Seòmar agus comataidhean

Clearly, there has been an immediate impact on the operation of businesses that work in your sectors, whether that relates to their ability to access work in European countries, share skills or in other ways. I will ask about the long-term impact of those barriers not just on folk who work in the sector but on how those sectors will develop if there is no movement and no youth mobility in particular. Who will come into those professions? How will they develop their skills? In what way will their networks with folk in other European countries develop or get hampered if there is no progress on restoring youth mobility? How much of an impact will that have in relation to how your professions develop in Scotland? How much benefit would be gained in relation to the development of those professions were some that youth mobility to be restored?

I have a question for Ben Addy. We have a written submissions from RIAS. As RIAS was producing evidence for a Scottish Parliament committee and our job is to scrutinise the Scottish Government, most of the content of the last section on the way forward is about what the Government can do to try to support the sector or mitigate some of the damage that has been done. I appreciate that, but I wonder whether there is already an established or emerging view from the wider sector across the UK, including in Scotland, about the changes that the UK Government should pursue with the EU. Is a view emerging about specific changes that you seek to advocate for to improve or—as the UK Government sometimes says—to reset the relationship with Europe and to remove some of the barriers that have been put up?

I imagine that the sector that you represent, Vivienne Mackinnon, has a strong view on whether veterinary agreements, and on whether—this is way beyond my level of expertise—sanitary and phytosanitary measures, which cover everything that affects issues with a food or a biological component, should be a political objective for the UK Government.

It is interesting that you use a phrase like “keep our borders safe”, which many politicians often use to mean keeping out people who could make a contribution. Biological threats pay no respect to borders. We need those skills and capacities to tackle those real threats.

That is encouraging—thank you.

I also want to ask about repatriation. The section of our written briefing that deals with that quotes from the Scottish Government:

“Where objects are proven to have been acquired unethically we strongly encourage that museums consider repatriation/rematriation of these objects.”

The phrase

“Where objects are proven to have been acquired unethically”

could mean everything or nothing, it seems to me. I wonder whether any further work needs to be done on defining what that means. Is the context of imperialism enough in itself to evidence unethical acquisition? Is a different, more specific or precise definition required, so that any decision not to consider taking that action can be challenged?

I will stay away from the issue of finances, because I think we should put those questions to the cabinet secretary when we see the budget next week and find out where this agenda sits within the expectation of a rising budget for culture.

I will talk about the political context. There have already been some comments about this not being a new piece of work, as there has been more than a decade of work building towards the point of having a major programme such as this. The political context has changed in that time and we have seen a worrying regrowth and mainstreaming of far-right ideas, with people being apologists for imperialism and worse. Have you detected a growing backlash against the agenda that you are trying to pursue? Is there reluctance or resistance within the sector, hostility from the media and social media or even public reaction to interpretations of existing collections?

Thank you, convener. I am grateful to you and the committee for making time for so many colleagues to address you. The fact that so many of us are here should be the first demonstration to you of the clear breadth of political support for greater urgency in this area.

I have seen very positive engagement by the campaigners—certainly those based in Glasgow, who are working with all political parties that represent the city. There is clear consensus that there needs to be fundamental change. In fact, the passing of the 2019 act demonstrates that there is already clear consensus on the need to move in the direction of franchising and to support local areas that choose to do so. The passing of the 2019 act was intended not only to make that possible but to make significant progress in that direction.

Even when the Parliament was considering that legislation, the committee that was doing so took a litany of evidence at stage 1 that the process, including the panel, would simply take too long. Many organisations—the Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland, Glasgow City Council, the Strathclyde Partnership for Transport, the Scottish Association for Public Transport and the Urban Transport Group—raised concerns about the timescale involved and the level of bureaucracy and lack of democratic accountability in that process.

Since the bill went through the Parliament and became an act, faster progress has been made elsewhere than is being made in Scotland, despite the political consensus that this should be the direction of travel. It is very clear that, if we are going to see communities such as the one that Neil Bibby described and, indeed, right across Scotland benefit from the required change, we need to accelerate the process. If that means the Scottish Government making relatively minor changes to primary legislation, that is what should happen.

Yes, during your tenure, convener.

More than a little.