budget, a key theme of which is realising net zero. I think that many people are still struggling to see if that is indeed accurate when that money has been disperse, if you like, across the budget piece. In terms of the question about, do you expect any of the money to be reinstated for original purpose? Is that something that you are not able to answer? From what I have seen of the DFM's conversation with you last week, she was quite clear that she is still working through the implications of Scotland, both for the current financial year and the future financial year. Once she has clarity on that, I am sure that she will be happy to update the committee. Bob, you want to come in briefly. I am going to allow a brief question and hopefully a brief answer before we suspend at the end of this first part of the session. It will be absolutely a brief lesson. I need to be consistent with the line of questioning on this from last week. I made the point to the Deputy First Minister last week, cabinet secretary, that there is a 11.1 per cent in the social justice and social security budget benefiting some of the most vulnerable communities across Scotland, including in my constituency in Maryhill and Springburn. The budget in the round has supported that, including the Scotland monies, I would imagine, to get the step change that we need and the buy-in of communities across Scotland. We need to stand by communities across Scotland, so I think that it is vitally important that we use those funds to support the most vulnerable communities. I would like to put that on the record. It is not either or that we absolutely have to do both with this budget. Secretary, do you want to agree with Mr Doris? I do wish to agree with Mr Doris. He is absolutely right. I think that the Deputy First Minister was the best place to give that view, which I know she did. Our budget as a whole increases front-line NHS investment. It upgrades benefits by over a billion pounds. It allows us to increase the already increased Scottish child payment, invest in blue light services and more. Scotland, the small portion of it that we have realised to date, is helping to support all of that, as well as key interventions in net zero. Thank you. Just before we suspend the session, I just want to check Mr Simpson's here, and we will get a chance to put questions to Mari McAllum in due course at the end of that session. Before I let Mari Gougeon go, as it were, are there any questions that you wish to ask her, Mr Simpson? No, convener. The committee has been very thorough. I would have pressed the Cabinet Secretary on woodlands, but that has been covered. Thank you, Mari Gougeon, for giving evidence today. I have seen you struggling with a cough, and I can but hope that you recover swiftly and are back in Parliament when you are able to say. I am going to suspend the meeting until 10.53 exactly to allow a change of witnesses. I welcome back. Mari McAllum has remained at the table, alongside Simon Fuller, Philip Rains and Kerry Twyman. I am pleased to welcome Kirsty Berg, the director for energy climate change for the Scottish Government, and Alison Irvine, interim chief executive of Transport Scotland. Mari McAllum, you will not be surprised to know that you are not getting another opening statement on this session. We are going to move straight to questions, which are going to come from Mark Ruskell. Mark Ruskell- If I could turn to the most exciting bit about the joint budget review and the number of questions around that. Apologies that I was not here for the first couple of minutes of the meeting. I am aware, though, of comments made by Philip Rains in relation to Annex Jay and the detail and the accuracy of detail within that. It would obviously be very good for the committee to get further updates on that. I will ask about those first two strands of work. The overall climate narrative, which I think was brought in last year, and then this year, the classification or taxonomy of its spend helping or hindering our attempts to tackle climate change. Can I ask about where you are going with the review of those two bits of work at the moment? Are there going to be further improvements for the detailed evaluation of that? Obviously, there are some accuracy issues that have been highlighted. Where do you go for next year? I think that what has been brought forward is valuable, but it always leaves you wanting more in terms of detail and a sense of what spend is exactly doing in terms of making it harder or easier to tackle a climate emergency. Yes, absolutely. Thank you very much. I suppose that I am taking strand by strand the first one to create that dedicated climate narrative in the budget. As you say, that was largely discharged in 23-24 and continued into 24-25, and that is Annex Jay. That is about highlighting those most significant areas of budgetary policy that affect net zero decisions. On strand 2, the objective to develop that enhanced technology taxonomy for all of Scottish Government spend, the committee will note that we have introduced it last year, but expanded it this year to cover resource as well as capital, which I think was a useful continuance of the work, because that new methodology allows us to look right across revenue and capital spend—a whole of the budget—and to consider the impact of the spend on either our mitigation or adaptation work. One thing that has been highlighted to me is that it does not differentiate between mitigation and adaptation, so that could be an interesting area for development in the future, but I have to say that my priority in an already busy landscape is to get that third strand completed. I am happy to hear from the committee, given that this is a joint piece of work, on where you think improvements might be helpful. I think that the detail would be useful when looking at Annex Jay last week. I noted that there are some adaptation elements in that. I think that it is like £60,000 going to be health, for example. Fantastic, right? That is in the same pot as hundreds of millions of pounds in active travel, major investment in public infrastructure and public transport. It is trying to get a sense of scale and impact. That is the biggest challenge. At the moment, we have baskets of good things and things that are challenging. Can you ask specifically about local government? As you mentioned, that classification covers about 81 per cent of our resource spending now, but it does not incorporate local government, where we have a significant spend that can take us in the wrong direction or can actually propel us into tackling a climate emergency. Is that something that you could look at going forward in terms of classification of that spend or whether that requires a change