Seòmar agus comataidhean

In an earlier answer, you mentioned the lack of capital funding. A number of the organisations that we have heard from recognise that addressing the climate emergency will be a significant challenge to many culture organisations. That will include a requirement for capital investment in buildings and facilities, either to decarbonise or to address the impacts of climate change. How do you envisage a capital funding stream working within Creative Scotland? How should its top-level strategic goals be defined? Should the body be given guidance from Government? Should it be entirely independent, as the cultural decisions of Creative Scotland are independent from politics? Alternatively, should that be demand led?

Thank you.

I will be very quick. Thank you, convener. My question is about political independence.

The act that created Creative Scotland says:

“The Scottish Ministers may give Creative Scotland directions … as to the exercise of its functions. But the Scottish Ministers may not give directions as far as relating to artistic or cultural judgement.”

I think that political independence in respect of creative and artistic judgment is important. The fact that the phrase “culture war” even exists indicates to us that certain issues are being politicised at the moment in our culture, and I would suggest that most of the attempts at that kind of political interference do not come from the Government. They have been expressed in the Parliament or in the media. Does Creative Scotland need similar protection to the one that it has from political interference on cultural and artistic judgments from the Government? Does it need that protection from the Parliament as well?

Thank you.

I wonder whether I can follow that up by asking colleagues to explore a certain scenario. At UK level, the main Opposition party in Parliament is seeking to repeal climate legislation, and there is a political party polling very strongly for the next election whose policy is led by outright climate change denial and conspiracy theory. To what extent would the Scottish Government’s international offices still be able to adequately function and deliver the Scottish Government’s policy in that area if a UK Government came in that was pursuing the polar opposite agenda?

Thank you, both.

Finally, is Consumer Scotland confident that the approach that the bill proposes will reduce the disproportionate risk for people with, for example, low levels of literacy or other barriers to understanding what services are being offered, what they are being sold and what the risks are? Will the bill reduce that potential inequality of harm or risk that is being run by certain groups in accessing services?

Thanks very much. That is all from me, convener. Do you want to check one last time if Tina McCaffery’s audio has been sorted out?

Finally, let us turn to the issue of age. There seems to be a broad welcome for having an age limit of 18. I do not hear any dissent about that. However, judging from one or two of the comments that I have heard, there is a question mark over whether any additional safeguards are needed for younger adults—that is, people who are over 18, who are adults, but who may for one reason or another be particularly vulnerable to social media influence, coercion or the social pressures that drive people to access these services for the wrong reasons.

If we were talking about healthcare, I would say that I am a strong advocate of Gillick competence. The principle that young people—including those who are not yet adults—have the competence to understand decisions about their own lives needs to be respected on an individual basis. However, we are not talking about healthcare; we are talking about buying services. I am resistant to using the term “treatment”, which implies that it is treatment for a condition, as these services are on sale on a commercial basis. Is there a need for any additional safeguards for younger adults or for other groups that may be particularly vulnerable to those pressures and social influences?

Good morning. As the Scottish Government does with all legislation, it has carried out an equalities impact assessment. Several witnesses have mentioned that a great many of the businesses that would be affected by the bill are female led. Unless I missed something, that might be the only equalities impact that has come up in the discussion so far.

Aside from that issue about providers of services or the people running businesses, can you reflect on the range of equalities impacts in relation to people who access or buy services, whether those relate to gender, socioeconomic inequalities, disability or the impact on rural areas? In doing so, could you consider not only access to the services but safety and whether the attempt to drive out what some witnesses have described as rogue operators and to ensure a high standard of safety has a positive equalities impact for the particular groups that might have specific reasons for accessing the services that these businesses provide?

As I am not in the room, I will not point to anyone, so whichever witness wants to jump in will be very welcome.