���˿���

I will pick up on those transport themes. You mentioned the roll-out of concessionary travel for under-22s. That is a huge investment; £130 million is allocated for it in the budget. In addition, direct support to the bus companies is up from £54 million to £99 million. A lot of people write to me about the quality of bus services or about services that are going to be closed. I always point out to them the fact that the Government is investing a lot in concessionary travel and in keeping services running during the pandemic. However, a lot of people then get back to me and say, “All the money that is being invested is great, but why don’t you just nationalise it?” What is your response to that view?

The gateway review that came out last summer identified some risks with going even for the August 2023 date for implementation. What work has been done to look at those risks? How are you mitigating some of them? Everybody wants a deposit return scheme as quickly as possible, but clearly it needs to be up and running with the full confidence of retailers and the public. Can you identify what risks around the August 2023 date remain and how they are being considered?

That transparency will be welcome. Our predecessor committee asked for milestones way back in 2019, and I do not think that it got them, so the fact that we have them now is good.

What would happen if the committee decides not to vote for the statutory instrument today? What would be the implications of that?

It is fair to say that everybody on the committee is concerned about the delay, and I imagine that the minister is concerned, too. The original regulations that were put in place under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 gave the Government the opportunity to move quickly on a DRS scheme, and that opportunity was not taken at the time.

The minister has been put in a very difficult position with the establishment of Circularity Scotland only last summer. The fact that there is now a commitment to milestones and that we are going to hold Circularity Scotland to account—there is a critical role for the committee in doing that—gives me a lot of confidence that we finally have a minister who will deliver the DRS rather than its being the vague commitment on which previous ministers have not moved quickly enough.

I read the ENGOs’ briefings, and I am as frustrated as they are that the scheme is not already in place. However, we have to bear in mind that it is incredibly ambitious—it is the most ambitious scheme in Europe. It is not as if we are following the path of other small countries that might have put in place a scheme for plastic bottles with larger retailers to start with, and then considered moving over to cans or maybe to an online scheme, adding glass a later date. We are trying to deliver an all-singing, all-dancing, ambitious scheme in the quickest time possible.

Parliament agreed a hugely ambitious scheme way back in 2019, and it would be really disappointing if members of the committee turned down the SI and effectively voted down progress on the DRS. All that that would do would be to create even more delay. It would force the Government to reconsider the scheme from square 1, create uncertainty for business and, ultimately, impact on our environment, including our marine environment, and on climate change.

Monica Lennon said that she wants to make the scheme work. So do I. We are all disappointed that we are where we are, but we have an opportunity now to move at pace. I want the scheme to work, so I will vote for it. I hope that other members will, too.

I was just reflecting on some of the comments about the convening power of the public sector, and I want to press the witnesses a bit on that. Our inquiry looks specifically at local authorities. What is your sense of where local authorities can really crowd in that investment and drive programmes on the ground that can make propositions attractive to investment in the low-carbon space? I am thinking particularly about housing stock or other investment opportunities, where they work and, perhaps, where they do not work or where there is not the capacity. I would like to hear any brief comments that the witnesses have on that.

There is another aspect to that convening power. We are talking here about innovation in financial mechanisms, and it was interesting to hear about the Italian model—I know that other models around heat as a service can also be developed. To what extent do you see it as being the role of Government to effectively bring together energy companies and financial institutions to work on that financial innovation? Does the market need to lead on that and come up with solutions that minimise costs for home owners, ensuring that they can invest over a reasonable timescale instead of just getting a bill for £10,000 for something that they cannot afford?

I realise that time is getting on, but I would like some quick comments on those points.

I have a quick supplementary question in relation to Tracy Black’s last answer. I presume that you are in favour of the free market, and there will be market-based solutions, so I am interested in your attitude to regulation. If you are talking about levelling up and effectively creating a level playing field, surely increased regulation does that. It provides certainty for business, but it also says that we will need to grow and innovate in the market for low-carbon heating systems or insulation to bring the cost down for consumers and suppliers. I am interested in your views on where regulation sits in relation to that market and whether it can drive innovation and cost reduction.

Okay. Back to you, convener.

This year’s budget remains pretty challenging for local government, and we know the reasons why that is the case. It is difficult to see how councils will not be considering how to make savings in areas of discretionary spend. I hope that those savings do not fall in the culture sector, but there is a risk that they will. To what extent have you discussed that with Shona Robison and Ben Macpherson?

The flip side of the budget—the good news—is that it will result in increased funding for local government, particularly in areas such as health, social care and education. Do you see any immediate opportunities in the next year to use that increased budget to mainstream some of the excellent work that cultural organisations do to support health, mental health and wellbeing, for example, or will the increase in the budget be allocated to other priorities and not be immediately available for cultural organisations that do important work on wellbeing?

Everybody knows that what you have said is a good idea, but the issue is how to pin down such funding in long-term core budgets so that it does not necessarily need to come from discretionary spend, with which councils are struggling. That is what I am interested in.

To what extent is the national partnership for culture looking in depth at that type of funding? I notice that NHS 24 is represented on the partnership, and I am sure that that is welcome, but where is the discussion with health and social care partnerships or with COSLA about nailing down the matter, to ensure that, when the Government is prepared to increase investment in councils—under very difficult circumstances; I understand that—by providing what we could say is ring-fended funding, the value of that investment is shared with the cultural sector so that it is able to deliver on those objectives? We always think that that is a great idea, but it feels as though we do not know how it will work in terms of core funding.

Excellent. Thank you.