in the act or anything else? To my climate change colleagues about whether that would require a change in the act, I think that, from my perspective, I absolutely appreciate the committee's interests in the closest and most detailed scrutiny that you can. I think that it also helps us to improve the development of our budget or, indeed, to improve the development of policy in the first place before you even get to ascribing a budgetary figure to it. I am always interested in the ways in which we can dig down into that. I think that local government spend is not a bad idea in that respect. For example, I am very conscious that my budget line shows very little in the way of flooding, but I know that my spending on flooding and coastal adaptation has gone up by 42 per cent next year by the figure, but that is in the local government line. I would be quite keen to see how that could be combined. Is there anything on statutory requirements that we would need to flag up just now? Not that I am aware of, but it does raise some important directions to travel. I am thinking particularly about the excellent report that this committee did about the role of local government within the climate change sphere last year. You will probably know that we are strengthening our relationship with local government. We are trying to find a more formal way that local government and central government in the spirit of the Verity House agreement can start taking forward more significant co-ordination and strategic thinking around climate change in response to the committee's report last year. It strikes me that budget would be an important place to do that. Whether that would be where that would be reflected is something that we would need to think about, because the Scottish budget is clearly not a place that you would want local decisions and local spend to be reflected in that level of detail. It may not indeed be appropriate, but that is not to say that we cannot find a way of working with COSLA with Solace to think about the best way to be able to take forward the methodology that is being taken forward as SRAM 3, with a view to being able to provide more of that transparency about how that collective public sector spend is being made across the board. Maybe one other thing to add with regard to how this will develop in future. Each of the strands are meant to speak to each other. As each strand comes on, as it is further developed, it enhances what goes before. Certainly, our intention next year would be that, once we have that baseline starting to appear, particularly with SRAM 2 or the taxonomy, we are in a position where we can start demonstrating more clearly where climate change spend is starting to look like over a time series and enhance that in the years going forward, as the cabinet secretary has said, by using that SRAM 3 analysis to provide that extra level of detail. There is definitely a lot of innovation that the committee has heard about from local government that certainly was not there when we were considering the 2019 act. Work in progress, I guess. Can I just move on then to SRAM 3, in that net zero test? We had a very useful discussion actually in Parliament last week hosted by Monica Lennon with the climate emergency response group. I think that Mr Reigns was there. We were looking at the guts of how does this net zero test actually work within government. Can I just get some clarity, cabinet secretary, about where the SRAM 3 work sits right now, because the Deputy First Minister said last week in this committee that the form and timing is unclear about how that will develop going forward. Perhaps some of your comments in the letter to the committee have been interpreted that this might not be part of an annual budget process. That was not my understanding of the work that was being progressed. My understanding was that that would be integral. However, are you able to explain where we are with the pilots? How will this be part of the annual budget setting process? That surely is where meaningful decisions are made. I will come to you on the second part, if you don't mind. First of all, I just want to apologise to the committee for the delays that have been involved in SRAM 3. I am very conscious from the letters that you have received from the Deputy First Minister and I that we have given what, at the time, were our views on timetables and that there has been slippage, so I apologise for that. The Deputy First Minister and I work on this jointly. Officials in my team have been working with officials and the chief economists directorate, looking to absolutely bottom out what methodology might be. Our expectation is that we will pilot a launch on targeted policies in the spring of 2024, with a hope to roll out by the end of 2024. That is an update on timing and an apology of delays to date. I will ask Phil just to comment on that annual budget question. You might well argue that, in a difficult budget year, rolling out a pilot is probably the best time to be doing that because, in a sense, it provides that more detailed analysis to ensure that there is the full value for money being secured from the budget spend and the policy decisions that are being taken. They absolutely meet one of the three key missions that was set up by the First Minister. The intention would be to go forward with that pilot during the course of spring. I am hoping that it is not a civil servant spring but one that is actually a genuine spring. I would hope that it is by Easter, with the intention of being able to test the methodology out and then, more importantly, agree on the next steps with a view to setting in place a process of—this is something that came out of the workshop that you yourself, Mr Ruskell and Ms Lennon, were at last week—about how we use that information. That is probably one of the critical things. How is it hardwired, embedded into the consideration of budget decisions going forward? That is still areas that we need to test but that is very much our intention to make sure that this is not an on-the-shelf set of statistics nor is it something that is not more deeply embedded in the way that budget decisions are considered going forward, not least, I guess, for this committee and others within Parliament to decide how to best make use of that information. However, our intention would be to do that by the end of the calendar year, so it is very clear by this time in a year's time what we are doing, what we are setting out and how that information is going to inform those budget decisions going forward. Just to be clear, the intention is that this will be across the whole of Government. When we are looking at planned investment in NHS capital, new hospitals, refits, whatever, the