Seòmar agus comataidhean

Are there any other areas under part 1 of the bill that relate to the requirement to have cognisance of the Scottish targets? You mentioned carbon capture and storage in your opening statement.

Yes, and it might well feed into what Ragne Low might want to talk about. I want to probe a little further on the changing nature of environmental assessments. Does the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill and its proposal to move to environmental objectives rather than follow European standards and processes of environmental and habitats regulation assessments form part of the concern here? With a shift in environmental assessments, could the answer to mitigation end up being different according to whether the secretary of state defines particular environmental objectives?

I think that you are recommending withholding consent on part 1 until it is amended so that Ofgem and the secretary of state can consider Scottish emissions reductions targets.

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.

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.

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.

It has been great having you here at this morning’s meeting. I want to go back to the issues of energy and the fit for 55 package. You emphasised Sweden’s role in finalising that, so is it now being implemented? I am interested to find out how that policy will reach out to countries that might be on the periphery of European membership or European Economic Area countries in order to meet energy needs within the European Union.

I was in Reykjavik at the Arctic Circle assembly last year, and there was a lot of interesting discussion around the potential for green hydrogen and renewables with sub-Arctic countries, industry, Governments and academics. I am interested to learn how, with green hydrogen and Europe’s hard-to-abate energy sectors, Europe will reach out to those countries that have renewable resources and draw them in to meet its energy needs.

I just want to check that we have the same understanding of the pressures that smaller regularly funded organisations are currently facing, particularly in relation to reserves. Most of those organisations are charities and they are regulated by the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator. If they dip into their reserves to a point at which they can no longer afford to make redundancy or pension payments, they will be acting outside charities law.

We are being told that that is an issue not for next year but for this year, even though there is some funding this year from Creative Scotland, which is coming from its own national lottery reserves, to keep those organisations going. Their boards are having to look now at their sustainability and whether they should keep going, even though they are currently getting money, because they are dipping into their reserves as a result of energy costs, having to pay staff an increase to meet the cost of living and other issues. Do you agree with that description? Do you understand the issue?

That is good to hear, but I want to stick with the particular pressures that are being faced by regularly funded organisations and those that are in a similar position but get their funding from elsewhere. We heard last week about the disproportionate benefit that those organisations bring, and I want to relate that to the national performance framework indicators that the Government has set—attendance, participation, growth in the cultural economy and the number of people who work in the arts and culture.

Last week, we were told about an arts organisation that operates in Huntly that gets £100,000 a year. It supports 50 artists and puts on 200 events a year. It has a wider economic benefit and spin-off in that town and its surrounding rural communities. That organisation is hitting all the indicators and strengthening our performance in culture. Will there be an impact if even a small number of such organisations go to the wall?