Chamber and committees

I will try not to pre-empt the question that I am going to ask tomorrow—Wednesday—but I can advise that there is indeed a Subsidy Control Act 2022. People may wish to look at section 17(1), which gives an indication that the Scottish Government cannot do what the convener is asking—it provides a subsidy. The Scottish ultra-low emission bus scheme—SULEBS—and ScotZEB have provided subsidy support for the difference in price between a diesel bus and an electric bus. That is a subsidy that is given. I appreciate that the convener has a point of view, but I would suggest that it may be helpful to look at the law, as the cabinet secretary has said. Then, we start to look at the matter in the round, and in Scottish terms. Furthermore, Scotland is not a city. We will go with that right away: we are actually a nation.

I will move on and extend this point a bit, rather than concentrating on Alexander Dennis—as much as that matters to me. I am trying to avoid covering the question that I have coming tomorrow. I think that the Subsidy Control Act 2022 is itself a major problem for Scotland, and not just with buses. I can see it being a challenge for developing heavy industry in particular, because we cannot subsidise heavy industry. Although we should have the cheapest electricity in Europe, and we have the water supply for various things as well, I am concerned that the 2022 act holds Scotland back severely from using our national resources to develop industry.

First, does the cabinet secretary agree with me on that? Secondly, what can we do about getting it changed? Doing so is important. I have a letter ready to go to the Prime Minister, and I am sure that the cab sec has, too.

My questions are on a slightly different issue, minister, and I will cover a couple of things. I agree with you that energy bills are too high. Heat in buildings is one of the key issues, but I will come back to that with my main question.

As a Falkirk councillor, I encourage you to come to Falkirk, where the council is renewing all windows and doors, and the properties have triple glazing. That makes a massive difference—£15 million a year is being spent on it. I would be happy to let you see some of that work.

I have a quick question in relation to energy and AI data centres. There is a discount of up to £24 per megawatt hour for AI data centres, so using 500 megawatt hours could save £80 million per year. I would love to use that kind of logic with our people. If we can do it there, can we do it for other industries? Can we do it for charities? People forget that charities pay for energy as well as business.

My substantive question goes back to your energy strategy. Since members joined the committee, our learning has been fantastic. We know that 23 per cent of energy use is electricity, but heat and transport make up the majority of it, and that is one of the challenges. I totally agree that we should move to a more renewable energy system, but the challenge with that is reducing energy use from heat and transport.

If you do positively on one, you need to do positively on the other. Soon, you will not be able to put a new gas boiler in a new house, which will be a change. There will also be more electric vehicles. At the moment, we have a surplus of renewable energy, but if you push those vehicles forward and want to make a big difference—we are talking about climate change—you will remove that surplus.

I agree that consideration of the base load should include hydro. I know that Kraken 2 is coming up. In the work that I used to do, I was involved with waterproofing. The pump hydro storage system is an exciting area.

I will go back to the question about your energy strategy, which has become one of the vital pieces of the jigsaw. If we reduce the energy that is currently used for heat and transport and turn that into electricity, will we get into difficulty with not having enough renewable electricity? Will there be more constraint payments if we build up the energy side and do not reduce the heat and transport side?

I know that that is probably a big question, because it has taken me ages to say it, but I hope that you get where I am going with it.

11:30

I look forward to you coming back to the committee. Fortunately, the training that we have had has really helped us, and you can guess that you will probably be asked plenty of questions when you come back.

I welcome the fact that we are taking a studied—I would not say cautious—approach. To me, that is sensible.

The initial reference to the cluttered landscape was more about all the different things that have come in since 2007, and the economic strategy in 2007 was recommended as one of the best ones. From the point of view of businesses, one of the problems is talking about things too much but not actually getting them done. The convener listed several initiatives that are being put in place, but how will those things get done? Taking action is probably more important than just sitting and talking about things.

I have a question that ties in with what Kate Campbell talked about. In the evidence that we have taken over a four-week period, we have heard that, although we have a huge base of people who have come through university and are highly qualified in artificial intelligence, they are struggling to get positions. This is not about AI data centres, but about AI itself.

This might be too big a question for you to answer in the time that we have left, in which case you could provide a written reply, but what potential do you see AI having for Scotland’s economy, given our significant skills base?

Thank you, cabinet secretary—and I apologise, as I should have welcomed you to the committee this morning.

It is a question for all of you. I accept the point that you recognise that PIP and ADP are filling the gap between services and support, so what is the scope for broader public service reform to reduce the upward pressure on disability benefit spending as a whole, rather than just mental health disability spending?

Thank you for your detailed responses.

On mental health, I appreciate the work that has been done by SAMH—I have been working with you in Denny, and we hope that we are going to develop that work and start to talk to NHS Forth Valley about the nook, because I know what a success that has been. Your survey showed that 86 per cent of the people you spoke to said that their mental health was better after using the service. I know that I am picking one person out here, but it is a fantastic service and that should be noted. There are also organisations such as Andy’s Man Club, which has changed men’s mental health.

On disability overall, the presentations at the start of the evidence session were very good, and I particularly appreciated Edel Harris following up on the issue of dignity, fairness and respect, which I think was always important for the Scottish Government. You also talked about filling the gap and who covers that. What scope is there for broader public service reform to reduce the upward pressure on spending on disability benefits or at least hold it where it is?