Official Report 259KB pdf
Item 2 is evidence on the Scottish budget, for which I welcome the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, John Swinney, along with his colleagues Malcolm Reed, who is from Transport Scotland; John Mason, who is the director of the Scottish Government's climate change and water industry directorate; John Ewing, who is the director of the Scottish Government's transport directorate; and David Reid, who is the deputy director of finance at the Scottish Government. I thank you all for joining us and invite the cabinet secretary to give an introduction.
I thank the convener for welcoming my officials and me. It is a pleasure to give evidence to the committee on the Scottish Government's budget for the forthcoming year and the spending review priorities in the next three years.
Thank you. In any process in Government there will be a number of calls for important areas to be given high priority. Will you say more about how relative priorities between your portfolio and other portfolios and among aspects of your portfolio that relate to the committee's areas of interest were assessed and calculated?
As you rightly acknowledge, there are an enormous number of competing priorities for funding. As I made clear in my statement to the Parliament on the spending review, there are some priorities that we have been unable to afford.
In the short period during which the Parliament's committees will scrutinise the budget, there will be debate about priorities that might have been identified, given the political dynamics of the situation in which we operate. What impact might the deliberations of other committees during budget scrutiny have on aspects of the budget that interest this committee?
With the greatest respect, that is more an issue for committees than it is for me. Committees are free to make recommendations on the policy priorities that they consider, subject to the point that I have made to the Parliament on a number of occasions, which is that this is a zero-sum game. We have set a budget on the basis of the total amount of money that is available for spending.
That consideration could be serious only if there was scope for looking again at a particular area of the budget.
That is absolutely right.
Is there such scope?
In my view, there is not. I assure you that the budget is the product of a tremendous amount of deliberation and consideration by the Cabinet. We have put it forward as our first and best proposal for deploying the resources that we have at our disposal. It sets out the policy propositions that we think should be advanced and which we think are compatible with the policy structure that we as an Administration have set out.
Given the Government's overall approach of empowering local authorities—which you have just mentioned—through the concordat with COSLA, by allowing local authorities to retain efficiency savings and by reducing ring fencing, can you explain what the role of the regional transport partnerships will be in future?
As their name suggests, the regional transport partnerships have a role to perform in co-ordinating a range of regional priorities for transport investment. They draw together the work of a number of constituent local authorities to ensure that a more cohesive approach to transport is taken at regional level. That is the challenge that the RTPs have been set. They have submitted their strategies to ministers, who are considering them. I am due to meet the chairs of the RTPs shortly—on 11 December—to discuss those and related issues.
It is my understanding that you have made that challenge much more difficult through your decision not to allocate capital funding to RTPs, with the exception of Strathclyde partnership for transport, which will receive ring-fenced money. Last week we were told that having the flexibility to manage capital budgets across local authorities helped the RTPs to prioritise the development of particular projects. Will you explain the thinking behind your decision?
I have looked carefully at the evidence that the committee took on the subject on 27 November. I was rather struck by the fact that the RTP representatives almost inferred that local authorities were not participants in the RTPs, which I found to be a curious presentation of the argument, given that RTPs are made up of local authorities. My approach to the issue is to maximise co-operation and co-ordination of effort among local authorities, so that they can work together to support shared priorities. I see no impediment to such working arising as a consequence of decisions that ministers have made.
Given the relaxation of ring fencing, do you think that the total amount of money that local authorities spend on transport will increase or reduce?
That is for local authorities to determine. There are a number of strong local transport projects that I would encourage local authorities to take forward, particularly bearing in mind the fact that local authorities must work with the Government to achieve a number of shared outcomes, some of which relate to reducing car journeys, and other indicators that are of direct relevance to the provision of public transport services and support.
How will you ensure the coherent delivery throughout Scotland of the national transport strategy, to which you signed up, given that the supporting role of RTPs is diminished and given that the lack of ring fencing and a national framework might lead to a more fragmented approach by local authorities?
