Chamber and committees

I understand the strength of feeling around the issue, and a number of MSPs have made representations about it. In 2023, Screen Scotland provided more than £176,000 for the specific purpose of leasing the cinemobile and securing the mobile cinema service until April 2024.

Following the Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture’s meeting with Regional Screen Scotland, which operates the service, Scottish Government officials in Screen Scotland have been leading work to explore all options for the immediate and long-term future of the service. I met officials just this morning, and I would be happy to write to the member with an update as soon as I have it.

I understand the costs as well as the value, which the member highlighted, and the significance of Screen Machine’s unique cultural, educational and wellbeing benefits for communities such as those in Kenneth Gibson’s constituency. I understand the point about people’s access to cinema being restricted, and I understand how important it is for communities to be able to come together to access a wide range of cultural resources, which are invaluable sources of expression and foster a sense of belonging. I agree with Kenneth Gibson that the Screen Machine has a positive environmental and cultural impact on all communities.

I have previously stated that I am a great advocate of community asset transfers. Once again, I ask respectfully for patience while I get to grips with my portfolio, so I can come back with a more detailed answer that is specific to his question.

The Scottish Government’s missions align closely with the ambitions of the culture strategy of empowering through culture, strengthening culture and transforming through culture.

In our recently published refreshed cultural strategy action plan, we have committed to launching a creative and culture sector fair work task force to support implementation across the culture sector, supporting our opportunity ambition. Our culture collective programme also supports delivery around equality and community, developing initiatives in partnership with our communities across Scotland.

I refer the member to my earlier answers, and I assure him that the Scottish Government is doing everything that it can to support this very valuable service.

I thank Collette Stevenson for highlighting the youth music initiative. We are proud to support that programme, and the impact that it has on communities across Scotland cannot be overstated. I look forward to seeing the programme at first hand in due course.

On cultural initiatives, the Scottish Government provides support for An Comunn Gàidhealach, the body that organises both the Royal National Mòd and local mòds, including the East Kilbride local mòd, which takes place on 8 June.

I absolutely agree with equality, inclusion and community. The member will appreciate that I have taken up my post only recently and that I need to take some time to familiarise myself with everything that is going on around that. I will be happy to engage with him in the very near future.

I thank members for their warm words in welcoming me to my portfolio.

The Scottish Government will work closely with Screen Scotland, which has been exploring a number of options with Regional Screen Scotland in order to secure a sustainable future for the service both immediately and in the longer term.

The work is on-going and, as I am sure Rhoda Grant will appreciate, much of the detail is commercially sensitive. However, I welcome the funding that Screen Scotland previously provided to ensure that the service will remain active until April this year, and I expect to hear a further update from it on that work at our next regular meeting.

I thank Ivan McKee for securing the debate. The conflict in Gaza is a human tragedy, and it is important that the Parliament’s voice is heard. The Scottish Government has been consistent in condemning the abhorrent terrorist actions of Hamas, whose vile and merciless attacks on 7 October represented the single worst massacre of the Jewish people since the Holocaust, and in calling for an immediate and permanent ceasefire by all sides in Israel and Gaza. A ceasefire is the only way that we can halt the catastrophic human suffering in Gaza and allow hostages to be released. I repeat the Scottish Government’s demands for Hamas to release immediately and unconditionally all hostages and to cease all missile attacks against Israel.

Hamas can have no future in Gaza. The cycle of violence must end. The bombs and rockets must stop. Humanitarian and medical facilities must be protected, and civilians, wherever they are, must be given unrestricted access to the basic necessities of life. Israel, like any other country, has the right to protect itself and its citizens from terror. However, in exercising its right to defend itself, Israel must abide by international humanitarian law.

The First Minister has urged the UK Government to accept that the time has come to speak out forcefully and make it clear that Israel’s military action has gone way beyond a legitimate response to the appalling attacks of 7 October. The Scottish Government respects international norms and the rule of law. It is therefore correct that any potential breach of international law, including the crime of genocide, should be investigated by the appropriate authorities and international bodies. The interim ruling of the International Court of Justice on 26 July was clear: the killing and destruction in Gaza must stop, urgent humanitarian assistance must be provided to prevent more suffering, and hostages must be released immediately.

