Chamber and committees

That transparency will be welcome. Our predecessor committee asked for milestones way back in 2019, and I do not think that it got them, so the fact that we have them now is good.

What would happen if the committee decides not to vote for the statutory instrument today? What would be the implications of that?

Okay—here’s hoping.

I have a couple of specific questions on the budget. One is about Historic Environment Scotland, which obviously has challenges because of the reduction in the number of visits, although it is to be hoped that it will recover. Are there any projections for how it will recover? Perhaps a crystal ball is required.

My second question is about the opening of the Copenhagen office, which you mentioned in your introductory remarks. How is that progressing? There is a budget allocation for that for next year, so can we expect the office to be opened this year? Are there any details that you can share at this point?

Everybody knows that what you have said is a good idea, but the issue is how to pin down such funding in long-term core budgets so that it does not necessarily need to come from discretionary spend, with which councils are struggling. That is what I am interested in.

To what extent is the national partnership for culture looking in depth at that type of funding? I notice that NHS 24 is represented on the partnership, and I am sure that that is welcome, but where is the discussion with health and social care partnerships or with COSLA about nailing down the matter, to ensure that, when the Government is prepared to increase investment in councils—under very difficult circumstances; I understand that—by providing what we could say is ring-fended funding, the value of that investment is shared with the cultural sector so that it is able to deliver on those objectives? We always think that that is a great idea, but it feels as though we do not know how it will work in terms of core funding.

Excellent. Thank you.

I think that the event will have a massive impact. The improvement in facilities, which will probably also benefit areas such as the Tweed valley and Fort William, will be incredible. However, in terms of cycling governance, it might still be seen as a Great Britain event. If that is the case, has there been any commitment from the UK Government to support the world championships in 2023?

This year’s budget remains pretty challenging for local government, and we know the reasons why that is the case. It is difficult to see how councils will not be considering how to make savings in areas of discretionary spend. I hope that those savings do not fall in the culture sector, but there is a risk that they will. To what extent have you discussed that with Shona Robison and Ben Macpherson?

The flip side of the budget—the good news—is that it will result in increased funding for local government, particularly in areas such as health, social care and education. Do you see any immediate opportunities in the next year to use that increased budget to mainstream some of the excellent work that cultural organisations do to support health, mental health and wellbeing, for example, or will the increase in the budget be allocated to other priorities and not be immediately available for cultural organisations that do important work on wellbeing?

I will ask my final question, and then maybe George can come in on that and the other aspects.

At last week’s meeting, the leader of Glasgow City Council, Susan Aitken, made an interesting point about the capacity in councils. She was talking about the capacity in her council, which is the largest in Scotland, but that is clearly an issue across multiple councils. For smaller councils, it will be an even bigger issue. How can councils work together? How can there be a sharing of capacity across the public sector? SSN is obviously one route to do that, but how do we create vehicles that enable councils and public bodies to work together to create more investable propositions, whether that is on heat, transport, procurement or any of the other issues that we have spoken about? Is there enough collaboration?

Access to resources has been a bit of a theme this morning. I want to go back to Ailsa Raeburn and Mark McRitchie on access to land. It seems that, as we are tackling the climate emergency by developing renewables and putting in place nature recovery measures, carbon sequestration and so on, communities could have a role in that regard. However, access to land is a concern, and issues have been raised around green lairds and private sector investment in land. What do you see as the most important next steps in land reform, if communities are to become more involved in climate adaptation and mitigation? Perhaps Ailsa Raeburn can start.

Thanks. That is useful.

Philip Revell mentioned that the climate challenge fund is coming to a close at the end of March. The Government has shifted into a new programme of climate action hubs, and there has been some limited investment in climate action towns. Will you reflect on whether the model of climate action hubs is, in effect, taking the CCF to a more mainstream roll-out of solutions? Have there been issues with that? What has been the reaction of your network’s members?

That is useful, Lorna. I have had a few conversations with public sector bodies in the past few months, and I know that a number of them are questioning whether they need large office spaces. We talk a lot about the cost of carbon reduction, and I wonder whether there are savings to be made there or whether there is a particular trend of working out the assets that organisations have and perhaps thinking about their service delivery in a different way.