Chamber and committees

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?

David Hope-Jones, in your evidence you commented on the benefits to Malawi of an additional investment of £49 million on top of what is presumably quite a small amount of money. Can you say a bit more about how the wider approach to sustainable development that Lewis Ryder-Jones has just talked about and changing other Scottish Government policies could benefit people in Malawi?

From our experience and the discussions that we have had on internal markets and frameworks, it seems that there is a huge appetite from the business community and stakeholders to have advance sight of things—if people are to adapt to change, they are after as much information and as much of a heads-up as possible. That commitment to transparency, even in Government advice, is something that we would be very keen to see.

Lewis Ryder-Jones, you also talked about the importance of the value that comes from our international development funds and how we make the most of that. Can you say a bit more on that?

That takes me to my second question. One thing that has come through from all three witnesses is the importance of a broader approach, a sustainable development approach and a joined-up approach. I would like to hear a little bit more about how we get that change in other Government spending and Government policy that develops on sustainable development and feeds into international development ambitions that we have. I am not talking just the £15 million; rather, I am asking how we can get the rest of the Scottish Government’s money to play a positive part?

Mark Majewsky Anderson, I invite you to answer first. Earlier, you talked about how you deliver things on the ground and I would like you to talk about what sustainable development means for the further and higher education sector in an international development context.