There is clearly a national framework. The national transport strategy is in place and a performance framework sets out how we judge performance on a range of indicators that relate to wider policy objectives, including objectives on transport.
You talked about including all communities, including small and remote communities. How might local authorities treat community transport, in which the voluntary sector plays an important role? Does the issue figure in your plans for advice to local authorities or do you think that local authorities are perfectly capable of making up their own minds about levels of support for community transport?
There are opportunities for local authorities to design integrated transport structures and services that support the needs of individuals. If we want to achieve indicators in the performance framework—for example if we are to
Community transport enables people to stay in their homes rather than be moved to care homes, so it is a cross-cutting issue that relates to the health budget. Might that argument strengthen the response of local authorities on the issue?
A big theme of the Government—which I suspect I have gone on about more than other ministers—is the need to ensure that at local level we integrate the provision of services much more effectively than we have done to date. There is a silo mentality around most of the provision of public services. I saw a fabulous picture of three agricultural silos the other day, which was being used to fantastic effect in a presentation to illustrate the difficulty in building connections between silos. At the heart of the Government's approach is the recognition that the community planning partnership agenda is the key instrument for ensuring the planning of joined-up services locally.
I turn to the issue of trunk roads and motorways. On page 90 of the spending review document is a list of projects that are considered to be priorities, but I notice that it does not include the A82, to which commitments have been made. Am I right to assume that that list of priorities is not exhaustive, or did the A82 simply emerge as a priority too late to appear on the list?
You are right to assume that the list of priorities is not exhaustive, as there are many priorities for trunk roads and motorways. I can confirm that improvement work on the A82—the responsibility for which we inherited—is planned to commence in 2009-10.
As you made clear in your answer, the Government inherited a significant number of projects that were at various stages of development. In recent months, concern has emerged about slippage in some projects. Do you expect to stick to the current timescales for road improvements and developments, or do you anticipate further slippage creeping in?
At the end of June, Mr Stevenson made a statement to Parliament in which he set out the new Government's response to the transport priorities that we had inherited. I have no reason to suggest that any of the commitments will be met in timescales other than those that Mr Stevenson set out to Parliament.
I will finish the present line of questioning by raising an issue that is important to me, as a member for North East Scotland. Suggestions have been made—some of them perhaps mischievously—that the Government's commitment to the Aberdeen western peripheral route is not all that the previous Government's was. Can you give me a commitment that the development of the Aberdeen western peripheral route will take place according to the schedule that the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change set out, in so far as you are able to control that?
I can give you such an assurance.
In the past, there has been discussion about how you will fund that project, which was to be funded as a public-private partnership project. Will you again confirm that the timescale for the project will not shift because you are having difficulty finding another way of funding it?
That was a neat way of slipping in the issue of the funding mechanism. The Government is actively developing its proposal for a Scottish futures trust, which I think will be an extremely effective and reliable alternative to PPP. It will be one of the funding mechanisms that will be available to the Government. We will develop the Aberdeen western peripheral route in the timescale that Mr Stevenson set out to Parliament in June.
When will you finalise your new futures fund?
I have already told Parliament that I will provide it with further information on the futures trust very shortly. I maintain that commitment.
Alex Johnstone got a restatement from you that you are committed to completing the AWPR. Are we still in the slightly bizarre situation of also having a commitment that the Government will abide by the outcome of the public inquiry and that the public inquiry will not have its hands tied? So far, all those commitments have been made.
The Government cannot tie the hands of a public inquiry.
I should hope not.
That is a matter of fact. Ministers will take decisions in the context of the findings of the public inquiry.
Is that what has changed? The previous commitment was to abide by the outcome of the public inquiry.
The Government's language on the matter is clear. We will take our decision based on the outcome of the public inquiry.
You said "based on", not "in accordance with" the outcome of the public inquiry.
We will take our decision based on the outcome of the public inquiry.
I think that that provides clarity on which commitment has changed.
