Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Are there links between provincial assemblies as well—not just the Governments but parliamentarians and assembly members?

Quebec is part of La Francophonie: does that bring specific advantages in trade? You already mentioned immigration. French-speaking peoples from around the world may be attracted to come to Quebec, but are there wider cultural and trade advantages? Have structures been set up that are in some way similar to the UK Commonwealth that can help French-speaking regions and nations around the world to develop?

I am interested to hear more about how the provinces in Canada work together and what the formal structures are for that and then to hear from Professor Cornago about how the Basque Country and Catalonia work together within Spain. I was struck by the experience in Germany where, I think, they have more of a formal structure—the Bundesrat—which allows the Länder to come together and reach joint positions. Notwithstanding what Professor Paquin said about policy differences between some of the provinces over energy, for instance, I am interested in how that shared interest is codified and what the structures are for joint working.

Thanks for explaining the complexity and, I think, the fluidity of the relations.

I want to go back to Quebec, Professor Paquin, and ask you about the position of Quebec in relation to the Arctic. Quebec obviously has a footprint in the Arctic as well as covering subarctic areas. How does Quebec engage with the increasingly difficult politics in the Arctic Circle, particularly now, given the position of Russia? I think I heard recently that Quebec has been going to Nordic Council meetings as an observer, and I am interested in how you engage with the Arctic Council.

Thanks.

Thank you.

The Government’s approach perhaps justified not putting a target for 2035 in the original legislation, because it is clear that a lot of work has been needed, particularly at a local level and with councils, to really understand, in a granular way, how the target can be met and, indeed, what it should be. I am pleased that the groundwork has been done, and I think that we now have a target that will drive that private investment, which is going to be critical in meeting the gap and ensuring that we have real projects on the ground that are well regulated and protect consumers. Within that, we hope that there will also be opportunities for municipal ownership and public benefit.

It is good to see the stretching target brought forward, but it is good to see that it is going to be based on the reality of what is possible and what is going to be investable and bankable.

Thanks for that. That was a good, clear example of the challenges. I recognise your work in ensuring that externalities get internalised over a number of years, so please do not read anything else into what I am saying.

I have another question about the role of WICS. We are heading towards new legislation on water and sewage. Do you see the role of WICS and the way in which it is set up as fit for purpose for where we are now? Is there a need to look again at the role of WICS and its duties? Are you unable to comment on that, or do you not feel that there is anything worth commenting on?