Chamber and committees

Forgive me, but can I steer you a little closer to the question? I get why all of that is important, but what will be different about how the Government achieves that cross-portfolio approach to making funding decisions, whether on capital or on revenue, to ensure that, when a project is meeting the other objectives beyond culture, those other portfolios are able to make a contribution?

Are you saying that our witnesses last week were not correct in their assumption, or in the impression that they have taken, that there is a deliberate policy choice to fund more organisations rather than funding them to a higher level? Are they mistaken?

So, from your point of view, such an organisation, which must work across the sector, should have nothing to fear from the growth of the number of organisations that need its services, because Creative Scotland will support that growth in what it needs to do.

My final question is not so much on the funding and delivery of that type of work but on the issues that CCS deals with. If it is done right by any culture organisation, particularly those that perhaps use older buildings, the transition to net zero could be hugely beneficial, with regard to organisations reducing their costs in the long run, such as by generating their own energy, having lower running costs for their buildings and reducing transport costs. However, if it is done wrong, it could build up to huge problems. If an organisation makes the wrong choices about those changes, it could massively increase its costs.

Are you confident that, whether through CCS or the advice that you provide directly, the culture sector has the advice that it needs to make those choices sensibly and in a way that is effective for its balance sheet and for the carbon impact?

I am not asking for your thoughts on those people; I am asking for a recognition that we need to fly less.

Thank you, convener—I apologise for coming in just a few seconds late at the start of the meeting.

Good morning to our witnesses. I will start with the question that the convener started with, and which Mr Kerr touched on, about the tension between more organisations and higher levels of funding. You have given a lot of useful information on that, but I am struggling to get a real sense of clarity about whether a definitive approach is being deliberately taken in that respect. Last week, the committee heard from witnesses who were clearly under the impression that a clear, established policy approach is being taken, which is that more organisations will be funded, rather than organisations being funded to a higher level. You talked about the proportion of an ask that is met, but people are going to make their bids based on what they think that they are going to get.

Are organisations being supported, for example, to cover the additional costs for meeting fair work principles or higher energy costs? Are they being supported to bid for their increased costs, or is there a definitive policy position—our witnesses last week were clearly under the impression that there is—that the funding will go to more organisations, rather than reaching a higher level?

What about the kinds of organisations whose job is not directly to deliver cultural goods or cultural activity but to work with other cultural organisations? For example, Culture for Climate Scotland must support a wide range of other organisations to address climate issues through either their facilities, their operations or their cultural content. If there is a significant growth in the number of organisations being funded and, therefore, in the number that want to access its services, will the funding landscape work for an organisation such as that, which is sector wide, rather than working only for organisations that are funded to deliver their own programmes?

Thank you, convener. Good morning. I appreciate that you have told us that we are tight for time and that you are focused on deciding whether to keep petitions open, in the hope that substantial progress will be made in the remaining time available in this session. I would like to argue that it is urgent to get some clarity during the current session on how we can move forward with bus franchising.

The committee is well aware from its previous consideration that Parliament has already legislated in favour of allowing a local approach to franchising and that it is Scottish Government policy to allow a local approach to the development of franchising. Moreover, it has recently been announced that SPT has decided to press ahead with its proposals on franchising. In the area that I represent, this is a matter of parliamentary consent, national Government policy and local intention.

SPT’s consultation showed very strong public support for that approach: 83 per cent of respondents said that they were not satisfied with the current situation and that they supported franchising. In fact, the loudest voices that are against it are those of the people who have made themselves very wealthy by operating the current system, which does not have public support and is not meeting people’s needs.

Despite the existence of national policy, legislation that has been agreed by Parliament, local intention and public support, there are still significant barriers to franchising. Notwithstanding the recent decision on the regulations that the convener referred to, there remain barriers to progressing a franchising model and a lack of clarity on the degree of political and financial support that will be available from central Government to enable us to make progress.

If we do not get some clarity and some clear recommendations before the end of this session, I fear that there is a real risk that it will be the 2030s before people in Scotland, including in the area that I represent, are able to benefit from Scotland’s catching up with those other parts of the UK that are already well ahead of us when it comes to operating bus services in the public interest.

I ask the committee either to make a recommendation itself or to refer the matter back to the NZET Committee and to seek a clear and specific set of recommendations on how, in the next session, Parliament will remove the barriers that exist and provide the support that is necessary to enable much more rapid progress to be made.

I would never have guessed.

Convener, I acknowledge what you say about it being the Government’s stated intention that it does not wish to make changes to the legislative and regulatory process at the moment. However, the committee will recall that the vote in Parliament on those regulations was on an absolute knife edge, so we must accept that, although that decision has been made, a very strong counter case exists.

Moreover, the petition is not only about the regulatory and legislative framework; it is also about the level of resource and support that is necessary to allow the local, publicly supported intention to be taken forward. Beyond the legislative and regulatory aspects, on which the Government does not intend to make changes, there are aspects that will require further progress and movement from the Government, and I think that the committee still has the opportunity to secure that movement in the last months of this session.