���˿���

That is fine; that is joined-up Government.

In those three areas of work, the first strand was the narrative, which has been useful. The second strand was taxonomy and classification, and that has been expanded so that it is now not only about capital but is about revenue, as well. Is that it, for the second strand, or will there be a review of it and further expansion of the work? Will there be transparency about that?

If there is more information about how that pipeline is shaping up, it would be very useful to get that.

I have a follow-up question about the pipeline of onshore wind projects. It appeared to be quite clear in last year’s draft energy strategy how we would meet the 2030 target for doubling onshore wind capacity—slightly more than half of what we need was in the planning system and slightly less than half of what we need had been consented. I am trying to understand what the big bulk of work for planners is that we do not understand at this point. If that holds true, pretty much everything that we already have in the system will meet the target.

I do not know the extent to which the onshore wind pipeline has developed in the past 12 months since the onshore wind sector deal and whether we are seeing far more applications or whether there has been a reduction. In the draft energy strategy, it seemed that there was certainty about what was coming down the pipeline. I am interested in your perspective, or Susie Townend’s perspective, on whether that has changed in the past 18 months. Clearly, the onshore wind sector deal has been fantastic for the industry and a major thing that the Government has pushed forward.

However, for this year’s budget, the focus is offshore wind and building up the capacity in that supply chain, and that is where the jobs will come from.

I would like to rattle through some questions about the joint budget review with you and your team, Deputy First Minister. I will start by asking for clarity on whether you or the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Net Zero and Just Transition is ultimately responsible for that? We have had correspondence from you and Màiri McAllan.

Okay.

At the beginning, you mentioned annex J, which is a pretty useful spreadsheet where we can find the policies that will make a big climate impact and those that might make a negative climate impact. Monica Lennon talked about woodlands and woodland grants, which are listed there.

In the interests of transparency, could a further level of information be provided? We have broad categories of things that are positive for the climate and that have a high impact on it, but if we were to drill down and say, for example, that we need to prioritise woodland grants or something else, how could we look at that and say that we need to do it because we know that it will result in a big impact, and how can we see the figures behind that? Is there a level of further information that would be useful when it comes to budget negotiations or other scrutiny?

That is really what my last question was about—that third strand of work and mainstreaming the net zero test across the whole of Government, making it integral to the budget process. I am a little bit concerned by the response that we had from Màiri McAllan, which seemed to suggest that the net zero test would not be intrinsic to the annual budget setting process. I am getting a slightly more nuanced position on that from you, Deputy First Minister. It is being piloted and extended across Government, but ultimately it needs to be there, even though it is not the only consideration when it comes to the budget.

Yes, it has been an interesting discussion. To follow on from that, where is green hydrogen right now, within the context of this year’s budget? Are the market opportunities near market, or are we still looking at far-market opportunities?

Looking at the hydrogen innovation scheme and what has been funded already, there are some really useful and interesting feasibility studies for quite small-scale application of green hydrogen. However, it feels as though a lot of that stuff is about demonstrating its value; it does not feel as though the full commercial opportunities are here—right here, right now. That may go back to your comment about offshore wind and the strategic focus. What is that focus for green hydrogen, perhaps in the longer term?

I have a final question about news coverage around the general election. There is obviously a very different political context in Scotland. We have two Government parties in the Scottish Parliament that do not stand candidates in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. I am interested to know your emerging thoughts on how you will bring the general election alive in Scotland and reflect the particular nature of Scottish politics. The various political platforms here exist in a very different way from those across the rest of the UK.

Radio 6 Music’s “New Music Fix Live” series of events in Glasgow made for some great listening, blending in jazz and other genres for a different audience. All of that is available on Sounds, of course.

It comes back to the fundamental point that we were discussing in the committee the previous time, about bandwidth and the opportunity to be heard. Listening to “New Music Fix Live” was great, but that was just four days of content. Given where we are now, particularly with the removal of “Jazz Nights” and “Classics Unwrapped”, I am interested to know whether there is more or less airtime for new and emerging Scottish artists as a result of the changes that you have made. The “Scotland Young Jazz Musician” programme was fantastic, but it was only two hours. I am interested in the metric of how much space there is now for artists to get heard. Even though some of the content that I am hearing is very good, it is only little nuggets.