Chamber and committees

The issue of church closures, which community groups have raised with me, was mentioned earlier. The committee has heard concerns about the scale of proposed closures to churches. A number of churches are converted into flats, but they are used by a lot of community and cultural groups as well as their congregations. One point that was made is that there are very good acoustics in churches and church halls. It would be really unfortunate if we lose those assets.

Given that a significant number of closures is proposed, does that not reinforce the need for practical support and funding to ensure that we preserve those existing cultural assets? Are there any other thoughts on what we should do specifically in relation to churches? If community asset transfers of public assets are hard enough, that suggests that it will be even more difficult to retain those assets.

Thank you. Are there any other thoughts on that?

Does Johanna Boyd have any thoughts on that?

I also want to ask about regeneration and culture. Paisley, in my region, bid to be UK city of culture in 2021, and that has been a catalyst not just for cultural participation but for the regeneration of assets, with investment being made in the town hall and the museum. Ultimately, the bid was, unfortunately, unsuccessful, but it has had some real benefits with regard to regeneration.

I note that the Scottish Government has said that it will be doing a national towns of culture programme in Scotland. What lessons can be learned in that respect from the Paisley example, and what role do competitions play in driving forward that kind of regeneration and being a catalyst for change in participation in Scotland?

Good morning. You have all rightly talked about the impact that the cost of living crisis is having on the cultural and voluntary sectors and on participation. Obviously, funding is important in supporting the cultural sector during the cost of living crisis.

Some of the submissions to the committee have mentioned the need for greater revenue support, but Ms Reeves talked about the level of funding and the need to invest in facilities and to make them affordable and accessible. Obviously, in Government, there is always a discussion about whether we should prioritise revenue funding or capital funding, but we have heard about the importance of investing in community facilities and cultural venues in order to make them affordable and accessible.

My question is specifically about the voluntary sector, because its revenue costs are different from those for other organisations. Are we getting the balance right between revenue and capital? Both budgets have been squeezed, but are we getting the funding balance right in order to achieve the aims that you have set out for investing in facilities and keeping activities going through revenue support?

I want to follow up on the concern that was raised about the Church of Scotland closures. I am picking up that there is concern about that among the congregations in my area, but also among community groups that use the churches. I do not know whether that concern is shared by other voluntary groups in Scotland. It seems to be a looming problem, but I am not sure whether it is replicated in other areas. Could the witnesses expand on that?

We have heard this morning about the impact on organisations of the cost of living going up. I want to explore the costs for users. According to the Audience Agency, 90 per cent of people have indicated that they will cut back on leisure and entertainment costs. One of the biggest groups to say that was families with children under the age of 16. Last week, the committee heard from Professor David Stevenson about the importance of getting to people at a young age when it comes to accessing culture.

I was struck by what Caitlin Skinner said about affordable childcare costs being a barrier. Obviously, that is a challenge, but is there a solution in there at the same time? The Government is talking about having more of a focus on childcare not just for pre-school children but for school-aged children. Cultural organisations do work all year round—there is a Fèis Phàislig summer camp, for example—so is there an opportunity to provide affordable childcare? That would allow parents to access culture, but it would also give parents quality childcare as well as cultural opportunities for children outwith a school setting, which is what they want.

Thank you, convener, and good morning. I have no relevant interests to declare.

Good morning. You have told us about the benefits of the Culture Collective and the guidance, best practice and knowledge that can be shared, and we have also heard about the challenges in relation to funding, Covid recovery and so on. Given how much has happened in the intervening period, would it be of benefit to revisit the cultural strategy of 2020 to take into account the positive work as well as the difficulties and challenges that we have seen over the past few years?