Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have already answered that question. As I have said, it is my view—the DFM has made this point, too—that reserves should be utilised for the delivery of projects, including but not limited to some of those that Mr Simpson has narrated. I reiterate that, to the extent that the discussions about reserves mean that there would be an impact on the running of services, I will continue to discuss that with SPT.

I appreciate that, convener. I do not want to take up any more time than is necessary, but this is about an inaccuracy in the published budget, which I would prefer to bring to the committee’s attention.

That is a really accurate observation. Ms Gougeon, the DFM and I have talked about the financial landscape being singularly the most challenging one in the devolution era. We all know that my climate change task requires everything to be done everywhere right across the piece. When there are financial challenges across the piece, that is, of course, a concern for me, because many interventions are needed to deliver on climate change.

I am not going to take the opportunity to theorise on Ms Gougeon’s budget. However, you are absolutely right that there are implications for me, particularly in this year, as we develop the climate change plan. I will have to consider the development of that plan in light of one year’s budget, but also remember that it is a plan to 2040—it is a generational plan. I have to be realistic about what is affordable and doable in the next year and in the coming years. Equally, I do not want us, in a plan that goes right out to 2040, to be utterly restrained by the financial circumstances that we face just now.

One theme right across the piece that needs to be, and is being, explored in order to allow us not to be affected detrimentally is the leveraging in of responsible private finance. We see that in some of the nature work that Ms Gougeon and Ms Slater are overseeing. That is a theme in what I am trying to do in decarbonising transport.

We now need to realise that we must make progress on climate change but, equally, we must realise that scarce public funds will have to be utilised where they are most required, so we will have to seek to leverage in responsible private finance, both individual and institutional. We can come back to that.

I used to sit as Ms Gougeon’s junior minister, with land reform responsibilities and oversight of investment in natural capital. I do not have those now, incidentally, but it was absolutely my view that we should, as a Government, set our expectations of what responsible private investment in nature looked like. That is why I oversaw the launch of the principles for responsible investment, as part of the national strategy for economic transformation.

I absolutely trust the Scottish National Investment Bank to do its job and to make its decisions on a commercial basis. I am not going to comment on the work that it does, but the Government definitely has expectations, which have been put in train in work that I started when I was the Minister for Environment and Land Reform.

I am sorry, Mairi. It is a bit confusing that we have the same name.

The question is welcome. The fact that the committee has discussed ScotWind and renewables more generally with the Deputy First Minister, the Cabinet Secretary for Wellbeing Economy, Fair Work and Energy and now with me—as well as, I presume, with others—demonstrates not only how multifaceted the topic is, but what a strategic priority it is for the Government, the committee and the communities that all of us represent. Renewables is one of the greatest socioeconomic opportunities that we have in Scotland and is central to our work on combating climate change.

It is important to state that I have portfolio responsibility not only for co-ordination of the net zero achievements across the Government, but for transport and heat decarbonisation. Energy sits with Mr Gray, as you know, and rural affairs sits with Ms Gougeon, but it is my job to co-ordinate the response. You are absolutely right, Mr Macpherson, to mention that one of the main interfaces between energy and my portfolio is about the interplay between protecting the environment and ensuring that we can move through the consenting, construction and operationalisation of our energy projects.

I draw your attention to two examples. The first relates to NatureScot. I mentioned that it has had a 6.7 per cent increase in its budget this year. That is to reflect an increase in its responsibilities, the principal one of which is its role in habitats assessments in respect of the development of offshore wind. My expectation—I will set this out to NatureScot—is that part of that funding will go on recruitment to ensure that it has capacity to deal with applications as promptly as we need.

Another example relates to an area that Ms Gougeon and I share. I point to Marine Scotland. Following the completion of ScotWind leasing round 1, we moved to create within the Government a ScotWind directorate, which is headed by Michelle Quinn, who has a huge amount of experience in infrastructure development in Scotland. That is to ensure that there is a laser focus on moving through the complex procedures that are required to realise the potential.

Those are just two examples from my portfolio.

On that final point, which Philip Raines referred to at the beginning of the meeting, those issues were brought to my attention minutes before coming to see you today. I am concerned to ensure that that is clarified to you later today—I will make sure that that is done. My understanding is that, as Phil said, the figures throughout the budget are absolutely accurate except for some in annex J, which are draft figures and not the final ones. I will ensure that that is clarified for you.

Ultimately, I have £4.6 billion for transport, net zero and just transition. That is part of an overall Scottish Government budget in which, through the joint budget review work, we can identify that £4.7 billion is positive for climate action. That is, I think, 75 per cent of capital spend and a smaller percentage of revenue spend. However, much of that revenue spend is for health services, social security, staff and so on, as I know the Deputy First Minister took you through.

One observation that I would make is that, if we assess real-terms spending against the Treasury gross domestic product deflators, we can see real-terms cuts to services coming to Scotland. By not matching real-terms spend over two years, in 2024-25, the UK Government’s transport resource investment is down 40 per cent, its environment, food and rural affairs budget is down 12.4 per cent and its energy security and net zero budget is down 14.1 per cent. That has knock-on consequences for what I am dealing with, but I believe that, even in those very difficult circumstances, the draft budget rises to the climate emergency and allows me to maintain a safe and reliable transport system.

Just as before, it is not right for me to speak to the decisions on woodland in a budgetary sense, because they are Ms Gougeon’s responsibility, but I accept that my overall responsibility for climate change makes them relevant to me.

As I have said, I will have to consider what is likely to be achievable in this year as I plan the climate change plan. To go back to the point that I made about the need for responsible private investment across the piece in order to rise to our climate objectives, that will be required in nature, just as it is required in transport and to decarbonise our buildings. Policy teams across Government are turning their minds to how we can realise that.

I do not have those figures in front of me, Ms Lennon. I could certainly find auditing figures that show how much SEPA has raised by charging. I know that the committee is looking very closely at the financial aspects of the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill.

My end intention is for it to be as broad as possible. However, in terms of prudent governance and decision making, it will be dependent on the outcome of the pilot that we will roll out in the spring.

That is correct, as of today, yes.