���˿���

Yes, I have a brief question that was prompted by the question on parliamentary scrutiny. My understanding of the DRS is that the enabling legislation was the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, which was followed by a piece of secondary legislation that went through a very lengthy super-affirmative process in Parliament over three or four months in 2019. Were you involved at that stage? Did that process give your industry enough opportunity to contribute its views on how that scheme would look, and how does that relate to this bill and the statutory instruments that might come out of it?

That is a bit like DRS.

As the convener said, it would be ideal if we could ask the UK Government our questions. Do you have any sense that DEFRA is putting in place those steps? Is it making substantial progress towards step 1?

I come back to the issue of unsold consumer goods and goods that might be problematic. In its submission, the SRC talked about the difficulty of recycling mouldy clothes. That feels like a pretty niche issue, but are there other defined categories of consumer goods that can quite easily be described as problematic, so that we can include those in any later guidance?

We have had a number of submissions that refer to the importance of education and skills development. I want to get your reflections on that. Could something be put into the bill that would help to strengthen the development of that? It is an open question. I can see Cat Hay nodding. Do you want to come in? [Laughter.]

Nodding is dangerous.

Does anyone have any other comments?

I thank our witnesses for their evidence—it has been useful to get an updated picture for this year. I have a couple of questions. I want to go back to Liam Sinclair’s point on what a strategic transformative approach to embedding culture would look like. I saw a lot of colleagues round the table nodding their heads when Liam was talking, and others have explained what that might look like in terms of services. I was particularly struck by some of the work that Artlink is doing with links to education, mental health and other services.

Can you point to an area in the UK where councils, devolved Administrations and other bodies have taken that leap and said, “Yes, we will do the full Christie—we will tackle preventative spend and invest in culture for all the transformation that we know that it can achieve”? If there is an example that you could point to, that would be useful.

I will rattle on with my second question, which is on other sources of funding. We have had evidence from the Music Venue Trust about not just cultural tax relief, which we have mentioned, but relief for small venues and a potential for a levy on stadium and arena shows. I am struck by the fact that culture makes a lot of money and there is a lot of wealth involved, but I would make a distinction between big culture and the cultural organisations and practices that you are involved with. How can we transfer wealth from big culture to community culture?

Linked to that, do you have any thoughts on a transient visitor levy and other sources of income that could come into the sector during these difficult times? I am struck by that figure of 1 per cent or £18.5 million. That could come from Government, but it could come from a variety of other sources as well.

That is an excellent point. The way in which the concessionary travel scheme has been established is that there is an evidence test for extensions of the scheme, with certain conditions that have to be met and certain qualities of evidence that need to be submitted. That would get into the guts of the reasons why why the scheme has not been extended up to now.

The Government is currently engaged in a fair fares review that is looking at concessionary travel and fares across all public transport. I understand from the transport minister, who gave evidence to the Net Zero, Environment and Transport Committee this week, that that will be concluding next year.

Clearly, there are demands for the extension of concessionary travel—for example from people in island communities and from people who need companions to join them if they have a sight issue—but it would be useful to understand the context of how Government is looking at the extension of concessionary travel. In particular, zeroing in on why it has taken so long for the Government to come to a considered view and how this fits with a fair fares review would be a good place to go in terms of questioning and scrutiny.

Thanks very much for giving me the opportunity to speak to PE2028. It is on an issue that I have been aware of for a number of years. Having talked to people who are in the asylum system about the daily pressures that they face, the poverty that they have to endure, the lack of opportunity and the constriction of their everyday lives, I feel that such provision is the minimum that we can do to support them.

The committee will be aware that the amount of money that asylum seekers have to live on is very low—I think that it is around £5 a day, and if they are living in hotel accommodation it is around £1 a day. I cannot imagine how hard it would be to live on that amount of money. It feels to me as though it is an absolute impossibility.

The other side of the matter is that I have seen just how transformative the under-22s concessionary travel has been for young people—how it has opened up opportunities, how it has helped people to build relationships, to save money, to access jobs and employment, and just to go about their everyday lives and to have that kind of freedom.

I know that people who are in the asylum system do not have a lot of those freedoms as a right, but they are basic freedoms—just to get about and to participate in society, to see their friends, colleagues and others and to engage in the community. Their situation is hugely restricted, so just having free bus travel would make a massive difference.

The evaluations that the convener mentioned of the very limited pilots in Aberdeen and Wales—we are still waiting to hear about the pilot in Glasgow—will show the value of the policy. It feels to me that it would be a natural extension to the Government’s existing concessionary travel schemes—for over-60s, under-22s and people with a disability—to include this category of people.

I have to say that I am really at a loss as to why the provision has not already been introduced. The information that the committee has received in the SPICe briefing is quite clear that such schemes are not included in the category of benefits for which people with no recourse to public funds are ineligible, so that really begs the question whether there is another reason. Is there another legal interpretation that the Government has heard that is making it cautious? Are there complexities with extending the existing card-based concessionary travel scheme to people who are in the asylum system? Are there other issues about identification or other issues around budget? I genuinely do not know. I do not think we have had a clear answer from recent transport ministers. We have had four transport ministers in the past two years, so there is a question there, as well.

I am concerned that the issue is falling between different ministerial responsibilities. I am concerned that we do not have from the Government a clear view on the reason why the provision cannot be introduced, but I think that the case for it remains. It would be a great service for the committee to get under the bonnet of the issue to understand why it has not been introduced. On the face of it, such provision would be in line with the environment that the Scottish Government is trying to create, which is a welcoming environment for people in the asylum system as their claims are being processed. I do not understand why the scheme has not been extended.

At the end of the day we are talking about small numbers of people—fewer than 6,000—so, again, I do not understand, if there is not a budget reason, why the support has not been extended already.