Seòmar agus comataidhean

I recognise that some stakeholders have taken an interest in that. The delivery programme sets out the existing funding, whether it be through the infrastructure investment plan, the place-based investment programme, the vacant and derelict land investment programme, our strategic investment in transport or the investment in housing. All of that will contribute to delivering the ambitions of NPF4. Therefore, there is a range of existing investment plans with which NPF4 aligns. As those plans go on to further iterations, NPF4 will help to inform that.

That speaks to the importance of the delivery programme being a live document. As the funding landscape changes?unfortunately, in the circumstances that we face, our funding landscape can be volatile as a consequence of how devolution and the fiscal framework operate?it is important to have that flexibility. However, through the delivery plan, we will be in a position to demonstrate how existing and new funding streams, as they emerge, align with the ambitions in NPF4. I recognise that there is a call for a neat, concise and specific capital investment plan to be published alongside NPF4 but, in essence, the delivery programme captures that intent.

I ask Fiona Simpson whether she wants to add anything.

The support that NPF4 provides can bring a degree of confidence and certainty. It has been my experience as planning minister over the past 18 months that infrastructure is a key interest of many colleagues. It is a policy commitment in NPF4 that is very welcome. As important as NPF4 is in itself, local development plans have a key role to play. They can play a very important role in securing that buy-in and providing that confidence at the local level.

Collaborative working will be at the heart of this work. We set out, through our delivery programme, some of the practical ways in which we will seek to engender collaborative working. Moreover, I have been trying to set out more generally the work that we do as a Government to move from policy and design to implementation. That can help to support that work as well.

As I referenced earlier, speaking in general terms, we will provide advice on transitional arrangements should Parliament agree to and approve NPF4. Following the adoption of NPF4, we will work to deliver the regulations on local development plans, along with guidance. In general, that is what we will do.

The policy is clear, and I think that, when the policy is read, its intention is straightforward to understand. As I said, I will engage with relevant stakeholders in the sector to ensure that the intent of the policy is clearly understood. I recognise that some confusion may have been caused by how it was misreported, but the policy is consistent with what we want to see in a plan-led approach.

Of course, my coffee, as always, was purchased in the garden lobby. It is the best coffee in Edinburgh.

I will make two points. First, on process, this has been a cross-government endeavour. More than 200 officials have been involved in the development of NPF4. Of course, it has been a collaborative effort across wider Scottish society and the Parliament with the process that has got us to this stage. By design, it reflects the full gamut of Scottish Government policy, but, beyond that, planning, by its nature, touches on every aspect of our lives from the homes that we live in, the places where we work, where we go for leisure and recreation and the spaces that give us a sense of identity, to how our economy operates and functions. Planning is inherent in every aspect of how modern, contemporary society functions, so it is inevitable that, in any work of this stature and magnitude, every aspect of Government policy will have had input. Clearly, there is a focus on the climate emergency and the nature crisis, but that is a lens through which all other policies have been considered. That is what NPF4 seeks to bring together.

With regard to policy 6, it is important to recognise that our ancient woodlands are irreplaceable habitats. Given the clear commitments around tackling both the climate emergency and the nature crisis, there is an imperative to ensure that we are protecting those vital natural assets.

I am conscious of the concerns raised by SSENT, and, in the interests of transparency, I will meet the organisation shortly. My officials have already had engagement to discuss those issues.

I will ask Cara to come in to provide a bit more detail with regard to the development of the policy.

As I mentioned in my previous answer, I am happy to engage with and will engage with SSENT to understand its concerns in more detail. I recognise the point that you are making, Mr Kerr. I am very conscious of the significance of ancient woodlands and of the fact that they are an irreplaceable habitat.

I will make two points. The first is that we are at the end of a process, which it has taken some time to get to. I want to focus on bringing NPF4 to Parliament for a vote of approval and subsequently, in short order, its adoption by ministers. However, I am absolutely committed to the closest monitoring and engagement with stakeholders, going forward. In any policy development, no one wants any outcomes that are not consistent with the intent.

Through the monitoring and engagement that I have already indicated that I am committed to undertaking, we will look carefully at the policy, understand concerns and carefully monitor any impact that it has. The current position is that we will bring NPF4 back to Parliament for a vote of approval and, should Parliament agree to it, it will subsequently be adopted by ministers. There will be the closest engagement with all sectors, specifically on the points that you raised. As I said, I will meet SSENT shortly to discuss its concerns in more detail. My officials have already had engagement with it.

We are still awaiting confirmation from the UK Government, but we are seeking that flexibility.

I will be happy to come back to the committee with more detail on that. I do not have that in front of me now.

There can be a number of reasons but, clearly, inflationary pressures and supply chain challenges have resulted in project delivery slipping.

I should probably add that, with regard to the capital reduction of £92 million in the NZET portfolio, we have provided project development support to undertake feasibility studies and business cases to secure investment in future years and we are beginning to support a number of multiyear projects. In addition, we recently established a heat network support unit to work directly with pre-capital projects to support development ahead of capital investment, which will provide greater certainty for spend in future years. We need to consider the economic context in which we are operating, but we are taking action in year to help to address that.

As you will appreciate, we will set out our position for the next financial year at the budget, and it will be determined by a number of factors. Our commitment on net zero is absolute. That should be clear. What we have to do with the ABR is to make sure, first, that we arrive at a balanced budget position by the end of the financial year, as we are required to do, and secondly that we seek to free up resource to provide support in year. That has been part of the EBR exercise.

As the Deputy First Minister said in the September statement, some of those savings are captured in the ABR. There are £191 million of pressures identified that may follow through in the SBR. Savings that were identified in the EBR statement and publication earlier this month will, where appropriate and required, come through in the SBR. With regard to the next financial year and beyond, we will seek to be consistent with the priorities as set out in the resource spending review. We will, of course, take specific decisions at the budget.