decisions around climate change, the decisions around low carbon will be absolutely intrinsic in that thinking. Ultimately, judgments might have to be made about what to invest in, which will bring in other factors, but the climate thinking will be absolutely there. It will be clear, it will be valuated, it will be numbered, judgments will be able to be made on the real value of investment in climate. My end intention is that it is as broad as possible, but I suppose just in terms of prudent governance and decision making at this point, I would have to say that it will be dependent on the outcome of that pilot that we do in spring. Do you need more legislation to embed this into the work of Government? I mean, as much as anything, to be honest, it is a matter for Parliament to consider whether it requires that extra level of assurance, if you will, that legislation can bring. But the clarity, I think, from the programme for government and from the statements that have been made on a regular basis, I think, by Cabinet Secretary for Communities, it is the firm intention of this Government to ensure that this is hardwired into the way that decisions are taking going forward. I am interested in how we are using public funds in this budget to roll out EV charge points, public funds across Scotland. I know that there is a £30 million commitment over four years, we are just over halfway through it, in partnership with local authorities. I think that money goes through Transport Scotland. I ask how much money has been drawn down so far in relation to that, and in particular to that, I see that there was a budget of £4.48 million going to local authorities. I am just quick keen to know how that has been spent. I will get a bit more information forward and maybe go to a couple of follow-up questions. Yes, of course. Sorry, I was just flicking through my enormous pack into the transport section. I am absolutely happy to give that update. I suppose that this relates to the points that I was making earlier about public investment to date and us being at a bit of a turning point, where we have to use scarce public funding to leverage private support. It is worth putting on the record that £65 million of public funding has so far delivered around 2,700 public charging points, and that has been supplemented by 1,900 additional public charging points delivered by the private sector. Mr Doris is absolutely right that, as part of our EV vision and through our EV infrastructure fund, we are seeking to spend £30 million of public money and leverage £30 million from the private sector in order to reach our ambition of 6,000 public charging points by 2026. To date, £20 million of that public funding has been made available, and that includes £4 million proposed for the coming financial year. That is helpful. I apologise. This is my initial question. I should have named-checked the fund to allow you to have the details from your briefing part. I suppose that £20 million is a significant amount of money. My understanding is that a lot of the works are on the pipeline, so technically we still do not have any additional EV public charging points yet. We do not have anything out to tender from local authorities in relation to that yet, and we are still unsure as to how much private money we will be leveraged in as yet. It is a reasonable question to ask, convener. When do you think that the cabinet secretary will start to get some details of that so that the committee can decide whether or not the money that has been invested is on track to deliver the outcome that people want to see? I get that. There is a pipeline of two years, but there has not been any delivery yet. It is a four-year plan. When can we expect to see delivery and when can this committee get some details around that? I think that it is an absolutely legitimate question, and I understand entirely the committee's interest in it. Mr Doris' characterisation is absolutely right that the spend and the effort to date have been in funding local authorities, supported by the Scottish Futures Trust, to come first of all to assess their needs in their local area and then to, I suppose, configure scalable investable propositions. That is the stage that most local authorities are now at, and that has been done through their strategy and expansion plans. They will then go out to the market to procure delivery, and private investment should flow from that. As you say, four-year fund is front-loaded with that planning work, the next part of which will be going out to the market. Obviously, I cannot foresee the future, but estimates are currently provided by local authorities and by market engagement with charge point operators indicates that the target will be met, the 2026 target will be met through a combination of charge points funded through this fund and by the private sector investment. That is helpful, cabinet secretary. I am not sure how much of that is in the public domain. Is there anything that you are able to provide the committee in writing just in relation to projections? It would be very helpful. When we are able to get some kind of firm details around that, I get a lot of that, maybe commercially confidential and things have been worked up, but I think that we still need to scrutinise that on an on-going basis. This goes in partnership with the earlier I spoke about a step change from individuals and families in communities such as getting EV charge points at their own home. I know that the fund is not specifically for that or for investing in the EV vehicle. I am conscious that there are no grants available for EV chargers at home in an urban setting and that the used car loan initiative has come to an end. Is that something that, in a tight financial settlement, I understand that the Government may return to it at a future date? On the first point of your question, I will absolutely provide you in writing with anything that I can, but my comments about expectations are just that at this point. Really until we have done that really important part of the work of local authorities going out to the market, I really cannot know for sure and have the clarity that I would want to bring to the committee. On the second part, the EV support for private individuals to buy it, I cannot find the note exactly in my book just now, but I understand that those funds are only closed for this year and that Transport Scotland are considering the extent to which they will be available in future years. If I have gotten that wrong, please do correct me. I see that the officials are nodding their heads, so that is welcome to those. I may declare an interest if I can persuade my other half. We may be beneficiaries of this, but the EV loan scheme for used