Chamber and committees

We have heard about what we could potentially do if there was extra funding that was particularly focused on health and wellbeing. I was struck by some of the evidence that was given by Pamela Tulloch earlier about the impact of library cuts on children and young people. I have a concern that, irrespective of what we would like to do in the future in terms of building up the culture sector, children and young people right now have less opportunities than they previously had, and, if we carry on the current trajectory, they will have even fewer. I want to specifically press the rest of the panel on the impact on children and young people of charging for museums and various other things, which was mentioned earlier—I know that Kara Christine was talking about the impact on disabled children and young people. If we are talking about outcomes, I am particularly interested to hear what people think about the impact the current budget trajectory will have on life opportunities for children and young people.

Multiyear funding and stability of funding have come up quite a few times. The cabinet secretary, in a letter to us, has said that he is keen to work on that, but that future years’ budgets could at best be “only indicative”. Is that not a bit pointless? Is it not impossible to plan for future years on figures that are at best indicative?

Thanks for the work that you are doing on that. I note what you said about the engagement that you are carrying out with Scottish business, but after three years of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 being in operation, are you concerned that there is still a lack of understanding?

Do you think that the primary reason why there is a lack of understanding is that companies have operated on the basis of a single market across the European Union and they assume that the UK internal market is operating with the same standards across the UK? Is that because of that assumption?

Good morning to the panel. The report repeatedly mentions issues to do with businesses not understanding or appreciating that regulatory divergence could occur across the UK. Is more work being done, or could more work be done, to educate businesses and those who are likely to be affected about that possibility?

You mentioned the state of mind and the need for a different approach and culture. We have also heard about personalities and the people taking the decisions at UK Government level not wanting things to work. You mentioned that the Sewel convention has been breached 10 times since 2018 but, of course, from 1999 to 2010, when there was a Labour UK Government, it was not breached at all. Do you agree that there is an opportunity to change the mindset and the approach with a change of Government, and with a Labour Government coming in?

There are two more issues that I would like to highlight. One is childcare, which has come up as being a barrier to participation. We have heard from academics about the importance of getting people to participate in culture from a young age. If the Scottish Government has plans to extend childcare—in particular, out-of-school childcare—it must not only provide that but provide opportunities for people to have cultural and sporting tasters.

The other issue is the impact of church closures, which we have heard about quite a few times. I know that the Government does not make those closure decisions—churches make them. However, we have heard a number of witnesses express concerns about church closures. They are unique facilities, with unique acoustics, and they provide cultural activities. There might be a need to support groups and organisations to take over churches in the future.

Do you have any reflections on those two issues?

Yes; I do. Good morning, cabinet secretary. I share many of your concerns. I agree that the UK Government’s approach has been unacceptable, and it does not align with our views on devolution.

We have a new IGR model, but I am disappointed to hear from the cabinet secretary that there has been no meaningful change. I heard his frustration earlier about the two Governments not co-operating and his refuting of the suggestion that they were. I also acknowledge what he said about the Welsh Government and Mark Drakeford’s comments.

Notwithstanding the challenges that the Government faces in this area, does the cabinet secretary agree that it is notoriously difficult for the Parliament, let alone the public, to fully understand and appreciate how IGR meetings go and how the common frameworks discussions are going? Does he accept that we need more transparency? How would we achieve that? Do we need more reporting? Does that reporting need to come from UK Government ministers or Scottish Government ministers?

If the public sees the two Governments arguing all the time, unless there is greater transparency and more information in the public domain about the discussions, they might come to the conclusion that the cabinet secretary has suggested.

You touched on local community planning; I want to ask a follow-on question about Scottish Government planning at the national level. The themes of the inquiry have been very cross-cutting, and many of the issues that we have considered do not sit in your portfolio. For example, local government budgets and funding have a huge impact, as does public transport availability, which has been raised on a number of occasions. In particular, young people in Dumfries raised the importance of getting around and accessing cultural opportunities. How do you and your department engage with other ministers and departments to address the issues, so that there is joined-up thinking not just at local community level but at national level?

Thank you very much.