Seòmar agus comataidhean

Convener, we are stretching the definition of my portfolio responsibilities here, but I am more than happy to take that question away.

There is a system for agencies to have business continuity and recovery plans in place. I am more than happy to take that question away and come back to the committee with some more detailed written information on that. When I was justice secretary, I was involved in working on the cyberattack on the national health service here in Scotland and across the UK. A number of hospitals and other NHS facilities were targeted, and I remember dealing with the Home Secretary of the time on some of our approaches to tackling those attacks. The role of the NCSC is to identify risks and provide advice and information, and a range of work was carried out off the back of those attacks.

I would be more than happy to come to the committee with more specific details about the internal processes for managing cybersecurity in public agencies.

I hope that we are in the recovery phase, even though we are still in the pandemic. We want our public transport system to recover. The reduction in passenger numbers over the course of the pandemic has had a significant financial impact on the sector, which has resulted in the need for a significant level of financial investment from the Scottish Government to support the sector. Railways are very resource intensive. They are expensive to run. They are fixed assets, and a lot of money had to be provided to sustain and support services even at a reduced level.

In the draft budget, therefore, we have continued to take account of some of the potential impacts of Covid on farebox revenue for both bus and rail. There are risks. We are in the realms of the unknown. Although rail leisure journeys are returning pretty much to pre-pandemic levels—they are probably not quite there, but they are similar—commuter journeys are nowhere near that. In bus travel, there is some level of recovery. It is probably recovering more quickly than rail but, again, it is not back up to pre-pandemic levels.

There are still financial pressures on the public transport network as a result of the loss of farebox revenue. During the course of the financial year, therefore, depending on what recovery in the public transport system and farebox revenue looks like, we may have to flex some of our budget to take account of that.

We are literally in the realms of the unknown, because we do not know how quick and to what extent the recovery will be over the course of the next financial year.

Another example could relate to district heating systems. Trying to facilitate and bring together a scheme of that nature would require resource support to get all the interested parties together. I will take that away and come back to you with more details on specific funding pots that might be available at the national level which community-based organisations could apply to.

You will be aware of the climate hubs that we are creating to try to help to create a much more sustainable approach to changing local communities to tackle the climate emergency. The first two are already up and running. We also have plans to roll out further climate towns. That might be one route for some towns and communities, but it might not always be the case. I can get further details on that for you and on other funding pots that might be available.

It is also worth thinking about funding pots that might not sit in my portfolio and that can help to deliver programmes that assist us in meeting our net zero targets. The funding will not all come through my portfolio; some of it will sit in other portfolios. I can take that away and ask officials to pull together some of the details for you.

I agree about the importance of the twin crises that we face—nature loss alongside climate change. Of course, climate change drives a significant part of nature loss.

Our budget line for biodiversity and natural infrastructure has increased significantly over recent years—there has been a 55 per cent increase overall. It includes £55 million of new funding to extend the nature restoration fund to £65 million.

As you rightly said, that is a multiyear fund. It will work across Scotland, and its objective is to help to create green jobs, to reinvigorate local communities, to reinforce Scotland’s green recovery, and to support large-scale multiyear, multipartner projects that can deliver transformative change. Part of the reason for its being a multiyear funding package is to give the sector reassurance of the level of funding that will be available in future years, to allow some of the long-term projects to be taken forward. Many nature-based projects are long-term ones, so we have sought to provide a funding profile that gives assurance about that.

I do not have to hand further breakdowns of how the nature restoration fund will be utilised at a lower level. However, I would be more than happy to take that away, and I will try to provide more detail, if that would be helpful.

There is.

You raise an important point. There is a capacity issue in the peatland restoration sector. It is a fairly new sector, and a limited number of companies or businesses operate in it. There is also a very small window in which peatland restoration can take place each year, which means that businesses that are involved in peatland restoration often do that work as an add-on to other things that they are involved in, because it is not sustainable in its own right. I think that the work has to be carried out in the September to October period. The sector is growing, and there are limitations in the skills that are available in it. Peatland restoration work is not viable on its own, given the very short timeframe in which it can be carried out.

