I have been talking about the A77 since my maiden speech. It is the main artery connecting the central belt to Northern Ireland, through the port at Cairnryan, and it takes an average of 69 minutes to travel a 43-mile stretch. The Government’s own south-west Scotland transport study identified the A77 as the slowest A road in the country, with an average speed of 37.7mph. It is also leaving the south-west at an economic disadvantage. When will the A77 be fully dualled?

My colleague Russell Findlay has made most of the points that I was going to make. However, going through the cabinet secretary’s letter, I noted that there is a bit in it about “successive increases” and the fact that resource has been increased by 60 per cent. I want to know more about that, because a 60 per cent increase sounds really good, but if the budget was not there in the first place, was that enough? Was the original budget enough? Did the 60 per cent increase cover things that should have been implemented in the first place?

The cabinet secretary also says that the recommendations

“are complex and require resource”,

which, again, comes back to funding. She mentions the national health service and how it will have everything done by the end of 2023. There is only one month left in 2023, so I would expect an update on how that will be achieved. Basically, we have one and a half months left, and the final two weeks will be the Christmas holidays.

There is no note on whether Ms Imery will be staying on in her role, whether she has been replaced or whether the role has been ended. There is no information on that. The cabinet secretary mentions that she had a meeting with Ms Imery and that there was to be another on 21 November with Mr Matheson. Did that meeting take place? If so, what was the outcome?

I move on to the letter from Caroline Lamb. It says:

“As Ms Imery noted at the Justice Committee there was no timescale set for the implementation of the recommendations”.

I imagine that the NHS chief executives get paid a lot of money. Why did they not set their own timescales? It seems bizarre to have a report that made all those recommendations, but to have no timescales for when they will be implemented. What were the reasons for Ms Lamb and the chief executives not putting in their own timescales? She has now said that implementation will be

“by the end of this year.”

The Scottish Prison Service has given us an action plan that covers everything that it is working on along with the NHS. I note that one of the columns says what action will be taken

“in the next 2/3 months”,

but there is nothing in it. The year will end in a month and a half’s time. I would have expected to see all the actions that are happening with the SPS and the NHS. They basically have six weeks or whatever to go and implement all of this, but there is nothing in their action plan. I would have expected to see more in the Prison Service action plan.

I was not on the committee when the report was published, so I am not as expert on the matter as everybody else on the committee. Looking again at some of the responses to the committee, I go back to my previous comment about timescales and actions. I have heard a lot about the Caledonian system, which seems to get a lot of good press.

The justice partners round-table discussion is referred to. Again, the response says that areas of focus will be discussed over the next 12 months. There is going to be a lot of consideration and exploration, but there do not ever seem to be any firm actions or timescales for implementation. In the area that we are talking about, the quicker we implement the recommendations that the experts tell us will work, the quicker we will see results and improvements in the justice system for the people who need it most.

Again, we need timescales and actions. It seems that people are just talking about things rather than actually doing things.

I would like to ask a wee question about recruitment and retention. What are the reasons for the high vacancy and turnover rates in our mental health workforce? What impact is reliance on locum workers having on service provision?

Thank you for that. Given that we are short on time, Dr Srireddy, if you wanted to provide any further information, it would be helpful if you could do so in writing.

Can you comment on the effectiveness of the new mental health workforce roles, including any views that you might have on the recently published “Mental Health and Wellbeing—Workforce Action Plan 2023-2025”? Does the plan give you a sense of how we are going to achieve what it sets out?

Action 15 in the “Mental Health Strategy: 2017-2027” is to

“Increase the workforce to give access to dedicated mental health professionals to all A&Es, all GP practices, every police station custody suite, and to our prisons. Over the next five years increasing additional investment to £35 million for 800 additional mental health workers in those key settings.”

Derek Frew and Dr Williams, what access do you have to mental health workers?

I welcome this debate on the conclusions and recommendations in the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee’s report, “Culture in Communities: The challenges and opportunities in delivering a place-based approach”. I commend the members of the committee and the clerks for their work, and all those who contributed.

I will highlight two areas in particular that the committee’s report examined, which I believe need greater focus from the Government. My speech will discuss funding challenges for the cultural sector, and then I will move on to the need for the Government and its agencies to listen to local communities and empower them.

