Chamber and committees

There seems to be a difficult balance between ensuring that you have the conditions for creativity without overformalising it to the point that it is stifled. My final question relates to that issue and is about monitoring and evaluation. Is there capacity in the wider social enterprise and creative sector to articulate what the sector does in language that NHS and other bodies, which have harder targets, can understand, so that they say, “Oh yes, I can see that that is saving X thousand pounds”? I know that that is a bit dry, but the chief financial officers of those organisations need to see that stuff.

There is obviously a big and intricate national picture; there is also the local picture. That leads me to the question about who leads on strategy and development. Are councils able and willing to do that? Is there inconsistency across Scotland? We heard last week about Renfrewshire Council, I think, doing good work on social prescribing. Is it a bit of a postcode lottery as to how social or cultural enterprise organisations—however we wish to define them—are supported? Is there good practice to point to from community planning partnerships or elsewhere on how to do this work effectively?

How do we map out the good work that is happening around Scotland? We heard in evidence last week that Creative Scotland is doing some of the mapping but that it perhaps excludes those organisations that are working with the NHS. How do we get to grips with the extent of the work that is happening around Scotland? Do we approach that from a Creative Scotland point of view or from a SENScot point of view, or are there other organisations that should be taking the lead on making sure that we understand everything that is going on and the value of that?

That makes a lot of sense.

I think that we have all been inspired by the work of the Children’s Parliament and by the creativity of young people. They often see links that we do not necessarily see.

I want to ask a detailed question about the assembly’s recommendations on aviation and some of the tax options in that regard. Is it your view that a frequent flyer tax, for example, could be brought in? That could operate alongside the air departure tax. Do you have any thoughts about how the air departure tax should be changed in order to apply it to frequent flyers?

Again, I guess that we could go into quite a lot of depth, so it might be an area for a longer conversation with Government. However, given the work that you have done so far, do you have any emerging thoughts on how we could change the tax regime for frequent flyers in particular?

I thank all the assembly members for their incredible climate leadership. As a politician sitting on this side of the table, I find it pretty humbling. That is how it should be, so keep up the good work.

I spoke to some members of the French citizens climate assembly when they were in Glasgow at the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—and they said that they were working quite closely with the French Government on a number of policy areas. Did the Scottish assembly discuss that sort of thing? Are there particular priority areas, such as retrofitting or public transport, in which you feel that you want to go a lot further in working directly with the Government? How would you want to do that? What level of engagement do you feel that you are able to have as you move forward?

Maybe we could read that across to renewable energy, to see whether such an approach is possible there. Joël Reland, do you have any thoughts on that?

I am thinking about some of the points that the witnesses have made and particularly about some of the creativity that we see in communities, the way that projects are set up and their history and diversity. Does that make it difficult to mainstream a particular model that can be taken to every health board across the country to show what such projects deliver, how to employ consistent monitoring and evaluation and how to develop assessments of the financial savings?

Is there a difficulty in trying to interface a grass-roots movement and grass-roots projects with some of the harder objectives and systems that the NHS, health and social care partnerships or community planning partnerships have? How do we get that creativity in communities interfacing with those who actually have the money in a way that can deliver the objectives in a consistent way?

I ask Robbie McGhee to start off from the perspective of his projects and how they have managed to negotiate that.

That is interesting. When it comes to how that taxonomy is interpreted within the devolution settlement, within the UK and across Europe, where there are sub-state actors that are looking to invest in particular technologies, do you have any thoughts on how that might play out?

We are meeting in Scotland, which has vast renewable resources. If you were to devise a green taxonomy for Scotland, maybe by creating a financial centre for green investment in Edinburgh, what would that look like? Could that exist within an EU taxonomy that is perhaps tilted in a slightly different direction, or which emphasises some technologies over others? Do you have any thoughts on that?

The tracker is a really useful tool and a really useful summary for policy makers. It is exciting to hear that you want to overlay some of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and devolution aspects.

The tracker highlights financial services, greening finance and the development of a UK taxonomy. Where do you see potential divergence or alignment with the EU or other countries that are developing their own taxonomies? In the EU, there has been a strong debate about the inclusion of gas and nuclear in its taxonomy. Do you see an inevitable alignment there, given that we face similar energy challenges across Europe, or is there a different tilt or perspective with other countries that might end up getting wrapped up in some of the trade deals that the UK is looking to set up?