There are capacity issues in the industry. I am not sure whether that is to do with people not being willing to take up the opportunity to restore peatland. I am not saying that that is not an issue, but I am not sure that it is one of the main issues. I suspect that a big part of that is access to skills and businesses being able to flex to doing peatland restoration work for a short period of time each year. That means taking their equipment away from the other things that they would normally do for the short window of time in which the work can be carried out.

You will be aware that we withdrew the proposed bill because it was criticised on the basis that it was not ambitious enough and would not drive forward the circular economy sufficiently. We decided to withdraw it and reintroduce a different piece of legislation. That is part of the background to the bill.

I expect that bill to come in the early part of this parliamentary session. I cannot say much more than that, because we have to go through a process in Government of agreeing landing slots for bills coming into Parliament and our future programme for government.

I assure you that the bill is viewed as one of the priority bills in this parliamentary session. Given the importance of making progress on the issue, I am of the view that it needs to be one of the earlier bills in the session. I will not go much further than that, but I hope that I can reassure you that it will be in, I would say, the first half of this parliamentary session.

This is partly tied up with the warm home discount scheme. For some time now—indeed, over the past year—we have been pursuing with the UK Government issues such as the future of the scheme and how it should operate, and we have only started to get a response from it. I hope that in the next couple of weeks we will be able to give a clearer indication to the sector about what will happen post-April, but, as I have said, the issue is partly tied up with some of the work that we have been doing on the UK Government’s warm home discount scheme and the reforms that it is planning to make in England and Wales. We want the system to be much more aligned with Scotland’s needs, but it appears that the UK Government is not prepared to allow that to happen.

Our capital budget reflects the cut that we have experienced in our overall capital spend; it is a cut of more than 9 per cent in our capital expenditure from the UK Government, so there has to be give somewhere and we have to reprioritise. I hope that you can see that we are pivoting our capital investment into the areas that can support the green recovery in a much more significant way. We have sought to protect and invest in those areas; I go back to the capital investment that we are making in the circular economy and the investment of £1.8 billion that we are making in the decarbonisation of properties. We are also investing in active travel infrastructure and decarbonising our rail network.

As well as having to sustain a cut in our capital budget, we are pivoting our capital investment to the areas that will help us to deliver our climate change agenda. It has an impact when capital is restricted, but we are trying to balance it out in a way that helps us to deliver our climate change ambitions. I firmly believe that the priorities that we have set out in the budget demonstrate that very clearly and highlight the Government’s intent to make sure that that is the direction of travel.

Let us consider the budget assessment of capital spend, for example. I think that around 92 per cent of the capital spend in the budget is viewed as being low impact or neutral in respect of carbon. That is an overall, positive reduction in carbon impact. That comes through in the carbon assessment process for the budget.

For individual projects, let us take peatland restoration as an example. Our commitment to delivering on the 250,000 hectares is part of our sectoral envelope for meeting our 2030 target, and it is part of our climate change plan. In developing the climate change plan, various envelopes went through an assessment, and part of that involved assessing the impact that individual policies would have in order to see whether they would align with getting to our target of 75 per cent by 2030. The 250,000 hectares figure was viewed as being one of the contributors to meeting that particular target.

There is a link between the budget and the policy. The policy is set within the climate change plan, and the budget helps to finance that. The carbon assessment that is carried out for the budget allows us some insight into that.

If we remove funding from policy areas that we know contribute adversely to climate change, for example, and use that for measures that will help to tackle climate change and achieve our targets, it is self-evident that there will be a positive outcome. However, it is always difficult to pin down exactly the net benefit that will come from an individual project. One example is peatland restoration. We know that peatland restoration will have a positive impact and that there has been a level of assessment, but it can be difficult over time to pin down how we should shift money around in a budget and why that money has made a bigger contribution than the money that we have taken away from another area.