Chamber and committees

We are carrying out a piece of work to consider how we will respond formally to the Climate Change Committee. I had a meeting with it to discuss the challenges that it has rightly put to us in relation to our targets and policy direction. I will give you an example of where we are setting out more detail: the CCC challenged us on the 20 per cent reduction in car kilometres and since then we have published details on how we want to progress that. We will provide a more detailed response to the points that have been raised by the CCC.

The CCC’s updated assessment highlights that, in relation to climate change, we have gone through a process of deciding what the targets should be and setting targets and we are now much more into the delivery phase; this is when we need to take forward the measures that will deliver on the targets that we have set. That involves making difficult decisions and pivoting away from some of the traditional ways in which we have used capital and into areas that were previously not as high a priority. Ring fencing 10 per cent of the transport budget for active travel infrastructure is a good example of that. It is not long ago that investment in active travel infrastructure was in the tens of millions, not the hundreds of millions.

The challenge from the Committee on Climate Change is that it wants to see much more detail on delivery. We are considering that and are looking at how to respond to the points that it makes about providing more detail on how we will deliver those commitments.

You are right that I cannot give you that information off the top of my head. Part of the reason for that is that some of that spending will span other portfolios. There will be elements of Shona Robison’s portfolio that will support our net zero objectives and bring investment into local authorities. I am more than happy to take away your points and see whether we can provide you with more detail, if that would assist the committee with its inquiry and would be useful.

To be clear, are you asking about town centre businesses that are finding it difficult to secure funding to decarbonise their businesses? The heat decarbonisation fund is not only for housing; it is also for non-domestic premises. That might be a route for some businesses in towns and city centres.

A lot of the work that is done on cybersecurity is business as usual for public agencies. It is part of their information technology infrastructure funding. However, the Government does not specifically ring fence budget for a public agency to use for cybersecurity. It is for that public agency to determine what it needs to use from its budget for cybersecurity purposes.

Some work is being done on cybersecurity within, I think, the justice portfolio, through the work that it does with the National Cyber Security Centre. We also do some work through the Scottish Business Resilience Centre, which is based at the University of Stirling, to support businesses in cybersecurity in Scotland. I do not know whether the SBRC gets funding from the Government, but we are certainly a partner.

There is no specific budget line for cybersecurity. It would be part of the wider IT budget lines within any public agency.

You will be aware that, on 13 January or thereabouts, we set out our plan for reducing car kilometres by 20 per cent. That plan included a range of actions that we will take to achieve that aim. One of the most significant areas of investment that will help us to tackle the issue is the provision of active travel infrastructure. I am a big believer in the view that, if you put in the right active travel infrastructure in the right place, people will use it. Experience in other parts of the world bears that out. That is why there has been a significant increase in our investment in active travel. We have committed to deploying 10 per cent of our transport budget on active travel by the end of the current parliamentary session. That will result in more than £300 million a year being invested in active travel infrastructure and programmes, which represents a massive increase over a relatively short period of time.

Active travel infrastructure will make a significant impact in helping to reduce car miles and, in particular, the use of cars for short journeys. I say that not because I think that everyone will just jump on their bikes but because I think that, if we design and develop active travel infrastructure in the right way, it can deliver better communities and better areas for people to live in.

Some of the big active travel infrastructure that has been built in recent years has had a transformational effect on neighbourhoods. A very good example of that, which I often refer to, is the south city way in Glasgow, which I have used regularly. It has brought about a positive transformation in that area. Similarly, Sauchiehall Street in Glasgow has been transformed into a much better, more pleasant place. As well as tackling car use, the development of active travel infrastructure can create better environments and better communities.

There also needs to be better provision of bus services. About 80 per cent of all public transport journeys are by bus. Bus travel is the most flexible and adaptable form of mass transit there is. That is why we committed to the bus priority partnership programme. We want transport by bus to be seen as much more of a priority by creating rapid corridors for buses to use, in order to improve reliability and shorten journey times.

We need to make bus travel more attractive to people. The average speed of a bus on Hope Street in Glasgow is about 4mph, which is ridiculous. Why is that? It is because of congestion and other problems on the road. That leads to buses being seen as unreliable and slow. I think that bus prioritisation, which has already been taken forward in some local authority areas, can make a big difference in making bus travel a much more attractive option.

You mentioned STPR2, in which we have set out some bold ideas and visions. Projects such as the Clyde metro, the development of rapid bus transport up in the north-east and the Edinburgh mass transit programme could all play a big part in supporting people to make the transition from using their car—for short journeys, in particular—to using active travel or public transport.

In addition, as of yesterday, our under-22s are able to travel free on buses. That will help to embed greater use of public transport in the behaviour of our future generation, thereby supporting us to help people to make better use of public transport instead of travelling by car.

I would expect local authorities to have a good understanding of their housing stock, as should social housing providers in general. They will have knowledge of which housing has had retrofit energy improvements, whether through the area-based heating schemes or other schemes. Therefore, they should have a certain level of data. The issue might be that there is data that some of the private sector investors are unable to access or get an understanding of, rather than that there are no data there. I will take that point away to check for you, convener.

The second issue is about scale. I have discussed that issue with potential private investors, who have said that they need scale in order to make the capital investment that they believe is necessary to make delivering a programme financially viable.

