Chamber and committees

I have a quick supplementary question in relation to Tracy Black’s last answer. I presume that you are in favour of the free market, and there will be market-based solutions, so I am interested in your attitude to regulation. If you are talking about levelling up and effectively creating a level playing field, surely increased regulation does that. It provides certainty for business, but it also says that we will need to grow and innovate in the market for low-carbon heating systems or insulation to bring the cost down for consumers and suppliers. I am interested in your views on where regulation sits in relation to that market and whether it can drive innovation and cost reduction.

Okay. Back to you, convener.

This year’s budget remains pretty challenging for local government, and we know the reasons why that is the case. It is difficult to see how councils will not be considering how to make savings in areas of discretionary spend. I hope that those savings do not fall in the culture sector, but there is a risk that they will. To what extent have you discussed that with Shona Robison and Ben Macpherson?

The flip side of the budget—the good news—is that it will result in increased funding for local government, particularly in areas such as health, social care and education. Do you see any immediate opportunities in the next year to use that increased budget to mainstream some of the excellent work that cultural organisations do to support health, mental health and wellbeing, for example, or will the increase in the budget be allocated to other priorities and not be immediately available for cultural organisations that do important work on wellbeing?

Everybody knows that what you have said is a good idea, but the issue is how to pin down such funding in long-term core budgets so that it does not necessarily need to come from discretionary spend, with which councils are struggling. That is what I am interested in.

To what extent is the national partnership for culture looking in depth at that type of funding? I notice that NHS 24 is represented on the partnership, and I am sure that that is welcome, but where is the discussion with health and social care partnerships or with COSLA about nailing down the matter, to ensure that, when the Government is prepared to increase investment in councils—under very difficult circumstances; I understand that—by providing what we could say is ring-fended funding, the value of that investment is shared with the cultural sector so that it is able to deliver on those objectives? We always think that that is a great idea, but it feels as though we do not know how it will work in terms of core funding.

Excellent. Thank you.

I think that the event will have a massive impact. The improvement in facilities, which will probably also benefit areas such as the Tweed valley and Fort William, will be incredible. However, in terms of cycling governance, it might still be seen as a Great Britain event. If that is the case, has there been any commitment from the UK Government to support the world championships in 2023?

Okay—here’s hoping.

I have a couple of specific questions on the budget. One is about Historic Environment Scotland, which obviously has challenges because of the reduction in the number of visits, although it is to be hoped that it will recover. Are there any projections for how it will recover? Perhaps a crystal ball is required.

My second question is about the opening of the Copenhagen office, which you mentioned in your introductory remarks. How is that progressing? There is a budget allocation for that for next year, so can we expect the office to be opened this year? Are there any details that you can share at this point?

I welcome the balance sheet. It is a world first. The committee in the previous session spent a lot of time looking at the impact of nitrogen on climate change, air quality and water quality, so it is great to see that step coming through the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019 and into law.

I want to ask about the application of the regulations. I understand that it is early days and that this is a world-leading approach, but how will the balance sheet and the action plan that is associated with it be used by regional land use partnerships and river basin management plans in the practical management of nitrogen? Previously in Scotland, we have had nitrate vulnerable zones, so there have been attempts to manage nitrogen in areas where we have particular problems in relation to air pollution and water pollution. How will this approach change the way in which practical land managers at regional and local levels go about their work? How will it inform their work and the options that are available to them?

Thank you.

I am sorry, convener, but I have one more question, and I think that George Tarvit wanted to come in.