Chamber and committees

I am quite new to the committee, and I am stunned by how unremittingly bleak the experience has been, although it has been made lighter by the high-quality analogies that have been used. There have been aquatic ones and ones about climate change, which have been better than those I have heard in any other committee I have been on.

The international aspect of the financial pressures is interesting. We heard about high interest rates, inflation, Brexit and a 400 per cent increase in energy costs. You brushed over the implications of that quite quickly, but there will be implications for the Scottish Government across the board, not just in relation to culture.

In relation to the festivals, we are pretty much done—the international reputation has gone, to the extent that people who come here are shocked and want to give us an aid package. I have heard people elsewhere say that we still have an excellent reputation, but I take it that that was for the non-festival sector.

A couple of examples from Canada and South Korea were raised, but they are vitally different from Scotland in important respects. They do not have financial pressures to the same extent, and they do not have Brexit. They do not have devolution, so they do not have a predetermined budget. There was also reference to London, which is not as relevant as it might be. Rather than giving answers just now, if people were able to provide information in writing on what the situation is in Europe or the rest of the UK, that would certainly be useful.

I turn to Mark Ruskell’s question on the transient visitor levy. There is potential there, but I wonder whether it might end up having a very unequal impact, given what the likely dividends would be for different local authorities across the country. I would not be averse to trying to safeguard the dividends. We heard that there is real danger that they might just go into core funding. There are ways in which they could be safeguarded. Local authorities would rail against ring fencing, but perhaps there could be some agreement through the Verity house agreement or others. Would the levy strengthen areas that are already strong and do very little for more rural areas with dispersed populations? I am interested in hearing the panel’s thoughts on that.

I am keen to find out whether the Scottish Government could do anything else with the powers that it has, which are quite different from devolved powers in Quebec and Catalonia on taxation and other things. Are there things that the Scottish Government is not doing that it has the power to do, and are there analogies, whether they portray the Scottish Government favourably or unfavourably, that could give us a better picture of what it could be doing? If anyone was able to provide that information in writing, that would be useful.

I have a few quick questions related to the last point that you made, when you made the comparison between Scotland and the European average. Do you know the relevant figures for the rest of the UK? What percentage of the UK’s total expenditure is on culture, and can you include Wales in that?

Okay. With regard to your reserves, I think that you said—you can correct me if I am wrong—that the entirety of the reserves comes from national lottery funding, and that no part of the reserves has been contributed by Scottish Government funding. Is that right?

This will be my final question. Last week we heard that there has been a 40 per cent reduction in local government funding at UK level, which will have a consequential similar effect in Scotland because of the UK Government’s cuts here.

At no point in my memory of the past 13 years has an amendment to the Scottish Government’s budget asking for more funding for the sector been proposed by any other party. We will hear from the cabinet secretary next week, but how would you describe your relationship with the Scottish Government just now?

I asked about the comparison with England and Wales, and you said that the figure is equivalent. Were you saying that the average for England and Wales, or for the UK and Wales, is equivalent to the European average or to what is spent in Scotland?

You mentioned the UK context, which you said is important for the sector. We have had 13 years of austerity, in which budgets have declined. There is some pretty challenging stuff in your submission, and in what you have said about the Scottish Government. Do you think that the sector is—in the words of Alexander Stewart—being attacked by the Scottish Government or seen as “expendable”? Do you think that you are being treated differently from other parts of the budget?

May I ask a final quick question? I am trying to view the situation from the point of view of a member of the public. For 13 years we have had cuts to the global budget because of austerity. As you said, we cannot take the issue in isolation; we must look at the context. Such cuts have the cumulative effect of wearing people down over time. Do you think that the public would be surprised to find out that it takes until, say, year 13—I am not sure that that is the case; you can tell me if it is not—for you to think about starting to use reserves to address such issues? I realise that reserves can be held for various purposes, including for a rainy day. Do you not think that, after 13 years of austerity, the rainy day might have arrived? How might the public perceive that?

I reassure Stephen Kerr that I think that it is very unlikely that he will make himself any less popular than he currently is. [Laughter.]

