Seòmar agus comataidhean

From what I have seen of the Deputy First Minister’s conversation with you last week, she was clear that she is still working through the implications of ScotWind, both for the current financial year and the coming one. Once she has clarity on that, I am sure that she will be happy to update the committee.

I do wish to agree with Mr Doris—whole-heartedly. He is absolutely right. I think that the Deputy First Minister is best placed to give that view, which she did. Our budget as a whole increases front-line national health service investment, uprates benefits by more than £1 billion and allows us to increase the already increased Scottish child payment, invest in blue-light services and more. The small portion of ScotWind that we have realised to date is helping to support all that, as well as key interventions relating to net zero.

As you said, work on the first strand, on creating a dedicated climate narrative in the budget, was largely discharged in 2023-24 and continues into 2024-25, as set out in annex J. That is about highlighting the most significant areas of budgetary policy that affect net zero decisions.

The objective of the second strand is to develop enhanced taxonomy for all Scottish Government spend. The committee will know that we introduced that last year and expanded it this year to cover resource spending as well as capital spending. That was a useful continuation of the work, because the new methodology allows us to look right across revenue and capital spending—the whole of the budget—and consider the impact of spending on our mitigation or adaptation work. It has been highlighted to me that there is no differentiation between mitigation and adaptation. That could be an interesting area for development in the future, but my priority in an already busy landscape is to get the third strand completed. However, given that this is a joint piece of work, I am happy to hear from the committee about improvements that it thinks would be helpful.

That is an absolutely legitimate question and I understand the committee’s interest in it. Mr Doris’s characterisation is right: the spend and the effort to date has been in funding local authorities, supported by the Scottish Futures Trust, first to assess their needs in their local area, and then to configure scalable, investable propositions. That is the stage at which most local authorities are now; they are carrying that out 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 Mr Doris says, it is a four-year fund, which is front-loaded with planning work. The next part is for the local authorities to go out to the market.

Obviously, I cannot foresee the future, but current estimates provided by local authorities and market engagement with charge point operators indicate that the 2026 target will be met through a combination of charge points funded through this fund and by private sector investment.

As we discussed before, the first portion of that particular fund’s spend is about planning for going out to the market. 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 and creating scalable propositions about what is required in their areas, and going out to market.

I should point out for the Official Report that that sits alongside the £65 million that we have invested very straightforwardly in delivering 2,700 public charge points. However, as far as the EV infrastructure fund goes, the investment to date has very deliberately been about supporting local authorities to come up with their plans to take to the market.

I will see whether Kerry Twyman wants to come in.

Again, I will respond to that, and my colleagues from Transport Scotland can come in at any stage.

In the draft budget, concessionary fares are funded to the tune of £370 million, which is an increase of 3.1 per cent. Funding is set aside to progress the extension of concessionary travel for those seeking asylum in Scotland.

I am not sure whether you discussed that with the Deputy First Minister last week. The convener is shaking his head at me, so I will try to give the appraisal as I see it.

The SPT general capital support allocation is funded through the local government finance settlement, and a decision was taken to pause that funding for 2024-25, very much in the light of the difficult financial constraints. That matter is outwith my budget, but 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 the ability to maintain its forward investment programme. I have great sympathy with SPT and public bodies that, like SPT, are dealing with a situation in which the expected funding—not guaranteed but expected—is not forthcoming. I sympathise with them because that is what I have had to do and what the Government has had to do right across the piece. The Minister for Transport and I have had to prioritise projects and funds, take difficult decisions and understand their impact.

The discussions are on-going, and I am particularly keen to draw out from those discussions the extent to which any of the proposed change would impact on the provision of services. I have tried to stress in my evidence today that, in very difficult financial circumstances, the continued running of the public transport network has been a priority. Those conversations are on-going. Should services be undermined, I would be open to looking again at what could be done.

I am sorry, Ms Lennon—I was trying to get a bit of information from my colleague. I might hand over to my colleague on that.

When it comes to the budget, what has been required of the Scottish Government and public bodies across the piece has been extraordinary. The point that the Deputy First Minister has stressed in relation to the issue—maybe not in front of this committee—is that, with the scale of the problems and challenges that we face, the opportunity to use reserves in the public sector has to be an option. The ask of SPT, just as it has been the ask of other public bodies, is: to what extent do they have reserves—which are, of course, in the public purse—that can be drawn upon, given that this is the rainy day that we have been collecting reserves for?

I do not have a note of SPT’s reserves.