 Felly, rydw i'r ddefnyddio gwybod i gyd yn 2016 o'r Nghymru, Srydddiadau Cymdeithas. Mae'r ddag ddweud o'r ddag o'r ddag o'r ddeg sydd gyda'r cyffredinol. Cysiwch ar unrhywodol, wrth oed, ac yn gwybod i ddweud yr ysgolwyd digidol, mae'n gwybod i'r ddag o'r ddeg sydd gyda'r ddeg ar gweithiwyr. Apolygau ar gyfer Siobhan MacMann. Mae yna'r oedden nhw i ddweud o'r ddeg iswyddiadau yn teimlo i gyd. The committee will consider whether to take item 4 consideration of adviser candidates for its inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the recent closure of the fourth road bridge in private. Are members all agreed? Thank you. We are agreed. Agenda item 2 is draft budget 2016-17. The committee will take oral evidence from the Scottish Government's draft budget 2016-17. The committee took evidence from a number of stakeholders on 25 November 2015 prior to the publication of the draft budget to allow witnesses to comment on the outcomes of the current year's spending and to suggest what more might need to be done both in 2016-17 and beyond to meet the Government's targets. Today's sessions with the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, Investment and Cities and the Minister for Housing and Welfare will allow members to follow up on those sessions now that the budget has been published. The draft budget has been published. I welcome Keith Brown, Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, Investment and Cities, who is accompanied today by Mike Baxter, Director for Finance, Corporate and Analytical Services and Andrew Watson, Deputy Director for Financial Strategy at the Scottish Government. Can I invite you, Cabinet Secretary, to make any short introductory remarks? I delighted to be with you this morning and also welcome the chance to give evidence on how, in particular, my portfolio spending helps meet the Scottish Government's climate change targets, which I believe may be the focus of the committee's budget scrutiny, given the comments that you have just made, convener. The Scottish Government's purpose, as is well known, is to deliver sustainable economic growth and to create the opportunity for all our citizens to flourish. We believe that, with a relentless focus on tackling inequality and boosting productivity, we can create the foundations for a stronger and more inclusive economy. At the same time, we are on track to reach our 2020 interim climate change targets. This year's draft budget should be seen in the context of the recently refreshed Infrastructure Investment Plan, which supports the objective set-out in the Scottish, Scotland's economic strategy and the Scottish Government's programme for government. This draft budget is a budget to invest in, to protect and to extend our economic recovery. Around £4 billion is to be invested over the next year in infrastructure, including house building, transport and digital links. We have successfully delivered 30,000 homes over the course of this Parliament. I do remember some time ago being Minister for Housing, and that target was met with some scepticism at the time, but we are successfully delivering that target and are committing to an increase of £90 million in affordable housing supply compared to 2015-16, and a total investment of around £690 million in housing. That helps to support our overall commitment to delivering 50,000 new affordable homes by 2020-21. We are also providing further investment of £130 million in Scotland's digital infrastructure to help towards our 2017 target to ensure that 95 per cent of premises in Scotland have access to next-generation broadband. The IIC portfolio plays a significant role in helping to achieve the Scottish Government's purpose, primarily through contributing to three strategic objectives—welfthier and fairer, safer and stronger and greener. In line with Scotland's economic strategy, the majority of the portfolio of spend is focused on investment in transport, including low-carbon transport and water infrastructure. I will expand briefly on those, if I could convene. First of all, transport infrastructure is a critical part of the budget. Since 2007, the Scottish Government has invested more than £15 billion in transport. In 2016-17, we are continuing to invest more than £1 billion annually in public transport and other sustainable transport options to encourage people out of their car. The increase in the road's budget is, of course, a result of the recent changes to the EU statistical classification for the Government's programme of revenue-financed infrastructure, meaning that the funding for the cost of constructing the Aberdeen-Western peripheral route is included in this year's budget figures. Our investment in the strategic road transport network will ultimately support the low-carbon agenda, whether through providing efficient links for public transport and the new generation of low-carbon vehicles, or also taking traffic off local roads to improve conditions for active travel or facilitating modal shift. Alongside that, of course, is the completion of the new fourth replacement crossing. The recent temporary closure of the fourth road bridge for essential repairs has served to highlight the need for the new crossing. I am very pleased that the budget will allow the new crossing to progress towards completion in line with the latest timescales that were previously advised. Funding for the fourth road bridge capital maintenance has been protected and this year is £9 million, which is an increase of £4 million from 2015-16 that matches, as it always does, the agreed programme of works. It is part of our efforts to deliver a transformational vision of the complete decarbonisation of road transport by 2050, particularly through the electrification of transport, as well as modal shift. We are providing leadership in relation to, first of all, pump-priming low-carbon technology, modal shift and active travel initiatives, and promoting associated networks. We are working with partners to deliver actions from Switched on Scotland—that is our electric vehicle road map—and Charge Play Scotland, an electric vehicle charging network. The company comprises around 1,000 publicly accessible charging bays throughout the country, including more than 100 rapid charge points, making it one of the most comprehensive networks in Europe. We have also launched the active travel vision and the first ever national active travel summit, bringing together key stakeholders to seek support for our longer-term aspirations to increase the uptake of cycling and walking for shorter, everyday journeys. We are sustaining investment in active travel at the record level of approximately £39 million in 2016-17, and we are also continuing to invest over £1 billion per year in public and sustainable transport to encourage people on to public transport and active travel modes. We will also support the ERDF, European Regional Development Fund interventions on sustainable transport, over the period up to 2020, which will yield match funding of up to £37.5 million in order to assist in the delivery of active travel hubs. Low-carbon transport hubs and a national smart integrated tickering scheme will also be developed. We will also encourage the freight industry to reduce emissions through the modal shift, revenue support and waterborne freight grant schemes. As announced in June 2015, we will support a continuation of the Future Transport Fund to provide the infrastructure necessary to enable the uptake of low-emission vehicles and other sustainable forms of transport. We will also continue to invest in infrastructure and behaviour change initiatives to encourage cycling and walking, working in partnership with local authorities across the country. We also intend to convene to complete the elitification of the Glasgow-Ember rail line by December 2016 and continue the delivery of key improvements to the route between Aberdeen and Inverness. A few comments on Scottish Water, we are committed to a significant programme of investment in Scotland's water and sewerage infrastructure for the 2015-21 period worth £3.5 billion. That includes £250 million to upgrade Glasgow's wastewater infrastructure to improve the environment of the River Clyde and tackle flooding. That will enable economic growth, safeguard public health and protect our environment. On flooding specifically—obviously very topical—Mr Swinney previously announced that this year, we will provide £4 million to the local authority areas affected most by recent flooding in Hoik, Newcastleton, Dumfries, Allath and other localities, as mentioned by the Deputy First Minister yesterday, to help with recovery and to help households and businesses to access the support that they need. Funding for the flood forecasting service has been protected by the budget settlement put forward in December. Funding for the system is provided directly by the Government and, in addition to the grant and aid that we provide to SEPA. As a high donation, we can capitalise on global economic opportunities and support the good stewardship of water resources. We have made resources available from within the Scottish Water budget to promote that agenda, which includes the climate justice fund. In relation to procurement reform, we will continue to invest in the Scottish model of procurement through the procurement resources transfer from the core Scottish Government administration budget. That will secure the continued provision of shared services to underpin the transformation of public procurement in Scotland, delivering further savings and maximising the social, environmental and economic benefits of public purchasing activity. We will, for example, continue to ensure that contracts for our large infrastructure projects include community benefit clauses to achieve continued employment and training opportunities. In 2016-17, the Scottish Futures Trust will continue to work to enhance value for money for infrastructure investment across the public sector in Scotland. That includes working in partnership with others to progress the delivery of the extended pipeline of revenue funded investment and to support other innovative ways of financing and procuring infrastructure. The 2016-17 budget is, I believe, once again a robust plan to improve infrastructure and to increase house building to ensure that all Scots can benefit from our post-recession growth. With that, I am happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary, for that opening statement. Perhaps I could kick off our questions. Clearly, the main area of interest to the committee is expenditure on transport. You indicated in your opening remarks that some of the estimated increase in the road budget is attributable to the reclassification by the Office of National Statistics of the Expenditure, the estimated construction costs of the Aberdeen western peripheral route. Do you have a figure for how much the increase in the road budget would have been without that reclassification? I think that we have the deputy director for finance here who can answer specifically, but I think that it is of the order. The difference is of the order of £118 million in this financial year, so if you deduct that from the total that we have, you would see that the budget that we would have for infrastructure, roads