Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is actually quite important for accountability. In fact, we have talked about, for example, having a traffic-light system for common frameworks. It would be useful if we could get that kind of cross-governmental feedback, because, after all, you have had questions from colleagues about the monitoring of the 2020 act and its impact on devolved issues such as agriculture, environmental standards—which is a recent matter—and so on. There is also the impact on Barnett consequentials to take into account. These things need to be properly processed, and the committee is interested in that, given the fact that, like you, we take a cross-governmental overview. We would certainly be very keen to monitor that.

I had to smile when you talked about “thin gruel” in relation to UK consequentials. It is a brilliant analogy that could be applied to how our local government colleagues sometimes feel about the Scottish Government. We need intergovernmental awareness at all levels of government, and I am very keen to get some feedback and cross-governmental analysis on this matter, as it would be useful to the committee’s work.

Thank you, convener; I will keep it swift.

I draw the cabinet secretary’s attention to the excellent evidence that we heard in last week’s committee meeting about international development expenditure. One of the key themes that came across was the importance of wellbeing and sustainability legislation coming forward, along with a plea for a more joined-up approach to international development expenditure. I do not want to trigger a whole new conversation on that today, but we took evidence on it last week, and I hope that the cabinet secretary will pick it up in the Scottish Government’s approach to international development funding.

If the convener will indulge me, I have one final question.

In your letter, I note the national events in the budget. You highlighted the UCI cycling event that is happening next year. Is there any chance of getting the £9 million or £10 million mainstreamed into the budget, so that we would have the resources for some of the things that we have just been talking about, such as health prescribing, when the policy is developed?

I would be interested in that offer of follow-up of information that you have just given me regarding culture in communities. One of the really striking things—following on from Mark Ruskell’s point—is that culture is not a requirement, yet it is critical to people’s health and wellbeing and to our communities. Having the funding available at local level is critical. We have taken evidence on that before in the committee, and the benefits to people are critical, as I say.

I return to the point about health prescribing. Some very good evidence has been presented to us directly. Representatives of Art in Healthcare came to the Parliament before Christmas, and work was done in different communities to support people through the pandemic. As we recover, that work will need to continue. It is not a matter of ticking a box and moving on. Community projects have helped to employ artists and other people in the cultural sector, and they have critically supported communities. How do we increase that?

We are living in an era when inflation is rocketing. How do we support people to afford to access culture? I saw an excellent paper from Scottish Opera showing what it is doing in touring around the country. The Edinburgh Festival Fringe Society is attempting to encourage people to get into the festival and is trying to take the festival fringe out to them. Affordability will be an absolutely massive issue for culture.

In practical terms, what will be available for community groups and councils to ensure that the venues are there and so that we can see those activities happening?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I want to focus on the challenge of recovery, which you have mentioned a couple of times, and the importance of enabling people to access culture, which is necessary to health and wellbeing and as part of who we are. As you mentioned in your opening remarks, one of the challenges of recovery was not being able to have events at Christmas and Hogmanay, which for many venues and cultural organisations are a key income generator. Can you say a bit more about that and, in particular, the issue of retaining people in the sector? In my case work, I have heard from people who have left the sector either because they cannot afford the bills or because of the uncertain nature of funding.

I want to link that to the community side of funding. We heard some really good examples at last night’s cross-party group on culture and communities of individual projects employing people locally in the cultural sector and giving them much more certainty in relation to income generation. What are your initial thoughts on retaining people in the sector and changing the way that people work to give them the opportunity of more work in communities? How can we bring that about?

I am keen to see that extra money mainstreamed back into the culture budget for 2024, so my question was about pushing at the boundaries a little.

With regard to health prescribing in particular, there is innovation in the rest of the UK from which we could definitely learn, which would not only retain people in the sector, but make the impact in communities that we all want. There is an appetite to hear more about that, and about looking for innovation.

It was good to read your submissions in advance of our discussion. Two core areas have come up today. One is about the funds that are spent on international development—whether it is the international development fund, the climate justice fund or the small grants fund, which has been lost—and the other is the issue of the need for a more cross-cutting approach across Government policy. I have two questions. How do we get more value from the existing finance through the international development fund and the climate justice fund, and how do we measure that value? Secondly, what do witnesses think about the small grants fund?

I was very interested in the paper that was submitted in advance of today’s meeting, particularly where the request was made for our views as a committee. For me, the issue is how you assist parliamentary scrutiny and support us in that, because there are big issues for stakeholders and businesses with the transparency impact on markets, as has been mentioned. Where there is a strong desire to raise standards and support innovation on issues such as animal welfare and food quality in response to consumer demands, or maybe to set higher standards in order to meet climate change targets, particularly in the light of COP26 and the UK’s leadership on that, what kind of advice would you give and what transparency would you be able to support to enable us to do our work in terms of looking at regulations and Government policies on those sorts of issues? I am not sure who that is best directed to, so maybe the witnesses could volunteer.

That is useful.

Lewis Ryder-Jones, to move on to the wider issue, you have talked about other areas where the Scottish Government could act on the wellbeing and sustainable development agenda. You mentioned issues such as public procurement, public policy and leadership and business practice. Could you give us a sense of what the Scottish Government can do with its other money, not just the money for international development, and what it can do to use public bodies and agencies to make a positive impact on sustainable development and climate justice?