Convener, we have already written to the committee about that in relation to the impact of the A9 Tomatin to Moy project. Local firms are being used and there are local apprentices, labour and skills. That is the first of the latest sections. We can give you the information on that aspect again. However, on the overall procurement side, we have the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, which brings in aspects of community benefit. It is highly competitive, which is why we have tendering to ensure that we get best value from the tenders that are produced.

The new framework agreement and the form of capital funding that we are using will ensure that more Scottish firms and, potentially, wider UK firms will benefit from the A9 projects.

I refer you to the infrastructure investment strategy that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government produced. A number of different routes of funding will be used for all major infrastructure projects, including the Scottish Government bonds that the First Minister launched. Until we determine the correct procurement route for each and every one of our transport projects, it would be premature to say what will be used for which, apart from for those that have been determined to date.

As regards the business cases that have to be put forward and the value for money aspect, we have considered the mutual investment model, and we are open to using private funding. Indeed, we have done: there is a line of £147 million in the budget for next year, which concerns what has been privately funded. That must be appropriate, but the mutual investment model was costing 16 per cent more than what we had initially determined. That is a risk for the Government in relation to the availability of capital. The cost increased to 28 per cent, and that was one of the main value for money reasons we chose not to use that option for that particular route—although that does not stop future Governments using the mutual investment model across a number of infrastructure propositions at some point in the future. That is what the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government set out in the documents accompanying the budget.

If you are looking at the figures for support for sustainable and active travel, you will see that the outturn for 2024-25 was £122.7 million. In 2025-26 it was £135.9 million. For the coming year, it is up to £226 million. In addition to that, there are low-carbon projects. The increase there would include bus infrastructure. I have had discussions with the committee before about how we have combined those elements. It would make sense for local authorities for bid for some projects for planned-for integrated active travel and bus routes. Looking forward, we understand that some of that funding will be on EV aspects in particular. On active travel, we have tried to spend as much as we can when we can. The biggest frustration has been in not being able to pursue things during the year. Sometimes things have been late in terms of providing the funding through the door.

Is there anything else on active travel and the comparison? I feel reasonably comfortable that we are doing what we are spending money on. There has not somehow been anything reduced from that. The biggest challenge has been in the ability to plan for multiyear funding and the release of funding mid-year.

We will do that with final allocations. A lot of active travel has now moved over. I think that it was Patrick Harvie who led the change as to how that area was funded in tier 1 and tier 2, particularly for local government. What does that mean? It means that local government, which is closer to the projects, can determine what is required locally, rather than using Sustrans—now the Walk Wheel Cycle Trust—to do that, as it would have done previously. A great deal of the spend on that comes under tier 1 and tier 2. That goes back down to level 4, probably—and I have not been able to look at the table for that, particularly without my glasses on.

We are still determining some of that. We can write to you about the EV issues, but to take one example, £10 million of that will be for rural and islands infrastructure for EV. I am getting a signal from the convener that I should come back to him.

Through the consultation, I have heard from different people that there are opportunities there. We want to ensure that we do the right thing by the people of Scotland and by air passengers, and that we understand the airline market itself.

We will be pegging our levels to the UK Government levels. With regard to the transfer of powers, it was agreed on a cross-party basis to make changes to the Scotland Act 1998 to provide us with those powers.

You are making assumptions that have not been made, so if you have views, I would encourage you, and others, to take part in the consultation that is currently taking place.

As I said, the policy is being led by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government in relation to the Exchequer as a taxation measure. I will ask her to provide the committee with information, if that has been produced.

We have a responsibility ourselves to deliver what we set out in the climate change plan and in respect of considering how we drive forward net zero. I emphasise that reaching net zero through carbon emissions reductions runs across all our policy areas with regard to the choices that are made, so we have to co-ordinate. Some points were made earlier about housing and energy, EV charging and other areas, and that shows us why there has to be alignment across Government in a lot of these areas. We take our responsibilities very seriously to ensure that we deliver on the carbon emissions reductions targets for which we are statutorily responsible.

We have statutory carbon budgets, so we are required in law to achieve them over the three periods. We will track delivery and, if we are off course, adjustments will be needed. Given the way in which the legislation has been established, we would need to adapt our transport policies or policies in other sectors to achieve the targets. That is what the adjustments would be.

On whether we can meet the targets, we are in line with what the Climate Change Committee has said. However, there are some differences, which is why the draft climate change plan has a greater focus on transport than on other sectors. Generally, in its advice, the Climate Change Committee anticipates that, as part of the transition, there will be far more of a shift from internal combustion engine vehicles to electric vehicles than was previously thought, so that is reflected in our proposals. That means that there must be a rapid uptake of EV cars and vans in particular, because that is the biggest area, but it is also important that we support the heavy goods vehicle sector to ensure that HGVs can continue that process, which is already taking place. We need to work with private investors and others to do that.

In relation to what characterises the draft climate change plan, as you have correctly identified, it anticipates that there will be far greater take-up of electric vehicles than was previously thought. The balance is more towards the shift to electric vehicles, but there is still a requirement for car use reduction, which is beneficial in lots of other ways. However, there is less emphasis on car use reduction and more emphasis on take-up of EVs.

That poses particular challenges for Scotland, given that we have extensive rural areas and a great reliance on cars, so the budget includes specific measures, which we have already started to roll out, on EV charging infrastructure in rural and island areas.

The opening question was about the context of the plan. We must move smartly and quickly in a lot of areas now in order to achieve the projected reductions that are anticipated in the future.