Seòmar agus comataidhean

That meeting was on 10 September.

Thank you for being clear about that. It is noted in the timeline that, before that point, the chief executive wrote to the Scottish Government at least a couple of times to notify it of her wish to return to work. Other than the pieces of correspondence that are noted in the timeline, was there any other contact about any of those matters between the chief executive officer and the Scottish Government?

Is that adequate, or do the rules need to change for such situations? Historic Environment Scotland is not a private company that happens to carry out a contract for the Government to deliver services; it is a public body. We accept that, when it comes to interfering in day-to-day operations, a line in the sand needs to be drawn on independence, but surely on a matter such as this—it is about the fundamental viability of the organisation—this experience must make you reflect on whether the rules are correct for public bodies in such situations, and whether the Scottish Government ought to be able to decide, not necessarily to appoint the CEO or interim CEO or whether someone returns to work in that role, but to instruct a public body’s board.

I accept—

Very briefly, I accept that you are saying that you are unaware of any such situation, but the point that I am making is that none of us wants to become aware of another one in the future. I worry that the rules that you and HES have worked under have allowed a bad situation to get worse.

Good morning, everybody. I am conscious of time and I do not think that we will have time for everybody to explore every issue that we would like to explore. The main opportunity here is for the witnesses to put issues on the record, so that we can take them up with the Government in the rest of the process.

First of all, I was going to come to Billy Garrett and ask whether he could give us any further update about the People’s Palace. As you are aware, we spoke about that recently on a visit, so I am grateful for the opportunity. You have been making the case for Scottish Government funding for the People’s Palace not only so that you can fund it directly but to lever in additional investment that will come from other sources if the Scottish Government makes funding available. If there is anything further about the dialogue you have had with the Scottish Government that you could make us aware of, I would be grateful.

I will turn to Councillor Bell. I am not sure whether Councillor Rick Bell is speaking for COSLA and Councillor Ricky Bell is speaking for Glasgow, but I am conscious that you have these two hats on, although, formally, you are speaking on behalf of COSLA at the moment. We are a committee with one specific portfolio remit. We are not here as the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee or the committee that deals with issues around homelessness, for example. If the Scottish Government were to make a more generous contribution to local government in general, it would no doubt relieve some of the pressures that you have talked about in relation to the impact on the council’s ability to fund areas such as culture. However, that ability would not be universal or uniform across the country.

If you were here with your Glasgow City Council hat on, you would no doubt make the case that, unless the Government resolves some of the extraordinary pressures that are being felt in relation to homelessness—partly as a result of devolved homelessness legislation that most of us support because we feel that it is more progressive, but also as a result of UK changes in the asylum system—that will massively undermine Glasgow City Council’s ability to provide discretionary funding not only in areas of culture but in statutory services. You are asking for a grown-up conversation about trusting councils to raise more of their revenue and about changing the way in which we fund local government. Are you saying to us that the level of culture funding that the Scottish Government makes available within that portfolio will not be enough to enable councils to fund those aspects of culture that they want to? In that case, how does a subject committee with this portfolio intervene with the Government on that question, when it sits within local government or homelessness, and these things all fit together?

Not that finger pointing takes us anywhere.

Thank you.

I want to briefly follow up on the impartiality point. When it comes to what impartiality means, I imagine that you face a similar challenge to the one that most of the media face. To some, it means treating all opinions with equal respect, whereas others would say that impartiality means calling out falsehoods and not treating every opinion as equally valid. Do you feel that part of your role in being impartial is to proactively call out falsehoods when they are made?

Can I be clear that I understand the level of flexibility that is being offered to Scotland in this regard? A future Scottish Government would have the option, if it was so minded, of charging rental profits at a lower rate of income tax or at a higher rate of income tax than presently—higher or lower than elsewhere in the UK, or higher or lower than other forms of income? Is that correct?