Chamber and committees

Please do.

Fulton MacGregor is attending online.

Rachel Wood has indicated that she would like to come in quickly, and then I will move on to Meghan Gallacher.

Is there anything else that members would like to cover? I will bring in Paul O’Kane, who might want to ask about the definition of “legal services” in section 6 being rather narrow. Have we covered that?

I suppose that £60 is quite a lot of money to a lot of people. If we are trying to ensure that the law, in every aspect, is accessible to as many people as possible, there will be many people who would think that £60 is quite a lot of money.

I understand what Andrew Stevenson said about reducing vexatious complaints, and that has worked. I am considering the balance of risk. Will a £60 charge put off people who need to access the law? Is that risk worth taking? There is a balance to be struck.

You can come back on that one if you wish.

Six weeks ago, we watched in horror as Hamas terrorists undertook a brutal and unforgiving attack on peaceful and innocent civilians in Israel. We cannot and should not ever shy away from the fact that there is no justification for the barbaric butchering of peaceful citizens. According to Israeli officials, Hamas was responsible for the death of around 1,400 people on 7 October, and it took around 240 hostages.

It would seem unthinkable for such horrifying events to occur in our own communities. We would rightly look to our Governments to do what they could to protect us. Protection is the primary responsibility of those in charge. Therefore, it is undeniable that Israel has the right to defend itself to protect its citizens. That is not being challenged, and that is not what we are debating today.

However, Israel’s military response has now killed more than 13,000 people in Gaza. That is not 13,000 Hamas militants or 13,000 terrorists; it is 13,000 people in Gaza, who have been killed indiscriminately, regardless of who they were. More than a third—an estimated 5,500—were children. Let us pause on that. The military response to the attack that brutally murdered 1,400 innocent people in Israel has now, six weeks later, led to the death of 5,500 children in Gaza. That is roughly the number of children who are born in Glasgow in an entire year. Those who have survived will carry the scars of the horror that they have witnessed for the rest of their lives. That is why we are discussing this. We are not discussing whether Israel has the right to respond, but the response appears to be indiscriminate and might well have broken international law.

The age in which we live, with events being photographed, filmed and uploaded on social media for all to see in a matter of seconds, means that we are all witnesses to what is happening in the middle east. We can see the suffering, the human impact and the scale of destruction in Palestinian communities.

Over the weekend, I know that all of us will have looked on in anguish as more than 30 premature babies were taken off their incubators because the hospital that they were in was unsafe. Sadly, two of the babies died before the remaining 31 were moved to a neonatal unit in Rafah—a dangerous and treacherous journey that was made possible by the bravery of six healthcare workers and 10 staff family members.

It pains us all that so many of the victims in this conflict are those who have never had the chance to truly live, to truly love and to aspire. They have never hated; they did not even know hatred. They have only cried as babies do, and now we cry for them. There can be no justification—none whatsoever—for the death of innocent men, women and children; 2.2 million innocent people cannot pay the price for the actions of Hamas.

I support an unconditional ceasefire. Indeed, I thank members who supported my motion calling for that, and I thank colleagues who lodged their own motions. I support that not because I deny Israel’s right to defend itself and its citizens or because I do not believe that Hamas terrorists should be brought to justice for what they have done, but because the killing of thousands of innocent civilians, the destruction of communities and the seizing of medical centres have not made Israel any safer. Hamas poses a threat to Gaza and Palestinians as well as to Israel and Israelis, but the response has claimed the lives of many thousands of innocent people, and we cannot condone that.

The killing must stop to make way for talking. I know that that is easier said than done, but let those of us in this Parliament join many from across the world, including the United Nations secretary general, in calling for an immediate ceasefire and the unconditional release of hostages. The UK and, more crucially, the United States can play a crucial role in persuading and facilitating diplomacy.

Some colleagues have mentioned a lack of leadership in that regard from the two main UK political parties. For example, the UK Government abstained on a UN resolution calling for a ceasefire, and Scottish Labour and Tory MPs did not support a ceasefire in the House of Commons. Amnesty International described that as a

“missed opportunity for MPs to show they genuinely support the protection of Palestinian and Israeli civilians.”

This is a time for us all to show leadership in the face of this humanitarian catastrophe. The situation cannot continue as it is. Enough earth has been scorched. I ask colleagues from across the chamber to use this opportunity to unite and send a message of peace to world leaders and to those who are enduring untold suffering in the middle east. Nobody is winning here; everybody is losing. If we do not do that, there will be no peace, and hatred for the other side will run deeper and deeper.

Even at home, we have talked of the reported increases in Islamophobia and antisemitism, which shame us all. However, if those of us who have influence exercise it responsibly, enough people on both sides may agree to set down their arms and engage in talks, while bringing justice to those who have committed atrocities and broken international law.