I agree with the central point that Mr Kerr made, or at least one of his points, which was that, when we undertake this kind of reform, we should have an idea of what is important to local people. The bill touches on some of the most intimate affairs of the general population and it should not be shrouded behind legalese or issues of legal access; it should be as accessible as possible.

Having said that, I support the bill. It sits comfortably in the western European tradition of economic affairs taking place in an organised setting, and trusts and clearly defined rules on inheritance and succession have been a part of Scottish life for centuries. Today, many people across Scotland are either connected to a trust or are themselves trustees, and matters of inheritance and succession are dealt with across Scotland on a daily basis. That shows that, although this is a largely technical piece of legislation, it is an important one for many Scots.

To go back to the point that Stephen Kerr made about ensuring that the process is as accessible as possible, an example from criminal law of something that is not accessible is the idea of the “not proven” verdict. Sheriffs and judges are not allowed to explain the implications of a “not proven” verdict. That is the reason why I changed my mind on its abolition. If we cannot explain a principle of law to the public, it is not accessible. It is important that we make the area that the bill deals with as accessible as possible.

As has been said before, the main piece of existing legislation on trusts dates back to 1921, making the law effectively more than 100 years old. Of course, the language in the 1921 act is challenging and outdated, but the numerous amendments to the legislation since then make it immensely challenging for trust creators, trustees and other beneficiaries to understand their rights and responsibilities in the system. To put it simply, our society has changed, but our trust laws have struggled to change with it.

Let us not forget that trusts are not only about financial matters but are used extensively by charitable organisations and pension funds. They can be used to protect and administer assets on behalf of vulnerable people and to streamline business operations by setting funds aside to deal with potential future liabilities. In an ever-changing world, therefore, trust law must be robust, adaptable and, above all, comprehensible, as well as accessible.

Accordingly, one of the main purposes of the bill is to modernise, centralise and clarify the rules on trusts in Scotland by creating a single accessible statute that will ensure that individuals and professionals can navigate the law on trusts with confidence. In short, the bill offers the Parliament an opportunity to make the lives of everyday Scots just that bit easier.

However, the bill is not only about updating the law on trusts. It is also about modernising and clarifying the rules on succession and inheritance. Just for the record, I am totally opposed to the proposed changes to inheritance tax that the UK Government is currently talking about.

Inheritance is primarily a matter for families and relationships, and, just as the role of trusts has changed since 1921, so, too, have many of the societal norms relating to families and relationships. The bill, therefore, aims to update the law on succession in line with those societal changes, and the proposed simplification to succession rules is a testament to that. We recognise the changing role of spouses and civil partners in our society, and it is important, therefore, that the law should acknowledge them as key members of the deceased’s family in the new definitive statute that the bill proposes. Further to that, the bill also proposes a more equitable approach to biological children, adopted children and stepchildren in the event of the death of a parent, which is also a much-needed change.

The bill is the product of two large-scale law reform projects that were undertaken by the Scottish Law Commission in a process that has spanned more than a decade and involved extensive consultations, discussions and reports. Its aim is clear: it is to ensure that our Scottish law on trusts and succession is coherent and adaptable to the modern world.

In conclusion, I say that the bill is a significant piece of legislation that updates our legal framework for the needs of our modern society and makes it readily accessible to the public. It simplifies trust laws, ensures clarity for stakeholders and acknowledges the changing dynamics of our families. Therefore, I urge all my fellow parliamentarians to support the bill, recognising that its passage will benefit not just us today, but generations still to come.

Given that both the Scottish and United Kingdom trade union congresses have come out in support of the devolution of employment law, and that a number of Labour Party MSPs have spoken previously in the Scottish Parliament in support of that policy, does the minister have any explanation as to why not a single Labour member of this Parliament signed the motion that the Parliament considered last night in support of the devolution of employment law? The motion did not mention independence; it mentioned only devolution, which is meant to be the settled policy of the Labour Party. Is he aware whether the UK Labour Party still supports the policy of devolving employment policy to the Scottish Parliament?