First, the committee looked in detail at funding issues in the culture sector. It heard from a National Museums Scotland spokesperson that

“The current financial climate is one of the toughest that the heritage and culture sector has ever faced.”

The Federation of Scottish Theatre said that organisations that deliver cultural work in communities

“are in an extremely precarious financial position.”

The committee’s report cited a Scottish Parliament information centre assessment, which found that the total grant funding for Creative Scotland in 2021-22 was about 10 per cent lower in real terms than it had been in 2014-15. The lack of funding from the SNP Government has been a real thorn in the side of the culture sector.

The problem is not only the lack of funding, but the inconsistency of its delivery. Even when it is announcing more funding for culture, the SNP has often managed to make a confusing mess of it. Last year, the SNP cut the budget for Creative Scotland by several million pounds. It then made a big announcement that it was restoring the funding. After patting itself on the back, the SNP then announced that it had changed its mind and that it was going to go ahead with cutting that funding. That flip-flopping does not help the culture sector to plan. How are organisations supposed to plan when the SNP U-turns on a U-turn on a U-turn?

The A77 is a key road for businesses and the thousands of local people who rely on it to commute to work and to visit family and friends. The number of accidents on the road is very concerning. Public safety is at risk, and we need to see action. Will the Scottish National Party Government invest to improve that vital route, or does it plan to cut the budget for roads again next year?

No—time is short today.

The lack of certainty and stability makes those organisations’ lives very difficult. That is just one example, but the committee’s report looked at many other funding issues. In particular, the extremely short-term approach of culture policy came in for substantial criticism. Professor David Stevenson, who is the dean of the school of arts, social sciences and management at Queen Margaret University, said that the “biggest challenge” that the culture sector faces is

“a persistent and pernicious obsession with short-term project funding.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 27 April 2023; c 19.]

Scottish Ballet said that that approach created “a stop-start mechanism” and the Federation of Scottish Theatre also highlighted issues with the “inconsistency of funding”. Professor Stevenson said that, in other countries, there is

“much clearer understanding of how different elements of the funding landscape support different things.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 27 April 2023; c 19.]

I hope that the Government reflects on that and learns from the best examples of how other countries operate. I note that, earlier this year, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, Angus Robertson, said that he was keen to work on a multiyear funding approach, and I hope that that work will conclude imminently. A clearer funding system would be very beneficial to the culture sector.

However, funding is not the only issue that needs to be addressed to promote culture more effectively in Scotland. The Government must also listen more closely to communities. As a point of principle, my party believes that local people are best placed to decide what is best for their community. We firmly support communities having more power to shape the cultural life in their own area. The best preservers and promoters of local heritage and cultural sites are the people in those areas. They must be empowered to take the lead themselves, free from the constraints of too much bureaucracy or too much imposition and top-down control from the Government. The role of the Government and councils must be to deliver the platform and environment that allow local communities to feel able to make a difference themselves. As things stand, the Government is not meeting its end of the bargain.

I return to Professor Stevenson’s evidence to the committee, in which he noted:

“we fall into thinking that there is a one-size-fits-all model”.

The report also notes his comments around the “danger” of helping individuals to overcome barriers to cultural participation only where they are

“barriers to the type of culture that we feel is valuable for them to take part in.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 27 April 2023; c2, 4.]

It was welcome in Creative Scotland’s evidence to the committee that it acknowledged that

“There are cases of what might be felt as, ‘We are doing good to communities—we are offering you something, so come and see it,’ without understanding what it can mean to the people and what the unmet need is in that community.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 8 June 2023; c 5.]

All the evidence seems to indicate that there is too much of a top-down approach to culture in Scotland at the moment. Local communities are often boxed into what cultural projects they get, which is not how things should be.

I hope that the Government will focus on improving how it co-operates and works with local communities, and I hope that it will address the inconsistency of funding, so that the culture sector can more effectively plan for the future.

It is almost eight weeks since I raised in the chamber the issue of the fire at Ayr station hotel. Ayr station is still closed, the surrounding roads are closed because of safety concerns and local businesses are suffering. I ask again what funding and help the Scottish Government will provide to help to find a speedy resolution.