transport, roads infrastructure, would have been less in absolute terms than it would have been last year if you deduct that from the sum that is around £180 million in this year. The percentage increase in the road budget, including the Aberdeen western peripheral route, is in the region of 18 per cent. I was just trying to get an indication of what that percentage increase would have been, but assuming that it would still have been in the magnitude of over 10 per cent, that is a significant increase. We have a reduction in the rail service budget of 7 per cent and the 26.5 per cent increase in sustainable and active travel. My question to you, Cabinet Secretary, would be, do you feel that the current balance of transport expenditure is appropriate, given the very clear policy commitment that the Scottish Government has to reducing carbon emissions? I am happy to answer that. I am also sure that Andrew can work out the percentage figure that you are asking about, convener. As you say, about an 18 per cent increase in the road budget, which includes that exceptional cost of the reclassification for AWPR, around a 0.3 per cent increase in the bus service budget and a 26.5 per cent increase in the sustainable and active travel budget. That shows that the biggest increase that we have against our reducing budget is for the active travel budget. Of course, she will appreciate, I think, as every member of the committee will, that the Government has to make choices in relation to its budget. The changes in the budget that we have made do not reflect a further shift in activity from what we have done previously, which is to increase the active and sustainable travel budget. The large increase in the roads budget, as I have said, is to do with the reclassification of the AWPR. Also, the transport budget is worth seeing, reflects contractual requirements, maintenance and upgrades, and reflects transport priorities. Almost 90 per cent of the transport budget is legally committed in advance. In terms of investing in transport, we are doing what we said we would do in our manifesto, developing the infrastructure to support electric cars. Of course, electric cars have to travel on roads, and they have to invest on roads, as do buses, as in many cases do bicycles as well. I think that the balance to answer your question that we have is the right balance. It is also important to point out that the substantial increase that we have had in terms of active travel and sustainable travel, low-carbon travel, from about £21 million three years ago to £39 million last year and again this year. The balance is right. Of course, we would like to do more, but we are given our budget and have to work within that. Would you be able to provide the committee with a split in the percentage increase in sustainable active travel? That is a significant 26.5 per cent. It would be useful if we could have a figure for both sustainable travel and for active travel. I would be happy to do that. Thank you. On active travel, you mentioned that expenditure on active travel is at a record level and that the Government intends to sustain that in the financial year 2016-17. You also talked about the importance of match funding. I will ask you about the cycling walking and safer streets fund, which is the only significant cycling cash to go directly from the Government to local authorities. It has been highlighted by cycling organisations in evidence to the committee that they have a concern that that particular expenditure, notwithstanding your commitment to sustain active travel at the current levels, may be under threat. If that is the case, it will make it difficult to secure the match funding through other funding streams that are currently available. I think that, perhaps underline your question, convener, there is no question that this budget does impact on local authorities as well and whether that has an impact on match funding. That would obviously be a matter of concern. We intend to work with local authorities to maximise the opportunities that we have for active travel. We have maintained our commitment to that. First of all, we want to maximise the opportunities that they might exist for match funding projects, mainly to do with the work that we do through Sustrans and different individual local authorities that are groups of local authorities. We will have to work further with local authorities to ensure that, on their side, they are able to take up those opportunities in terms of match funding. One reason for that is not just the benefits of active and sustainable travel, whether it is cycle paths or so on, but because those contracts, which tend to be in the scheme of the portfolio that I am responsible for, are relatively small contracts. I have got a disproportionate benefit in terms of local employment and local contractors as well, so that is something that we do not want to lose sight of. I am conscious that I might want to come back on a point that I do not want to do with this or the previous question. I understand the point that you are making, convener, and it is our intention to make sure that we still maximise. First of all, by providing the budget on our side for local authorities to match and to work with local authorities, part of that change is worth saying in relation to the capital provision for local authorities. That is still an issue, but what we are saying is that the reduced capital provision for local authorities this year will be compensated for in future years. It is a profiling issue. In fact, that happens in a number of areas within the budget in my portfolio, so it will have that money in future years. I think that those projects tend not to be just within one year at any event, so that will help to mitigate the effects of that. I do not know if you want to add to that, Mike. Just to come back on the previous point on the motorways and trunk roads budget, the increase of 18 per cent, the revised budget or the draft budget for 16, 17, 820 million, and of that 183 million relates to the WPR. Taking that into account, the revised budget would have been 637, which would have been a reduction in the motorway and trunk roads budget of about 9 per cent. That is helpful clarification, thank you for that. I give you the speed of the clarification as well, so I will pass on to Clare. Good morning Cabinet Secretary, thank you very much for your opening statement, which answered a lot of the questions that I had for you this morning. You seem very confident that the transport-related infrastructure expenditure plans in the draft budget for next year and for this year will support the Government in reaching its climate change targets, but you also mentioned the long-term goals about electrification, changing behaviours and all the things that have to happen from the public point of view, including the purchasing of vehicles. I wondered if you could give us an insight into how that will be monitored in the progress to ensure that your long-term goals are achieved in those areas. The monitoring of it is done jointly by officials across different portfolios, such as Dr Eileen McLeod's portfolio and Richard Lochhead's portfolio. There has been a ministerial group established, which includes a number of Cabinet Secrets and Ministers to help to monitor that process. You are right to say that there are a number of different ways in which we intend to tackle that. Some of the very large electrification programmes have a direct environmental benefit. The power railway tends to be far more environmentally friendly than diesel-powered, but it is also about behaviour change. We have done that in relation to active travel and a number of things, such as car clubs and low-carbon vehicles. As I mentioned in my opening statement, the essential first point to getting that off the ground is to have a good network of charging points. That has taken us some time to do, as it has across Europe, but we are ahead of the game now in terms of doing that. People will not invest in an electric car before they know that they have the infrastructure there to support it. The other thing that I did not mention previously is that there will also be unforeseen or perhaps unanticipated changes that will help us in relation to that, which, for example, might include driverless cars, which are very prominent just now. The opportunities that are presented by driverless cars are pretty substantial. Of course, technology is not exactly where it needs to be yet. I think that the latest yesterday was 2020 before you were saying that at any kind of scale, but that also provides real scope for driving fuel efficiency and a change in the way that the cars that we currently use are fuelled, so that we can have much more in terms of electrical vehicles. All those initiatives will be taken forward and monitored through not least the ministerial working group that I mentioned, but by the officials working across portfolios. If I can continue this particular theme, cabinet secretary, I have had evidence from Dr Gardner of WWF Scotland suggesting that a 300 per cent increase in annual vehicle emissions reduction rates are required by 2017 to meet the emissions reduction target specified in RPP2, and there appears to be a dearth of policies to achieve that. Do you agree with that analysis and, if you don't, can you clarify the Government's position on it? I will check a couple of things. First of all, the latest year for which figures are available, which is 2013, showed that transport emissions had reduced for the sixth consecutive year. I know that that is partly to do with economic activity in the recession, but that suggests that we are starting to bear down on the historic trend of rising emissions. Since the peak in emissions in 2007, transport emissions have fallen by 1.9 megatons—I am not sure whether that is the right unit of measurement, but that is what it seems to be—MTC02E. That is equivalent to a 13 per cent reduction over the six-year period from 2007 to 2013. In 2013, it is worth bearing in mind, given that many of those targets are set with reference to 1990, at the base year level. They were below that level for the third successive year in 2013. So, emissions abatement is a long-term agenda with our transformational vision of the complete decarbonisation of road transport by 2050, particularly through the electrification of transport as well as moral shift. An RPP-2, which you mentioned published in June 2013, I think outlines our approach to achieving those transport emissions abatement over the period of 2027. There are four key areas in which we intend to take this forward. We have, I think, given some strategy on this, which is decarbonising vehicles, which I mentioned, promoting sustainable communities. I think that there is more for us to do there, for example. It is much more explicit about how people get from their door to where they want to go in a sustainable way, looking at the whole journey that they have and realising that they might use different modes, perhaps by cycling to a train station, how they are then able to get on the train and make sure that they can either keep their bike with them or access another bike at the other end. I think that there is more that we have to do in relation to that. We also