vehicles may reopen in the next financial year. That is correct, as of today. I am now totally confused. The £30 million fund that was set up to generate EV charges. Can you just clarify how many EV charges are actually delivered? It is, as we discussed before, convener, that that particular fund, the first portion of the spend, is about planning for going out to the market and the second half of it will be about procuring and developing. So far, the work that it has supported has not been about buying the infrastructure. It is about local authorities making very exact plans about what is required in their areas, creating those scalable propositions and going out to market. The £30 million fund was to generate another £30 million fund of private investment. Indeed. How much of that £30 million fund of private investment has been secured from that expenditure to date? Likewise, at the point that we are discussing this today, local authorities are not yet at the stage of going out to the market. They are still doing the preparatory work, which £20 million has gone towards. The private investment has not yet been leveraged. The infrastructure has not yet been built, but that is why it is a programme over many years. I am just clarifying. Kerry is signalling that she may want to come in. Are you just saying that £20 million has been spent? We have discussed a lot, but we have not delivered anything just yet. Of course. I should point out for the record that the fund sits alongside the £65 million that we have invested very straightforwardly in delivering 2,700 public charge points. As far as the EV infrastructure fund goes, the investment to date has very deliberately been on supporting local authorities to come up with their plans to take to the market. I will see whether Kerry wants to come in. I was going to make the point that the 2,700 charge points have been installed under the funding that we have given Charge Points Scotland to date, which is not part of the £60 million EV fund that we are discussing. In terms of the £20 million, we have confirmed £20 million of funding. That has not actually been drawn down yet. That is the confirmation with the local authorities in discussions on the back of the pipeline that we have discussed. That is the funding that we will start to see going out the door this financial year, when we will again hopefully start to see the match private finance initiatives coming in and those Charge Points being installed. Sorry, I could not quite hear. Did you say 207 charge points? No, 2,700 charge points have been built through a different fund, but not through this fund. Exactly. Already built already in place and those are in private homes. Thank you. That clarifies that for me. That is helpful. The next question is from Mark Ruskell. Thank you. Can I just ask about an aspect in relation to the fair fairs review? Obviously, we are still waiting for the fair fairs review to be released and for there to be discussions with the Parliament about the various options. I am sure that it will set out. In terms of what the Government is currently committed to, which is the two big concessionary travel schemes and also the announcement that was made in relation to extending that to people who are currently within the asylum system. Can you just confirm that the budget for the next year covers what we have in terms of concessionary travel and what the Government has committed to already? Yes, absolutely. Again, I will do that. My colleagues from Transport Scotland come in at any stage. Concessionary fairs are funded to the tune of £370 million in the draft budget, which is an increase of 3.1 per cent. There is funding set aside in order to progress the development of the extension of concessionary travel for asylum, those seeking asylum in Scotland. Can I just ask about the older person scheme as well, because it has been very challenging to get that age group back on to the buses post Covid. Is it expected that there will be less of a draw on the budget that has been allocated for that concessionary travel scheme, given predicted demand? Are we expecting older people from 60 and over to be increasingly getting back on the buses in the next year for that demand to rock it right up? I am going to hand over to Alison. I think that the forecasts for the concessionary travel schemes are the same across the piece, but please, Alison, I am just going to let you come in on that one, because it is technical. What we are seeing in terms of behaviours in terms of the return to bus travel between the two different concessionary travel schemes are very different behaviours. We see quite a fluctuation in the under 22 demand, depending on time of year, etc. In the older and disabled persons scheme, we are seeing less of a return to pre-pandemic demand uses. What we then do with all the information that we gather from the operators for both of those schemes is that we model a range of scenarios, high-loan medium, as you would expect of that order. The budget reflects the position that we are most likely to anticipate to expect. As you would appreciate, however, that is a demand-led budget, so we are not entirely in control of how much of that budget is used, so that can either be a risk to the budget or an increase or a risk to the budget in terms of what it will all be spent on. Jackie, I was not sure if you had a follow-up on that or not. I am not sure. Can I come back? Absolutely, you can come back at the end if there is a chance on that. Monica, I think that you have some questions now. I do, thanks, convener. I have some questions about staff clades partnership for transport, SPT, the regional transport authority. Why has SPT's capital grant from the Scottish Government been cut to zero? Thank you, Ms Lennon, for the question. I am not sure whether that was something that you discussed with the Deputy First Minister last week. The convener is shaking his head at me, so I will try to give the appraisal. The SPT general capital support allocation is funded through the local government finance settlement, and a decision was taken to pause that funding for 24-25 very much in light of the very difficult financial constraints. I know that, to the extent that that was out with my budget, I know that that was with a view to keeping it under review for future years. Transport Scotland officials are in discussions with SPT about the impact of the decision and about the ability to maintain its forward investment programme. I have great sympathy with SPT and with public bodies who, like SPT, are having to deal with funding that was expected, not guaranteed but expected, not being forthcoming. I sympathise with that, because that is what I have had to do and what the Government has