Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thanks very much for those introductions and, indeed, stories. You are all good storytellers, and you have given us some great examples.

I want to drill down a bit and look at what actually works with regard to funding, partnerships and so on. It sounds as if a diversity of connections is being made between your organisations and, say, statutory agencies, councils and other organisations in your area. Can you drill down into that and be quite succinct about what actually works? In previous evidence sessions, the committee has heard, for example, about the NHS in England employing people to go round and find social prescribing opportunities, and we have also heard about some of the partnerships that have emerged from community planning partnerships.

I am interested, though, in hearing your perspectives on the essence of this. How do you develop the funding partnerships that allow you to undertake more longer-term work in your projects? That question is open to whoever wants to come in.

I have a lot of questions about how to sustain what has been created and how to develop the partnerships that have been established by the various projects and make them sustainable for the long term. It seems as though the Culture Collective has seeded all that work in the communities, but how do you then build the network for the long term and get partners in that network to feed into it, recognise its long-term value and move beyond that period of great creativity and innovation that has lasted for the six months or two years? Ultimately, the need is there, the benefit is there and the commitment to communities is there, and expectations will have also been raised. Where do you go next?

I am happy to allow the discussion to move on.

I am interested to know to what extent, over the two-year process, there has been a different conversation in local communities about funding? Have discussions been galvanised about a transient visitor levy, 1 per cent for culture or funding from other sources? Is that embedding itself into future partnerships and future funding sources, or is it still embryonic? The momentum that you built up has to go somewhere. If, fundamentally, it is about funding and commitment over time, what are the areas that the community and peer-to-peer networks are trying to push forward? Are they trying to move the conversation on at local level about how things will be supported?

I welcome the record level of investment that we are seeing from the Scottish Government. It is partly a result of the Bute house agreement and Greens being in government and of successive budget deals in Parliament.

Does the minister agree that delivering the capital infrastructure that keeps the cyclists, the wheelers and the walkers separate from motor vehicles is the right priority for the Government, and that to drive up rates of active travel, it is a case of build it and they will come?

GBGB also said last week that a phase out of or a stark ban on greyhound racing would just drive it underground. Is it possible to drive greyhound racing underground? I am trying to imagine how that would work. Maybe it is—I do not know. Maybe there are examples of that happening elsewhere.

Does Sam Gaines want to come in on that?

Coming back to the point that you have made several times about the inherent risk of greyhounds racing at speed around an oval track, I am interested in whether it is possible to reform that. Last week, I put it to GBGB that it could consider racing greyhounds on a straight track. Is that something that the industry has meaningfully considered? Is there a way of removing that inherent risk in greyhound racing, or is there something about the nature of the sport—how it is televised, how it has grown up or how tracks are constructed—that makes that difficult? I am just trying to understand, because it seems to me that, if you remove that inherent risk, you perhaps remove a central part of the objection to greyhound racing.

Would you make a distinction between a democratisation of culture and a cultural democracy? Does what you describe—the work that you have done with the Culture Collective and the studies that you have done in Culter—really focus more on what a cultural democracy looks like locally rather than just on widening participation and access more generally?

Those were interesting points about how the world might be changing a little after Covid. Are there trends in terms of availability of time; is time becoming harder or easier to find? There is growing interest in the concept of a four-day week, which is being implemented in a minority of situations. What are your thoughts on that? In particular, how does that play out in relation to time not just to participate, but to organise the voluntary effort that is needed to, for example, run a third-sector group? How does that vary in communities that might be time rich or time poor? Reflections on that would be useful.