Official Report 600KB pdf
Welcome back to this meeting of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. Our next agenda item is an evidence session on the budget with the cabinet secretary.
The cabinet secretary would like to make a brief opening statement, so I will hand over to her.
Thank you. It is always helpful to be able to summarise before any questions are asked, so I am grateful for the opportunity to do so. Today’s meeting is part of a much longer and wider process and I know that the committee has already done a great deal of pre-budget scrutiny.
It is important to set our conversation in the context of the Scottish Government’s overall approach to the budget. As the First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government have made clear, the budget focuses on a fiscal programme that will deliver for the people of Scotland and that is balanced, sustainable and impactful. Our focus is to align Government spending with the delivery of our four priorities: eradicating child poverty, growing the economy, tackling the climate emergency and ensuring high quality and sustainable public services.
However, it is clear that the Scottish Government continues to face significant pressures that are outwith our control, including a constrained funding settlement from the UK spending review, rising costs across public services and demographic trends that increase demand for health and social care. Following the UK autumn budget, resource funding is expected to grow by an average of only 1.1 per cent in real terms each year across the forecast period. For capital funding, which makes up the majority of my portfolio’s requirement, the position is even more challenging, with Scotland’s capital block grant due to reduce in real terms by 0.3 per cent per annum until 2029-30. Nevertheless, the budget and the Scottish spending review protect and build on the substantial investments that this Government has already delivered for the people of Scotland.
I am proud that the 2026-27 budget commits record funding of more than £5 billion for activities that will have a positive impact on the delivery of our climate change goals, including those to deliver on the potential of renewables, help tackle climate change, increase climate resilience and protect and restore nature. That underlines the important cross-portfolio approach that we take to tackling the climate crisis, recognising that reducing our emissions and mitigating the impacts of climate change offers an unprecedented opportunity to build a more resilient and prosperous economy that is fit for the future. Action to minimise our country’s contribution to global warming also brings with it innovation and systems change that can provide jobs, improve human and environmental health, reduce the cost of living, create energy and food security and position Scotland as an exporter of expertise.
As part of that, my portfolio will provide £436 million to support initiatives accelerating the transition to net zero, restoring nature, and enabling communities and businesses to build resilience to climate impacts and, crucially, will do so while unlocking responsible private investment and supporting skilled jobs across Scotland.
The budget supports policy development and public engagement for climate change and adaptation. I have protected the funding to support climate action hubs that directly involve communities—something I view as essential in our journey towards net zero. We now have 24 such hubs active across Scotland and those have held a total of 781 training and learning events, reaching more than 10,500 people, as well as providing non-financial support to 1,048 community groups.
The £26 million for nature restoration stays at the record levels of last year, keeping us on track to deliver the ambitions set out in the Scottish biodiversity strategy and delivery plan.
The activities in my portfolio to help tackle the climate and nature emergencies have an impact on wider Government priorities, particularly on growing our economy. The budget provides £93 million to maintain momentum in building critical offshore wind infrastructure and developing the supply chain, leveraging significant private investment to maximise economic impact and create thousands of jobs.
The budget provides £16 million for the just transition fund, responding to the particular needs of the north-east and Moray by delivering benefits for businesses, workers and communities. That means that we can continue supporting initiatives like the energy transition zone’s energy transition skills hub, which was opened by the First Minister in September and was delivered with £4.5 million of Scottish Government just transition funding, combined with ETZ investment.
I am determined to secure Grangemouth’s just transition, and the budget builds on work that we have already announced, which includes supporting the construction of MiAlgae’s new omega-3-producing bioreactor at Grangemouth, which looks to create up to 130 direct jobs by 2029. The £6.2 million of Scottish Government funding to support Celtic Renewables’ new biorefinery project in Grangemouth will create up to 149 direct roles.
11:45
I recognise the importance of our regulators, public bodies such as SEPA, which keep us safe from environmental harm and help to keep our air and water clean, alongside playing a pivotal role in providing flood warnings to families and businesses across Scotland, and NatureScot, in ensuring that we all flourish in Scotland’s landscape.