have to engage with businesses much more around sustainable transport. As I mentioned in the statement, ensuring the efficient use of the road network is a great deal more that we can do there, which can help in terms of emissions abatement as well. Do you think that we have put together within RPP2 and subsequently measures which will allow us to achieve the targets that we have set? A lot of stories have been put by the electrification of vehicles. I am thinking of changing my car this year Cabinet Secretary. Is there an incentive available for me to switch to an electric vehicle as opposed to the conventional vehicles? Speaking for the company which, to give you advice on that, I would say that there are incentives and there are specific tax incentives, which obviously we do not organise as done through the UK Government in relation to low-carbon transport. However, whether it is an incentive or not, I think that the crucial thing is a point that I made to Clare Adamson that you really would not want to invest in that unless you knew that you had the support infrastructure around about you. I mentioned when I spoke about the different types of charging stations. For some people, a rapid charging station is essential because you can have one that could take a long time for a car to recharge. The batteries are getting more and more efficient all the time. The people that I have spoken to have bought electric or low-carbon vehicles have said that they would not go back to any other kind of vehicle. They have found that even going back a few years now to be very beneficial. Having seen some of the cars that are now electric, one is the Tesla, but you have got some BMW cars that are like super cars. The image of low-carbon or electric vehicles in the past was very different from what the reality is today. I think that there are quite a number of incentives to having electric or low-carbon vehicles. I will investigate that, but maybe more to the point is that heavy goods vehicles obviously make up a very high proportion of emissions in our roads network. What about that section of the market, if you like? Is there any initiative that has been taken on that front? There are two things that are not necessarily the initiative that we are taking, but there are certainly private sectors that are taking the initiative to try to make, as it does with all, products to make these large engines more efficient over time. They follow the same pattern as the domestic car has in becoming more efficient. The second thing that we have taken the initiative on is in driver training, which can make a huge difference to companies who are trying to reduce their fuel bills, but that has the knock-on effect of reducing emissions as well. Driver training can dramatically reduce the cost of fuel. Many companies, large and small, have now invested and we have tried to point them towards that as well in driver training initiatives, which, as I say, can be safer driving, but it is certainly more efficient driving and by more efficient it looks at the bottom line for companies that reduce what they pay in fuel, but the benefit to us, of course, is that it reduces emissions as well. My follow-up question is about sustainable and active travel, which is covered to some extent. However, we have heard evidence that returning investments in sustainable and active travel is very substantial indeed, and that a target benchmark for the sustainable and active travel budget should be 10 per cent of the total transport budget. Do you feel that the current level, which works out at 1.8 per cent for the draft budget, is sufficient or do you want to build up towards that 10 per cent target, and do you want to build up to that over the coming years? If I go back to the previous response that I had made to the convener, much of the transport budget is long-term contractual agreements that we have year on year, and the point that I made is that much of the expenditure, for example, on loads transport benefits active travel as well. I am not sure whether that 10 per cent figure can just be drawn from the active and sustainable travel budget. I think that there is much else that we do that tends to help in terms of sustainable travel. You can argue, as I have said previously, that travelling on a train that you will be increasingly able to do, which is powered by electric lines, is far more sustainable than other forms of transport. Right across the transport budget, we are doing work to meet transport more sustainable. Allocations of transport projects that we make tend to be made following evidence-gathering, public consultations and various impact assessments. I must admit that, when I got this job and I think that we have improved even since my time, the amount of pre-consultation that is done on large projects is striking and is now often copied by other countries. We look at the way that we do some of those large projects and we do the pre-consultation before doing that. I will give you an example of the A9 project, which is probably the biggest project on the books currently. We have looked at that not just in terms of the road itself, but there is an active travel route that goes alongside the A9, but in the number of places it is not in very good condition. What we have said is that it is possible in the future that we look at the contracts for upgrading the road and maintaining it subsequently, so that we can incorporate a contract that looks after the active travel side of it. I do not think that we should just look at what the active and sustainable travel budget provides. I think that it is right across the transport precinct. In that regard, I am convinced that we have got the balance right, although we will look to do more. We have done that. We have dramatically increased the budget for active and sustainable travel, as I have already mentioned, up to £39 million, and we will continue to try to do more in the future. I continue on the theme of active travel. You will be aware of the evidence that we have received from Spokes, who have argued that we should really be spending 1 per cent of the trunk roads budget and that should be transferred to active travel. I do not need to convince you of the merits of active travel, both in terms of health and, of course, in climate change. My personal view has been that, if I were in your place, I would ask for a transfer of funding from health to the active travel budget, because there is a strong argument about the preventive nature of active travel, but that is another argument for another day. What should you about Spokes' proposal to beef up the active travel budget? To be honest, I would be at risk of repeating myself on the previous answer that I have given to Adam Ingram. Much of what I have said in response to that question applies here. It is worth bearing in mind that we have invested more than £137 million in active travel since the start of the 2011 spending review. As I have already mentioned, our plans for this year will add a further £39 million to that. As we announced in June, we will extend the future transport fund into 2016-17 to match what was a record budget for active and sustainable travel last year. That currently supports the development of priority active travel infrastructure projects in partnership with councils, as I have mentioned. Projects to accelerate the widespread adoption of low-carbon vehicles. We have done substantially more than we have done in the past than previous administrations have done in the past, and we will look to increase that. I think that it is an increasing investment that we are making in active travel. I do not think that it all comes down, as I have said, to that budget. For example, at a very basic level, that budget does not include what local authorities put in in terms of match funding for many of those projects. There is one project in my own area, which is part of the national cycle network, which is a fantastic offline walking and cycling road, right the way along the hillfruits in Clifmanushire, which is a tremendous—some of the stuff that I have seen in Stirling and in the Highlands, which is tremendous advances. We want to continue to invest in that over time, but it is not the case that the only advances for active and sustainable travel are those that come from that particular budget. My final question—I was going to raise some more issues about electric vehicles, but I think that Adam Winkram is still my thunder somewhat on that issue. Can I raise the issue about modal shift? Your predecessors have quite rightly talked about the importance of modal shift, but I will give you one practical example. As you know, we did a major inquiry into freight, and it is obviously very important to get freight off the road on to rail and on to sea as well. However, if you look at the reality of it, the freight facilities grant, as you know, has not been spent for the past four years. I am not necessarily blaming Government because it takes two to tango, and you have got to put the projects in. Clearly, it is one thing to talk about modal shift, but the reality is that it has not really happened as far as freight is concerned. What can you do to turn this around and ensure that we get freight off roads and on to sea, particularly, where there have been very few applications for seaborne freight, which is vitally important? I think that you made the point quite rightly that it takes two to tango. It is actually a three-cornered relationship that is going on here, which explains—I am not sure that it is true—that there has been no budget spent in the past four years on freight facilities grant, but it is right to say that it is quite difficult to sometimes get that money out of the door. For example, the budget at Westminster was abolished in 2005 because they were not spending it, and despite that, we have kept this budget here. What has been the problem has often been the case that it is a private sector initiative, or a third party initiative, to look at this in the first place, where a company wants to try to invest in new freight modal shift. There is a European element to it as well, where often state aid can be an inhibitor. We found that, and we have looked very closely at ways in which we can try to get that minimised. However, I think that there is a very promising FFG initiative in terms of Highland Spring coming off just now. You are right to say that we have said that we want to do this, but one of the difficulties was very obvious to me when we had the recent problems with the channel tunnel. When you see all the fish—I am sure that Alex Johnson will know about this—the way that the industry has targeted road freight to actually get its goods to market. If you are not that close to the industry, it is a perfect opportunity to move that to air freight because of the problems in terms of road freight. We could not convince the industry, and the reason for that was that they had to restablish routes, and because of the low-value and high-volume thinking about that right, it did not make sense for them. There are real problems with doing this, but I would not mistake the fact that we have had some difficulty in getting that budget out the door in previous years, with any lack of commitment on our part. We also gave