Seòmar agus comataidhean

The third sector has said that one of the advantages of the pandemic funding was that the process was more trusting. As Rachael Disbury said, that allowed funding to move quickly to organisations with strong credibility and a reputation for delivery. Are there lessons to be learned from the way that the funding was facilitated and provided in the creative space during the pandemic?

There has been a role reversal. [Laughter.] Thank you for your answer, minister.

By way of a follow-up question and in the constructive spirit of your response, I want to draw your attention—not necessarily for answer today but for consideration as we move through stage 1 and into stage 2—to response 97066875 from Dr Andrew Tickell and Seonaid Stevenson-McCabe from Glasgow Caledonian University. They have commented on the new reporting restrictions.

Of course, since the bill’s publication, in recent weeks, we have also seen the publication of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. I would be grateful if the Government would consider the points about consistency with regard to those pieces of legislation and complainer anonymity. I just want to raise that point about the comparison between the two bits of legislation in that regard—feel free to take it away.

There has been some mention of the financial considerations and the resourcing for implementation of the bill, should it be enacted. The financial memorandum estimates costs of between £5.36 million and £6.56 million a year to local government. Will the Scottish Government provide that additional funding? What engagement has it had with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on that matter? Witnesses have suggested that the financial memorandum underestimates the cost to local government, so I would be grateful to hear the minister’s thoughts on that.

Good morning. I have questions around the restrictions on reporting. First, you will be aware that stakeholders have called for greater legal certainty around when reporting restrictions begin to apply to child suspects, witnesses and suspected victims. What assessment has the Scottish Government made of those calls? Will the bill be strengthened in that regard as we move through the legislative stages?

The points that you make about the positive impacts of preventative spend on society and the public finances are well understood and are in accordance with the Christie principles. However, implementing the bill in a way that gets us to that point will require investment from local government and from the Scottish Government in the areas for which it has responsibility. As we take the bill on its journey through Parliament, we will need to consider the feedback that has been received from local government and Social Work Scotland about what sunk costs will be required to ensure that the implementation puts us on a trajectory towards preventative spend.

I understand that you might not have anything further to say on that today, but I am interested in what engagement you or colleagues have had with COSLA on those matters and how you intend to work through the practicalities of the financial considerations when it comes to implementation.

Thank you, convener. I want to bring some elements of the discussion together, with regard to what Mr Kerr and Pam Duncan-Glancy have asked about.

Minister, you have stated that you take the evidence from COSLA in good faith as its position; that was how I interpreted your answer to Mr Kerr. However, it is important to recall that, as a Parliament and as a collective—local government, national Government and across parties—we are committed to keeping the Promise. That is the essence of this bill.

In that spirit, I think that the message from the committee, having had the feedback from local government and from other stakeholders on the costs, is that we encourage the Government to have further dialogue with local government and other partners on the costings and how those will be met through the budget process in due course, should the Parliament pass the bill.

It strikes me that, if we were on the health committee and asking the same questions about sport, there would be such a crossover. Do you have any further comment on the time constraints due to the demands of the cost of living, particularly around key necessities such as housing, and the pressure that that puts on the volunteer network? Opportunity for participation is a concern across the whole wellbeing consideration, whether that is access to culture or sport or having the time to undertake exercise or cook. It is all connected, is it not?

Good morning. There have been fascinating contributions so far.

I want to explore consideration of enabling people to access genres, types or expressions of culture that they are enthusiastic and passionate about, have been exposed to and with which they have engaged and had a positive experience. Could we do better, do more or be more creative in balancing that with exposure to new areas of culture that people might become passionate about but do not know about yet? For example, I like Scottish folk music only because a few years ago someone bought me a ticket for a Celtic Connections concert, as a present. In all likelihood, I would not have known that I like Scottish folk music without that exposure.

Exposure is an important consideration. I am not saying that there is a hierarchy or that if only people knew about a certain type of music or dance, they might enjoy it. They might, however. How do we create such opportunities? I know that festival organisations consider that, but is there more that we could be aware of and participate in?

Those are important points.

Thank you all for those very important points about implementation, and for highlighting issues that we will need to follow up.