What rate of annual rail passenger growth is assumed in calculations for the rail services budget?
Malcolm Reed will respond to that.
The rate is 3 per cent.
What would the budget be if that growth profile was not met?
Sorry, are you suggesting that we might undershoot the target?
I am interested in knowing. We could do better and we have had a higher rate than 3 per cent. Would a lower rate alter your attitude to how you spent the money?
No, it would not affect how we spent money. In a sense, the franchise is a fixed payment, which will continue.
Thank you—that is clear. How much additional expenditure do you expect will be available from Network Rail's borrowing against its regulatory asset base, or RAB, during the budget period? Which projects will be funded from that resource?
We will fund a number of projects through the RAB, including the Airdrie to Bathgate railway, part of the Glasgow airport rail link and part of the Edinburgh to Glasgow route improvements. The Borders rail link expenditure might also be included.
There was speculation in today's press that the futures fund rather than Network Rail's resource might be used to fund the Borders rail link. Is anything definite decided on that?
I read the article to which you refer. It surprised me, because the subject was not one that I recognised.
Thank you for your answers to Rob about RAB.
There will always be discussion and debate about the arrangements. The rail sector has gone through significant change and the arrangements are pretty stable—that is an understatement; the arrangements are working well. On that basis, we should leave well alone.
An aspect of the arrangements that has exercised the committee is the amount of discussion that must take place when there is an argument between the people who are responsible for trains and the people who are responsible for the track, for example over delays caused by a signal failure. Have you considered that issue?
There are always ways in which dialogue between the organisations can happen differently or more effectively. I am not saying that there is no room for improvement. However, there are good examples of the organisations working together. If there are areas in which communication and co-ordination can be improved, we will pursue opportunities to make improvements.
What is the timescale for improvements to the Inverness to Perth line? You did not say that that work would be funded through the RAB, but Mr Stevenson has talked about how the work is costed. Will work start in the next four years?
Yes. I do not think that the improvements will be through the RAB—Malcolm Reed will correct me if I am wrong.
They will not be through the RAB; they will be included in Network Rail's business plan for the next control period, which begins in 2009. We hope that some work will be undertaken in that control period. We are looking for fairly early progress on the project.
As Malcolm Reed says, the work will roll into the new control period, which starts in 2009-10. The projects have high priority in the high-level output specification—HLOS, as we call it.
I will ask about concessionary bus fares—really exciting stuff, but important nonetheless. The committee heard evidence that the underlying rate of inflation in the bus industry is around 3 per cent per year. Given the structural increase in costs and the ageing of the population, is it credible for the concessionary fares budget to reduce in real terms during the budget period? How does your approach support the Government's cohesion objective, given that bus services are used mainly by non-car-owning Scots, particularly those on the lowest incomes?
I will explain the budget line on concessionary fares, because I appreciate that at face value it looks pretty flat. A reason for that is that the concessionary travel scheme for younger people has not performed at all. Given that the scheme has not been taken up in the way that might have been expected, we have reallocated resources to support the continuation of other elements of the concessionary travel scheme.
If, after the completion of the smart card project, it turns out that the number of passengers who travel on concessionary fares has been underreported, how will the budget be adjusted?
If the Government received such a report, that would be a new piece of material information that it would have to consider. The Official Report of the committee's meeting last week makes it clear that there is speculation that that might be the case. The Government would consider that once the smart technology is in place and we have a comprehensive picture of the issue.
You will be aware that last week we discussed efficiency savings. Do you believe that significant efficiency savings can be made from the alignment of commercial bus services with other public bus services, such as those that are operated in the education and health sectors?
There is an opportunity to do so. That is the type of example that I had in mind when I responded to Rob Gibson's question a few moments ago. We have an opportunity to align provision to ensure that we operate a comprehensive range of services in a way that satisfies people's needs.