the assurance that we are looking very closely at what have been the obstacles so far. Very often, those projects get advanced to quite a late stage, and the private sector company does not see them through for whatever reason, because they have to have that initiative. There are ones in Fife that I can think of. We are committed to it, and we are committed to trying to improve their ability to fund it in future. Just for the record, on memory of the FFG, there are three different grants that allow a modal shift. Certainly, our adviser in a freight inquiry confirmed that there was no spending freight facilities grant for four-year period. It may have changed since then, of course. I think that the last one was when Troes Harbour had a FFG, but I am subject to any correction from other committee members. The other issue, and the final issue that I want to flag up, is again for modal shift. Do you share my view that it is very important that we incentivise drivers, for example, to start looking at using the train more? I will give you a local example from Highlands and Islands. Obviously, I fully support the dualling of the A9, and that expenditure is welcomed. Clearly, when that is complete, you will see a growth in traffic on the A9, which, of course, is safer as well, but the dualling is safer than a single carriageway. However, if there is no equivalent spend on rail—I know that there is some spending on rail—what you are going to do is encourage drivers to stay in their cars and not to use rail. What I would flag up is that there is a general policy. Have you looked at all that saying that, if we spend X in road, we will spend the same in rail? The example that the convener gave at the start is that there is a 7.1 per cent reduction in the rail service budget. Is that something that you have thought about when it comes to planning services? If you look at the equivalent of the A9, you are spending £3 billion on the A9 in memory. There is some spend on rail, but my guess is that it is about a tenth of that, but your finance officials can perhaps correct me if that is wrong. Do you see the logic of that argument, spending the same on rail as on road? I think that the reality is that, if you look at the expenditure that we have had on rail, around £5 billion of a programme during the current control period, whether it is a border rail, airway to Bathgate, improvements to Aberdeen, and all sorts of different things, even the Stirling, Alwak and Card in my own area, I saw the Government being attacked recently in the media because of the level of borrowing that is there for the RAB, the resource asset base. We have borrowed heavily and we have invested heavily in rail, but I do not think that you can say one thing to say that you should have in mind the impact on railways when you are doing a roads project, that you cannot go and start a major roads project unless you match it pound for pound by a similar and related and local rail project. I think that you have to take a more broad view of it. I do think that we have invested in rail hugely. There is much more to do. You want to see as much of the litification of the rail network, especially between our cities, as we possibly can. We are well advanced in starting that process, especially with Edinburgh to Glasgow and coming north, as far as Dunblane. We have done that, but you have to take them on the merits. In relation to the A9 roads issue, you have mentioned some of the benefits already in terms of safety. There is also efficiency. You know better than me, and I know it well enough in terms of the congestion that can be on that road. That congestion is very environmentally damaging, and it is damaging to journey times in the business as well. There are all sorts of initial reasons for the investment, not just in the A9, £3 billion, but in the A96, £3 billion again. We are also talking about the A96 when investing heavily in improvements to £170 million in the Aberystwyth rail line, which is potentially including new stations. We have got the balance right, but you do not have money to do everything at the same time, we suppose. You mentioned the electrification of rail, and clearly you have supported that, particularly what you have done in Glasgow to Edinburgh. Some of the real experts in the past have argued that, to achieve the full economies of scale, we need the perfect rectangle to be complete, which would be Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and the Vanessa. Do you share that argument? I think that that is more of a parallelogram than a triangle. You are right to say that. Obviously, when you look at that, Glasgow and Edinburgh to Aberdeen, you have got the choke point. It is not just about the electrification, it is about infrastructure as well. We would like to maximise the amount of a railway, especially the busiest parts of it, which should be electrified, because it produces not just benefits in terms of the environment. Of course, we want to do that, but I think that you will know, as well as I do, that the future funding of those things is pretty uncertain just now with the various reviews that the UK Government has, and the way that it is looking at network rail just now. Despite that, we are carrying on with the biggest electrification programme that we have ever had in Scotland, and we will continue to push that as best we can. Thank you, convener. Apologies, cabinet secretary, for this question. It appears to be a bit left-fiel, but we heard evidence from Professor Jan Bevington suggesting that the current carbon accounting methods used in calculating the carbon impact of the budget are no longer best practice, and it is notorious like a complex area. Do you agree with this assessment and could you outline any proposed changes to assessing the carbon emissions from transport infrastructure projects and the climate change impact of the infrastructure investment programme? It is just almost ancillary but related issue that strikes me that people that suggest that we are not going to meet are outcomes. Dr Sam Gardner of WWF always assumes a linear progress, whereas it seems to me that the game-changing technology is things like electric cars, just similar to smartphones. It is a hyperbolic situation that you get. Suddenly they take off and change the game completely. I am just interested in what your thoughts are on the general methodology that we use for calculating climate change impacts, whether it is currently best practice and what improvements we can make in the future. I want to get involved in hyperbole, but hyperbolic progress may well be right. As you are saying, sometimes you cannot accurately and definitively forecast the way that those things will take off. People have not done that in relation to smartphones and it is true in terms of much in the way of other technology. However, the purpose of the carbon assessment of the draft budget that we have put together is to help Parliament to understand the emission consequences of spending by estimating the carbon emissions that are embedded in the goods and services that are funded by the Scottish Government. That carbon assessment reflects the draft budget and, as such, it is a high-level nature assessment that has been undertaken. It is best applied to portfolio spending and budget expenditure as a whole, so it helps to raise awareness of the carbon impact of spending. Perhaps you mentioned the biggest cultural change that we all have to undergo to understand when we make investment decisions what the carbon impact of that is. However, it also helps by identifying the carbon emissions from upstream inputs such as the production of gravel for road construction. However, the carbon impact is for that, as well as those that are generated directly, so just heating spaces by Government expenditure. In order to better understand that complete picture on emissions associated with the use of public goods and services, the assessment needs to be read alongside the analysis that we have produced contained in the second or RPP 2, which provides assessments of key proposals and policies for meeting the targets. I know what your question hints at. There are changes and people undertake carbon assessments in different ways, but we are confident in the carbon assessment that we have made that provides what we want it to provide, which is an understanding for people such as yourselves to know what the impact of our policies is. That is perhaps the most important. I am sure that techniques and methodologies will change over time and people will compete for which is the best one. However, if we can get across the basic point of what we believe are the carbon impacts of what we are doing, that is surely the most important point of the carbon assessments. My next question really, to a certain extent, covers the territory that Dave Stewart already touched on. To what extent do the expenditures that you make in your portfolio impact in terms of generating positive outcomes for other portfolios? Obviously, health is one of the obvious things in terms of improving air quality. I wonder whether you are able to make the case that some of that portfolio should be reallocated to infrastructure. I am sure that, if I were sitting in front of the health committee, there would be a different argument, Mr McKenzie. However, as well as the points that you have made, yes, we do try to have, obviously, regard to the health and other environmental consequences. However, perhaps the most obvious one and the one that is most easily measured in terms of other portfolios is employment and life chances. Community benefit clauses that allow people that have been long-term unemployed or people, for example, on the New Fourth Crossing, have met two young people who have done their entire apprenticeships while working on that project that are now going off to different projects. That has allowed them to get an absolutely unique project, unique experience, which has allowed them to develop their careers. By some of the stuff that we do in procurement through the portal for subcontracts and so on, maximising the opportunities for local business. Yes, we will produce benefits for health, not least, as has been mentioned by a number of the committee members in relation to active travel. We will produce benefits for the environment. One area in which that was recently evident was that Richard Lochhead made a statement about the VW emissions scandal. If there is to be, as there should be, fines arising from that, then that could be used for environmental purposes. Obviously, it is a transport area, but the benefits could be used for environmental purposes. That has benefits for health as well. We are conscious of the other benefits and we are also conscious of the competitive nature of different portfolios and the budgets that they want to have. My final question, convener, is just that I was quite enthusiastic that the two new hybrid ferries are still relatively new, the Hallyg and the Walk-in-Var, to reach fairly recently. I think that there is some work looking at it to see if those can be made even more efficient by converting to hydrogen. I just wondered how much scope you felt there was in our fleet of ferries for further improvements in ferry efficiency. We are three of those ferries