Seòmar agus comataidhean

There has been a shift, which reflects the challenging capital budget allocation that we face. Not only was there a reduction in the capital allocation to the Scottish Government from the UK Government, but we have to meet significant inflationary pressures within the capital allocations. Some aspects of construction inflation are operating at 17-plus per cent. Not only is that a more challenging level of capital, but its buying power is weakened as a result of the significant inflationary pressures. We have had to balance some of that.

The reduction in the budget for motorways and the trunk road network is about reprofiling some of the life-cycle maintenance work that is carried out. There is some reprofiling of some of the structural repairs programme that was being taken forward, and some aspects of capital land and works have also had to be reduced.

A couple of areas have continued to be a priority. For example, the access road to Argyll and Bute from the A83 at the Rest and Be Thankful continues to be a priority, so allocations have continued to allow the work to be taken forward. There has been an increase in funding for the road safety programme to continue to build on the progress that we are making on road safety measures.

By and large, that is a reflection of the challenges with regard to capital allocations. It is not the case that these things will not happen, but they will take place over a longer period. We are having to stretch out some of the life-cycle maintenance work.

The expectation from our discussion with Forestry and Land Scotland is that the 16,500 hectare target can be managed within the budget settlement that we have provided.

Yes. The £15 million is within that budget and is for the purposes of the pilot specifically; it would cost more than that to remove peak fares across the whole network. Before arriving at a policy decision about whether we work to remove peak fares across the network, we are looking at the cost of that and whether there is budget allocation to provide for it.

Railway patronage has not returned to pre-pandemic levels, and neither has the farebox income, which is why we are having to put in additional investment in order to help to support ScotRail and the Caledonian sleeper service. There is budget allocation in the £1.4 billion to achieve that. Network Rail’s fixed rail network charges have increased, which adds to the cost base and has an additional cost impact; there is budget allocation within the £1.4 billion to meet that. There is also provision in the budget to continue with enhancements, such as the Levenmouth rail link project between Thornton and Leven.

However, given the capital constraints that we are facing, there will not necessarily be the same level of enhancements and expansion of the rail network in future that some people might wish to see; we do not have the capital provision to do that. We believe that the budget allocation is sufficient in order to meet what we have to do in the next financial year. However, we are having to deal with a significant number of inflationary pressures from the cost base and the fixed access charges from Network Rail, too.

We are going into a phase in which Covid support for bus operators is coming to an end. We have been engaging with the Confederation of Passenger Transport UK to identify the new bus support mechanism, which will replace the bus service operators grant, in order to deliver a model that is sustainable for the bus service operators and that also works for the taxpayer. That work is currently on-going; I do not think that it has been concluded, but I reassure you that we are engaging with the industry around how we shape that new scheme to manage the transition from the previous BSOG system to a new funding model.

There is a continued failure of Network Rail to provide the necessary level of resilience that would allow operators to achieve a higher PPM performance. Let me give you an example—

The effects have been very small. To some extent it will not make a significant difference. It is worth keeping in mind that, when we were covered by the European Union ETS, those flights were included. The order is simply covering a gap that was left when the UK ETS was introduced. Given that there are only a small number of flights between Scotland and Switzerland, and indeed between Switzerland and the UK as a whole, the overall impact is very small. However, I cannot give you specific data on that.

I am pleased to give evidence to the committee in support of the draft affirmative instrument to amend the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Order 2020. This spring, the United Kingdom emissions trading scheme authority, which is formed of the four UK Administrations, consulted on proposals to further develop the UK ETS, aligning the scheme with our ambitious net zero targets. The authority is still considering the consultation responses regarding proposals on tightening the cap and expanding the scope. We will publish a joint Government response in due course.

However, some of the operational and technical changes to the UK ETS need to come into force by 2023 and therefore the authority published an early joint Government response covering those amendments to the scheme. Together, the amendments will support the proper function of the ETS.

The amendments are contained in the draft affirmative instrument that the committee is considering today and in a negative instrument to be laid later in November. Today’s affirmative instrument will allow flights from Great Britain to Switzerland to be in scope of the UK ETS. That expansion of the scope will be extended to include Northern Ireland at a later date. Switzerland has already amended its ETS to include flights from Switzerland to the UK. The affirmative instrument will ensure a fully reciprocal arrangement that supports our climate objectives.

The instrument also makes minor amendments to the allocation of free allowances in the ETS to reflect the inclusion of the flights within the scheme. The other members of the authority are also going through a similar scrutiny process in their respective Parliaments to ensure that the legislation is consistent across all Administrations.

Ahead of publishing the final Government response to the consultation, we expect the UK ETS authority to publish the common framework agreement setting out how the four Administrations work together to deliver the UK ETS. I will be happy to provide more details on those issues once those have been published.

I am happy to respond to any questions on the affirmative instrument that the committee may have.

Some of the progress that we wanted to make during last year was not possible. We are looking to do that as part of a whole range of other requirements. For example, more issues arose from ScotWind than had been originally expected, which meant that additional resources had to be deployed from Marine Scotland to deal with that. It is clear that highly protected marine areas will be one of the key aspects of protecting our marine environment, which has an important part to play in tackling climate change and biodiversity loss. I hope that the work that could not be taken forward last year can be taken forward in the coming year.

I want to come back to your point about the marine plan and to offer you some reassurance. When we were progressing our sectoral marine plan for offshore wind energy—that piece of work, which took place over a two-year period, predates my current ministerial role—there was extensive engagement with fishing communities and stakeholders. I hope that, given our track record in taking forward that plan, fishing communities can be reassured that we will look to undertake a similar level of engagement with them in the process.

As I said, the work that we had hoped and planned to take forward last year will be done in the coming year as we progress our work on highly protected marine areas.

Yes, there are a couple of ways in which we have tried to address some of that. Over the course of the last two years, we have been developing ways of using the Scottish Futures Trust’s expertise and skills in helping to pull together projects and engaging with the private sector. We have taken some of that forward for aspects such as electric vehicle charging points and fleet replacement for local government, trying to help to pull some of that together. The Scottish Futures Trust has also been looking at where there is further work that it can take forward with COSLA to help to drive up some of the expertise that it can bring to local government and to support it in meeting some of those challenges.

We can better utilise some of the resources that we have already to help to support our colleagues in local government, but I think that there is a genuine issue there about what we can do to help to upskill some of our public sector workers.

We will be happy to come back to the committee to give you some more specifics on the timeframe.