There is a clear public desire for proper political leadership from our politicians, with peaceable protest marches taking place in Glasgow, Edinburgh, London, New York and outside the Parliament today. We all want to see peace in the region. I urge colleagues of all parties: be on the right side of history and support the motion.

I praise the work of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee. A lot of work goes into taking evidence and producing committee reports. The result, in the case of the one that we are debating today, is a report that is informative and that, I hope, can guide the Scottish Government.

The Scottish Government’s commitment to a place-based approach in our cultural strategy stands as a testament to the belief in empowering communities, fostering their engagement and weaving their stories into the very fabric of our national identity.

As a representative in the Scottish Parliament of the many communities of Glasgow Kelvin, it is clear to me that the affiliation that people have with the place to which they belong is important. It is about identity and belonging. It is about the overall welfare of communities and the people who live in them.

The strategy not only recognises the intrinsic value of cultural diversity but seeks to empower diverse local voices in weaving the cultural tartan of our nation. However, in navigating that, there are a great many challenges that we must be cognisant of and work together to resolve.

The economic landscape in which we live is littered with financial constraints, as my colleague Keith Brown has said. Those present formidable barriers to financing community-based cultural initiatives, nurturing local government cultural services and providing the essential spaces where cultural expression can flourish. Those challenges, although significant, present opportunities for strategic intervention and innovative solutions, aligning our endeavours with our collective aspirations.

From my perspective, as the member for Glasgow Kelvin, the culture strategy’s emphasis on community and place is pivotal. Many members will already be aware of the community victory over the Children’s Wood, which is in my constituency. The Children’s Wood is a fantastic outdoor community space; it is where I held my first surgery after being elected. Over a relentless 25-year campaign, teachers, climate advocates, local residents and even celebrities—one of whom was our late Queen—rallied to protect the Children’s Wood and North Kelvin Meadow. The grant of a community asset transfer by Glasgow City Council in 2020 signifies more than just land preservation; it symbolises the triumph of collective will and the validation of a community vision.

The success is not solely about land; it is about nurturing a communal heartbeat. The former chair of the Children’s Wood, Professor Niamh Stack, rightfully called it a “community anchor”, emphasising its pivotal role in current times. I frequently visit and join in with the wide variety of activities that take place there. I watch children and families running around and laughing, I hear the buzz of the bees from the hives that are kept there and I see the opportunities for toddlers and mums to get together to not only weave stories in the local environment but develop Scottish storytelling, among other things.

The agreement demonstrates a shared commitment to empowering communities and is a model for fostering the sustainable, playful and resilient communities that are especially vital after the challenges that we have faced. However, there remains an inherent need to more deeply integrate community culture in what we do. The Scottish Government’s commitment to empowerment mechanisms, such as the place principle, calls for a robust amplification of cultural voices at grass-roots level.

The committee’s inquiry into the matter unveils the positive strides that have been made in place-based cultural initiatives across communities. There is resounding recognition, from a diverse array of stakeholders, regarding the importance of that approach. That recognition is deeply rooted in the Scottish Government’s cultural strategy, which builds on long-standing ambitions and seeks to adopt place-based and community-led approaches to service delivery.

However, the inquiry’s findings also highlight the substantial hurdles that must be addressed in order to realise the aspirations that are set out in the strategy. Those challenges, which span both national and local spheres, require a whole-system approach and cohesive collaboration across the different layers of government, transcending partisan interests in order to overcome those hurdles for the collective betterment of our cultural landscape.

To be frank, more than a decade of austerity, polished off by economic turmoil at the hands of the Tory UK Government, has presented severe challenges to the implementation of place-based cultural policy. Those constraints affect the funding of community-based cultural organisations, the support for local government cultural services and the provision of the publicly owned community spaces that are vital for cultural activity. Despite the commendable emphasis on the role of communities and place within the culture strategy, there remains a pressing need for a more robust prioritisation of community culture to put that at the core of the sector.

The report is a call for the Scottish Government to act to address those challenges and to heed the committee’s findings and recommendations. The imminent finalisation of the refreshed culture strategy action plan later this year presents a critical opportunity to tackle the facets that will be essential to shaping Scotland’s cultural trajectory. I commend the report.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its commitment to increase funding for the arts and culture sector. (S6O-02718)

The cabinet secretary will be aware that several important projects require capital funding in the Glasgow area, many of which are strategically important to the economic development of the city. Glasgow Life has called for a funding model that outlines how the Scottish Government will support cultural provision in Scotland while addressing discrepancies between cities and regions. Can the cabinet secretary assure my constituents that the possibility of direct central Government funding to Glasgow’s national assets will be taken into serious consideration with his department’s increased budget?

Okay. If you were directing our thoughts on that, where would you take us?