The Scottish Government’s position is consistent with that of the vast majority of the international community. In late October, the United Nations General Assembly voted for a resolution that demanded

“an immediate, durable and sustained humanitarian truce leading to a cessation of hostilities”.

In December, a much larger majority of the General Assembly voted for another resolution that demanded “an immediate humanitarian ceasefire”, along with

“the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages, as well as ensuring humanitarian access”.

Just last week, the Prime Ministers of our Commonwealth partners Australia, New Zealand and Canada issued a rare joint statement calling for “An immediate humanitarian ceasefire” and for hostages to be released. That statement was inspired by increasing indications that Israel is planning a full-scale assault against Rafah, which, until the past few weeks, has been a relatively safe place for displaced Gazans as the brutal conflict has progressed.

The President of the United States has reportedly urged Prime Minister Netanyahu not to launch a military operation in Rafah without a credible and executable plan to protect civilians. Since then, without any mention of how civilians—most of whom have lost their homes—are to be protected, we have heard the chilling warning from Israeli ministers that such an offensive will take place before Ramadan unless hostages are released.

I pay tribute to those who have spoken in the debate. It has been a respectful and serious debate. I thank Ivan McKee, Pauline McNeill and Richard Leonard, who outlined effectively the historical context in which the conflict lies, for the emotional and heartfelt contributions that they made.

I reassure Jackson Carlaw that, in my opinion, a political intervention, not a military intervention, will bring the situation to an end. Neil Bibby spoke of de-escalation, which is essential, and I have called for it myself. John Mason was correct to point at the international community for not trying harder for peace talks over the years.

I pay tribute to Foysol Choudhury, Pauline McNeill and Carol Mochan, among other members, who mentioned the devastating impact on human life, birth and death, as well as the infrastructure that is being devastated across the region.

I thank Ross Greer for highlighting my previous work on the issue, for his commitment and for pointing out the historical context.

Several members were right to highlight that collective punishment of innocent civilians is unacceptable. I acknowledge Marie McNair, who mentioned marching alongside thousands of people, as have many colleagues in the chamber. The people are on the streets. We need to make sure that we are on the right side of history and that we reflect the views of the people. Members have said that we are speaking for our constituents, and Bill Kidd rightly said that the Parliament should speak with one voice as we go towards a future that has hope.

We must recognise the deep trauma that the Israeli people have suffered as a result of the 7 October attacks and acknowledge that the Jewish communities globally, including those in Scotland, feel that trauma. The conflicts in the middle east do not justify racial or religious hatred of any kind. In recent weeks, we have seen a shocking global increase in antisemitism and Islamophobia. I emphasise that there is no place in Scotland for such behaviour. The Scottish Government is committed to building supportive and safe communities where divisive narratives will not resonate. We will continue to engage closely with our communities across Scotland to provide vital reassurance and ensure that nobody feels marginalised.

I am pleased that the House of Commons has finally agreed to call for an immediate ceasefire, which the Scottish Government has consistently done for months. Enough is enough.

As convener of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, I am happy to contribute to the debate.

The three principles of human rights budgeting are participation, transparency and accountability. In our 2024-25 pre-budget scrutiny, we set out on a three-year plan to look at each of those principles in turn. We started with participation; transparency will be explored in 2025-26 and accountability in the 2026-27 pre-budget scrutiny.

Over the summer, instead of a typical call for views, we ran a public survey, which was aimed at understanding how people relate to the budget. More than 100 people responded to that survey, and we saw clearly that people understand budget decisions in the context of how they affect their lives. We also got the impression that it is often difficult for citizens to see the positive impacts of the Scottish Government’s decisions. I thank the people who took part, because the survey gave us information that touched on almost every portfolio, and their input showed the value of reaching out beyond our usual stakeholders.

