Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you.

I, too, thank the clerks and the officials for their work on producing those reports.

I will follow up on the questions from Kate Forbes and Donald Cameron on the tests in general that the Scottish Government is applying on EU alignment.

Earlier, you said that we align with EU law where appropriate and that that means where it is possible and meaningful—which means not aligning where there is no impact. This morning, we have had the example of gene editing and whether that would be desirable, and Kate Forbes raised issues about whether provisions would be in our national interests. In addition to whether something is possible or meaningful, you mentioned common sense, and surely there is also an element or test of whether the Scottish Government agrees with the proposals.

I thank the panel members for your evidence and your campaigning efforts on these issues. On the issue of a cultural touring agreement, it would be remiss of me not to mention that the shadow secretary of state for culture, media and sport has committed a future Labour Government to negotiating an EU-wide cultural touring agreement, which would include carnet, cabotage and customs. The evidence that we are getting this morning is that there is an urgent need for action on that issue.

In the meantime, witnesses have laid out a lot of evidence about the impact that the situation is having on income and career progression, and you have highlighted a range of evidence from other organisations in relation to that. Is there a need for the UK Government to carry out a full long-term assessment of the impact of the current situation, so that there can be greater recognition of and agreement on the need to address the issue?

Professor Paquin, on your point about the separation of international work and investment in trade, when we look at outcomes and try to attract investment and trade to Scotland, we hear about a desire for business to have a single point of contact. You have different levels of government, departments—perhaps you have economic development departments and international departments—and businesses that may look to attract investment. Does that work well in practice for achieving the outcomes of investment and trade and creating that single point of contact in order to avoid the duplication that can sometimes get in the way and frustrate trade and investment?

I would like to understand a bit more where that migration comes from. It will come from all over, but are there any particular countries or regions to mention?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. My thoughts go out to all those people affected by the loss of innocent civilian life in Israel and Palestine, and to all those with loved ones in the region, including the First Minister. Our thoughts and support are with him.

On the number of families in Scotland affected by the current conflict, what dialogue has the Scottish Government had with the British Government to estimate, as far as is possible in a very difficult and challenging situation, how many UK nationals from Scotland are currently in Israel and Gaza? I appreciate that the situation is very difficult, but what assessment can be made of their welfare? What more can be done to get a better understanding of the situation that is affecting UK nationals from Scotland who are in the region?

Thank you for that answer. One area where the Government has not matched its ambition with investment is the £6.6 million—or 10 per cent—cut to Creative Scotland’s budget, which you promised not to proceed with in February, but have gone ahead with in September. The amount of money is vastly important to the sector but in the context of the overall Scottish budget, it is about 0.1 per cent. We know the benefits that the culture sector provides to the economy, health and the justice sector, as you have mentioned already. Are those just warm words? People who are watching this meeting would say, “Your acknowledgment of the benefits of the culture sector is plain, cabinet secretary, but you are cutting our budget at a time when we need that resource.” If you really think that the sector represents value for money and is of benefit to the wider society, not just the culture sector, why are you proceeding with every penny of those cuts?

Are there no get-out caveats that you want to tell us about now?

You gave an assurance in February.

Good morning. You will be aware that we have heard alarming evidence over recent weeks about the funding crisis that is affecting the culture sector. Even before last week’s announcement, Creative Scotland was warning that up to a third of the 120 regularly funded organisations are at serious risk of insolvency in the short term and that more than half are financially weak.

Literature Alliance Scotland said:

“If Government funding was to be cut or remain at standstill it would be a disaster.”

Museums Galleries Scotland talked about a

“hollowing out of museums services”.

The association for culture and leisure professionals, VOCAL Scotland, said:

“the level of publicly funded cultural service provision has been depleted to the most basic level.”

Prospect said:

“We are at the breaking point”.

The Federation of Scottish Theatre said:

“continued lack of public investment … may result in what could very easily be seen as a wilful demise of the culture sector as we know it.”

Earlier, you mentioned that the Scottish Government is talking about a new culture strategy and vision, but the evidence that the committee is getting from multiple stakeholders makes it clear that, although there is considerable ambition from the Government, the levels of investment do not match that. We have heard you talk about the importance of the culture sector this morning, but there is a feeling that this is the very definition of setting the culture sector up to fail—having that level of ambition without making the investment. Are those stakeholders right or wrong?