Chamber and committees

Do you think that conditionality needs to go beyond fair work to actual quality of delivery of services?

I was going to ask a series of questions about individual cases, but the evidence that we have just heard has been useful in that regard.

I have two follow-up questions. Is there work that ESS has done recently in which you have batched together concerns that have come from individual cases, then made recommendations about changing systemic approaches to regulation? An example might be acoustic deterrent devices. Shivali Fifield mentioned the River Almond, where the system has perhaps not worked well. Are there areas where ESS has worked well by collating individual cases and pointing to systemic change?

My other question is for SEPA. I was struck by your submission, in which you talk about an increase in the number of complaints. In your view, is there an expectation among complainers that ESS will pick up a batch of complaints that come to SEPA and work to address systemic issues? Could you elaborate a little on that? I will be a bit startled if SEPA is saying that it is concerned about the number of complaints and how it will resource the work, and that that is a problem with the system, rather than it addressing its practice. I am interested to hear comments on both those issues.

Okay. I appreciate that, and I appreciate your comments about the process.

Are there any other reflections on individual complaints and how they have been effectively addressed by ESS to drive systemic change, beyond the example of the River Almond?

I was interested in the minister’s comments about the community bus fund. A modest amount of money has been allocated to it. Which local authorities are taking up the opportunity, particularly on the revenue side, to work on a business case and look at the options for franchising and municipalisation? Are they predominantly rural local authorities or urban local authorities? It would be useful to get a sense of how local authorities are responding to the money that is available and what work they are doing.

I want to continue to discuss with you what your priorities might be in that discussion with Government. The committee has heard today, as we hear a lot, about the power of the creative sector and its ability to innovate and to tackle many societal issues, such as inclusion and placemaking. Some of the work of the creative sector during Covid, through culture camps and so on, has shown what that power is, yet many cultural organisations struggle to get funding from Creative Scotland. For example, Creative Stirling, which perhaps does not easily fit into any of your boxes for regularly funded organisations, is now in a very vulnerable funding position. It is clear that it could contribute towards a wide range of local and national government objectives if it could find an appropriate funding stream through Creative Scotland to enable it to continue.

I am therefore interested in what that conversation with Government now looks like. It is clear that you have an on-going difficult situation with the RFOs and their need for core funding, but there is also a potential that we need to unleash. As was demonstrated through our committee inquiry into culture in communities, we are waiting to change that model. We are waiting to see the cultural sector—the creative sector—bring in the changes that we need. However, it feels as though we are always on the cusp of something. Is this a point at which we need to start to fund some new models and to lean in to the innovation that is in our communities? Without such funding, is there a risk that that will disappear?

That feels like a space in which we could genuinely have synergy, if there were the will and the co-ordination to do that.

I recognise that it is a hugely challenging position for you to be in, because you are, in effect, a funder of last resort for many organisations, such as Creative Stirling.

It feels as though we are potentially at a pivot point, and that a way forward would be to see much more cross-portfolio funding for culture and a recognition of the wider benefits that it can bring in relation to health and other objectives that the Government has.

However, it is very difficult to make the case for wider cross-portfolio funding without the projects being funded by somebody right now in order to prove the benefits that they can bring to wider society. I put to you the point that, unless there is funding of these organisations so that they can prove that value, it is very difficult to build the case for wider cross-governmental funding. That is a very difficult situation to get out of, but we have to show that it works before we can build the case further.

How do we meet the 30 by 30 target on the ground to the satisfaction of your members and give them the clarity that you are asking for without being too prescriptive about what they need to invest in?

Are you saying that you would expect to see all that detail in this delivery plan, or are there other plans, be they regional or species specific, that should come out of the delivery plan to provide that clarity? It feels as if you want to see everything—every action and target—in the plan right now, but I wonder what level of detail it would be appropriate to see in the plan at this point.

While we are drawing lines on a map, I will briefly raise the topic of national parks. I would like to hear your reflections on the proposal for the designation of at least one new national park, and how that could contribute to the targets. In addition, I would like your reflections on how national parks are currently working. Are they delivering effectively for the biodiversity agenda? If not, what needs to change? Some brief reflections on that would be useful. Perhaps Ailsa Raeburn would like to come in on that, or we can go to other panel members.