Thank you, cabinet secretary. Your two officials will be thinking that I was extremely rude in not introducing them, so let me do that now. They are Annabel Turpie, director in the Scottish Government’s directorate-general for net zero, and Karen Thomas, head of climate action and energy portfolio finance. Welcome to you both, and excuse my rudery.
My first question will be short, like your opening statement, cabinet secretary. Tackling the climate emergency is classed as one of the four key priorities, but the climate action and energy portfolio allocation is flat in cash terms in the spending review. Are you concerned?
I would always like more money—and every single cabinet secretary will say the same thing. We have to work within our constraints and the settlement that we have been given. The spending review does not replace the annual budget processes, where I will be negotiating with Cabinet colleagues on future budget settlements.
Some programmes that have previously been funded are coming to a natural end. The recycling improvement fund comes to an end this year. It has allocated £66 million to 48 projects. The Scottish industrial energy transformation fund is ending, with focus shifting to development of the new industrial decarbonisation programme. Our investment to support the national flood resilience strategy has concluded; flood defence schemes continue to be funded through local government.
We are facing a very challenging fiscal environment. Like every cabinet secretary, I had to come forward with priorities. I want to prioritise actions in the climate change plan to deliver on the first carbon budget, and I think that the settlement that I have been given as part of the budget allows us to do that. A great deal of work will certainly be done over the next year to ensure that we reach the carbon budget.
That said, I have had to make some very difficult decisions about some of the things that we can no longer support, because of the fiscal settlement. Some areas of work that were expected to be at commercialisation by this point, such as wave energy, have been given £72 million since 2014. It is a matter of great regret to me that I was not able to fund them further, although I am discussing what could be done in the future.
I have had to make some very hard decisions, as has every single cabinet secretary, but I am content that I am able to carry on. I am particularly pleased that I was able to protect the nature restoration fund of £26 million, meaning that it has been at that level for two consecutive years. What that delivers in halting biodiversity loss is significant and important to the people of Scotland.
In summary, are you saying, “hard but fair,” and that you are not concerned?
I am saying that I would have liked not to have to cut things where I have done, but I have had to prioritise certain actions that deliver on halting biodiversity loss, reducing emissions and supporting the just transition for the north-east and Moray, Grangemouth and Mossmorran.
So, delivering net zero in your portfolio is all on target with the budget, is it?
We also have to recognise that around £5 billion is going towards climate action across the whole of Government. Climate action does not just happen in this portfolio. I was happy to support Mairi Gougeon, Màiri McAllan and Fiona Hyslop on their allocations, as they will be delivering significant emissions reductions.
As you have pointed out, cabinet secretary, it is always difficult to balance the books, but the just transition, which is close to my heart and yours, is something that we have to get right, particularly for the north-east of Scotland. Can the committee be assured that that investment will continue in the north-east to help with the just transition? Is the Scottish Government continuing to pressurise the UK Government in that area? Is there any ability to be more flexible with that funding to allow, for example, some revenue funding for community projects, in particular, which can make a real difference not only in the shift to net zero but possibly in securing future job opportunities?
The answer to all those questions is, I think, yes. Every year, I ask my officials to carry out an analysis of the just transition funding to see what it has been able to achieve and every year—certainly since I have had it in my portfolio—I have wanted to ensure that it is adaptable with regard to the types of projects that are covered. In some years, we have, in effect, focused the funding. Last year, for example, we focused it on skills and job creation, and we were able to help some companies invest in new equipment to allow them to pivot to different technologies and sectors for their order books, particularly in the supply chain.
As you have said, we have previously had a large focus on community action. I have been able to look at the analysis of what has been funded, and that is an area where I want to be able to do more. It can be quite difficult to quantify some of the actions that the funding delivers in terms of just transition, but there are wider associated benefits such as job creation and community resilience for voluntary groups alongside the reductions in carbon emissions and the ability to pivot to different activities.
