³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Going back to the deputy convener’s questions on the environmental court, the case for that and our lack of compliance with Aarhus, how do you see the debate moving forward? Lloyd, you mentioned, I think, that in the previous parliamentary session there was a round table on environmental governance that was chaired by Campbell Gemmell. It feels like we have been going around the issue for some time. If you see a way forward, what does it look like? There have been calls in evidence for a further governance review. I am interested in how that would be different from what we have seen coming through and what the Government has already conducted.

All done.

It has been an interesting evidence session. I was just reflecting on the number of constituents who write to me every week with concerns about the quality of services. They write not just about whether the services are running but about whether they are running on time or whether buses are breaking down.

I want to ask you about the conditionality applied to public sector funding. Jenny Gilruth, as a previous Minister for Transport, announced a review of bus sector funding, part of which was going to be a consideration of what conditionality could be applied. Obviously, we have the Traffic Commissioner for Scotland, who is able to hold some of the bus companies to account, but I am interested in hearing about the work that the Government has done to make the substantial investment in the bus sector every year conditional on some basic standards of service and improvements going forward.

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 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.

I want to ask about meeting the 30 by 30 target, which is the big overreaching international target. In the strategy, is there enough clarity on the pathway to meeting that target?

It has been reflected in some of your answers, to summarise what I have been hearing, that the non-governmental organisations on the panel feel that there is not enough detail in the strategy. We have a high-level strategy and a high-level delivery plan, but detail is lacking. Sarah Cowie’s organisation’s members feel that we cannot be too prescriptive, at this point. What is needed for delivery of the 30 by 30 target, and is there enough in the delivery plan to give certainty?