now, but I think that the point of a hydrogen-powered ferries is a very interesting one. There was development work done or research work done at St Andrew's University in relation to that. The potential is for the European, I think, horizon or 2020 funding that might be available to help to develop that. You are right to say that if we could have in Scotland the development of a hydrogen-powered ferry, the benefits for us are huge given the large ferry network that we have. However, if you are the first to develop that technology—and of course we are doing something similar in terms of buses and Aberdeen just now—if you are the first to develop that technology, the benefits can be huge. It might be the case that others are looking at how they can move towards this path, especially given that we are all having to, with the new sulphur regulations, look at retrofitting current ferries to meet the environmental standards. If that can be done, there was one small ferry in Bristol where it was done, and it was so effective when they put the hydrogen-powered unit in it that they had to put more ballastin to replace the weight that the diesel engine that had been taken out had taken out of it. In terms of efficiency and the environment, there is a huge dividend there, and I would be very much hopeful that we can, whether it is through shipbuilders or academics and with European funding, we can be the first to develop that. The infrastructure investment plan, which was published alongside the draft budget, designates energy efficiency as a national infrastructure project. Clearly, we are at a very early stage of that particular innovation. I am just wondering if you can say a bit more about that and what the positive impact of that change will be in practice. It touches on all different aspects of the infrastructure plan and the different elements of infrastructure. Many of them have already mentioned transport, but it relates to housing. I know that you are about to talk to the Minister for Housing as well. The idea in the IIP is to try to make sure that it runs through all our infrastructure initiatives and are spent to make sure that energy efficiency is absolutely key to that. First of all, it helps us because it reduces costs to the Government very often if we are talking about our own buildings and so on, but it also is the case that we can help the environment by reducing many of the infrastructure investment plans initiatives around energy efficiency to do with district heating schemes and other schemes such as that, which Feg is showing and will be more familiar with, and perhaps Margaret Burgess will be the niam. It is partly because we think that this is the right thing to do and partly because of the pressure that we have had from the committee and the Parliament itself asking for that to be made sure that it is mainstream down to what we would do. I do not know if you want to say any more on that, Mike. One of the main principles in the scheme is going to be how we bring together the different programmes that currently achieve objectives in this area. The idea is to develop a national, what we are calling Scotland's energy efficiency programme or CEP. You bring together both domestic and non-domestic buildings into that wider programme. What the IAP signals is that this work will be taken forward over the next few years and also as we go through successive spending reviews, sufficient funding is allocated to make sure that that priority is delivered. Clearly, Cabinet Secretary, the Government has a commitment to spend more of its capital expenditure budget on low-carbon infrastructure projects, but the issue that Mike McKenzie raised about carbon accounting methods, how confident are you that the Government in taking forward that commitment is measuring accurately what it spends and how much of that spend actually is in relation to low-carbon infrastructure projects? I am confident, but I did have the caveat when I responded to Mike McKenzie that we know that these methodologies are changing and that they are competing views as to which is the most effective. If the point of your question is to say that the Government has to be aware of that fact, then it is to consistently review how effective its carbon assessments are. The Government has to do that and the Government will do that. Obviously, we will be challenged on that by Parliament and by external interests quite rightly, but I am confident in what we do just now at what meets the central test, which is to say that if we can make sure that we are mindful of when we make these investments of the carbon impact of doing it, then, of course, over time you can improve how effective or how accurate those assessments are, and we will consistently do that and be challenged to do it by others as well. Thank you. I am going to pass over to Alex Johnson. Thank you very much. I move on to a slightly less savoury subject of the European Accounting Guidance. First of all, we will start positive. Can the cabinet secretary confirm what progress has been made with the 12 hub projects that were previously delayed by the ESA-10 issue? First of all, I think that the big impact is, I am sure that Alex Johnson knows us, on the AWPR and three or four health projects that were captured by that reclassification. However, as the Deputy First Minister indicated on 26 November, the 12 hub projects that he mentioned have been authorised to proceed to financial close as soon as possible. They are individual projects, and they will be being looked at by those that are promoting them and by the Scottish Futures Trust, so a precise project timetables can be influenced by a range of factors. It is also true to say that although those 12 projects were there, they were not all at the same stage of readiness. We would estimate that potentially 11 of those 12 projects will reach financial close and possibly even commence construction in the very near future in the next two or three months. However, as I say, they are individual projects that will depend on the individual circumstances. What is now the status of the larger NPD projects, where the issue is still to be resolved? As I mentioned in relation to the AWPR, that is resolved, not a satisfaction. I should mention how frustrating it is that the European Stats Authority has taken this approach, which seems to me to be absolutely counter to what the UNCR plan is trying to do. If you are trying to put £300 billion into infrastructure investment and trying to change the accounting for that, such that it might prevent a large number of those projects going ahead, it is wrongheaded. You will now find that same view expressed by many of the European institutions and many other places across Europe. That has been very frustrating, but the one that has been classified as the AWPR is the Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary and the Edinburgh Royal Hospital for Sick Kids, which are both in the ONS forward work programme. The draft budget for 2016-17 makes provisioning capital budgets for those projects being classified to the public sector. That provision is made, if that is what happens, as well as two smaller projects, the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service, which is a fantastic project on the Scourts of Edinburgh and the NHS Orney-Ballford project, which is in advanced procurement. Our assumption for budgeting purposes is that those projects will be classified to the public sector, so we have made provisions for that. I do not know if you want to add anything further to that. That is correct. The AWPR is the only project that has received a formal ONS classification. The ONS will look at the two hospital projects that the ministers identified as well. The two smaller projects may be too small for the ONS to look at in the same way. The issue there would be the similarities between those projects and the three that had received a classification. My next question is going to be what the implications for the public finances would be if those remained classified as public sector, but do you feel that you have all the bases covered? Yes, but it is worth bearing in mind that the main important thing is that we make that provision, we make that contingency available, if that is what happens, but that money is an opportunity for gone to do something else with it. We provided cover in the 2016 budget to a total of around £398 million, so if that is what you mean by having the bases covered, we have got the budget provision in place, if that is what the outcome is. Just looking ahead, if that is the way things are going to be done in the future, what are the implications for public expenditure going forward if we have to deal with this for a further more? The road, EWPR and health projects that we have talked about are infrastructure priorities, so our objective is to ensure that they are delivered and there is no question that those projects will be delivered just to give that assurance because of their economic and health benefits. The question of what funding routes we should use in some ways is a kind of second tier issue, which is very important of course, but it is the case that they need to provide upfront capital budget cover for those projects. As I have mentioned, an opportunity cost for the wider programme means other stuff that they cannot do, but that is the environment that we are living in. If you look at the Government's track records since 2007, we have been pretty good, I think, not least to John Swinney in innovating financial models, so whether it is the growth accelerator model, the tax incremental financing model, NPD. If we want to, as we do, to maximise the infrastructure opportunities that we have, we will have to continue to be innovative. One thing that is worth pointing out, I am sure that Alex Johnson would have seen, like me, reports in the press, that some people, third parties, commentators will leave it over 50 per cent of the growth that we have had since the recession has been due to public infrastructure works. I am expressing concern that there is too much in that direction, not enough private sector investment. I would like to see the private sector, which has been very supportive of our infrastructure programme, being as confident as we are about investment decisions. However, we want to try to maximise those in future. It is my view, and I have said this, I think, to the committee before. Interestingly, Patrick McLaughlin, the Secretary of State for Transport, has said that, for decades, Scotland has not had the investment that it needs in its transport infrastructure, for example. We are trying to make up for what I believe has been decades of under-investment. We have brought forward some pretty innovative financing models and a real commitment to that in relation to rail and road and other aspects. If we want to continue to do that, we may have to be innovative in the way that we try to approach that. That is our intention. Will the accounting procedure have the effect of slowing the pipeline of projects over time? I think that what we are trying to say is that, if we do not want that to happen, it is up to us to be innovative. If that avenue is being closed off to us, at least in whole or in part, it seems that Andrew Bebetter will