Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will wrap up a couple of questions together. The last panel mentioned the recycling improvement fund. I wanted to get your perspectives on that, how you have used that, if you have, in recent years, and whether you see a continuation of that fund as being important to deliver the aspects that are covered by the bill.

I have a broader point about the bill. It is a framework bill and it has provisions to bring in secondary legislation. Can you reflect on whether you have engaged with secondary legislation in the past, such as that on the deposit return scheme and other bits of secondary legislation that are in this waste management space? What is the most effective way for you to be able to input a view ahead of decisions being made or while secondary legislation is being scrutinised in Parliament?

It was about the recycling improvement fund, whether you have used that and how significant you see that as a way of delivering some of the provisions and investments that are needed that will come out of the bill.

On your comment about what the committee would like to see more of, cabinet secretary, I do welcome the improvements that have been made to the report this year, but I note the useful table in annex C, which gives the title of the relevant European law, the subject issue at stake and the Scottish Government’s current alignment consideration. Under the final heading, there are a number of statements, with issues “under active consideration”, proposals “under development” and so on. There is some indication of the direction of travel, but the table does not really say exactly where we are in the policy process.

Perhaps I can take, as an example, the nature restoration law that is coming at European level and which will establish “legally binding ... targets”. The table says that the proposal is “under development” in Scotland, but we know that it will probably be wrapped into the environment bill. To what extent can we get more clarity on that sort of thing?

Part of the context of my question is the issue of common frameworks, which have arisen with regard to the deposit return scheme, and there is also a transparency issue. I feel, therefore, that there might be a bit more granularity to be had in the conversation across the UK. For example, are there any implications arising from the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020?

I wonder whether, beyond a general statement of “Yes, we broadly agree with this, and we are working on something”, more could be put under that heading to show the Government’s workings with regard to where we are at the moment with alignment and what a committee—whether this one or another—should be looking out for.

I am interested in your campaign for a cultural touring agreement. Alice Black just spoke about the TCA review in 2026 and what discussions there can be ahead of that. Are there other sectors that link in with touring companies and musicians and that are facing similar issues, so that there is potential for you to work together? I am thinking about the screen industry as part of the cultural ecology. Are workers in the screen and other cultural sectors coming up against similar problems? How might you build a case from there?

Okay—it is noted.

I have a final question. The committee recently went to Ireland, where we heard about a lot of the cultural work that the Irish state does to connect with its diaspora. Are artists and workers who have a family connection to Ireland applying for Irish passports? Is that a workaround to enable greater access to Europe?

I think that slightly more granular information would be good, because many of the boxes just say “Subject to future consideration”. What does that mean? For example, if something was related to programme for government commitments or a particular common framework, it might be useful to signpost it.

I also want to ask about the decision that was captured in last year’s report to diverge from the EU in relation to building standards for electric vehicle car parking. Is any kind of backward look taken at such decisions? That decision was made, but is there a point at which you go back and ask whether it is working, what sort of progress we are seeing in the EU with the roll-out of electric vehicle charging in public car parks and whether we should reconsider the decision? Is it the case that, once we have made a decision, we have diverged, thanks very much, or is there a point at which we go back and ask whether, in terms of keeping pace, that was the right decision? Is there a policy impact in that?

Yes—while being mindful of the constraints that we have.

That is interesting. Does anyone have any other thoughts on that?

It has been an absolute privilege to sit on the committee during this inquiry. We had a unique opportunity to hear from an incredible array of cultural organisations and artists from across Scotland, ranging from grass-roots community arts groups to more established national charities and projects. However, it has, at times, been a pretty humbling experience. While we have spoken quite often about there being a perfect storm facing our cultural sector, it is quite another thing to actually hear at first hand the exact scale of the challenge that many of those organisations are facing. I therefore take the opportunity to thank all those who gave evidence to the inquiry.

