Chamber and committees

Given what Sharon Dowey has said about trying to increase the amount of money that is taken in from the proceeds of crime, would she be willing to write, along with me and Katy Clark, to the UK Government to say that, for crimes that are perpetrated down south but have an impact in Scotland, it could usefully introduce the same cashback for communities initiative? That would raise money for communities in Scotland. Would she support such a letter?

The member will be aware of the cross-border nature of much of that crime, including the supply of drugs to Scotland by road and rail from England. Given that, does she agree that, if the United Kingdom Government were to take the same approach as the Scottish Government and apply the cashback for communities approach to some of the proceeds of crime in England, that could benefit the people of Scotland? If she does agree, will she agree to write with me to the UK Government to propose such a change?

As well as being as vigilant as ever for any rising incidence of antisemitism or anti-Islamic sentiment, we should acknowledge the fact that, by and large, people in Scotland have not gone down that route. We should be quick to condemn, but we should also praise.

Even from a distance, though, to see the Hamas attack in which more than 1,000 people were killed in the first week of October, and then to see that more than 8,000 people in Gaza were killed, was horrifying. I recall, in particular, the incident about which it was reported that although one Hamas commander was killed so were 400 ordinary people and many others, including children, are still lying under rubble. My concern now is Hezbollah’s threat to start attacking tomorrow if there is not a ceasefire—I think that it tried to lay down those terms overnight. I do not know the extent to which the Scottish Government will have any information or a view on that. With the largest American naval fleet since the second world war being stationed in the middle east, the real worry is that situation will become a genuinely geopolitical conflagration that goes off in different directions. Does the Scottish Government have any line of sight on the thinking around that or what is being done to prevent it from happening?

To ask the Scottish Government when it last received an update from the traffic commissioner for Scotland on any complaints regarding local bus services. (S6O-02665)

As the minister is aware, the traffic commissioner has a standard of 95 per cent for the punctuality of buses. Following a number of complaints, an investigation by Bus Users Scotland showed that only 88 per cent of some McGill’s Buses services in my constituency ran on time. However, I suspect that figure to be much lower, as my constituents regularly tell me that services are cancelled at short notice, that they are unreliable and that communication is poor. That impacts on people’s ability to get to work and access education and healthcare on a daily basis, and it often leaves people stranded late at night.

Can the minister outline the steps that the transport commissioner can take to ensure that McGill’s takes action to improve the levels of service that are so crucial to many of my constituents?

If the member believes that social housing is so important, why does he support the UK Government cutting the capital budget for the Scottish Government?

I completely disagree with Edward Mountain on the point about the Presiding Officer being the arbiter of answers and on the idea of treating MSPs as being in different classes with regard to whether they are obliged to take an intervention. That would just be wrong.

I am, however, more supportive of Edward Mountain in relation to some other issues around public participation. Concern has been expressed for a long period—maybe 40 years—and by all parties that MSPs or elected members and Governments are much less accountable than they used to be, because so much has been hived off or outsourced to bodies such as commissions and so on. It is counterintuitive, but does he think that that might possibly contribute to MSPs being less accountable?

On Jackson Carlaw’s point, if public participation is going to cost as much as it is, how does that square with what many of us agree is the proliferation of commissioners in the Parliament? The two things seem to sit at odds with each other.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the progress of the action plan put in place by the Scottish Prison Service to address reported concerns raised by local residents about HMP Stirling. (S6O-02631)

Will the member take an intervention?

I acknowledge that everybody in the chamber supports Scotland’s cultural sector and the fact that it is important to the economy and our lives. That includes in my constituency, where we have not only national cultural highlights such as the Japanese garden at Cowden, which is about a mile from my house, but innumerable creative businesses and two independent cinemas—one in Alloa and another at the Macrobert Arts Centre, which offers a fantastic and wide-ranging cultural and creative programme that goes far beyond simply screening films—as well as many other local creative groups that contribute immensely to public life. I think of the Dunblane museum, for example, and the Leighton library in Dunblane, which was the first purpose-built library in Scotland.

For that reason, I was pleased to hear the First Minister’s announcement last week that the Scottish Government will more than double its investment in Scotland’s arts and culture sector with an additional £100 million of funding over the next five years. That is an immense vote of confidence in our culture sector from the Scottish Government. It is merely a small additional bonus to hear all the whingeing from the Opposition parties, who seem to be far more concerned about such an announcement than they were about the culture sector before the announcement. I thank the Labour Party for taking the time to show its appreciation for the commitment in its motion, which notes

“the announcement made by the First Minister on 17 October 2023 to more than double arts and culture funding over the next five years”.

It was one of many positive announcements from the SNP conference in Aberdeen last week, and I look forward to the Labour Party supporting more of those positive announcements.

I mentioned that there are many creative organisations in the culture sector across my constituency. In our politics and society, we can often be guilty of underestimating the value of culture and the arts and focusing purely on the economic value that we know they can contribute. It was always true, but it became particularly notable during the difficult pandemic, that regardless of any economic input to or output from the culture sector, culture and the arts are an essential part of the human experience. It is essential that we recognise that as a Parliament.

Although funding is extremely important for it, I note that there are bigger-picture constitutional considerations when it comes to Scotland’s culture and arts sector. Those are not mentioned in the motion. One of the greatest upsets to Scotland’s culture and arts sector in recent years has been the changes that Brexit has represented for Scottish artists. I know that the Tories hate to mention it or have it mentioned, but the artists know that to be the case, especially those who seek to tour and sell merchandise in the European Union. I am aware that some progress has been made on that, but any agreement that the UK has with the EU or individual member states is absolutely no replacement for the freedom of movement and the free movement of goods that were enjoyed by Scottish artists across the continent prior to Brexit.

If we are serious about supporting Scotland’s culture sector, we should also be serious about addressing those constitutional issues. I note that Angus Robertson’s amendment to the motion rightly makes that clear. I cannot think why the Brexit parties do not want to mention the issue at all, given how important it is to the sector.

Another way in which Scotland promotes our distinct culture and arts offering is through the Scottish Government’s international presence. Although I note that the Labour Party has been supportive of Scotland’s international ambitions in the past, the recent muscular unionism that has been on display from the Labour Party indicates that it would fall in line behind the Tories to quell Scotland’s international voice if it was given the chance to do so. I therefore argue that it is very telling that the Labour Party has chosen to omit any mention of any constitutional issue from its motion.

While the SNP Government is taking action to support Scotland’s culture sector by doubling funding over the next five years—I very much welcome the Government’s announcement—it is clear that the current constitutional arrangement does Scotland’s culture and arts sector an immense disservice, and I urge all members to consider that when they make decisions on how best to support Scotland’s culture and arts sector in the future.

I support the Government’s amendment.