be able to give us an up-to-date position on that, that the hubs themselves around the country, those projects that are much smaller in nature, seem to be not likely to be classified by O&S. If you bear in mind the point that I made previously that those smaller projects have a disproportionate beneficial impact on local economies, those are proceeding. If we want to continue with the large-scale investments that we have had, and we have had, I think, an unprecedented number and volume of those large-scale projects forth crossing being just one of them, then it is up to us to be innovative about it. It would be much better if we were going with the grain of what Eunker is trying to do, trying to make sure that economies are benefiting from large-scale infrastructure projects. Without changes, five years after that provision has come in, the ESA-10 is 2010, that is when it came in. Yes, that challenge is there, and it is up to us to be innovative if we want to maintain the level of infrastructure investment that we have seen up from now. A couple of points to add. What we are seeing here is a particular impact of classification changes on projects that have already been either in procurement or pre-advanced development. Classification changes do happen periodically in Governments Cross that you need to respond to that, and we are no different in that respect. The particular issue around projects that are live, if you like, at the point at which classification rules change. The SFT has been asked to look at the future and how we might develop our infrastructure programme going further forward, reflecting the latest changes. There is also a wider consideration for us to look at how the revenue finance infrastructure programme matches wherever we end up with the revised fiscal framework, wider capital borrowing powers, for example, and the future spending review. The task versus Government is to look at the range of options that we have to deliver at the pipeline because there is no reduction in level of our commitment to having that big pipeline of projects. The second point, as the minister said, is around the hub programme. We have made changes to the hub programme, and that affects not just the 12 projects that you have referred to but also the future pipeline of hub projects. We remain fully committed to that programme of activity as well. Clearly, from what you have said, this is a challenging area for Government, not least of all, because the need to reclassify is happening during the lifetime of those projects, and it was not envisaged when the expenditure was initially committed. It is one of the dangers for the Scottish Government that, on the one hand, there are potentially new opportunities through a fiscal framework for additional borrowing powers, which would allow the Scottish Government to do much more of the type of investment projects that that will no longer be possible, because of the need to reclassify infrastructure projects. To the extent that that is a danger that we are aware of and try to avoid, traditionally capital-funded projects are a very efficient way of financing projects, as true for local authorities as it is for the Government. You have got the public works loans board money, some of the cheapest money that you can get, so it is very efficient. We always know—it has always been the case—that that has been constrained. Would the UK Government treat the Scottish Government the way that the Scottish Government and the UK Government treat local authorities in England and Wales where you have potential borrowing, where you borrow what is prudent to borrow, rather than artificial constraints, and that would free up us and SFT to do a great deal more within responsible limits? I think that what I would say about this administration, going back to before I was a minister, is that the responsible attitude of John Swinney, such that 5 per cent of revenue budgets—no more than 5 per cent—is devoted towards paying down debt for previous projects. It is a very responsible attitude. We are not a Government that is spent irresponsibly, but we have borrowed substantially in order to improve Scotland's infrastructure. That is a reducing opportunity for us in the short term. It is increasing because of the capital borrowing powers that we are getting. It is only one tool in the box, and I think that we have been keen to try to exploit other ways of trying to maximise funding. It might not always be evident to us, but what we have done has produced huge interest elsewhere. We had the largest NPD projects in Europe, and it is interesting that some of the projects that have been reclassified have been invested in by the European Investment Bank, who are not responsible lenders. It seems to me that the contradictions lie with the attitude of the ESA and other aspects of European institutions, but that is a world that we live in. We will continue to try to maximise what we can in terms of traditional borrowing and to look for other borrowings. Other countries and other sources of borrowing have a huge amount of money out there in the international markets just now and some of it is not in the markets at all, which we are looking for a home to invest in. That is not necessarily in terms of Government infrastructure investing in Scotland. We are very alert to all those opportunities that we will develop when we are over time. I am conscious that we are probably straying into the finance committee's territory, but that is a very helpful statement of the Government's position. Are there any further questions from members? In that case, it remains for me to thank you cabinet secretary and your officials for your attendance this morning and for your comprehensive evidence, and also for the advertisement for the national cycle network in Clackmannanshire. Thank you very much. I will now pause briefly for a witness changeover. Good morning. We now resume this meeting of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee. Can I welcome Margaret Burgess, Minister for Housing and Welfare, who is accompanied this morning by Bill Barron, Unit Head, Housing Support and Homelessness, Caroline Dicks, Unit Head, Affordable Housing Investment Policy and Planning, Orlando Hamer Mason, Social Security Policy and Delivery Division. My apologies for any mispronunciation there. Angus McLeod, Unit Head, Home Energy and Efficiency programmes for Scotland at the Scottish Government. I invite the minister to make a short opening statement. I do not have an opening statement, convener, other than to respond to any questions that members may have. Excellent. That is not an innovative development for Government ministers. You may be setting a precedent for your colleagues, but we are grateful for that. In that case, I am going to ask Mike McKenzie to kick off your questions this morning. Whilst the committee recognised the 16 per cent increase in funding in fuel poverty and home energy efficiency, there is an overall reduction in funding for energy and energy efficiency of £22.8 million in the draft budget for 2016-17. I understand that not all of that might be related to your portfolio area, but might be related to district keeping, support and so on. There are also difficulties with the Green Deal having been stopped and initiatives such as eco-being. I am not quite sure that it seems to stop, start or stop. I am not quite sure where it is now. Given the interface of whether the complementary nature of a lot of the Scottish Government funding for fuel poverty, initiatives, do you feel that the proposed expenditure levels on home energy efficiency in the draft budget are sufficient? We are making more than £100 million available for energy efficiency measures for 2016-17, which is an increase in the draft budget for the previous year, which was £89,000. I am correct in saying that. There is an overall increase in the draft budget. I accept that the budget this current year was increased by what you pointed out. Mr MacKenzie, the Green Deal, which we used in our cashback scheme, is no longer available to us for that, but we think that £100 million, which is a considerable investment by the Scottish Government in going a considerable way to helping people to make their homes more energy efficiency. We have already had over 900,000 measures installed in people's homes, one in three homes in Scotland, and we are now at band. We have had energy efficiency measures installed, which is a 41 per cent increase in 2010 in homes at a band sea or above, and 11 per cent in the past year. We are making considerable progress, given the very tight constraints on us. The echo is that the UK Government, without any warning to us, stopped the Green Deal home improvement scheme without any warning, and our programmes were based on receiving those consequentials. Given all of that and the changes that the UK Government has made over the peace to the echo and to the various schemes, our contribution is considerable, given the overall constraints on the Scottish Government budget. That is purely fraught from our budget, the £100 million. There is further funding from the energy budget, which I cannot really talk in detail on, but I know that there is about £34 million of the energy budget in energy efficiency and renewables, district heating schemes and so on, coming from the energy budget. I think that our commitment remains to energy efficiency. This is a one-year budget, and we have committed more than £100 million to it, and I think that that is a considerable investment. What I was getting at, I suppose, was that in talking to local authorities and housing associations and some third sector organisations that are trying to deliver projects, that those projects often depended on match funding, so they would get some money from the Scottish Government, some from eco through the energy company obligations, some from the Green Deal. By amalgamating funding from different sources and initiatives, they were able to make projects on the ground stack up and financially workable. Given the uncertainty of some of those other funding streams, eco and Green Deal, they found it very difficult to take projects forward on the ground and therefore were unable to spend the money that I had arisen from Scottish Government support. Is that a frustration and is that a challenge in terms of meeting the climate change targets and aspirations that you have within your portfolio area? It is certainly a frustration in terms of what is happening with eco. It is a frustration because our schemes were based on, as you rightly pointed out, attracting eco investment, but we still pull over our share of that. 11.5 per cent of all eco measures have been delivered in Scotland, and that is due to the funding that the Scottish Government puts in. Our 100 million does help to attract that, and this year we anticipate around 84 million being attracted in from the 100 million that we invest. That is significant, but we have had to look at our schemes as well because to see whether we can tailor them in a different way to ensure that our money is being used and it is being used, we can look at it differently where local authorities and projects are finding it more difficult to attract eco funding. Once the energy company has reached its obligation, it