Chamber and committees

Actually, if it is okay, perhaps I can wrap up that question with another one. I was asking about the wording

“inefficient fossil fuel subsidies”

and how that is defined. Earlier, Jim Skea talked about the fact that subsidies can be used in a social context or an economic context. What is your perspective on that?

The second question that I would like to ask you directly, if you can still hear me, is about geopolitics in relation to India. After the agreement and the kind of breakdown of process at the last minute, quite quickly we saw India being blamed for watering down the commitment on fossil fuels in the agreement. Do you see an inequality there, given that the states that are perhaps putting pressure on India to reduce coal have had all the benefits of development of oil and gas over the past 200 years and are still developing them? I am interested in your perspective on both those issues, which are really about global equality and where things sit politically.

I found it useful for the regulations to be referred to the committee, because I think that there is a wider issue about the processes for traffic regulation orders being pretty cumbersome and time consuming, particularly for council officers.

I note that reform of this type of order will enhance the ability of members of the public to offer their views on the experimental orders that are being put in place, and that can form part of councils’ decision making on whether they should be taken forward in future. It is a welcome first step in amending these particular orders and making them fit for purpose.

You have given a hint about what a cultural recovery could look like and what the benefits could be across society and the work of Government. I want to push you a bit more on that. The national outcome for culture says:

“We are creative and our vibrant and diverse cultures are expressed and enjoyed widely”.

That is a great outcome, but it perhaps does not describe what, for example, an organisation such as Sistema Scotland does, which is much more about community regeneration, health and ensuring that there are excellent outcomes for school leavers. How do we ensure that the wider work of organisations such as that is captured in the way that budgets are constructed, as well as in the national performance framework?

I am interested in what you said about the phenomenal opportunities that exist to bring production to Scotland. I am thinking about the rest of your portfolio and the Scottish Government’s aspiration to develop its footprint and its linkage to the rest of the world, particularly through the new hubs that you plan to set up. Does that work feed directly into the work that Screen Scotland needs to do to reach out and bring in production, as well as ensuring that the best of Scottish talent can move and take part in productions abroad?

Sistema has been an incredible success. I have been aware of it and its work in Stirling from the outset.

Many creative and innovative organisations throughout Scotland, particularly social enterprises, are working on town centre regeneration, for example, by turning empty shops into hubs for creatives. They are doing some incredible innovative work, but it does not always fit the criteria for charitable giving or even Creative Scotland funding. I know a number of organisations, such as Made in Stirling, which the First Minister visited a year or two ago, that have struggled to access funding from Creative Scotland because they do not easily fit the criteria, as what they are doing is holistic—they are working on regeneration and multiple outcomes.

I sense that that could be the case for other organisations that are working on, say, health through music or other group activities that benefit people with autism and do not necessarily fit any single set of funding criteria. That is where the buck stops. I am interested in how the budget and cultural strategy will unlock that creativity. For me, it is about 20-minute neighbourhoods, urban regeneration and everything that we need to happen in our communities.

I have one final Post-it note, convener.

A lot of what we have been discussing has been about wellbeing, and you have heard a lot of comments from members on that. I am interested in finding out how, in future, the Government will reflect on culture’s contribution towards a wellbeing economy and whether that will happen through the wellbeing bill or consideration of, for example, a future generations commissioner. Indeed, I have been very struck by the work of the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales on the Welsh language. That is perhaps for further consideration and reflection, but do you have any early thoughts on those two pieces of work, which the Scottish Government has committed to looking at?

With regard to revenue income, your research points out that we might not know what rail patronage is going to look like for another 12 to 24 months. I am wondering whether now is the right time for ScotRail to do a timetable review, when we do not know what the long-term trend is going to be. I am on the train every week, and I see marginally more people coming on each week, but it is not clear whether levels of patronage are going to go back to what we saw pre-Covid, when the trains were completely packed.

I want to ask Professor Docherty about his report on the future of rail post-pandemic. That remains controversial, because one of the recommendations was that there should be a reduction in revenue requirement. Clearly, that has raised alarm bells with staff unions and those who are concerned about cuts to services that might come on the back of that. Do you see a reduction in revenue requirement as compatible with designing a rail service that is competitive with private car usage?

I will give a quick example of that. Last week, I held a public meeting at which ScotRail told the public about the proposed changes that it wants to make to the rail timetable. Arguably, that has come on the back of your recommendations to the Government. ScotRail described the Perth to Edinburgh rail service as, in effect, not competitive with the private car, because people can use the M90 and the Queensferry crossing cheaply. ScotRail’s response to that is, in effect, that it does not really matter if journey times are increased, because very few people use the rail service anyway.

What are your thoughts on the compatibility of reducing that revenue cost with maintaining competitive services? Is there a danger that, if we cut too fast too hard, we will end up with a service that people will not use any more because there is nothing left to use?

I will follow up on that point. Recently, Scotland has upped its ambition for onshore wind, with a potential target of up to 12GW of onshore wind generation by 2030. The offshore wind target is sending a very good signal to offshore wind developers, and ScotWind is coming on as well. Do you not see the transmission charging regime acting as a block to the delivery of that? How cognisant are you of those targets in your forthcoming review?

Okay. I am sure that you will get a lot of responses.

Is the fundamental problem that we have inherited a grid largely from the 1950s, and that all the locational signals are based around that old-fashioned grid, which is based on coal-fired generation? We do not have any coal-fired generation left in Scotland. How do you see your decisions, as well as the charging and investment, fitting in with a grid that is fit for the 2030s and beyond, when we will have a completely decarbonised electricity system?