had to do right across the piece. Myself and the Transport Minister have had to prioritise projects and funds and take difficult decisions and understand the impact of that. The discussions are on-going. I should say that something that I am particularly keen to draw out from those discussions is the extent to which any of the proposed change would impact on the provision of services. I have tried to stress through my evidence today that, in very difficult financial circumstances, be continued running of the public transport network has been a priority. Those conversations are on-going and should it come to services being undermined, I would be open to looking again at what could be done. Thank you. I might have time to come on to some of the impacts, but putting aside the merits of this decision, are you able to say why no advance notice was given to SPT or a request made for information on the possible impacts? You say that discussions are happening now between your officials and SPT, but I have a letter from the chief executive, Valerie Davidson. I have heard from councillor Doe Fagan, who is the leader of South Lanarkshire Council in my area, and they seem pretty annoyed. There was no upfront discussion, and we have heard about Verity House agreement and how Government wants to work collegially with colleagues in local government, and that needs to work strategically and co-ordinate. Why has this just come out of the blue for SPT? I'm sorry, Ms Lennon. I was just trying to get a bit of information from my colleague there, and I might just hand to them for some of that. I would say that what has been required on the Scottish Government and of public bodies across the pace has been extraordinary when it has come to this budget. I think that the point that the Deputy First Minister has been stressing and relating to this issue—maybe not in front of your committee—was that the opportunity to use reserves in the public sector has to be an option when it comes to the scale of the problems and the challenges that we are facing. That is the ask of SPT, as it has been the ask of other public bodies. To what extent do you have reserves? Which, of course, are the public purse, which can be drawn upon, given that this is the rainy day that we have been collecting reserves for? The committee, then, can just tell us your understanding of the current level of reserves and what projects are due to be funded from those reserves. I don't have a note of SPT's reserves. Well, the rents of the committee, I've got a note here, but the reserves are fully allocated for projects, so maybe your official can advise about when those discussions started and what assessment was being done about potential impact. It sounds like assumptions may have been made that SPT could just draw down reserves. I don't know if I'm wrong in that assumption, but that's how it looks. I'll certainly hand over to my team to come in on the discussions. For my part, I would stress again how much I sympathise with public bodies who are having to make those considerations, and principally, I sympathise because we're having to do it ourselves, but I'll come to Alison. If I can just pick up on a couple of the points. We spoke to SPT, Valerie Davidson, as soon as we were able to. The day the budget was published, whatever day that was. That discussion was held with the team as soon as we were able to. That's been followed up with a further discussion, which I attended either the first or the second week back in January. It's been a long month. You were unable or government to speak to SPT before budget day? So, from our perspective, the numbers were changing quite significantly, of course, the course of the period of the budget. So, until it was settled, we were in a position to confirm to SPT. This was a last-minute decision? I wouldn't say that it was a last-minute decision. What I'm saying is that the numbers were changing across the piece, so until the budget numbers were settled, we weren't in a place to have a fulsome conversation with them, but that we are doing that now. Are you able to explain the rationale or methodology that brought the number down to zero? So principally, there are a couple of funding streams that have been in the past gone to SPT. One is around the subway modernisation, where we've got quite regular dialogue with them in terms of the profile of spend on that, the profile of funding that's been made, and then the other part of it is around £15 million, which has gone through the local government settlement part of that funding. The discussions that we've had to date have shed a bit of light on what SPT had plans to spend that money on, and the discussions are now focusing on where there is an essential need to have funding to support some of that activity. The reserves did come into it. It's very clear that the accounts show that there is a reserves. The conversations that I've had with SPT today have indicated that they had plans for those projects, for those reserves in terms of some of the projects, and that's the detail that we're exploring with them now. Did the Government not already know that? It's not really our business to know that level of detail of how SPT operates. I think that it is if you're not going to give them the funds that they need. I mean, I don't know, Cabinet Secretary. That's probably a point for you to address. As committee members, obviously, we have a scrutiny roll, but we'd like to think that behind the scenes there's good co-ordination and good communication with other public bodies to get that joined-up approach. After all, you have responsibility across Government for the co-ordination of net zero. That doesn't sound like good practice to me, and I do have skin in the game as do you in terms of if we both have parts of Lanarkshire that come under SPT, but it seems like a lot of assumptions were made and we had last minute decision making going on, so don't you think that SPT and the local authorities in that area are owed an apology? I would come back to that critical point that I made at the beginning about the undermining of service provision and the conversations that Alison has referred to are about exploring that. As I've said to the extent that they are undermined, that's a concern of mine and something that I would look to work with SPT on. But two points just to re-emphasise. You will be tired of hearing us say this, but I cannot emphasise enough how difficult the financial circumstances have been in seeking to balance this budget. We have to use every single lever that we have to maximise the resources that we have, and of course that includes public sector reserves. The other contextual point that is worth making is that this is a budget in which we have