Seòmar agus comataidhean

I recognise that it is a hugely challenging position for you to be in, because you are, in effect, a funder of last resort for many organisations, such as Creative Stirling.

It feels as though we are potentially at a pivot point, and that a way forward would be to see much more cross-portfolio funding for culture and a recognition of the wider benefits that it can bring in relation to health and other objectives that the Government has.

However, it is very difficult to make the case for wider cross-portfolio funding without the projects being funded by somebody right now in order to prove the benefits that they can bring to wider society. I put to you the point that, unless there is funding of these organisations so that they can prove that value, it is very difficult to build the case for wider cross-governmental funding. That is a very difficult situation to get out of, but we have to show that it works before we can build the case further.

The latest episode in Tory climate denial threatens to deepen our reliance on climate-wrecking fossil fuels exactly when we should be doubling down on cheap and clean renewables.

In Scotland, we are making great progress—there has been record investment in renewables as a result of planning reforms and there are tens of thousands of quality new green jobs. The “Draft Energy Strategy and Just Transition plan—delivering a fair and secure zero carbon energy system for Scotland” reflects both the scientific evidence of climate change and that economic opportunity by clearly stating a presumption against new oil and gas fields. What impact will the new bill have on that exact commitment?

Despite £2 billion having been spent on ticket sales across the UK, every week last year at least one grass-roots music venue permanently closed its doors. Other countries have shown that there is a way out of that decline through ticket levies supporting the development of grass-roots music and venues. Does the cabinet secretary agree that 2024 is the year in which to turn the situation around, including by accelerating progress towards establishing a ticket levy on arena and stadium tickets to support the grass roots?

How do we meet the 30 by 30 target on the ground to the satisfaction of your members and give them the clarity that you are asking for without being too prescriptive about what they need to invest in?

Are you saying that you would expect to see all that detail in this delivery plan, or are there other plans, be they regional or species specific, that should come out of the delivery plan to provide that clarity? It feels as if you want to see everything—every action and target—in the plan right now, but I wonder what level of detail it would be appropriate to see in the plan at this point.

While we are drawing lines on a map, I will briefly raise the topic of national parks. I would like to hear your reflections on the proposal for the designation of at least one new national park, and how that could contribute to the targets. In addition, I would like your reflections on how national parks are currently working. Are they delivering effectively for the biodiversity agenda? If not, what needs to change? Some brief reflections on that would be useful. Perhaps Ailsa Raeburn would like to come in on that, or we can go to other panel members.

Does anyone else want to come in?

Caroline, do you have any thoughts on that?

Okay. Bob—I know that you want to come in on nature networks. Do you want to come in now?

Yes—but is the danger that nothing will happen, as a result? At the end of the day, somebody on the ground needs to look at a particular catchment in the Cairngorms, Fife or wherever, and make decisions about what they are going to invest in and what the targets are.