Every year of the just transition fund, I ask for that analysis, but we also look at the trends and the feedback that we get from those areas on what is needed. Last year, we focused particularly on skills gaps, because we were hearing from people that that issue had to be addressed, and a great deal of that focus was on funding courses associated with reskilling and upskilling, providing training opportunities and allowing companies to diversify so that they could employ more people.
The ambition is to reach 40GW of new offshore wind capacity in the next 15 years. What will be the impact of reducing the budget for supporting the supply chain? Is there any way out of that? Do you think that that is sending the right signals to companies? Obviously, it will be somewhat frustrating for them, considering that they are also having to put up with CFD, transmission charges and everything else that is in the mix. Is there any way that more support, and more comfort, can be given to secure the future and jobs on that front?
Last year, because of the way in which developments with CFD and auction rounds were going, there was overcapacity in supply chains as a result of the support that was given to them. All of that money had been spent, so we adjusted it this year in view of the situation that we are in and what need there is for supply chain support. There is still substantial support for the supply chain, but it is a blend of capital and financial transactions that amounts to £93 million.
We are going to take a commercial-first approach, as we have done with all the supply chain money when there has been a need for it and when it has been deployed. This year, we have adjusted it and have been able to make a small reduction. In future years, however, there might be more demand for it. As I said, we will take a commercial-first approach. We have been able to support Kishorn Port’s supply chain and port facilities, for example, and we have leveraged in £150 million of private investment on top of the moneys that have been given to the supply chain. We have also assisted Sumitomo to get its factory up and running. It is really based on that commercial-first approach. We are not going to put out money to where it is not needed. We want to be fleet of foot and get the money to where it is needed.
I will ask a brief question, because I know that we are short of time. Does the fact that it involves a combination of resourcing, including financial transactions, give you more flexibility to shift that money about if the commercial opportunities arise?
Yes.
Thank you.
Annabel Turpie would like to come in.
Just to clarify, £150 million of Scottish Government money has leveraged in £670 million of private investment.
Sorry—I got the figures wrong.
Yes, I thought that you would want that corrected, cabinet secretary.
As we see across the portfolio, we are really focused on how we make our money work as hard as it can. It is about private sector investment, getting money out to communities and providing the flexibility that you talked about, Mr Stewart, but it is also about how we can work with the UK Government in quite a complicated reserved and devolved area to make sure that we are leveraging funding for Scotland.
For just transition fund money and offshore wind money, we are able to track where there has been inward investment. There are also our Scottish Development International activities. Three Government ministers went to the Osaka expo, and we have been able to quantify that £23 million of inward investment came into Scotland as a result of those three interventions. We can track where Scottish Government investment leads to greater investment from the private sector.
Thank you.
We are halfway through the 10-year period of the £500 million transition funding for the north-east and Moray. Can you clarify how much of that £500 million has been committed so far?
I need to find the exact figure. I think that it is just under £100 million at this point.
It is £83.5 million.
A lot more needs to be done. The fiscal situation that we are in has made it difficult to deploy as much money as was set out by previous First Ministers who made that commitment.
Kevin Stewart made the point that we need to look to where we can get assistance from the UK Government on just transition. You are right that we are committed to that just transition funding, but the fiscal settlement has made it very difficult.
Are you still confident that we will get to that £500 million figure within the 10-year period?
I would like to be able to deploy that—of course I would.
It seems strange that only 20 per cent of that figure has been committed but we are almost halfway through the timescale.
That is a reflection of the fiscal difficulties that we have right now.
Okay. Thanks.
That was a bit quicker than I anticipated. Michael Matheson has a question.
What was the rationale behind ending funding for Wave Energy Scotland?
That was very regrettable, and I wish that I did not have to make decisions like that. We are in discussions with Wave Energy Scotland about that.
Wave Energy Scotland was expected to be at commercialisation by this point. It still has an ask of Government, but I was unable to provide that in the budget. I had to go to Cabinet with a note of areas that were prioritised and areas that, sadly, could not be prioritised. The rationale lies in the constraints that I have been under when it comes to delivery, which the finance secretary has asked every cabinet secretary about.
