Chamber and committees

I am interested to explore how we scrutinise. I will follow on from some of Donald Cameron’s points. The Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture has said that

“the Global Affairs Framework recognises the interlinkages between our domestic and international work and is rooted in the National Performance Framework.”

However, the Scottish Parliament information centre has said that

“the lack of targets within the framework and the absence of a clear link with the country engagement strategies means scrutiny is challenging.”

What are the witnessess’ thoughts on how the Scottish Government’s international work is rooted in the national performance framework?

Anecdotally, I have heard of real recruitment and retention problems in planning departments in my area. The system might have improved, but is the capacity stable or is it going up or down?

We have already discussed elements of the theme of my questions. I was interested in Craig McLaren’s comment about cuts to planning services in local authorities. Third sector and community organisations often look to redevelop or refurbish historic or listed buildings in order to provide facilities for their communities, but the planning process can be costly and cumbersome for those organisations. What more can be done to support them, given the constraints under which they and we are working?

I think that planners are still above politicians in the public’s perception. Who else would like to comment?

That is helpful, and it also feeds into retrofitting and achieving net zero. It is useful that you have highlighted those two issues.

I want to ask about the capacity to attract funding, in particular because writing comprehensive bids can prove to be challenging for smaller organisations. Linked to that, what metrics are funders looking for and how does that land? Who would like to start? Alison Reeves wants to come in.

During the earlier evidence session, we heard from Robert Rae that the impact of the funding cut would be catastrophic. From your perspective, what, if any, would be the legacy effects beyond the end of the funding?

Policy makers love metrics, particularly those that are associated with funding. How can you sell what you do?

As a follow-up to Mark Ruskell’s questions, I know that we have said that the inquiry is not about funding, but I actually have a question about funding, because I think that it makes a difference to how we build a place-based culture approach.

Caitlin Skinner made a point about Covid funding via Creative Scotland. I am aware that that particular funding is due to end in October 2023, later this year. I am interested to know what the impact will be on projects and on your organisations with regard to delivering your cultural outcomes.

To set the issue of funding aside for a moment, you mentioned in your submission the importance and impact of the Culture Collective. I wonder how that could be replicated throughout Scotland, in particular in areas that are not served by existing organisations. If funding was not an issue, what would that model look like? Where are the current gaps, for example?