can no longer participate in a particular scheme. Those are difficulties and challenges that we have to face, but we have risen to that. Our investment shows clearly that we are committed to energy efficiency and tackling not just climate change but fuel poverty. We have the commitment that has already been made to a national infrastructure project to have multi-year funding, and that gives stability to companies involved in the energy efficiency market. That is what we are proposing to do, and we will obviously use what the powers we get from Smith in terms of what our programmes will be able to design even more effectively and more integrated with the energy portfolio to ensure that we are delivering and meeting our energy targets. If you take into account commitments that have already been made for the next parliamentary session to deliver 50,000 affordable homes and the energy efficiency under building standards that are implementing ever-increasing energy efficiency, do you feel that you are confident that housing-related infrastructure, expenditure, plans for the draft budget and infrastructure investment programme plans will support the achievement of the Scottish Government's climate energy change targets? I would say two things about that. The first thing is that our ambition to build 50,000 affordable homes is welcomed by everyone in the committee. We have to build more homes, but we recognise that we are building more homes. Yes, homes use energy, and that is accepted. Homes that are built now and new homes are built to much higher energy efficient standards and will continue to do so. We will continue to look at ways of improving the standards. The standards changed in October this year, and we will be looking as we go forward at any other changes that can be made to the 2013 Salomon report to deliver buildings that meet the EU standards. In line with that, we also have the energy efficiency, the EASH programme, for home improvements in the social rented sector that they have to bring their homes up to a certain energy efficiency standard. That is on-going at the same time as what we are doing in new homes. We are building new homes, improving existing homes and encouraging across the sector with the new SEAP scheme to raise the awareness of energy efficiency in homes to ensure that we can make our climate change targets. Just following on this, the minister in evidence, Sarah Tiem, representing the low-carbon infrastructure task force, suggested that all Scottish houses should be rated at least level C using energy performance certificate standards by 2025. It was estimated that that would mean that the Scottish Government would have to incur expenditure of £140 million per annum up until that time for the next 10 years. On the other hand, that would generate significant numbers of new jobs, 10,000 new jobs. It would mean savings for individual households on their household energy bills and also generate savings for the NHS. Do you agree with this analysis? Secondly, if you do, or a version of it, could you clarify how the Government aims to achieve the objective that is laid out by the task force? I do not necessarily agree at this stage and do not have enough information that we should be looking at all houses in a band C at this point. I do not know if that one-size-fits-all is the appropriate target for housing and buildings across Scotland, which is very diverse as you will be aware. However, we have to be aware of the carbon reduction plan. We have to make homes energy efficient. We are making available £100 million this year. We have committed to funding for energy efficiency programmes year on year. We have also said that in the next Parliament we will consult on energy efficiency for the private sector, including owner-occupied and private rented houses. As part of that, we will be looking at whether there should be a minimum standard and perhaps what it should be. There is a consultation to be had on that. We have made a commitment to consult on that. We have also made a commitment of £100 million this year and to continue that on looking not just at houses but buildings across Scotland in the terms of the multi-funding. That is a one-year budget. However, as we go on, future Governments will set future budgets. However, the commitment is made that it will be year on year funding for 10 to 15 years to improve the housing stock and the stock of buildings in terms of heating and energy efficiency to reduce the carbon emissions across the country. We are looking at the next Parliament to determine the way forward on this front, albeit that the direction of travel has been established. However, how far we have to go has not been defined as yet. We have defined that we will go forward and we will continue to improve energy efficiency. We recognise that we have already done that in the east standards in the social sector. We are looking at it in the private sector as we go forward. However, your question was specific about the EPC band C. I am saying that we have not made that decision yet. We do not necessarily know at this stage if that is the appropriate way to go forward, given the diversity of Scotland's housing stock and buildings. However, we will be consulting on standards in the next Parliament. On that theme, the Scottish Government's decision to make energy efficiency a national infrastructure project has been welcomed by more than 50 civic and business organisations in Scotland. Is that potential to be a game changer in terms of energy efficiency? I certainly hope so. In terms of energy efficiency—not just the game, but for public awareness as well—we are looking at regulating for energy efficiency as we move forward. It has to be recognised. That is why we have said that it is a national infrastructure project involving a huge number of organisations and experts in the field as we go forward with Scotland's energy efficiency programme. In what way are you meaning the game changer if you are talking about climate change reductions or warmer homes? I am not sure of where you are. I am asking the question. The organisations that have welcomed the development clearly see the potential for that in all the areas that you have outlined? Absolutely. That is part of the purpose of it, but the purpose is to make climate change targets but to improve our housing stock and the stock of our buildings across the country and to take with us all our stakeholders in doing so. On that point, is there a budget line attached to that commitment? Is there a specific commitment of expenditure for the designation of energy efficiency as a national infrastructure project? The part of the project is that we have this year—this is a one-year budget, and the budget this year is up. I am talking solely on energy efficiency and home energy efficiency, which is in my portfolio. It is a one-year budget, and we have committed £100 million or slightly over it this year from our budget. As we go forward, that will be for future Governments to determine the amount of budget that is spent each year, but what we have said is that it will be multi-year funded and will be funded for 10 to 15 years as a national infrastructure project. It will be more integrated with what we are doing. As Mike McKenzie mentioned earlier, the money that is spent on the energy budget in terms of energy efficiency and home efficiency so that we can integrate it better. That is what the Scottish Energy Efficiency programme will be looking at. It is in its very early stages just now that a meeting took place in December of stakeholders of the project as to how we go forward. I will be right in saying that, in this year coming, part of the £100 million that we have, part of that pilot will be piloted on how we can look at wider, not just at homes but at buildings. That has been agreed with the local authorities that take part in that budget. All of that is part of Scotland's energy efficiency programme. No, just to confirm that part of the domestic energy efficiency budget will be used for councils to develop pilots to test new and innovative approaches to improving the energy efficiency of all buildings in Scotland. We are working with energy colleagues on developing those approaches and working with councils. They aim to cover more than just the housing stock but to cover non-domestic buildings in an area. I also ask the minister about the heat expenditure programmes. There has been a suggestion and evidence to the committee that we would require, as a country, to increase the expenditure on that in order to meet our climate change targets. In terms of my portfolio, I think that that strays into the energy portfolio. I would have to ask my energy colleagues to get back to you on that. That is not part of the housing portfolio, specifically. Perhaps I can move on to the issue of housing supply. Clearly, the Government has a commitment to increasing the number of affordable homes in Scotland. Are you still on target to achieve that figure of 30,000? We have already met that target. In October, a figure showed that we were over 30,000 affordable homes in this current year. We have increased our budget for affordable homes for 2016-17. I get confused with the years for 2016-17. I have set a new target of 50,000 affordable homes over the next five years. We anticipate that we will also meet that target. What is the difference in grant funding as a consequence of that increased target? In the grant funding, we have increased the grant funding from £262,000 to £365,000, which is £266,000 to £365,000 for grant funding. Grant funding is the funding for social rented houses mainly. I am aware that the announcement of the additional target of 50,000 affordable homes to be achieved over the lifetime of the next Parliament is one that has been welcomed by housing organisations, not least of all because they have been calling for the Government to do more in this area. I am thinking specifically of Shelter Scotland and the existing homes alliance. What difference will that make in terms of employment? Is there a figure attached to that? The figure that is off the top of head is around 15,000. It supports 15,000 jobs. 13,000 to 15,000 jobs will be supported per year, I believe, with the building of 50,000 new affordable homes. Government has a range of targets and ambitions across the variety of tenure that we have in Scotland, affordable housing, mid-market rents, social housing and home ownership. Clearly, the Government made a commitment that has now followed through in legislation to abolish the right to buy, but you would presumably argue that the Government continues to fund home ownership through the help to buy scheme. Is it intended to continue with that scheme? Yes, it has already been announced in the programme for government, £195 million over three years to continue with the help to buy scheme, and that announcement has been made. How many purchases will that support? That will support around 6,500 purchases. Over what timescale? Over the three years. It is a three-year programme. The Government has committed to continuing to fund that scheme over three years. We have continued to fund that scheme. We have stated £195 million over three years, and that should support around 6,500 new homes. I will pass on to Clare