Chamber and committees

That would be useful, given the evidence that a large number of organisations have given us in the past few weeks.

Thank you, convener. I missed the past few minutes of the meeting because of technical problems, so I appreciate being able to come in. For the cabinet secretary’s information, when the committee took evidence a few weeks ago, we were given a really interesting suggestion about how we can support freelancers and about making stronger links with schools and communities. The suggestion was that that would be good for both access to culture and sustaining employment in a particular area.

You mentioned your own experience in school, cabinet secretary, so that issue about skills and confidence and access to musicians and artists for young people in school is really important. I just wanted to add that to the conversation that you will have with colleagues over the next few weeks when you discuss budget issues. It might also link to the per cent for art scheme.

Thank you for letting me come back in, convener. I do not expect a lengthy answer today.

I thank the committee and the technical staff for enabling me to join you virtually this morning.

Cabinet secretary, many of the cultural organisations that we have spoken to recently are grateful for the support that they have received during the last few months, but they highlighted two issues. First, they are worried about the coming months, not just in the pandemic but in the period after that, and they are finding it incredibly hard to plan ahead without multiyear funding. That relates to venues both large and small, many of which have lost their reserves because they had to use them before they got funding.

The second issue, which is slightly different, is about smaller groups. Although they welcome the funds that were available, many feel that the application forms were totally inappropriate because of their complexity and length. In some cases, filling them in was actually stressful, and in other cases it was just not possible for organisations to fill them in, given their lack of professional support. Will you and your officials comment on those two issues?

That is helpful. The process has to be robust and transparent, but it also has to be workable for smaller groups, given their resources.

The first part of my question was about multiyear funding, which I think you mentioned in your opening remarks. Large and small venues and organisations that do touring events have to plan ahead, recruit staff and so on, so multiyear funding is a big issue. Did you say in your opening remarks that you are thinking of moving towards that? If so, is that only for Scottish Government funding or would it involve Creative Scotland funding as well? I understand that Creative Scotland is doing a review—that was raised with us in evidence. Will you or your officials comment on multiyear funding and whether it will fit with Creative Scotland funding?

I will move to the Corra Foundation. You are in a position to access a raft of different donations from big organisations. Is there an appetite for addressing the loss and damage agenda from big financiers and people giving support to charities and foundations like yourselves to make that difference in the next five years?

Chris Hegarty, do you have a comment? I cannot see whether your hand is up.

In the previous session, I asked about where we are with the loss and damage pillar of the Paris agreement. The question was prompted, in part, by a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association presentation that I attended, in which Caribbean states talked about the massive impact of regular extreme weather incidents and said that they have no funding to rebuild, which leads to climate refugees and horrendous impacts. The final point in SCIAF’s submission says:

“How much Scotland pays for adaptation & loss & damage overseas, and how this compared to its fair share of global action based on historical responsibility.”

Do you want to come in on that, Dr Hill? We have our climate fund, but what more should we be doing in Scotland?

In the previous session, I asked about where we are with the loss and damage pillar that was agreed as part of the Paris agreement five years ago. At a recent Commonwealth Parliamentary Association event, representatives from the Caribbean gave us graphic evidence about the impact of regular extreme weather in destroying communities. That will lead to climate refugees in the future. The final point of Dr Hill’s submission, under the heading “Assessing Scotland’s climate justice credentials”, says:

“How much Scotland pays for adaptation & loss & damage overseas, and how this compared to its fair share of global action based on historical responsibility.”

As we approach COP26, what should we be saying about that in the discussions on the third pillar of the Paris agreement?

I thank the witnesses for the submissions that you sent to us in advance, which are incredibly useful. I want to reflect on the fact that it is five years since the Paris agreement. We have a huge opportunity and obligation at COP26 in Glasgow.

I will start off with Jamie Livingstone from Oxfam. In your submission, you highlight that the Paris agreement has three pillars: mitigation; adaptation; and loss and damage. So far, most of our focus in Scotland has been on mitigation and adaptation. However, in relation to the loss and damage issue, you make a strong point about the ability of global south low-income countries to put in the required investment.

You also commented on our being the founders of the industrial revolution in Scotland. Given that COP26 is in Glasgow, and given our role historically, what can we do to redouble our efforts and push that third pillar of the Paris agreement?

Alok Sharma told the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee that we need to spend $100 billion a year over the five-year period from 2020 to 2025. Our contribution has gone up—it is doubling to £6 million—which is great. What more do we need to do if we in Scotland are going to lead?

Yes. Your submission mentions loss and damage.