increased the local government settlement share of the discretionary budget and we've delivered record funding of over £14 billion to local authorities to fund that council tax freeze. None of this is easy and conversations are on-going. Reserves have to be considered when we are facing the financial constraints that we are, but I sympathise greatly with SPT as I do with every public body across the piece that is having to consider efficiencies in this most difficult time. I'm going to hand back to you, but it's worth noting that sympathy isn't going to get us to net zero. I asked earlier on about confidence levels in meeting the interim targets, the 2045 targets, and I'll just read out this one sentence from Valerie Davidson, the chief executive of SPT, who says that cuts to this funding will have a hugely negative impact on our efforts to ensure transport in our area is greener, more connected, more reliable and more accessible. That doesn't give me confidence, convener. At that moment, I fear that we may come back to this later in the session when other MSPs come in, but I'm going to move on and move straight to Douglas Lumsden and I think you've got some questions. Thanks, convener. Why have you chosen to allocate zero funding to the bus partnership fund in 24-25? I move that the confederation of passenger transport has stated could prove disastrous for the future of bus priority. It just seems strange that, in a time when we're trying to encourage more people to use public transport, that we're basically cutting this budget, we're not cutting it, zeroing it. I understand entirely the question from Mr Lumsden. I think that the first point that I would make is to stress again that, facing the settlement that I did, my responsibility to the transport network had to be first and foremost to keep it running, to keep services running, to keep it reliable and to keep it safe. Therefore, there is a degree of additionality when it comes to a fund like the bus partnership fund, which is additional to the question of keeping your transport system running. So, while we were able to attribute funding to very important parts of the bus network, the concessionary fares, the network support grant, the community bus fund, I was not regrettably not able to fund the bus partnership fund in this year. That's not to say that I don't continue my support for it in future years because I absolutely acknowledge the value of it. I would just clarify that we will continue to fund any projects currently under construction and complete any appraisal work that could lead to the future investment, but for this year, with this settlement and principally a near 10 per cent cut in my capital budget from the UK Government, I can't afford it. We can argue about funding that we've seen that your overall budget has actually gone up. It's just back to the point that you've chose where to make savings. It's back to the point that Monica Lennon makes about if you're serious about net change, net zero, if you're serious about climate change, then surely you have to prioritise these types of budgets at this time. By basically putting them down to zero or cutting them, you're not really credible, are you? As I said earlier, I think that the budget, the draft budget that I have proposed is credible in respect of climate change and it does all the things that I set out to do, fund my legal requirements, keep our transport network running safely and rise to the climate emergency. I haven't been able to do that in every single budget line as previously, principally because of capital cuts and the bus partnership fund sadly for this year is one that I won't be able to fund. It's not just about keeping the lights on and keeping things running, it's about making public transport better, to encourage more people to use public transport because that will create the modal shift that we're all looking for. So surely by cutting these types of budgets we're going to go backwards? I wouldn't like to think that we would go backwards but I appreciate the fact that we won't get the additionality that we might have gotten from the development of the bus partnership fund. But again, I look to the extent that I have been able to increase the funding for concessionary fairs, that we have been able to fund the operator's predicted requirements in respect of the network support grant, that I have marginally increased the community bus fund and I think there's real additionality there because of the opportunity that will create for local authorities to potentially create even more ways of making people take that modal shift that you talked about. I regret that the bus partnership fund can't be funded this year. It is principally because of that capital issue that we're facing at the hands of the UK Government. In terms of capital, you can, as a Government, move from money from resource budget to the capital budget. That's why when we look at the spice briefing it does show that resource and capital is increased in real terms, so you could actually make that switch. You can keep the capital funding to the levels it was or even increase it if you chose to do so. I suppose technically you can but I suppose where that's been required and exercisable across the Government that will already have been done, I should point to the fact that my resource budget is extremely tight as well. I'll move on from buses to trains, convener. Can you give any assurance that the 10% reduction in revenue support for ScotRail and Caledonia sleepers is not going to have any reductions in services in terms of frequency, quality and reliability? I can assure Douglas Lumsden that that is absolutely my intention and I think, as I've said a number of times, but I'll repeat for the record, the safe, efficient and continued running of the transport network, including our railways, has been a priority of mine. Just to give a bit of colour to some of the figures, that 10.8% reduction that Mr Lumsden is right to point to, a couple of reasons for this. Firstly, it is to an extent reflecting an increased revenue from passenger numbers, recovering and a slight decrease therefore of the subsidy that is required for ScotRail. However, that is together with a significantly reduced capital budget, which is about £90 million down, and that is for the accounting of lease arrangements following the transition of the sleeper into public ownership. That is a technical adjustment, but it does speak to the reduction in that line. One overall figure that I always think is very enlightening when it comes to the running of our rail services is that we are investing £1.6 billion this year. That compares to pre-pandemic when we were investing about £1 billion, so you can see how the costs