Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning, convener. I am delighted to be a member of the committee, as I was a member of the Local Government and Communities Committee for four years in the previous session.

My only declaration of interest is that I was a serving councillor on Perth and Kinross Council for 18 years, between 1999 and 2017.

The requirement to hold public consultation events for master consent area schemes is limited to those authorising major or national developments. That could exclude consultation on an MCA that authorises up to 49 new homes in a single development. Why is that the case, and what repercussions could there be?

Why is there no requirement for MCA documentation to be made available in public libraries and council offices? That has been the standard approach to local development plans in the past. Why might there be a change for master consent areas?

Good morning. You said that the Scottish Government has a part to play when it comes to the COP, which is about access and understanding.

However, although Scotland continues to have a role as a voice for climate justice, and it leads the campaign in some ways, it is failing to meet its own targets. That creates a potential conflict with regard to our credibility, given where we are. It would be good to get a view from you on where you think that fits in with aspects such as the sustainability of current levels of spend on climate justice.

Yes—thank you.

To follow on from that, how should we monitor and evaluate the Scottish Government’s existing climate justice projects? Those projects are receiving funding and they have support, and many of them are achieving a reasonably balanced approach, but they are not necessarily getting over the line in what they are trying to do. What needs to happen next?

As we have discussed, COP29 will be all about finance. However, it is not just finance that is required, but momentum, and how that is evaluated and monitored will give us an indication of what is needed for the future. The data that is transmitted will give us an understanding of where we are, but we need to have some way of evaluating that and monitoring what will happen. If we do not do that, we will continue to fall behind, and we will not progress.

I am delighted to be back again at committee to speak to the petition. I commend and congratulate the Bundy family for their tireless campaign since lodging the petition and prior to that.

It is interesting to hear the minister’s comments, but there is still room for further discussion about how we take forward the issue. We have already heard that there is an opportunity to develop BE FAST as a potential future approach. Indeed, the approach has been used, and there is a real challenge in ensuring that messaging gets out about it. However, there is still the risk of false positives with the use of that approach.

Throughout the campaign, we have all felt that it is better for someone to go to accident and emergency to find out whether they have had a stroke rather than sit at home and dismiss what is occurring because they are not experiencing FAST symptoms. However, they might be experiencing BE FAST symptoms. We need to continue discussing that. In the meetings that the Bundy family and I have had with the minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, there has been quite a lot of discussion on that.

The Scottish Government could work with Public Health Scotland and NHS boards to trial BE FAST. If we have a trial, we could access real results and data, which would allow for informed decisions to be taken. As I said, people who do not fit into the FAST criteria are not given the opportunities to have, for example, a scan or to go through medical processes. Individuals have lost their lives, as Tony Bundy did. I believe that there is still room for improvement.

I urge that a trial be carried out, potentially by one health board, to consider the issue. The subsequent report would show what is happening and give more data. That data will set out the case to progress the matter.

Good morning.

Good morning, cabinet secretary; it is good to see you. Given the concerns that we have heard from the sector over the past few weeks, when we have been taking evidence through the pre-budget process, and the opening comments that you have just made, it is clear that there is a need to ensure that the sector remains constant and that it also has the confidence that comes from having long-term clarity.

The need for financial stability has been raised by every organisation that we have heard from. Today, you have given some clarity about how you see the potential for that, but there is an “if” in relation to that potential, and that is before organisations have to deal with their staffing costs, the costs of producing work and even the cost of working towards net zero, all of which they must include in their equations about how they fund themselves. It is difficult for those organisations to predict where they will be in the future, and they need the Government, Creative Scotland and others to give them confidence in that regard.

Everyone tells us that they are doing more with less, but the cultural package that we provide is still strong and buoyant in the communities that we represent. Nationally, we have an organisational structure, but it is extremely fragile, and we do not know what will happen in the future.

How do you square that circle to ensure that those individuals and organisations can thrive and survive, which we all want them to do? They are doing all that they can within their own organisations, boards and management structures to do that, but it is extremely difficult for them to see what the future holds without having that stability. I note that, as I commented earlier, you said that it is an “if” situation.

You have also talked about the review of Creative Scotland. It is very important that we have clarity as to where the organisation is going and what is going to happen with it. You touched on the number of applications that are made to the organisation, for which it is not able to provide support. In its own way, Creative Scotland is not fulfilling its obligations to the sector, because it cannot: it has to decide how it rations the money and its resources. Is it time for there to be a change in the creative sector? The review may have implications for Creative Scotland. Is there anything within that that you want to explain to us? Some people have said that the review could be the demise of Creative Scotland.