I would like to be able to find a way to support Wave Energy Scotland. I feel very strongly that Great British Energy should be assisting technologies that are yet to achieve commercialisation. GB Energy seems to be going after technologies that are already commercialised, when it is the ones that have potential, such as wave and tidal, that need Government assistance. I have made that point to the energy minister at UK Government level, and I have said in public where the UK Government could assist the Scottish Government in getting some of those technologies to commerciality. I believe that the UK Government also needs to look at why those technologies are not getting to commercialisation—there need to be favourable conditions and they need assistance. It is regrettable that I was not able to put any funding towards Wave Energy Scotland but I was in a very difficult position.
12:00
My understanding is that they were looking for about £3.08 million over the next two financial years—£1.7 million this year and £1.3 million next year—which appears to be a very small part of the £436 million in your budget. From what we have been told, the consequence is that Wave Energy Scotland—which the Scottish Government set up in 2014—will be closed down and 10 full-time-equivalent jobs will be lost. Mocean Energy, a company based in Edinburgh, has said that it will have to close down, with 13 direct jobs being lost. What message does that cut send out about our ambition on marine energy in general, if we are quite literally pulling the plug on the key parts of trying to deliver wave energy?
My officials have been working with Wave Energy Scotland to get more clarity around future planning to get them to commercialisation. That has been happening since September 2024. My officials advised that the Scottish Government put forward a budget proposal for limited funding, but we were clear that it would have to be contingent on budget affordability. Those conversations will continue. We need to see a business plan from Wave Energy Scotland that shows how it can get to commercialisation. We have not had the clarity on how it is going to do that.
I do not want to cut anything. I do not want to be in a position in which I have to make such decisions. I had to make some very hard decisions around that, about what we could prioritise. We are still talking to Wave Energy Scotland about future funding options.
WES has told us that, given that the funding ends next month, it has to start giving people statutory notice. I am not sure what the timescale is for the conclusion of the discussions with Wave Energy Scotland, but it would appear that, if that is not resolved in the very near future, it will be lost. Cabinet secretary, are you saying that funding in the next financial year is contingent on having a business case and a business plan that satisfy you?
It has to be able to set out a business plan that takes it to commercialisation. My officials are speaking to Wave Energy Scotland and if there is anything that can be done to stop what you have just outlined, I want to be able to figure out whether we can support them. I cannot say any more than that because those discussions are still happening.
Okay. When do you expect them to be concluded? Wave Energy Scotland is basically saying that it is going to have to lay folk off now. There is no tailing off of the money, it just ends at the end of March.
I am not going to commit to anything without speaking to my officials on the latest situation and the discussions that they have had with Wave Energy Scotland.
It would be helpful if you could keep the committee up to date on that matter, given the correspondence that we have received from Wave Energy Scotland and from the sector.
I will do.
My second area of questions is on the issue of the energy transition budget, which is seeing a 45 per cent reduction going into the next financial year. Can you advise us where that 45 per cent reduction is being secured from?
The £48.2 million energy transition budget is capital resource supporting that shift. Some of the projects that I mentioned are coming to a natural end, which results in that decrease. I mentioned the recycling improvement fund; the Scottish industrial energy transformation fund is ending as well, as is the investment to support the launch of the national flood resilience strategy.
The budget has been reconfigured to reflect projects that we have taken forward and other, existing projects that are continuing. That is why there is a decrease. We were able to fund everything that we committed to in the programme for government. The reason for the reduction is those other projects coming to an end.
Okay, so the 45 per cent reduction is all associated with projects coming to an end.
On whether it is all associated with that, I would need to bring in Karen Thomas.
That budget covers a range of different programmes, and there is some reduction beyond. Basically, the projects that are coming to an end—forgive me until I find the right set of figures.
It may be helpful for me to mention some of the new things that we are funding in that space. There is a £15 million package of funding for MiAlgae to build its site in the Grangemouth industrial complex, and there is funding for Celtic Renewables as well. We are doing a great deal of work on good practice principles to put things in place that will create more community benefits. A lot of work has been done on that in the space of transition, given the economic shocks that we have faced.
