Seòmar agus comataidhean

I do not have those figures in front of me. I am always keen to be as accurate as possible with the committee, so, unless my colleagues have those figures, we might have to get back to you on that.

I will answer that question in two parts. When I move to the second part, I ask you to give me a second to find the line in my book on the heat networks fund. First, I will give an overview of the work on heat in buildings.

I am pleased with the funding that we have managed to secure in draft for the coming year. It is £358.2 million, which will allow us to maintain our schemes in the coming year. That is part of a wider commitment to spend £1.8 billion by the end of the parliamentary session and will mean that, by the end of 2024-25, around £1.3 billion should have been invested.

I stress that I am very pleased about that, because I see it as being one of the principal means by which we make progress on a heavily greenhouse gas-dependent part of our economy.

If you will bear with me, I have a note of all my heat in buildings project lines, and I will find the line on Scotland’s heat network fund—here it is. The original commitment was £300 million by March 2026. We have £25 million drafted into the budget for the coming year.

On our achievements, we have funded the extension of Aberdeen City Council’s Torry heat network, which is decarbonising homes by using recovered waste heat from a new energy-from-waste facility. That is an example of what we have done to date.

In respect of the full commitment, like a lot of the work in heat in buildings, uptake is increasing. I think it was always to be expected that this would be back-loaded, as it were.

I will come to Kersti Berge if she has anything to add about that. You will have to forgive me; I have 10 or so individual schemes across the heat in buildings work.

My understanding of the heat network fund is that it offers a variety of financing mechanisms, including grants, repayable assistance and loans, to provide tailored support to public and private sector organisations. It is not limited to the work of local authorities in relation to their local heat and energy efficiency strategies. Kersti, if I am missing the point on any of that, please say more.

I obviously would prefer that every local authority had met the deadline, but, equally, I understand how all the capacity constraints that I listed can affect projects such as this and how different local authorities have different capacities to take it on. However, we are really only talking about a matter of months. As I say, I expect them all by the end of the financial year.

In that vein, my reflection on the work on the bill and the waste route map, which the committee is looking at closely, is that it is the culmination of years of work and extensive engagement. It will do two exciting things. First, it involves looking again at our targets for recycling and waste generally in the context of the climate emergency. I am conscious that some of our targets predate the emergency’s confirmation in about 2019.

I apologise—I have lost my train of thought about the second thing that the work will do, so I should probably end there.

Absolutely no decision has been taken on that, and it would be wrong of me to pre-empt the work of the task force and the business case review.

Where there is no decision, that is all that I can say.

We pointed earlier to the fact that delays—or those by any other name—are to do with ensuring that the funding is available to match the pace and development of the project within any financial year. As Alison Irvine pointed out, we have businesses cases, they are being reviewed, and there is funding in the budget for when that progresses.

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.

Thank you for the question—I will add to what Ms Gougeon has already set out.

In order to provide the most concise overview, I would point to the environmental services line in my portfolio budget, which is being increased across its lines by 4 per cent on average. I would also draw out Ms Gougeon’s final point about the nature restoration fund; that is our multi-annual £65 million fund, for which it is proposed to make £29 million available in the coming year for nature restoration and biodiversity strategy purposes. There has been a 5 per cent increase in that line from 2023-24.

I would point, too, to the funding in that budget line for our national parks—that is, the Cairngorms and Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national parks. That has been slightly increased from last year, with a 1 per cent increase across the piece. It is also important to draw attention to the public bodies within my responsibility—NatureScot and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, although it is principally NatureScot that relates to Ms Lennon’s question. There is a 6.7 per cent increase in NatureScot’s funding from last year. The increase for SEPA is 7.3 per cent but, as I have said, NatureScot is more important in relation to this particular question.