Thank you, minister; I had intended to go on to that issue. I have an interest in what I see as discrimination against those who use voluntary sector community transport services, which operate throughout the country and provide a first-rate service. People who use those services often feel that they are poor relations. Will the Government continue to consider how it can support community transport and how concessions can be introduced for its users?
You raised that issue with me when I came to the committee a few weeks ago. I have undertaken to consider it and we continue to do so in the context of considering the design of the schemes and the relationship between the voluntary sector and the wider concessionary travel issue. We have not come to conclusions on that, but the issue is under consideration.
I welcome that.
I have a supplementary question on the young persons concessionary scheme, which was introduced only recently. Will you confirm that it is not a priority to promote the scheme? Am I correct in thinking that you have decided not to promote the scheme further, but to move the money to help deal with pressures on the other concessionary fares scheme?
We still have provision to support the young persons scheme, because demand has been demonstrated over the period, but we have no proposals to market the scheme to a greater extent than it is currently marketed. We have taken the opportunity to ensure that the financial support that was available can be redeployed elsewhere.
There has been a cut in next year's budget for the bus service operators grant, which has been compounded by a hidden cut in this year's money as a result of the fact that the 4p rebate that the Treasury announced in April to be delivered in two stages—in October this year and next April—has not been applied in Scotland. Why did you decide to short-change bus operators in Scotland and what impact will that have?
We must be careful about our language. The Government is deploying £0.25 billion to support bus services in Scotland, so we must all acknowledge that that is a pretty formidable sum of money. As I said, I acknowledge that there are many financial pressures in a tight funding settlement. We have taken decisions that we consider to be fair and sustainable across the board, in the context of support to the bus sector that reaches £0.25 billion in every year.
I want to push you on that because, however large the sum of money, there will be a cut in the support that the sector receives. The cut that arises because the rebate has not been applied was not expected and operators are having to deal with it quickly. What might be the impact of the cuts, particularly for rural bus services?
The arrangements that we have put in place bring significant support for local authorities and a relaxation of ring fencing. That translates into a material financial benefit for local authorities, because services can be provided more efficiently and effectively at local level, so money can go further than one might have expected it to with ring-fenced funding. I hope that we can put together sensible arrangements for the joining up of service provision locally, which will ensure a more comprehensive bus service system. That follows on from Mr Gibson's earlier point about how our approaches can be drawn more effectively and closely together.
Page 75 of the budget document explains what the Government has rolled up into the local government settlement. Under your heading of "Finance and sustainable growth", in relation to transport, are listed "Demand Responsive Transport Grant", "Rural Public Passenger Grant", "Bus Route Development Grant" and "Public Transport Fund & Integrated Transport Fund". All those are rolled up. What safeguards can you give the committee that public transport, particularly bus services, will be safeguarded? There is nothing in your concordat with local government about the need to safeguard bus services, and rural bus services in particular.
That gets to the nub of a question that we will spend a long time discussing during parliamentary consideration of the budget. It comes down to whether members of the Parliament have confidence in local authorities delivering services and putting in place arrangements that are designed to benefit local people. I think that local authorities try to do that as effectively as they can. Another point of view says that, unless we ring fence funding, we cannot be absolutely sure that a local authority will provide the service in question.
The one factor that is missing is that there must also be generous enough funding for local authorities. The settlement is opaque, and it is difficult to follow the money from last year to this year. My concern is not so much that local authorities cannot sensibly spend money that has not been ring fenced; it is that the funding will not be generous enough to deliver all the services that are being delivered at the moment.
Chapter 27 of the budget clearly sets out the funding for local authorities. Last year, local authorities had a baseline of £10.651 billion. Next year, they will have a baseline of £11.137 billion. The last time I checked, that was an increase of around £450 million. For the first time since the start of the efficient government programme, this Administration will allow local authorities to retain their efficiency savings at a level of 2 per cent. On top of that, there is about £200 million of freed-up resources to support other priorities. To me, that suggests that local authorities have a formidable amount of financial room for manoeuvre to support the commitments that the Government expects them to deliver.