I think that Karen Thomas can now give us a breakdown of the 45 per cent reduction.
Yes. The 45 per cent reduction is predominantly made up of the Scottish industrial energy transformation fund coming to an end, which was £4.5 million; the emerging energy technologies fund, which was £6 million; and hydrogen investment of £10.5 million. Those have been coming to a conclusion. There is continued investment in Grangemouth to the extent of £15 million within that budget line. Those transition funds are moving into the new space of the industrial decarbonisation strategy, which is in development alongside the climate change plan.
They are also being used to fund the community and renewable energy scheme, which enables communities to have more access to the expertise and the associated capital that they might need for community energy.
This is not so much in the budget space, but you will have noticed that we also have a pilot programme on repowering opportunities, which is happening in Forestry and Land Scotland, for communities to have an option to have those opportunities first.
Thanks. My final area of questions is the funding and resourcing of the energy consents unit. That remains in the energy transition budget line, but ministerial responsibilities will move to the Minister for Public Finance. I want to understand the rationale for that. Are you satisfied that the ECU has sufficient resource to meet the demand that it is facing? Alongside that, are you satisfied that the statutory consultees such as NatureScot have the necessary resources available to them to meet the increasing demand that they are facing and ensure the timely discharge of consent applications?
We are continually monitoring that. In a period in which there was a moratorium on spend, the ECU capacity uplift of more than twice the amount of personnel was the only area in which we were able to spend money, and we did that because of the demands that you mention.
I think that I started that process, if I recall correctly.
Thank you. The ECU has more than twice the capacity that it had, in order to deal with the demand. We want to be able to deliver those consents within a year, and we are certainly on target to do that. On your point about the other statutory consultees such as NatureScot, we continually monitor their workload that is associated with this area.
Another area that we have put investment into is the national planning hub. That is still in the early stages and it is focusing only on hydrogen at the moment. It supports expertise and addresses capacity gaps that might exist for local authorities to be able to deal with the very complex applications that might happen in that space. At the moment, it is in the hydrogen space, but it could be expanded, because a lot of the applications and the resources that are associated with it are very complex, and we want to be able to give assistance to local authorities as well.
There are a number of reasons why the ECU budget is still in my portfolio. Obviously, the permanent secretary wants to keep it in the structures that remain, but it is also the case that the policies that are associated with the good practice principles and with consents, as well as new policies that are developed as a result of movements in the UK Government, will affect the ECU. Ivan McKee has taken on responsibilities for final consent decisions, but not policy.
Right—it is my turn. Let us talk about the Crown Estate. The ScotWind leasing round generated about £750 million, and it is all being spent very quickly. How much have you got to help your budget to tackle the climate emergency?
On numbers, I might have to turn to my officials, but what happened was that we were able to use money from ScotWind for climate action not just in my portfolio, but in portfolios that are associated with climate action, such as Mairi Gougeon’s portfolio.
I have been passed a note of the numbers. In finance and local government, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has asked for funding to respond to the climate emergency, and £70 million was associated with that.
How much?
It is £70 million—ScotWind capital was £52 million, and ScotWind resource was £18 million, coming to a total of £70 million. In my portfolio, support for offshore wind capital investment, the nature restoration fund and the energy transition fund received £179.9 million of ScotWind capital and £5 million of ScotWind resource, coming to a total of £184.9 million. In the rural affairs, land reform and islands portfolio, there was ScotWind capital of £30.6 million for progress on transformation and reform of the agriculture and food and drink industries, including energy efficiency and improved resilience. In the transport portfolio, there was ScotWind capital of £78.5 million for capital investment for sustainable and active travel programmes and low-carbon programmes.
I am just doing the maths—I am not as quick as I should be.
Those figures suggest that approximately half of the money from ScotWind has gone back into work to tackle the climate emergency. The other half has already gone in the resource budget, has it not?
I can only speak to what is in my portfolio and the information that I have before me. We can get that information from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government and write to you.
We can see that £286 million is going in the next two years to the resource budget, and some went last year as well.
I made the argument that it was right to use ScotWind money for climate action and the associated economic benefits that can come from that.
