Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will pick up on those transport themes. You mentioned the roll-out of concessionary travel for under-22s. That is a huge investment; £130 million is allocated for it in the budget. In addition, direct support to the bus companies is up from £54 million to £99 million. A lot of people write to me about the quality of bus services or about services that are going to be closed. I always point out to them the fact that the Government is investing a lot in concessionary travel and in keeping services running during the pandemic. However, a lot of people then get back to me and say, “All the money that is being invested is great, but why don’t you just nationalise it?” What is your response to that view?

In its submission, Scottish Renewables said that visual impact is the main reason why renewables applications are turned down. What changes to how projects are assessed is the industry looking for? Who is responsible for that—is it NatureScot? You briefly mentioned wild land. Are you looking for a change to how landscape is assessed? The major point of contention—if there is one, as the public strongly support onshore wind—seems to be visual impact; that is the main reason why projects are turned down or why it takes a long time for them to get through the planning process. What changes are you looking for?

I will just follow on from that—I will turn to Kirstanne Land first. In previous iterations of the NPF, we have had specific transmission projects such as the Beauly to Denny project being cited as national developments. It seems that NPF4 is a bit light on detail regarding specific infrastructure projects that are needed and where they are going to be. I am thinking about 25GW from ScotWind, 10GW from onshore wind and maybe 6GW—I do not know—from solar. As a transmission business, is SSEN Transmission looking at the plan and thinking, “There are five bits of major chunky transmission infrastructure that need to be written into it,” or is the wording and detail currently enough?

Thank you. Niall, do you want to add to that?

I have a couple of questions. First, is the UK ETS performing as we had hoped that it would? Secondly, there was some discussion a year or two ago about the UK Government introducing a carbon tax. I am not sure whether that idea was ever put to bed, whether it is still under development or whether the UK ETS effectively removes that option from the table.

One of the tools in the budget is the community bus fund, which will start to move services more towards serving and being controlled by the public interest. Will the fund be available in the next year for councils to bid into in order to do that work?

I have a couple of other questions that are directly related to the budget. There has been some criticism from the rail unions about a decline in capital spend on rail this year. Is the situation similar to that with SEPA, with a one-off spend at a certain point and budgets increasing thereafter, or does it indeed represent a decline?

Another issue that colleagues have highlighted is heat in buildings. The domestic renewable heat incentive ends, I think, at the end of March, and I understand from installers that there has been a bit of rush to apply for the RHI and to get installations under way. What will happen after that? Will there be a huge demand for grants or loans through the Energy Saving Trust after March, when there will suddenly be nothing in place?

That is a concern.

Finally, what we are seeing globally is a massive investment in the green recovery. The European Union has its green new deal package, and similar levels of capital investment are being made in the United States. In this budget, however, we are seeing a real-terms decline in capital investment over time. Does trying to get the most out of what is a declining capital budget simply tie one of our hands behind our back when it comes to meeting climate targets?

Is addressing the materiality of climate change vis-à-vis landscape the primary way of rebalancing decision making? Do other aspects apply? Community economic benefit has been proposed in the past as a material consideration in planning.