Does the cabinet secretary share my view that the route development fund has been very successful for the Scottish economy? He is well aware of the success of the Glasgow to Dubai, Inverness to Dublin and Sumburgh to Stansted air routes, which have all made a real difference to the Scottish economy.
You properly marshal all the considerations that the issue involves. The scheme would not be compliant with European Union rules—ministers cannot ignore that, and we are alert to such things in all circumstances.
As the cabinet secretary would expect, I want to ask about the Highlands and Islands. My understanding as regards Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd, which is owned by the Government, is that the state aid rules are not completely a problem, because the threshold is 1 million passengers and no airport in the Highlands and Islands network reaches that figure. I understand that you might not have the answer in front of you, but perhaps you could consider that point in some detail. I have lodged written questions on that point. In the Highlands and Islands, we are well aware that state aid issues can belittle public expenditure.
I will certainly undertake to consider that. If questions have been lodged, we will ensure that they are answered appropriately.
I will pursue that point a little further. The cabinet secretary and David Stewart both mentioned the relationship to climate change policy—we will move on to other climate change spending in a few minutes.
I do not want to leave the committee with the wrong impression. It is not my intention to put in place a new route development fund; perhaps I did not express that as clearly as I should have done. Of course, in our wider work, we will support Scotland as a destination for tourism and business purposes; that is how we will take the issues forward. In a sense, the fact that we do not intend to introduce a new fund addresses your question about whether any new routes will be supported.
I was not asking about new routes; I was asking about any policy that might be introduced as a result of the previous policy being dropped. How will new thinking in this area be put through the climate change lens?
We acknowledge that there is an issue about the impact of air travel on climate change. No Government can deny that factor. However, the only propositions that we have are to continue to support our contractual commitments in this respect. We have no plans to bring forward any new initiatives beyond the ones that we have now. I think that that is the clearest way in which I can answer your question.
Perhaps we will have to return to that issue at a later date.
The budget document makes only a passing reference to the accessibility of transport, which you mentioned briefly in your opening remarks. Are you confident that the transport budget will deliver improvements in that area? If so, how?
We want to ensure that transport is more accessible to people by a variety of interventions that will ensure that the services that we have available meet the needs of individuals and that the access that individuals have to those services is comfortable, convenient and appropriate to their requirements. The expansion of rail services is a key component of our efforts to ensure that accessibility is improved. That expansion involves a number of initiatives, such as the Airdrie to Bathgate line, the work that is being done in Edinburgh and Glasgow and the work that is being done on frequency of service and journey times on the Highland and Aberdeen routes.
One of my concerns, as a member for the Lothians—I am sure that it is a concern for others, too—is that we should consider not only remote and rural areas, but areas of economic deprivation, which suffer just as much from difficulties with public transport as remote and rural areas do. Are you confident that the situation will be maintained or improved through the concordat that has been reached with local government?
I think that that will be the case. The Government is putting in place a mechanism to try to ensure that, as we take measures to support our wider agenda of increasing sustainable economic growth, we address the situation of individuals who may be economically inactive. Transport may be a factor in that inactivity, and we must ensure that we have in place the right services and structures to enable those people to become economically active. That remains a challenge at the heart of what the Government is doing.
Accessibility is about people being able to use services. As you said, that includes people who are financially inactive being enabled to be active. However, it does not matter how posh the bus is or how well the train service is run: if a bus does not stop near enough to the edge of the pavement, if someone cannot get into a station, or if someone has to travel half a mile down one road and along another to catch a train, that is a problem of accessibility. That issue still exists for many Scots. What consideration has been given to that in the budget?
We are trying to produce services that maximise accessibility for every citizen. One of our indicators, which I cited earlier, is to
I understand that it is not your job to stand at a bus stop to ensure that a service is working, but I am interested in hearing how the difficulties that people face in getting on and off buses or accessing stations will be monitored. In particular, I refer to people with disabilities and families with prams. How will such things be monitored so that we know what is happening, what is not happening and what needs to happen in the future?