have skyrocketed when it comes to fuel, when it comes to staff. That has necessitated in many ways the rail fares increase that will come at the end of the financial year, because with that level of increased cost requirements, the safe running and the services that we currently enjoy unfortunately would be at risk without that increased revenue. In terms of investment into the rail, there was a commitment to spend £200 million to reduce the travel time between Aberdeen and the Central Belt by 2026 so far, for the little that has been spent. I want to look at the infrastructure investment plan. There is no mention of it in there either. Can you give that guarantee that journey times between Aberdeen and the Central Belt will be reduced by 20 minutes by 2026? That is currently being reviewed and it is something that the transport minister is looking at very carefully. I always like to think of this as two different projects. One is the enhancement projects by 2026, as you refer to, and the other is the decarbonisation work. The transport minister is currently considering, within the context of the funding that is available, the rail enhancements that will be able to be taken forward in the coming years. She will update committee members on that. That is work that she is principally leading. For my part today, I would say two things. One, that we remain utterly committed to this work, but two, that we are constrained to an extent by that pervasive 10 per cent, up to 10 per cent cut in our capital budget. That is a strange thing to say that you are committed, but you are reviewing it, so you are either reviewing it. It is going to happen or it is not going to happen. Can you give any issue that it is aware of? That is not quite true, unfortunately. It is not that linear when it comes to the delivery and the time over which you deliver a project like this. It is not just a case of you either committed to it and it happens or you are not committed to it. When budgets are constrained, it is only right that you consider the time over which projects can be completed. As I say, that is work that the minister for transport is currently undertaking, and I will ensure that she updates the committee. It was a commitment made in 2016, so there will be plenty of people in the north-east who will be alarmed by what we have just heard. We are moving on, but we are still staying on the trains. In terms of the sleeper service, that has now been in public ownership for about seven months. Has there been any change in terms of how much it has cost in the public purse, how much it has cost for passengers, increase in passengers? Can you give any information on that? I do not have figures on that in front of me. Again, I am always keen to bring as much accuracy as I can to the committee unless my colleagues can. We might have to come back to you on that. Sorry, Mr Lumson. I am not sure exactly what it is that you are looking for with that question. Just simply, is it cost in the public purse more or less? Is passenger numbers more or less? I just want to understand what the benefits have been for moving the sleeper service into public ownership. I suspect that that is probably something in terms of budget scrutiny. It would probably be better if we wrote to you on that subject. If you write to the committee on that subject, they can decide whether they want to take it further, but it would be helpful once you have had a chance to reflect on it, all things Caledonian sleeper, so that we can understand it. Bob, you want to come in? I do, convener. I am trying to get a baseline for what MSPs and the travelling public would consider an appropriate frequency of service to be in relation to ScotRail. I am conscious that frequency in many routes has had to be reduced through Covid. As numbers have not increased to pre-Covid levels and income has fallen, the frequency has not returned. In my local line that I declare an interest, I use almost on a daily basis the Glasgow to Arries land via Maryhill. That was a 30-minute service, but because of Covid out with peak times now, that is an hourly service. I am sure that you will appreciate that it is an hourly service, but there is a tipping point there. If one service is cancelled or delayed, you have a hefty weight to your next service. Of course, I have a local interest in that particular line, but it is the aspiration and the commitment is that there may be a time period in which a chief cabinet secretary will return to pre-Covid frequency levels, because that is what my constituents would expect, not right away, but they would expect that. Thank you, Mr Doris. I absolutely understand that. I have a number of well-used railway stations in my constituency that I understand my constituents commute from back and forward to Edinburgh and Glasgow. I know their frustrations at changes made at the pandemic levels, and I am seeing a return locally. I understand that people will want to see that across the board. There is an extent to which that is about local services and individual services, and I cannot give a general comment on what will be different across different parts of the country. I would say that performance for ScotRail is that the service that we provide outperforms the UK average in 23 to 24 to date. ScotRail's public performance monitor is 90.05 per cent compared to 85.6 per cent in the rest of the UK. I remember correctly that, since we came into public ownership, the overall approval rating has already gone up a percentage point. That may seem like just one percentage point, but it is quite a significant jump when it comes to two years of progress. I was not doing what Mr Lumsden was doing, inquiring whether it was correct to take that into public ownership or not. I strongly support that move from the Scottish Government. I suppose what I am getting at, cabinet secretary, is that when this was franchised out—for example, there was no Sunday service in the Maryhill line, but I persuaded the winners of that franchise to write into their bid for a Sunday service on the Maryhill line, so we now have that service. That is a positive thing. There was a 30-minute service written in to the franchise agreement pre-Covid. Clearly, this is socially desirable to do that for a whole variety of reasons. What I am looking to ascertain is that that desirable outcome will be returned to when finances allow, so what we do not have—there are still a lot of people around the railways—will be the same, convener, even though it is for transfer at the public ownership. Some will be sitting with a spreadsheet saying, where can we make savings? We need to make sure that we do things differently in the public sector and that we do not make savings on train lines where it is