I think that, if we are putting wind turbines out at sea, it is right to use that money to help us with our progress towards net zero. However, about 50 per cent of it seems to have been spent elsewhere.
Mark Ruskell has some questions.
Last week, we asked the Cabinet Secretary for Transport about how the net zero assessment was working. She indicated that it is used in the early development of policies but that you would be the best person to talk about how it is being rolled out across Government.
Thank you, Fiona.
I am just passing that on.
You will be aware of the long time that it has taken to get the three elements of the joint budget review in place. The net zero assessment is really the critical bit, as it helps us understand how climate change is being embedded into those early decisions about policies. I will leave it to you to fill in the gaps.
12:15
You and I need to take some credit for that—
I will not take the credit, but you can—
—because we put forward the argument to former cabinet secretaries for a climate change taxonomy to be associated with budget spend. The taxonomy is non-statutory, but it is a useful supporting budget document that provides a read-across of where funding is contributing to climate action across several portfolios, and it sets out how the budget will impact the priority of tackling climate change.
The taxonomy is divided into two parts. There is an overarching climate narrative that highlights key spending areas from multiple portfolios that contribute to the response to climate change. The second part provides a carbon taxonomy assessment and commentary on the capital and resource budget.
That work is always improving, because it is quite nascent. I am not sure whether other Governments do such taxonomies. I am not aware of the UK Government doing anything similar, although I would certainly love to see a taxonomy of the UK Government’s budget. Given our ambitions, the question of how we can assess every Government’s budget spend across different areas is something that can potentially be fleshed out more widely in the interministerial intergovernmental groups of the four nations.
The net zero assessment has been designed to be proportionate. It operates on a threshold of a minimum of 10,000 tonnes of COper year and includes forecast emissions that are based on the impact of policies. Annual reports about that come to me, and the outputs of any individual net zero assessments are used internally in the Government.
Therefore, I understand why Ms Hyslop said that. She operates within the net zero assessment for transport and reports back to me, but it is my directorates that collate all that information and, with finance colleagues, produce the final taxonomy.
It would be great to see more detail about that, particularly if there is early thinking about capital infrastructure projects or programmes. This goes back to the conversation that we had about the climate change plan. If the work is being done, it would be good to know whether it is being done across the whole Government, with the 10,000 tonne threshold being the trigger for the work, or whether it is being done just in the transport and housing portfolios. If there is such evidence and information, that would be good to see.
Climate change is clearly not the only factor in making decisions, but, if a policy decision results in going over the 10,000 tonne threshold, it would be good for that work to be considered and for us to see the output. That would let us know the impact of the policy and whether it is positive or negative. The taxonomy just puts the spend into groupings; it does not tell us the extent of the impact of policy decisions in a positive or negative way.
I understand that you would like to see a breakdown of the taxonomy detail. A lot of the material for the taxonomy is for internal governmental purposes to allow us to make decisions on the budget. However, I confirm that it is not just for my portfolio or for transport or rural affairs, land reform and islands; it is across the Government. For example, it is also applied to health spend—a great deal of work has been done in the health space to reduce the emissions that are associated with health spend.
The taxonomy is at the level of detail that we can provide to the public, but I will not commit to producing any more documents without taking that request away to consider. However, I can provide more detail on how the taxonomy is being used.
Okay.
My question is similar. In the response to the committee’s pre-budget report, the Scottish Government suggested that there will be annual reporting on the outputs from the net zero assessment. Will you say more about when that annual reporting will take place?
Annual reports will be made, and the next annual report will be in 2027. It is not possible for me to give a date as the next Government is not yet in place, but it will be in 2027. If I have any more granular detail on when the report is planned, I will let the committee know.
Will you tell us a bit more about how it will provide us with a deeper understanding of the costs and benefits of net zero policy when we are scrutinising the budget?
It will include the emissions impact and the mitigation and reduction options that are implemented and how all that is reflected in the climate change taxonomy. I will write to the committee with the detail of what that will look like so that you know what to expect.
Bob Doris has some questions.