Adamson. Good morning, minister. I just put on record my support for the additional 50,000 affordable houses by 2021. If I could just understand the figures and the budget lines a bit better, the commitment for the 50,000 affordable homes has an indicative budget of around £3 billion. You have spoken in detail about the housing improvement initiatives related to energy efficiency. Obviously, more houses means more carbon production, so it is not a movable face, if you like, for your portfolio all the time in trying to meet the climate change targets. I wondered whether that £3 billion budget line was just for the building of the affordable homes at an energy-efficient level that you have discussed already. Is there any indicative figure of how the energy efficiency money is included in that budget line? If not, is there any indicative figure in the work of how that might have to increase in percentage terms just to deal with the new 50,000 homes? The budget that is committed to £3 billion over the next five years is for the delivery and the building of new affordable homes. As I said in response to a question earlier, those homes will be built to higher standards and will be more energy efficient in any case. We will look, as the years go on, at building methods to improve how that can be improved to make them even more energy efficient if that is at all possible. At the same time, we still have the programme running for the local authorities to meet the energy efficiency scheme for existing housing stock, so that should be improving the energy efficiency and reducing the carbon emissions of existing housing stock. At the same time, the SEAPS programme will be bedding in, which will deal with buildings and houses in the private sector. All of that together will reduce emissions from existing stock and, hopefully, the building methods of the new stock should not increase them too much. I am not going to say at this point that, yes, there will be an absolute balance and there will be a net reduction, but we will be looking at that and our analysts will be looking at that as well. Overall, as a Government, we are determined to meet our carbon reduction targets. We know that, but at the same time, we know that we have to increase the supply of housing. You will be probably aware that Professor John Bebbinton has suggested that the current carbon accounting methods used in assessing the carbon impact of the Scottish Government budget was no longer best practice. Do you agree with that assessment? Again, I am not just making excuses. It is not something that is necessary within my portfolio of how the assessment is made. Our analysts are always looking at ways of assessing carbon reduction and carbon emissions. As we move forward to RPP3 in terms of housing, we will also be looking at how we can determine the emissions in our proposals in terms of RPP3. Again, it might be something that we have to go to the analysts or the energy portfolio unless Angus has anything to add to that. It is certainly not something that comes across my desk. Mr McLeod, do you have anything to add? No, just to back up what the minister was saying, carbon accounting methods are a fairly niche area of expertise in statistical and economic reporting, as I understand it. I cannot claim to be an expert in either of those areas, I am afraid, but I can liaise with colleagues working in this area and provide further information. Presumably, there are no plans to change the assessment of carbon emissions from housing building programmes. Are there any energy efficiency initiatives? The methodology for assessing the energy efficiency buildings is what is called SAP, standard assessment procedure. That does get updated from time to time, and that is what is used to measure both fuel poverty and, I believe, to measure carbon emissions. With the Scottish House condition survey, the energy efficiency that they measure is based on SAP, and that has now been updated to use, I believe, the most recent version of SAP, which is the 2012 version. It does get updated on a regular basis, and we generally follow in line with that. I apologise, but I am not an expert in that area. So there is a prospect that the new SAP guidance from 2012 does take on board some more up-to-date carbon accounting methods? Yes, I believe. I get the sense that this is not a very fruitful area of questioning, so maybe I will move on. Can I just ask the final question then that is on the Scottish Government's corporate planning? For example, potential savings in other budgets such as health from improved quality of housing, for example, are there arguments there that your budget should be improved in some way because there is effectively a saving on the health budget? Is that something, minister, that you have had any experience of in the wider corporate management of the Scottish Government? I mean that there are discussions on going all the time around issues like that within the Scottish Government in terms of what one portfolio can contribute to another portfolio or save another portfolio. We have on it, for example, the fuel poverty forum, we have a health representative on it now, and our homelessness group, we have somebody from health, and it is about looking about the impact that other services are having in people's health and wellbeing. We recognise that, but if you were asking me, can we say exactly the impact of an energy efficiency home, efficient home has on their health and how much that's reduced to health budget, it then becomes more complex. I'm not saying it's not something we shouldn't do and we're always looking at that that holistic way because the same thing could be said if someone gets a job that impact that has on their health, their overall health and wellbeing, so how much of it was the warm home or even the home and how much of that was based on the fact that they're getting a job. Yes, that has been looked at all the time within the Scottish Government, but there's an absolute recognition that if somebody lives in a roof over their head, has a permanent home, has a warm home, then it does impact on their overall health and wellbeing and it increases their chances of getting a job, increases their chances of participating in their community, so we have looked at that and we are talking about that across portfolio and not just in health, but right across portfolios. Alex, do you have any questions? No, I'm okay with that one. Minister, you mentioned earlier that the Government's commitment wasn't just to providing new homes, particularly new affordable homes, but also upgrading the existing housing stock. Do you want to say a little bit more about that and how the Government intends to bring the existing housing stock up to the minimum energy efficiency standards? We already have the arrangement in terms of social housing that has been brought up to energy efficiency standards under the ECE programme, the energy efficiency for social housing. What I said is that we'll be consulting on REAPS, which is regulation of energy efficiency programme, which will cover private housing, owner-occupied housing and SEP will look very much at that at the new programme. It is very much at an early stage, but there is a recognition that we have to bring the housing stock across Scotland. It has to be more energy efficient if we want to reduce carbon emissions as well as reduce fuel poverty. That is part of what SEPs will be doing and looking at the programme. We have had some discussions before we reached the SEP stage on how we go about that. Adam Ingram asked about the minimum standard, and that is the kind of thing that we will be consulting on. Should there be a minimum standard if so, what should it be as we go forward and roll out the SEPs programme? Are there any other areas that you would like to cover off? I know that we have looked at or expanded on them. We have covered housing supply, the issue of the help to buy successor scheme energy efficiency as a national infrastructure priority. Is there anything else that you would like to touch on? Other than the fact that someone mentioned housing across all tenures, as a Government, we are keen to ensure that when we do increase supply, it is across all tenures in terms of our focus on affordable housing, but we are also helping low-cost full ownership and the help to buy, which is about giving a kickstart to the construction industry and keeping jobs going. It is important that that is recognised. We are looking at increasing supply across all tenures, and that is what we are aiming to do for our focus on the 50,000 affordable homes. Thank you, minister. Do members have any final questions? In that case, it only remains for me to thank you, minister, and your officials for your attendance and your evidence this morning. Thank you very much. I will now allow for a brief pause for witnesses to leave the room. This meeting of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, agenda item 3, is for the committee to consider petition PE1539 by Anne Booth on housing associations to come under the Freedom of Information Scotland Act 2002. I welcome Anne Booth and Sean Clarkin, who are in the public gallery this morning, who have been waiting patiently for this agenda item to come on to our agenda. When the committee previously considered the petition at its meeting on 18 November, it agreed that, as the Scottish Government has now decided to formally consult on extending Freedom of Information Scotland Act to include registered social landlords and to review the Scottish social housing charter, it would seek the petitioner's views on whether it would be content for the committee to close the petition on that basis. The petitioner's response is attached at AnnexA, and in it, Ms Booth expresses a preference for the committee to keep the petition open. The committee is now invited to consider and agree whether it wishes to take any further action in relation to the petition. Should the committee wish to keep the petition open, it could be carried over to session 5, given the timings involved with the Freedom of Information consultation and charter review. Under those circumstances, updated guidance from the Public Petitions Committee sets out that the committee has the option to add the petition to its legacy paper for its successor committee to consider further in session 5. Alternatively, the committee also has the option to close the petition should it consider that no further action is required. I invite comments from members on what further action we should take as a committee. I suggest that we just keep the petition open and that it goes in the legacy committee for the next session. I'd be content with that, convener. Last time we discussed the petition, we were unclear how the petitioners felt about this, but given that they have now said that they would prefer it to keep open, I think that that's a reasonable course of action. I think that there is a consensus across the committee that we should keep the petition open in that case. Are we agreed that we will leave the petition open and add the petition to our legacy paper for further consideration? The petition will be kept open and will be considered further in session 5 of the Parliament. I now move this meeting into private session.