Certain statutory obligations will have to be fulfilled, particularly for railway stations. There is an increasing amount of activity among bus operators to provide accessible bus services, including the use of buses that are lower down at the front and make for easy access. Those are tremendous improvements and investments, and I applaud the bus industry for what it is doing in that respect. The Government will provide the co-operation and support that it can to encourage such work in the design of services locally.
Will you consider monitoring whether that is actually happening? People can tell you that lots of good things are happening—I agree that they are—but I want to know whether the services are working.
One of our national outcomes states that we want to
Am I right in thinking that some of the spending that might be required to meet specific disabled accessibility issues would come from the rail small programmes budget that is shown on page 87?
It is likely that station adaptations would come out of that particular budget.
Perhaps I can help the committee on that point. As far as rail is concerned, accessibility is formally a reserved matter, but we work closely with the Department for Transport. We have access to the funds that the DFT administers for making stations accessible, and we have a programme to improve the number of stations that are accessible.
It would be useful to have a commitment that disabled people and the organisations that work with them will be involved in overseeing how the money is spent and its adequacy.
I am happy to facilitate those discussions.
Funding for cycling and walking will help you to meet your targets on health and well-being as well as those on transport. For the past three years, Sustrans has received funding for maintaining and extending the national cycle network, supporting local authorities' school travel co-ordinators, and promoting cycling and walking to school through initiatives that tackle the school run—something that causes a great deal of congestion. The provision of that funding to Sustrans has ensured that best practice has been shared throughout Scotland, local authorities' own small teams have been supported and the duplication of effort has been reduced. Will you maintain the funding to Sustrans in the forthcoming budget period?
One area where we have decided to retain ring fencing is the cycling, walking and safer routes budget line. That will roll forward in the course of the spending review period. We look to see the funding being deployed effectively in different parts of the country.
The funding to Sustrans supported that funding—it was match funding, almost, for cycling, walking and safer streets. You have removed ring fencing of the funding for school travel co-ordinators, so there is a mixed message. Can you say anything to comfort Sustrans on its budget streams?
I make two points in that respect. First, we have other channels of funding that will come through the support for sustainable and active travel budget line, which is on page 93 of the budget document. That money will be spent on a similar area of activity. Secondly, we are engaged in discussions with stakeholders on how to take forward the various priorities in the policy area. Sustrans will be an important contributor to that, and we look forward to those discussions.
Sustrans, in particular, has demonstrated that it delivers value for money and brings about change. It seems to me that, if it ain't broke, you shouldn't fix it. I hope that you will consider that carefully.
I reassure the committee that the Government has every intention of encouraging progress in the area. It is important to try to improve the general health of the population by ensuring that we have much greater use of active travel. That is an important priority for us and we will engage in the discussions constructively to ensure that we build on what has been achieved so far.
Your portfolio includes a budget for energy and climate change, which will increase to £33 million by the end of the period. That is in addition to the climate change budget in the rural affairs and environment portfolio. Across the piece, how much money will be spent on climate change? How was the final figure arrived at?
It is difficult to give a definitive answer to that. We set out our budget by portfolio, but we also provided information on the cross-cutting agenda. That is included in the first section of the budget document, which explains how we intend to deliver on our strategic objectives.
I certainly take that point. A new aspect of the Government's establishment was the creation, within your ambit, of a minister with specific responsibility for climate change. Given that much of the spending in other portfolios will have an impact—positive or negative—on climate change, how will policy decisions on spending in other portfolios that will affect climate change be drawn back to your group of ministers?
Such issues are resolved round the Cabinet table. You make a fair point—there is no point in our having an approach to policy that does not take into account the ambitious agenda that the Government has set out on tackling climate change and the targets on which we intend to deliver. We have established the policy framework of having a purpose for the Government and five strategic objectives which, crucially, are owned equally by all members of the Cabinet. That means that when we take decisions at the Cabinet table, we must be habitually mindful of our obligation to deliver right across the board. The climate change agenda is central to the achievement of those objectives.
