Seòmar agus comataidhean

I think that we had those last year, and they added something, but it is still very hard to make an assessment of how climate change has influenced individual policies. That has always been the difficulty of scrutinising budgets. The overall narrative is great, but the taxonomy is still questionable, because although it says that £4.9 billion is being spent, loosely, on climate change, there are some things on the list that do not really add up to climate action. They are climate neutral—perhaps they are creating a supportive environment for climate action, but they are not exactly climate action.

I question whether the two things that have been produced and were produced last year actually help the committee and the Parliament to get a grip on where spending is going.

However, EPR is not coming this year, is it?

It would be good if we could get a breakdown of that £360 million, if not now, then at another time, so that we can see exactly what is on track.

Related to this is the proposed heat in buildings bill, which, if it becomes an act, will be an absolute game changer in developing demand and the supply chain and in giving a clear indication of when heat in buildings will change. Is that coming?

I am sorry to interrupt, but I just want to get some clarity. Am I right in saying, then, that the working assumption is that the budget will be the same as last year’s for the individual programmes that you have just spoken about—

—unless there is a decision post budget to change the allocation of different schemes?

I realise that this is an innovative policy space and that, in some ways, the Parliament is taking a lead on it, but I am also aware that time is running out. Last year was the hottest year on record globally, so we need to make decisions now that do not lock in emissions. To wait another year for more transparency is perhaps not meeting the nature of the emergency, but I recognise the work that has been done on all sides, including by clerks of the committee, the Scottish Parliament information centre and others.

That is it for me just now, convener. I will come back in on another question later.

Therefore, in relation to this year’s budget, there are things in the route map that are specifically about action in 2025-26. I come back to my original question about whether there is sufficient resource to deliver on all the listed projects that are time sensitive for this year.

I would like more information on how the funds are to be used, particularly in relation to supporting knowledge and action on the ground. Members will be aware that the fines resulting from the establishment of low-emission zones in Scotland can be spent on air quality management objectives in local authorities, so there is already a stream of funding there.

The Government is working on its refreshed air quality plan, cleaner air for Scotland 3. There is growing interest in particular pollutants, such as those resulting from wood-burning stoves in urban areas, and new challenges are emerging all the time. There are increased demands from medical academics and professionals for air quality to be monitored, particularly around schools, because children are particularly vulnerable to developmental issues in relation to air quality.

I would like more information on how the funds will be used and what the Government’s priorities are, particularly given that CAFS3 is coming through, and given the other funds that are available and the new and emerging challenges in air quality that the committee has been party to and that have been discussed in Parliament recently.

I do not think that I have time.

If we consider last year’s Taylor Swift “Eras” tour, for example, we can see that a levy of just £1 on each ticket for the three Edinburgh concerts would have raised £200,000 for our grass-roots music venues. It is those venues that create the big stars of the future.

We have talked a bit about Stirling; the Tolbooth venue in Stirling has a wee space that hosts an audience of just 30 people. That is great for new and emerging artists who have perhaps never done a gig before. They need a small intimate venue in which to ply their trade and get confidence to go on and achieve great things.

I welcome the fact that Green councillors in Glasgow City Council have been successful in getting cross-party support for the introduction of a stadium levy for council-controlled music venues. I look forward to progress on that.

I turn briefly to the plight of councils. Murdo Fraser mentioned the protest that we both attended and spoke at on Saturday, which was about rural communities wanting to stop the cuts to their rural libraries. We have to recognise that many such libraries are co-located with arts venues. They are often the last free, warm and open facilities that are genuinely accessible in communities. Once those buildings are gone, they are gone.

The cabinet secretary needs to look at councils’ reliance on arm’s-length companies for the delivery of leisure and culture services. That has certainly been the case in Perth and Kinross, where there has been overreliance on council funding through Culture Perth and Kinross. Perth and Kinross Council has not adequately funded the fair-pay policies that needed to be passed on to library staff. As a result, CPK is in a dire financial state. The council needs to properly fund CPK. It should acknowledge that it has a better funding settlement coming from the Scottish Government, and it has the opportunity to raise council tax and a visitor levy, so it should be taking rural library closures off the table.

I was going to go on to refer to what Paul Sweeney said about arm’s-length companies and Glasgow Life, but I will leave it there.

We need to restore confidence. The budget could be the first step towards that, but there is still work to do.