Mark Ruskell has exhausted most of the taxonomy questions, which is relatively new for me to see. I take no credit for the development of the climate change taxonomy, cabinet secretary, but I can look at the capital taxonomy of the budget and see that, for example, £543 million is earmarked as negative high or low expenditure, and £2.9 billion is positive high or low. We get a breakdown of where the money will go and the impact of it, but there is a narrative around that. There could be essential spend under the negative high category—it could be an essential road safety project or a resilience project that just needs to be done. What is next for the taxonomy? There needs to be more of a narrative that explains that, sometimes, the Government just has to do things that do not always fit in the budget line that you want them to go in, which would be positive on the taxonomy front. There should be more understanding of what is next and a narrative around some of it.
That is an important point, because the Government has to make lots of considerations about what it spends. Climate change is one of the Government’s four priorities, but it is not the only priority. If something that we did to reduce emissions had the knock-on effect of child poverty rising, we clearly would not want to do that, so we have to take everything in the round. You mentioned road safety. The dualling of the A9 is a road safety measure that has been taken because of the catalogue of serious accidents that have taken place on that road. You would not want to look only at the climate taxonomy; everything has to be taken in context, as you rightly point out.
That is very helpful.
I am just seeing whether anyone else has any questions. I will ask a quick one. How did this year’s budget for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency compare with last year’s?
Oh, gosh, right. This is where I need to bring in Karen Thomas. These are the quick-fire questions.
I like to ask them at the end of the meeting, cabinet secretary—just to make sure.
I know that you like them. SEPA—we will need to get the spreadsheet out.
Compared with the autumn budget revision comparator, SEPA’s budget has dropped slightly, by 3 per cent. When you compare that against the budget bill for last year—the initial allocation—it has increased by 1 per cent. It is a £1.8 million increase on last year’s budget bill for resource. In particular, it relates to setting up the flood advisory service.
The evidence that we heard from SEPA during the course of this past year is that its workload is forever increasing. There will be more stuff for it to do, especially when it comes to climate change and things such as water abstraction, yet the budget is flat. Will SEPA be happy with that? Will it be able to deliver all the things that it has to deliver in its portfolio?
We have to look at that every year. We always have to take into account what we are asking our public bodies to do and whether they are well resourced to do it.
Given that SEPA still does not have its computer system up and running, that it still does not have all the data in front of it and that it is being asked to do more and more things, I am suggesting that it is unlikely that it will ever be able to deliver.
I meet SEPA regularly, so it can take those issues and we can discuss them when we have those meetings.
I am sure that SEPA will bring them to you. Mark Ruskell has a quick question to ask.
The £3 million a year for Mossmorran for the next three years is very welcome. I am trying to get a sense of where that sits and whether there are funds in your portfolio that could be used to invest in Mossmorran, whether that is investment in new industry coming to the site or transition funds that the community could benefit from. Having been involved in some of the task force meetings with Fife Council, the UK energy minister and Richard Lochhead, it feels that we are now at a point at which investment needs to be crowded into the site, and it could come from different parts of both Governments.
Both Governments have a responsibility for the future of Mossmorran. The budget line is not in my portfolio because it is not strictly energy related, but the budget lines for the just transition and the project willow spend are in my portfolio because the refinery is in the energy space.
A lot of work has been done across Scottish Enterprise as a result of the work that has been done on all the many projects—more than 100—that have made representations in relation to Grangemouth. Some are not suitable for the Grangemouth complex, so we always look at other areas of Scotland where they could be deployed and supported.
It is the economy budget that has the £3 million, and there are various fora in which that is being discussed, as you have just said. The Deputy First Minister is leading on that. However, I take your point. There are two Governments involved, and, if I can put it bluntly, there has to be a look at the reasons why ExxonMobil made the decision that it did, including its commentary on the fiscal set-up that prompted that decision.
Thank you for all your answers. It has been quite a marathon session for you, cabinet secretary. The good news is that the committee’s work will continue beyond this point as we move into private session.
12:26
Meeting continued in private until 13:20.
Air ais
Draft Climate Change Plan