Of course, culture does not happen exclusively in the programmes of national performing companies or in gallery spaces, hugely important though they are. Culture is also in the very fabric of our communities and civic spaces; in every community-led arts group up and down the country; and in hubs, such as Creative Stirling and the Whale Arts Agency, that bring creative projects together.

The work of those organisations is vital to our national cultural ecology, and they are everywhere we look. Those cultural spaces are where communities can come together to educate and organise. During the depths of the Covid crisis, it was often those organisations that helped to look after each other.

The evidence from Edinburgh’s cultural hubs in the inquiry was important. It underlined the fact that, even in a city where we have a big and profitable culture sector, communities can easily be left behind unless there is a commitment to partnership and to co-production. The community hubs want to be empowered to do amazing things, rather than just getting free tickets to fringe shows. It is often the makers, artists and other creatives who provide the spark for transformation and change, while providing support for the most vulnerable.

Radical Weavers in Stirling, for example, is helping survivors of trauma, including ex-servicemen, through weaving. It has also run a project to help trans and non-binary folk to alter clothing, building personal confidence and connection to a wider community. This lunchtime, we heard from other wonderful community organisations that are working on the rehabilitation and empowerment of vulnerable people.

The inquiry took the time to explore culture in communities in all its forms and in all its spaces. The consensus was clear: that the vision for place-based culture is clear, but it is a fragile ecology that needs to be protected and nurtured if it is to thrive.

The funding settlement that is given to the Scottish Government from Westminster does not keep pace with inflation and is forcing difficult choices to be made. When projects and organisations are already running on shoestring budgets, changes to funding can have a disproportionate impact on delivery. Standstill funding across the sector has ensured that many groups are trying to do more with less, and running costs for organisations are skyrocketing, while the need for affordable cultural activities continues to grow. Project-based funding has hollowed out community organisations’ finances, with many struggling to cover core costs and keep buildings running. Local authority arts and cultural services have been cut to the bone.

The committee’s report is clear: we must find a way forward that provides the financial security and certainty that our cultural sector needs, and we must do so with some urgency. I am pleased, therefore, that the First Minister has made the commitment to double cultural funding over the next five years, with increases starting from next year’s budget. Beyond bigger budget lines, however, we need to rethink the way in which the sector is funded in order to secure a sustainable future.

There are innovative financial levers that we can use, and some of them are already under development. We need a long-term strategy for culture that pivots away from stop-start funding towards multiyear budgets. The new Creative Scotland funding model will go some way towards that, allowing cultural organisations to do long-term community development work: to thrive, not just survive.

We also agreed that community-based organisations support the fulfilment of many of our key national outcomes across Government, and that our funding model should also reflect that. It is about understanding the wider benefits that culture brings, including through leveraging spending across Government portfolios for culture.

We know that the Scottish Government is still in the early days of considering cross-departmental budgeting for culture and preventative spend. We cannot sustain our cultural ecology from a single budget line and that work has to be accelerated. There are important lessons from Wales, where the Future Generations Commissioner has embedded that longer-term thinking about culture, place and the role of preventative spend in the public sector.

The report calls for innovation in cultural funding, such as a percentage for the arts scheme. We also looked at the potential use of the transient visitor levy and the importance of having a cultural voice at the table when councils are looking at how that is spent. We can see how percentage for the arts schemes have worked across the world, with the Netherlands, Ireland and the States redirecting funds for major developments into the arts. It is time that we developed more tools like that in Scotland under devolved powers—although I agree with Keith Brown that Ireland has turned into a cultural powerhouse because it is an independent country. It has the powers of a small independent nation and it has not severed its ties with the EU. It is integrated into the EU, which has driven its incredible work on culture.

The cultural strategy action plan later this year will be an important opportunity for the Scottish Government to set out a plan that delivers radical change for our community cultural sector. I hope to see the committee’s recommendations reflected in the action plan. I am excited to see what the new investment in the sector can deliver over the next five years.