Alongside the finance task force that I mentioned earlier, we are looking at what we need to put in place in order to lever in some of that private sector investment. That might involve bringing together some of our cities to form alliances or partnerships to put forward joint proposals that would give the sector the scale that it is looking for. In my previous portfolio, when I was the minister who was responsible for cities, we discussed that possibility. For example, we could have an Edinburgh and Dundee partnership or a Glasgow and Aberdeen partnership, which could take a shared prospectus to the private sector to see whether the proposal was of a scale that the sector could deliver on.

That is a reasonable challenge from the private sector. The issue has been raised with us, and the finance task force can consider it. We then need to think about how we can create the right partnerships to assist with that.

My final point is that some social housing providers might have only a couple of hundred houses, so they do not have the scale to get the level of private sector investment that they are looking for. They might get public sector investment, but not necessarily private sector investment. Therefore, we need to bring some of those providers together, so that we can offer proposals on a scale that will attract private sector investment. Given the scale of what we have to achieve, the public energy agency can support us in that role in the years ahead.

I do not think that we need the agency for the purpose of getting the data—local authorities should be able to draw that data together. However, if there is a lack of data, I will take that away and consider why that is the case, what needs to be put in place in order to improve the quality of that data, and whether resource needs to be provided to allow local authorities and social housing providers to deliver that.

I might be wrong, but I would like to think that social housing providers, such as housing associations, will be in a different situation compared with local authorities, because their housing stock is often at a smaller level. Therefore, they will have a much more detailed understanding of the improvements that they have already carried out.

I will take those points away and try to find out why there is a lack of data and what can be done to improve the situation.

I agree with your point. The danger is that we wait for the public energy agency to get up to full tilt so that it can co-ordinate some of that work, and we lose time while investors are looking to make an investment just now, provided that they can get access to the right data. We need to take on that challenge. I am happy to take the point away to get more of a detailed understanding of the issue and consider what we can do to address it.

Another example could relate to district heating systems. Trying to facilitate and bring together a scheme of that nature would require resource support to get all the interested parties together. I will take that away and come back to you with more details on specific funding pots that might be available at the national level which community-based organisations could apply to.

You will be aware of the climate hubs that we are creating to try to help to create a much more sustainable approach to changing local communities to tackle the climate emergency. The first two are already up and running. We also have plans to roll out further climate towns. That might be one route for some towns and communities, but it might not always be the case. I can get further details on that for you and on other funding pots that might be available.

It is also worth thinking about funding pots that might not sit in my portfolio and that can help to deliver programmes that assist us in meeting our net zero targets. The funding will not all come through my portfolio; some of it will sit in other portfolios. I can take that away and ask officials to pull together some of the details for you.

Sure. The figure of £1.6 billion was based on the draft heat in buildings strategy at the time. Following the consultation and engagement on that, the revised figure is £1.8 billion. Some of that sits in my portfolio and some of it may sit in the housing portfolio. Again, I am more than happy to give you more detailed information on how that will be broken down between the portfolios, if that would be useful. I do not have that to hand, unless Kerry Twyman has it.

Thank you for inviting me to give evidence on the net zero, energy and transport portfolio budget for 2022-23.

The portfolio draws together many of the key strands that are required to deliver on the Government’s ambitious and world-leading plans around climate change. The portfolio budget and policy areas will ensure that significant progress is made in delivering the commitments that are embedded in the programme for government and the Bute house agreement, thereby enabling the Scottish Government to successfully meet its statutory climate targets and protect the natural environment, while continuing to support the most vulnerable in society and deliver a safe, accessible and affordable public transport system.

Our ambitious 2022-23 budget requires a sea change in the direction of Government expenditure, with reprioritisation towards programmes that underpin our move to a green agenda and cover all aspects of the portfolio: the natural environment, public transport, active travel, energy and climate change.

In the budget, we are spending more than £3.4 billion on transport, including investment of almost £1.4 billion to maintain, improve and decarbonise Scotland’s rail network, and £414 million to support bus services and their use through concessionary travel schemes, including the extension of free bus travel for young persons aged under 22. We will provide a record level of investment in walking, wheeling and cycling, which is increasing to £150 million—an increase of 30 per cent from the 2021-22 figure.

We are also providing record investment to protect and restore nature, including our peatlands, and to tackle the causes of biodiversity loss. We will continue to support our forestry bodies to deliver on the woodlands creation target, which will see 15,000 hectares of new planting in 2022-23.

We recognise that substantial investment is needed to deliver on our waste and recycling targets, and in this year’s budget we are investing more than £43 million to drive Scotland’s circular economy, which will reduce reliance on scare resources and reduce waste.

We are committed to taking strong action to meet the climate challenge and are investing almost £50 million in climate action, including £20 million for the just transition fund to accelerate the development of a transformed and decarbonised economy in the north-east and Moray.

Finally, we will continue to provide significant budget for energy to support heat decarbonisation in order to make our homes and buildings warmer, greener and more energy efficient. That will include increasing funding to help to support the fuel poor through heat transition.

The portfolio’s budget delivers on an ambitious agenda, but it is not without risks, such as the on-going impact of Covid on the public transport system and the uncertainty around demand-led schemes such as the under-22 concessionary travel scheme. However, I reassure the committee that I will continue to reprioritise within my budget not only to meet our legal, statutory and contractual commitments but to achieve value for money against a backdrop of a challenging fiscal position.

I am more than happy to respond to any questions that committee members might have.