Seòmar agus comataidhean

In addition to the £4 million?

That would be great.

On the funding for the empire, slavery and Scotland’s museums steering group, I know that the project was very dear to the heart of former culture minister Christina McKelvie as well as, I think, Geoff Palmer, who died recently. I am very supportive of the project, but what is your level of confidence that the £5 million funding will come forward? If that funding were to come, would it come from the £20 million?

I went to the immersive Van Gogh exhibition, which was an incredible experience, but I forget how that was funded. I do not know whether there was private money behind that.

My final point is on genealogical research, social history and financial inclusion. You mentioned places where some of that is happening. The pressures on museums have also been raised, and I have said the same thing to Historic Environment Scotland, which does not do nearly enough to capitalise on the attractiveness of its assets.

My impression is that Edinburgh has been absolutely bursting at the seams this year, and I also hear that from people in other parts of Scotland. Many Americans have returned. Notwithstanding the climate challenge that that presents, of course, it seems that there is a huge opportunity there. A few years back I took a genealogical trip across to the Grand Central terminal in New York, and it was hugely oversubscribed, and there is Ellis Island, which will tell you about the appetite that is there.

I understand the point about cost, but local museums really need somebody who can answer genealogical queries. For example, if somebody from the States or Australia wanted to find out about their auntie who was from Forres or wherever it was, it would be great if they could go to a museum and talk to somebody who could help with genealogical research and social history. They would be getting a service that they could not get anywhere else.

On the financial inclusion point, it seems that if it is happening, it is happening piecemeal. Is there a case for saying in general to museums and libraries, “We are going to have to do new things to attract more people in?” Measures for financial inclusion could be a source of income.

I just wanted to say that it raises a really interesting point, because I think that this will require a change in attitude when it comes to monetising the assets that you hold. You could make the service free to local people, but the fact is that, if other folk are coming to use it, it puts a burden on the library. We should perhaps have that change in attitude: let us monetise this. That might well be difficult, given that, as Jamie Halcro Johnston has said, there are all these different ancestry organisations, but what I would say is this: these are your assets—try to monetise them.

Given those actions, do you believe that you have met the concerns that were raised previously about transparency and accountability? I know that it will be an on-going thing.

My remaining questions are about the nature of Audit Scotland reports. I am the new boy on the committee, but I am well aware that the recommendations that Audit Scotland makes are not mandatory—I understand that point. I am equally aware that Audit Scotland is funded by the taxpayer, and it has to be accountable, like other public bodies.

I think that it was Nye Bevan who said that politics is “the language of priorities”. We have mentioned a number of times local authorities and their priorities, and the Scottish Government and its priorities.

It may be because I am new on the committee, but I am picking up on certain words that I am hearing—for example, that Audit Scotland “wants” or “expects” something. However, nobody elects you guys. The people whom we elect to councils, and to the Parliament and the Government, have to take decisions on priorities in pretty constrained circumstances. Is it legitimate, therefore, for Audit Scotland to come in and make those kinds of demands of elected public bodies?

Just to clarify, if those things happen in the way that you hope that they will happen, is it your position that the uncertainty, vagueness or opacity around how, for example, flooding money is distributed among local authorities would be made clearer?

Thank you, convener. I have no relevant interests to declare.

I am the new boy on the committee, so my questions might not be exactly as they should be.

You talked about how you work with Audit Scotland. How does HIE respond to concerns about transparency and accountability? You will know that issues were raised in previous reviews. Will you outline what those concerns were and how you have responded to them?

First, I go back to the very start of the discussion, when reference was made—this is in the report, too—to instances in which some communities might be more likely to advance their case more effectively, if I can put it that way, particularly where high-value homes are concerned. The convener was quite passionate when asking about that.

I think that we could all agree that, intuitively, that would make sense, but I am conscious that you said that there was no analysis and no evidence of that, unless I picked that up wrong. You said that the issue came up with stakeholders. Are you able to say which stakeholders raised that?