Seòmar agus comataidhean

Are there particular challenges with countries such as Norway, which is in the EEA, and the UK, which is now outside the European Union—Sweden is, of course, in the EU—in trying to devise an energy policy that incorporates and draws on the resources of all those countries, but which also designs rules that will ensure that energy needs are met?

I am aware that there has been strong debate and discussion about the inclusion of gas and nuclear in the taxonomy.

We had some evidence from grass-roots music venues that there is a need to ensure that the big economic drivers, such as stadium gigs and big shows that are extremely profitable, transfer some of that wealth and value through to grass-roots music venues in particular. The same could be said for screen productions in Scotland. There is increased investment into Screen Scotland, which is great. It will certainly drive growth in the cultural economy, but how do we get the value from the big productions and the big gigs down into the grass roots again? It could involve ticket levies or some form of payment for those who are making Netflix movies in Scotland.

I have one more question, which is about the world athletics indoor championships. The Scottish Government has largely funded the world cycling championships. My understanding is that there has been no contribution from the UK Government, even though the event will be seen as a Great Britain event that is hosted in GB. What about the world athletics indoor championships? Is the Scottish Government wholly funding that event or are there contributions from the UK Government? The championships will, again, be seen globally as a GB event.

Despite the huge investment in bus from the Scottish Government, from Covid recovery funding to the extension of concessionary travel, many of our constituents still face poor services. I understand that receipt of the network support grant plus is conditional on operators meeting particular terms and conditions, from freezing fares to protecting service levels. Will the minister provide further information on whether any current recipients of the fund have been penalised for not meeting its conditions?

Grazing pressure from deer continues to halt Scotland’s ambitions to restore native woodland and regenerate our environment. Does NatureScot’s use of powers under section 10 of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 this week represent a shift in gear on the Scottish Government’s approach to deer management? What further action is planned ahead of the natural environment bill?

I want to switch to the process of the development and climate proofing of the budget and the implementation of the joint budget review on climate. I welcomed getting the letter yesterday updating us on the progress that the Government is making on that.

I want to ask you about each of the three strands. The first strand that was introduced into this year’s budget is the climate change narrative. I welcomed seeing not just a carbon assessment but much more of a narrative that explains some of the policy choices that were made this year. What are your reflections on that? How might that narrative change in future as more work is done to develop more data?

That would be welcome. Previous committees have looked at the climate change plan and found it absolutely impossible to work out where the cuts in emissions were coming from. At the time, we were told that, because the TIMES—the integrated MARKAL-EFOM system—model that is used is extremely complicated, there are so many interdependencies that it is impossible to work that out. It would be good to have transparency in future.

This area is recognised as being one of international interest. The Fraser of Allander Institute’s report highlighted a number of international examples. Is your department continuing to make connections with other Governments, including the New Zealand Government, about their approach and how we can learn from one another? In some ways, it feels as though we are groundbreaking, yet we are also learning from Governments that have already broken some turf in this area.

In terms of strand 2, the taxonomy feels a bit rough and ready at the moment and it is very much restricted to capital rather than looking at resource spend and what that does. The future taxonomy will be the next big addition to the budget process—the next tool that committees such as this one will have—and it is going to have a greater breadth, covering both capital and resource spend, but what kind of depth can it get into? Will it be possible for us to look at individual capital infrastructure projects and say, “Oh, we can see now not just what the climate impacts will be in terms of construction but what that contributes in terms of net zero”? Will there be a clarity at the appropriate level of budget spend so that we can get our heads around the direction of travel of spending and what the choices have been within that?

I appreciate that the work with strand 2 will be taken forward in strand 3 to give much more granularity. You mentioned the climate change plan and the recommendation from the Climate Change Committee that the next climate change plan, which we will develop this year, should set out explicitly the carbon impact of certain policies. Does that give an earlier opportunity to take things that will go into the draft climate change plan, in particular, and assess those through the budget process?

If the plan has to be very clear about what the carbon impacts of policies will be, surely it would be relatively simple to extrapolate from that and say, “If we are spending on this particular policy in a given year, this is what the climate impact will be.” Does that give us a starting point with the climate change plan this year, whereby we can start to build some of that work into the budget, so that we can see a follow-through from the plan right the way through to spend?