Seòmar agus comataidhean

It has been really good to hear the evidence that we have heard so far. I want to follow up the question that Jenni Minto has just asked, which was about how we support people who have come to Scotland.

The witnesses have said that Ukrainians are already self-organising, which is great to hear, but we need to think about how we make connections with them. I know that there is the work that the British Council is doing and that the conservatoire has had fantastic initiatives, and we have also taken evidence from our national and local cultural organisations, which are facing challenges. What is the win-win in terms of networking and bringing people together? For example, the support that the Ukrainian community in Edinburgh gives people is off the chart, and we need to think about how we make connections there. Glasgow’s twinning links have been mentioned, and we have something similar in Edinburgh, too.

When I visited the ship a few weeks ago, I was struck by the number of people who were online or working. As we have learned during Covid, it is still possible to make these connections; we just need somebody to curate them and a bit of money to try to pull people together.

What opportunities can we support in Scotland? How can we support Ukrainian artists who have come here and then support networking with people back in Ukraine? We need to think about how we create connectivity. We have been talking about the wellbeing benefits of arts and culture, and the witnesses have talked about keeping their culture and identity alive. There is potential for networks that take in those ambitions, but the question is how we curate that and support people in making those connections.

I see that Professor Sharkey has some thoughts about how we could do that.

I thank both of you for giving us those comments. I think that there has been a huge level of objection. My colleague David Lammy said that the bill gifts ministers unaccountable powers, so I think that the points made by the cabinet secretary are important for all of us to reflect on. I am guessing that the challenge will be how the Scottish Government responds in terms of our parliamentary accountability, given that at this stage you do not know what it is you would be expected to bring forward and what the timescales are. Having this exchange today is very helpful.

We have had some very concerning evidence from witnesses this morning about the way in which the bill undermines parliamentary accountability, leading to the instability and uncertainty that you referred to in your opening comments. Can you say a bit more about the discussions that you have had with other devolved nations about pushing back on this legislation? You have highlighted the challenge in Northern Ireland, but what about the Welsh Government? Can you say a bit in principle about the use of secondary legislation rather than primary legislation, using the Henry VIII powers, which makes it impossible for us to conduct scrutiny on what you may be doing as a Government, given the concerns that our own devolved regulatory committee highlighted, as we have seen at the UK level, both in the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

Thank you for that. Professor Barnard, do you have similar concerns about transparency and accountability in the legislation?

In that case, I will ask Dr Garner exactly the same question. You have said that you do not see this as being unprecedented in terms of the devolved settlement, but the evidence that we have received and our Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee have raised concerns about people knowing what they are voting for and the lack of scrutiny both at UK and Scottish Parliament levels. Is that something that we should explore and be concerned about?

As a result of having read the paperwork in advance of the meeting and listening to the questions and answers, my question has changed slightly. It is partly triggered by the deputy convener talking about the need for pragmatism. My concern is about accountability through the legislation in respect of knowing what we are voting for, given the huge powers that it will give to Government at both the UK and Scottish levels, and the difficulty for us in working out what they might be and testing that. My initial question was going to be about the uncertainty and the damage to relations with the EU. However, the fact that things have changed since the bill was introduced makes things even harder, because the uncertainty is greater. It seems to me that we do not know what we are voting for.

In respect of parliamentary precedent, given the huge scope of the bill, should we as parliamentarians support it? We are being asked to vote for something before we know about the negotiations. We do not know the context of what will be in the negotiations, and we are, in effect, being asked to support a bill that could be anything without being able to scrutinise it. I would be interested in feedback from the panel on the precedent for that at the UK and Scottish levels. Would Jonathan Jones like to come in on that precedent and uncertainty issue? Is the bill bad in terms of accountability?

I will ask Dr Fox the same question. Should we have concerns about certainty and the lack of accountability?

That was helpful. The concern about what “conduct” and the making of “any provision” might mean and our capacity to interrogate that has come across very clearly, and I thank the witnesses for their answers to my questions.

It would be good to get that list. I think that about 20 per cent of our historic buildings or sites are not able to open at the moment, so it would be useful to get the scale of the issue. It is a fundamental issue, as it is not just one or two areas that are affected. Dealing with the issue is significant in terms of rebuilding tourism and restoring our culture.

I recently asked about employment issues in Historic Environment Scotland, and it came out that there was a real issue in terms of gender and pay. What are you doing to improve opportunities in the sector, particularly for women? I think that women were doing okay in band C and one right at the top but, in all the other bands, women were doing less well in terms of employment opportunities.

I echo that point. I was looking at the annex to Historic Environment Scotland’s written briefing, which refers to key performance indicators. Most of the KPIs have a green status; some are amber. However, the rating for improving or maintaining the state of Scotland’s historic sites and places is red. That really stands out. That issue has been quite a big part of our discussion today.

We used to talk about the need to spend to save as a way of helping future investment, but you are talking about the need to spend to save as a way of avoiding losing buildings. It would be very interesting to get your take on that. The evidence that you gave us is that the historic environment is not just good for who we are. The sector also brings £4.4 billion into the Scottish economy. For example, half our international tourists come to see heritage and 60 per cent of the heritage visits are to Historic Environment Scotland sites.

Will you give us a sense of what you need to do to deliver on that? You have gone through pandemic-related income reduction. You talked a bit earlier about flexibility and the levers that you need. Will you say a bit about public sector funding and then a bit about the flexibility that you want?