Seòmar agus comataidhean

This February, the band Enter Shikari will perform in Edinburgh, not only to celebrate their new LP but to prove a point. In the price of their tickets is a £1 donation to the Music Venue Trust, which will go to grass-roots venues in each of the cities in which the band is playing. The band has shown us that ticket levies do not need to come at a cost to fans. Does the cabinet secretary agree that now is the time for the Scottish Government to accelerate progress towards establishing a stadium tax in Scotland to reverse the decline over the past year in the number of music venues in Scotland?

I have a number of questions about the most exciting issue: the joint budget review. I apologise that I was not here for the first couple of minutes of the meeting. However, I am aware that Philip Raines commented on the accuracy of the detail in annex J. It would be very good if the committee could get further updates on that.

I want to ask about the first two strands of work: the overall climate narrative, which was introduced last year, and the classification or taxonomy, which was, I think, introduced this year and is about whether spend is helping or hindering our attempts to tackle climate change. How are you reviewing those two bits of work? Will there be further improvements and further detailed evaluation? Obviously, some accuracy issues have been highlighted. What will you do next year? The information that has been provided is valuable, but it always leaves us wanting more detail and a sense of whether spend is making it harder or easier to tackle the climate emergency.

So, just to be clear, is the intention for that to be across the whole of Government? When we are looking at plans for investment in the NHS, and considering capital, new hospitals, refits or whatever, will the decisions around climate change and low carbon be absolutely intrinsic in the thinking? Ultimately, judgments might have to be made about what to invest in, which will bring in other factors, but I want to be sure that the climate thinking will be there and will be absolutely clear, evaluated and numbered. Will judgments be able to be made on the real value of investment in climate?

I want to ask about the fair fares review. We are still waiting for the review to be published and for there to be discussions in Parliament about the various options that, I am sure, will be set out in it. Currently, the Government is committed to two big concessionary travel schemes, and it was announced that free bus travel will be extended to people who are in the asylum system. Will you confirm that the budget for next year covers the concessionary travel schemes that are in place and what the Government has committed to already?

I have a question about the older persons scheme. It has been very challenging to get that age group back on to the buses after the Covid pandemic. Is it expected that there will be less of a draw on the budget that has been allocated for that concessionary travel scheme, given predicted demand, or are we expecting people who are aged 60 and over to increasingly get back on the buses in the next year and for demand to rocket up?

Okay, thank you.

It is good to hear about the increased budget for NatureScot and the strategic focus on bringing down consenting times and contributing to that renewables growth.

I want to ask Mairi Gougeon about the pressures on the marine directorate. You talked about the increasing revenue that is coming in through licensing, which is good, but are there particular pressures in relation to the breadth of work that the marine directorate is undertaking now? I am thinking about fisheries and the need to make good on the commitment to introduce a cap on inshore fisheries. That is science based and will require an investment in fisheries science. Will the marine directorate face being particularly stretched in the next year?

I think that it would be useful to have more detail. When I looked at annex J last week, I noted that some adaptation elements are included. For example, I think that £60,000 is being spent on bee health. That is fantastic, but that is in the same pot as the hundreds of millions of pounds that are going towards active travel, public transport and major investment in public infrastructure. The biggest challenge is trying to get a sense of scale and impact, because, at the moment, we have baskets of good things and challenging things.

I will ask specifically about local government. The classification that you mentioned now covers about 81 per cent of our resource spending, but it does not incorporate local government spending, which can be significant in taking us in the wrong direction or in propelling us towards tackling the climate emergency. Will you look at the classification of that spending, or would that require a change in the legislation?

The committee has heard about a lot of innovation from local government, which was certainly not there when we were considering the 2019 legislation. It is work in progress, I guess.

I will move on to strand 3 and the net zero test. We had a very useful discussion in Parliament last week with the Climate Emergency Response Group, which was hosted by Monica Lennon. I think that Mr Raines was there. We were looking at the guts of how the net zero test actually works within Government.

I would like some clarity about where the strand 3 work sits right now. I think the Deputy First Minister told the committee last week that the form and timing of how that work will develop in the future were unclear. Some of your comments in your letter to the committee have been interpreted to mean that that work might not be part of an annual budget process. That was not my understanding of the work that was being progressed; my understanding was that it would be integral. Are you able to explain where we are with the pilots and how the work will be part of the annual budget-setting process? That is surely where meaningful decisions are made.

Do you need more legislation to embed it into the work of Government?