Chamber and committees

The £4.7 billion that is in the budget—

In 2024-25, we are committing £4.7 billion in capital and resource for activities that will have a positive impact on delivering our climate change goals.

As you know, we are enhancing the way in which we categorise the Scottish budget spend. The budget’s dedicated climate annex, annex J, outlines an enhanced taxonomy approach—basically, that is categorisation. It sets out changes to the methodology, expanding its use from just the capital spend that was previously analysed to include resource spend. I hope that that will provide greater transparency for the committee and others across the Parliament on the spend’s alignment with the Scottish Government’s climate objectives over its lifetime. It evaluates each spend line on its potential impact on either Scotland’s emissions generation or its adaptation impact. That will help us to compare not just one budget to another but the trajectory towards the targets. The detail is in annex J, which sets out, across the Government in the various portfolio areas, the positive impact of the cumulative £4.7 billion that will help us on our trajectory.

We have work to do, as every Government has. The target is challenging, as you know, and we have to continue to consider not just the spend but the policies that the Government needs to take forward, some of which are extremely challenging. All of that will be important to make sure that we deliver what we need to deliver.

We are as confident as we can be that we are able to show and demonstrate where the spend—in capital and resource—has a positive impact. However, we cannot rest on our laurels. It is a journey and it has to accelerate. That means that we have to be able to demonstrate not just the spend but the impact of that spend, and our ability to accelerate the changes that need to be made.

Those issues and challenges are not unique to Scotland. Every Government around the world is wrestling with the competing demands of the here and now and the investment that needs to be made—whether that is in changing our transport system or in heat in buildings—that competes with other priorities. Those are really difficult challenges, but that figure and the enhanced presentation of the budget should give the committee and the Parliament as a whole the ability to scrutinise the issue and the spending decisions that we make.

We can certainly provide you with the information on the detailed discussions with that organisation about its targets. In difficult times, we have had to prioritise where resources will have the most impact, and part of that discussion involves looking at organisations’ reserves. I am not saying that it is the whole picture or that it replaces every pound; all I am saying is that it is taken into account in relation to the funding that organisations have to deploy.

Okay—no worries. SNIB’s investment decisions are for SNIB, and we expect it to use its expertise around the table, which is considerable, in making the investments that will align with our priorities, particularly regarding net zero investments.

On funding, SNIB has traditionally relied on financial transactions, because it can make good use of them. FTs are a bit limited in where they can be deployed. Traditionally, FTs have been deployed for affordable housing, and SNIB has been the recipient of them. Unfortunately, the number of FTs that we have had from the UK Government has declined significantly. For 2024-25, I think that they are in the region of £160 million. Therefore, we have taken the decision to put all the FTs to SNIB for its investment programme. We expect SNIB to use that investment in a way that aligns with our priorities.

If you are asking me whether we would have wanted to give more money to SNIB, my answer is, in an ideal world, yes. However, given its reliance on FTs, we are not able to do that because we have fewer FTs to distribute. I will ask Neil Gray to comment on the advisory board.

That is very much the case. In every budget, there is always a tension between investing in the here and now, for example through mitigating the cost of living crisis and supporting household budgets and some of the most vulnerable—the £6.3 billion investment in social security speaks to that—and investing for the future. There is always a balance to be struck.

Clearly, some of our budget is for the here and now—the everyday, and keeping people’s heads above water. If we did not do that, we would be asked why. We are balancing that with some of the investments that are very much about the future and the climate change targets—putting in place the building blocks. The budget attempts to do that. We have the £6.3 billion investment in social security, but we also have £4.7 billion of capital and resource investment that is directly attributable to having a positive impact on the climate change goals. Some of that looks to the future and some will be for the just transition. Around the Cabinet table, we often have to wrestle with those competing demands.

Yes.

Yes: we will come back to you with as much of the detail of that as—

We both signed the letter. I guess that the portfolio lead is Màiri McAllan, but my overarching role across Government is to drill down and make more impactful analysis work better. Philip Raines wants to come in.

For?