Alongside the survey and hearing evidence from stakeholders including BEMIS, COSLA, the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland and the Scottish Women’s Budget Group, the committee put a specific focus on engaging and working with a citizens panel.

The committee’s officials, the clerks, the Scottish Parliament information centre and the participation and communities team identified a group: the whole family equality project, which is supported by Capital City Partnership. It agreed to take part in work to help us, the politicians, learn how they, the people, view and understand the budget process and, in particular, how the budget impacts on their lives.

Before I talk about the citizens panel process itself, I say a massive thank you to the citizens for their willingness to engage with us. They demonstrated a lot of passion and it was good to see their confidence and understanding grow throughout the process to the point that, if they were not happy with something, they would certainly let us know.

At the end of August, our officials met 12 participants from the project to build capacity within the group, discussing roles and the differences between the Parliament and the Government, and giving the panel an introduction to the budget process. That was followed by an online drop-in discussion to help the panel prepare for the next stage of the deliberative process, which was a facilitated workshop with the committee on 12 September, which was also attended by Collette Stevenson as convener of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee.

It was an opportunity to discuss how and when people should be able to participate in the budget process and the barriers to that. It also allowed the participants to share their lived experience and explain how they felt that spending decisions had influenced their experiences in areas such as social care, health, local government and education and young people.

On 24 October, five members of the panel spoke to the committee in public session, during which they told us questions that they would like us to put directly to the minister—and we did exactly that. However, there was disappointment among the panel as they felt that the minister was not able to answer the questions in sufficient detail, due to the intersectional nature of their questions, which meant that they covered issues across portfolios. We followed up by writing directly to the appropriate portfolio ministers.

It would be fair to say that previous iterations of this committee have encountered similar issues. If equalities, inclusion and human rights are to be properly mainstreamed, there needs to be a clearer sense and demonstration of ministers working collegiately across portfolios. One thing that came through loud and clear during our engagement with the panel is that people—citizens—see the Government as one entity, not as a range of disparate silos. It is important that we, as members and as committees, recognise that. If we do not, what impact will we have?

Citizens were very clear in their understanding that there are competing budget demands and that difficult choices need to be made, but they needed more information on the rationale for decisions. As well as being expressed by our citizens panel, that point came through loud and clear in our post-budget session this Tuesday, when our witnesses, Professor O’Hagan, Heather Williams and Clare Gallagher, all said that it is really difficult to understand how budget or spending decisions and allocations have been reached.

We all acknowledge that times are challenging and that the Scottish Government and others have very tough decisions to make on how they allocate money. That said, as Heather Williams pointed out, people will have different views on how funds should be allocated or what should be prioritised, and they may well disagree with some decisions. However, if there was a better or clearer explanation as to how tough decisions were reached, at least people would be able to better understand the reasoning and processes behind them.

Witnesses remarked that progress is, indeed, being made; however, it is very slow and very much a work in progress. It is important to recognise where progress is being made. A good example of that is the increased linkage between the budget and the programme for government, which is welcome. An observation on how that can be further improved is that we need clearer links to performance against outcomes. The upcoming refresh of the national outcomes is an opportunity to consider how that might be made possible. We should all give some thought as to how we can assist the process through our scrutiny. We need to encourage as well as challenge.

We regularly recommend that the Scottish Government mainstream equalities. Our predecessor committees also encouraged more mainstreaming of equalities and human rights across all committees’ scrutiny of the budget. That must be further developed and become embedded.

There are opportunities. We can be creative and innovative. For example, there are opportunities for joint committee working in some aspects, to ensure that the fullest scrutiny is applied. We can make recommendations to the Scottish Government, and we can ask what it is doing, but there is nothing to stop us working in partnership with real people in citizens panels, listening to them and considering the solutions that they suggest.

The SPICe blog that was published yesterday provides useful context and offers some helpful pointers on how all committees might adapt their scrutiny.

Following our experience of working with the citizens panel, I would strongly encourage other committees to consider that approach.