Chamber and committees

Excellent, thank you. It would be very helpful for the committee to have that detail, particularly when we are thinking about the next financial year.

I will take a step back and follow up on some of the convener’s earlier questions about the strategy and how we measure it. I thank colleagues for the Scottish Parliament information centre briefing; it is pretty unclear about some of this aspect and, having listened to the answers, I do not think that I have any greater clarity—if the witnesses do not mind my saying so—on exactly how we measure impact in the cultural sector.

I will try again and I will illustrate some points that Lucy Casot has provided in evidence. Let us look in particular at wellbeing. Lucy, you highlighted to us that

“63% of museums are actively delivering targeted health and wellbeing activity”,

and that

“68% work with people experiencing loneliness and isolation”.

I am thinking particularly about the current Government’s ambitions in relation to preventative spend, and looking at culture’s impact and how it can prevent spending in other public services. It is that key thing around isolation and wellbeing, which is really important to unpack, measure and illustrate. I think that that is what the Government is looking to hear. I will start with Joseph Peach and work back around the room. Can you help us out with that a little bit?

You talked at length in your manifesto and earlier today about the proposed culture bill and the co-design opportunities. Is it your expectation that some of those questions can be answered in that process? If so, do you share my concern that, when I put it to ministers last week that that bill should be print ready by the end of the current session of Parliament, they were somewhat lukewarm about the idea?

Thank you for the evidence that we have heard this morning. I was going to go around the room and tell you what I thought of it all, but we have not got time. However, it has been very helpful.

Kenny McGlashan, you say that you are looking for funding settlements in the budget that properly reflect the cost of fair work, equality, diversity and inclusion initiatives and environmental investment, because those things will become more difficult to deliver when funding is limited. I would like to give you the opportunity to unpack for us, and, indeed, ministers who are listening, exactly what those challenges look like and to say something about the urgency that exists with regard to the next financial year.

Thank you, Alasdair—that follows on from the picture that you painted of the difference between rural and island, and urban, settings. I represent a very rural constituency—we are the next-door neighbour to Orkney.

12:00

About 10 years ago, I used to work for the MSP for Orkney, Liam McArthur, so I would say that you are living in the second-best place in Scotland, next to my own constituency. At that time, we were, as a Parliament, heavily involved in passing the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018. Liam McArthur has now called for the 2018 act to be reviewed, 10 years down the line; I believe that the Rural Affairs Committee will be looking at that. The idea is that there is an island impact assessment for any aspect of policy that Government puts forward, but also for spend. I have great interest in seeing how the 2018 act translates into rural proofing.

Has the 2018 act created any benefits—or otherwise, if it has been ineffective—with regard to culture budget spend?

Thank you. If I have time, I will come back to that wider context. Do Liam and Lucy have reflections that they want to share?

Thank you, Kenny.

Alasdair Nicolson, I listened to your evidence with real interest. Earlier, you said that, too often, policy drives activity. Could you illustrate that for me? What did you mean by that? What change of direction might you be suggesting in that regard?

Thank you for those answers, which I appreciate.

With my final question, I want to kick off a conversation about public sector reform. I recognise that spend on culture is not confined to the culture budget. You have welcomed the uplift in funding from the Scottish Government, but the picture in the wider ecosystem—in local government, in particular—has become increasingly uncertain. Local government budgets have been cut significantly. The Parliament will debate the issue this afternoon; we will also scrutinise the Scottish Government’s plans for serious reform of local government.

At this stage, it is uncertain what funding settlements will look like. There are reasons for that. We have not yet had the UK or Scottish budgets. Nonetheless, the picture is pretty uncertain. In looking at the culture sector’s engagement with the budget, we must recognise the uncertainty that exists across local government in relation to public sector reform. Can you speak about your expectations, your hopes and your fears? Can you tell us what you think that the committee should be scrutinising?

Thank you, convener. I appreciate your having me along this morning, and I give credit to you for encouraging members to attend the Public Petitions Committee, which is something that I certainly echo.

I am grateful to my constituent, Mr Pettigrew, for lodging the petition. He has raised a number of key points, which I will touch on briefly.

First, it is important to caveat that tourism is very important for my part of the world—Caithness, Sutherland and Ross. However, the north coast 500 has exposed some serious challenges of infrastructure, roads and public toilets, which are just not up to pace. The challenges that are brought forward in the petition should be heard, particularly when it comes to the aspect of vehicle camping, which is outwith the scope of access rights and merits further attention.

I recognise that, in its evidence to the committee, the Government has said that it is for the courts to take forward any legal proceedings, but that puts a heck of a lot of onus on individuals who are trying to raise concern for the land that they are looking after. I will touch on that.

I will give the committee some context. There are schemes. The Highland Council has brought forward a motorhome pass scheme, but, by any measure, that has not been a success. You will have seen that in the evidence that was put forward to you ahead of committee. It has simply not raised the revenue required, and it has not done anything for environmental standards. Instead, it pushes motorhome users away from a lot of family-run businesses in my part of the world—in particular, campsites and caravan parks. We should be sceptical of that.

There are a number of layers to the issue and to the experience of my constituents every day. Fly-tipping is one example. In the period between 2020 and 2025, there were about 950 cases, but no prosecutions whatsoever. If anyone believes that the law is working, that is not the case.

On abandoned vehicles, within that same period, we went from 327 cases to 1,291. That was a big uptick. That puts a lot of onus on farmers, in particular, to look after their land. There have also been issues with wildfires.

I know that I am taking your time this morning, and I will try to get a bit closer to my conclusion, but we need stronger enforcement measures. There is no doubt about that. Whether those would involve the solutions that the petitioner has put forward is up for debate. I would certainly look at what resources we could provide to Police Scotland, which is already stretched.

Beyond what the Scottish Government has provided to you in evidence, I have been in correspondence with the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Tourism and Transport, Stephen Flynn. He has put it to me that there will be a group to look at motorhomes, camper vans and the surrounding guidance and legislation, which I recognise and think is welcome.

On littering and fly-tipping, the Scottish Government intends to consult on introducing keeper liability for littering from vehicles—which, again, I welcome.

I certainly recommend that the committee keep the petition open. Given where some of the Scottish Government work is, there is, absolutely, merit to further parliamentary scrutiny. I recommend writing to the Rural Affairs Committee and the Economy, Tourism and Energy Committee to highlight those concerns in relation to their work planning and the Scottish Government evidence that they will take and scrutinise.

I also recommend writing to North Coast 500 Ltd. I was disappointed that it did not respond to the petition to provide evidence today, given that the petition overlaps directly with its work. That would be a helpful way of ensuring that the issues that have been raised by the petitioner are heard directly.

Are you confident about the long-term arrangement and that there is not necessarily any need to provide greater clarity.

That is helpful. There is definitely an appetite for that conversation to grow, and I am sure that Inverness Chamber of Commerce and others would be keen to engage with HES on that.

I want to touch on the ownership arrangements at Urquhart castle. I understand that, since 1913, there has been a guardianship arrangement. That arrangement is quite distinct from the position with Edinburgh and Stirling castles, which are owned by the Scottish ministers. It has been put to me that there is not a lot of clarity on that and that the guardianship deed and title record should be re-examined. What would you say to that?