economically expedient but not socially desirable. It is socially desirable to go back to pre-Covid baseline levels at some point, cabinet secretary, and I suppose that is what I am trying to flush out. No, I take that point and apologies that my answer was more about the generality of performance. I am going to hand over to my colleague Alison about anything she can say about either your local situation or that general pursuit of return to pre-pandemic levels, but I would just point again to that assessment that has had to be made and the objective of retaining that high-performing, safe and efficient rail network and how important, unfortunately, the real fair increases were to that. Dan, can I just make an observation? If you could keep it high-level and if it is on a specific constituency issue, you can of course write to Bob Doris separately if you so wish, but I am on a broader horizon than local. Okay, so that is a relief actually because I am unable to comment on the direct services into Mr Doris's constituency. The point that I just wanted to get across is in our interests to maximise the use of the railway system that we have, both the tracks and the carriages. We have seen quite significant changes in the way in which our rail system is being used since the pandemic. Weekends now tend to be busier than during the week. It is therefore prudent for all of us to maximise the best use of the infrastructure that we have to best effect. That means, in some instances, a reduction during the week between peak periods, frequencies, numbers of carriages and strengthening in other areas. Those are the kind of conversations that go on within Transport Scotland and ScotRail every time that there is a time table change to see where we can maximise the service frequency and maximise the passenger growth demand because that is in all of our interests. I will write to you specifically about your constituency matter. I generally was not pushing the constituency level issue. Can you give us a helpful example? Sorry, I think Mark wants to come in on railways and maybe you get a chance to finish that round. I just wanted to come back to the bus partnership fund because obviously it is disappointing that the fund has been paused, but my understanding is that it is a pause and the Government has not scrapped the fund. The intention is to bring it back when capital budgets allow. The question really is to the cabinet secretary about what councils and transport authorities should be doing. The funding is not there for this year, but should they be continuing to develop projects to allow buses priority access? Can that work continue in the next year? I think that it is fair to say that with some of the schemes that are being put forward, we have seen quite a lot of nimbyism and that has taken a while for councils and transport authorities to work through objections and that side of things to then get to a point where they can actually put in an application and they can develop a scheme. Absolutely correct, it is a pause. I will work as hard as I can to return sums to the fund in future years. I mentioned that we are going to continue to fund appraisal work, which could lead to those investments in the future, which I think is some of what you are talking about, and to the extent that local authorities are able to continue to do that work. Of course, I would welcome that, but I understand that the fund was important to them in doing that. Thank you, Mark. If that is your complete move on to the next questions, which are actually from me, Cabinet Secretary, on what appears to have become my chosen subject. Turning to ferries, Cabinet Secretary, last week we heard there had been a reprofiling of the loans to CMAL. I am concerned and I would be grateful if you could clarify the seven lock class ferries that are due to be replaced. Does that mean that the contracts that were to be awarded in this financial year will not happen on the basis that you must have worked out that a percentage of the money is due on signing the contract? Can you clarify to me all seven contracts if they are ready to be signed this year for those ferries that will be signed? Is a yes or no? I cannot confirm that. No. What I can confirm is that there is allowance made within the ferries budget for potential vessel contracts in 24-25, but that is always subject to procurement, always subject to relevant statutory approvals and to outlined business cases that are still being considered. Do you know if CMAL is ready to sign the contracts on the seven lock class ferries that we were anticipating would be signed this year? Do you know if they are ready? I am not in a position to confirm that today. It seems to me odd if you can't be in a position to clarify how you can reprofile the budget because a percentage is due on signing the contract and I would have thought that that's a large pass to that contract. Alison is trying to come in if it helps, cabinet secretary. Is that okay? There is funding in the budget for the small vessel replacement programme, which is the seven lock class vessel, which is harder to say than it should be. We have received the outline business case from CMAL and we are in the process at this point in time of discussing that with ministers, with a view to reaching a decision on procurement in due course. We haven't decided at this stage to buy them or commission them. We have the outline business case, which supports the procurement of those vessels. We have the funding in place in the next financial year with which to start the procurement process. What I can't say to you now, absolutely categorically, is that the decision has been made, but I am comfortable that the timing that has been set out in various different documentations from the delivery of those vessels still remains on track. I have some confidence that the money is there and there is a business case being put up. I am not so confident that it has been signed off. Maybe that will come in due course, cabinet secretary. The point is that it has not been signed off, but it is very much in trade. As you see, funding is marked. Last week, we heard that there could be further cost overruns to ATA of Glen Sannox, which has been launched, so I can call it by its name, and 802, which has not been launched. There may be a cost overrun there. Is that going to come out of your budget or which budget is that going to come out of when it is announced? There is a technical arrangement that I am going to hand over to the interim chief executive of Transport Scotland to explain to the committee.  Yes, that is okay. The funding for the vessels 801 and 802 at Port Glasgow are managed by DJ Economy and Mr Gray, who was here last week, answering questions o