It could be suggested that there are contradictions even within the remit of transport, infrastructure and climate change. Spending on trunk roads and motorways has been increased significantly, to the extent that it puts spending on some of the more positive interventions that you have listed into the shade. How is that consistent with your climate change policy?
Some people will say that we are spending too much on trunk roads, while others will say that we are not spending enough on them.
I am not asking whether you are spending enough on trunk roads; I am asking how what you are spending on them is consistent with your climate change policy.
I am simply saying that, in the context of the debate, the assessment that you have made about our trunk road investment will be a contested assessment.
John Prescott once promised to resign if, within a few years, there were not a lot fewer car journeys being undertaken. Given the spending plans on trunk roads and motorways, nobody would make such a promise at this time, would they?
I fear that you are tempting me on to the dangerous ground of emulating John Prescott. We might have the same first name but, believe you me, that is all we have in common, thankfully. The Government has a duty in the round to guarantee that we establish the correct balance in the policy framework. We must fulfil that obligation to the people of Scotland and we will work to do so.
I return to the point about there not being a specific budget for climate change work—such work is spread across the different budgets. That makes it difficult for the committee to scrutinise that budget heading and to analyse whether sufficient funds have been put into addressing climate change. Will you explain how the Government satisfied itself that enough was being spent on that work, given the priorities that you mentioned at the outset?
To be honest, you can configure a budget in any way you want. However, there is an historical format that we have inherited. We have maintained information at the level that previous Administrations did. Budget documents change, topics change and needs change. There will be incremental change year on year. We could have chosen to group all the climate change interventions together in a single climate change budget. However, we chose to construct the budget according to the portfolio responsibilities to Parliament for which each cabinet secretary has to deliver financial performance against budget. We then added up all those parts to get the bigger picture. Section 1 of the budget document is designed to address the broader question of how we are planning to achieve our objectives and how we plan to bring together different elements of policy to support the Government's headline commitments. That is the structure that we have taken forward.
I want to ask about the budget in general and the impact that funding decisions will have on climate change. You talked about the carbon balance sheet for transport projects. Will that issue need to be considered in greater depth in all funding decisions?
There will be a growing need to ensure that we have the information base at our disposal to judge the actions that we take to meet statutory targets for the reduction of carbon emissions. Mr Mason will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that the data that we get for the information base are about 18 months old when we get them and are a disaggregation of the UK system. The information systems are not, therefore, at a sufficient stage for us to be absolutely confident that we have in place all the necessary mechanisms to make that judgment. However, that has been actively developed by the Government in the short period in which we have been in office and will be a material part of the infrastructure for delivering on the monitoring of our climate change requirements.
Just as the Government will be publishing a consultation on these matters, we will consider the way in which we make recommendations about the measuring of climate change as part of our review of the same ground. In relation to measurement, the budget talks about a system of cross-compliance to ensure that spending decisions use available techniques and information to assess the carbon impact of policy options during the appraisal process. Is that the sort of information that could be made available to Parliament to help the budget scrutiny in future?
I am prepared to consider that. The comparison that I would see to that kind of approach is, perhaps, an appraisal of a transport project under the Scottish transport appraisal guidance. Although the detail of that would not normally be shared with Parliament, there might be some elements that could be made available to Parliament. I will reflect on the issue and discuss the matter with the committee in due course.
The example of the STAG appraisal is good, because it does not seem as if a lot of environmental information is collected in that regard. However, the type of approach is something that could be made public.
I was simply citing the role of the STAG assessment in the process. Clearly, if we are undertaking an environmental assessment or a consideration of the carbon implications of a policy decision, that will involve another part of the process. That is the illustrative point that I was making.
I thank the cabinet secretary and his colleagues for joining us. I am aware that we have overrun slightly, but the Scottish budget is not unimportant.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Next
Climate Change Bill