Chamber and committees

I appreciate that there are different perspectives. From a policy perspective, I am not sure if I am more confused or less confused, but thank you for the answers.

I will be fairly brief in setting out my hope that there is broad consensus on the LCM before us. I would like to hope that, as the cabinet secretary said, regardless of the range of views on the merits of legislation here in the Scottish Parliament or at Westminster, very few people would want advertising to play any role at all in the issue of assisted dying legislation or any equivalent legislation at UK level for England and Wales.

As others have said, the issue has been debated in both Parliaments in relation to both pieces of legislation. When we debated the LCM, my additional concern was that we should ensure not only that we are clear that we do not expect and do not want to allow advertising to play a role, but that we do not inadvertently make provisions against advertising that would inhibit the provision of factual information about services or, indeed, arguments about the policy merits of the legislation or how services should be delivered. When we considered the LCM in committee, I asked the cabinet secretary whether it was his expectation that the restrictions that we are talking about would apply to advertising alone, and he agreed.

We considered a range of possible restrictions in the Scottish legislation, and I had similar concerns that some variants of what was being proposed might have been more of an inhibition on the expression of legitimate opinions about assisted dying or, potentially, on research or the provision of factual information.

As we go forward, we need to ensure that we pay due attention to both aspects of that concern, either by working with colleagues in the UK Parliament to ensure that the legislation there is in fit shape or by scrutinising Liam McArthur’s bill in this Parliament at stage 3. We must ensure that we not only do not allow advertising to play a role in a way that none of us would be comfortable with, but that we do not inhibit legitimate debate—nor that we allow the use of material on social media, for example, to influence or put pressure on people to make a decision in either direction.

Despite the valiant attempts of anti-trans campaigners to claim a win on the issue, the tribunal found that Ms Peggie’s behaviour amounted to harassment of Dr Upton, and it dismissed the vast majority of her claims. Most important, it is the second Scottish employment tribunal in a month to find that employers are not, in fact, required to operate the kind of trans-segregation policies that anti-equality groups are pushing for. Does the Scottish Government agree that the blanket exclusion of trans people from the facilities that they need at work is generally unlawful, and will it therefore make it clear to all public bodies in Scotland that segregating trans people is not supported in law and that their human rights will be defended against the current onslaught?

In an earlier answer, you mentioned the lack of capital funding. A number of the organisations that we have heard from recognise that addressing the climate emergency will be a significant challenge to many culture organisations. That will include a requirement for capital investment in buildings and facilities, either to decarbonise or to address the impacts of climate change. How do you envisage a capital funding stream working within Creative Scotland? How should its top-level strategic goals be defined? Should the body be given guidance from Government? Should it be entirely independent, as the cultural decisions of Creative Scotland are independent from politics? Alternatively, should that be demand led?

Thank you.

I will be very quick. Thank you, convener. My question is about political independence.

The act that created Creative Scotland says:

“The Scottish Ministers may give Creative Scotland directions … as to the exercise of its functions. But the Scottish Ministers may not give directions as far as relating to artistic or cultural judgement.”

I think that political independence in respect of creative and artistic judgment is important. The fact that the phrase “culture war” even exists indicates to us that certain issues are being politicised at the moment in our culture, and I would suggest that most of the attempts at that kind of political interference do not come from the Government. They have been expressed in the Parliament or in the media. Does Creative Scotland need similar protection to the one that it has from political interference on cultural and artistic judgments from the Government? Does it need that protection from the Parliament as well?

Thank you.

I wonder whether I can follow that up by asking colleagues to explore a certain scenario. At UK level, the main Opposition party in Parliament is seeking to repeal climate legislation, and there is a political party polling very strongly for the next election whose policy is led by outright climate change denial and conspiracy theory. To what extent would the Scottish Government’s international offices still be able to adequately function and deliver the Scottish Government’s policy in that area if a UK Government came in that was pursuing the polar opposite agenda?

Good morning. I have a few separate topics to raise, if there is time. I will start with the core purpose of Creative Scotland, in particular in relation to fair work. We have heard repeatedly—I am sure that you have as well—about the concern throughout the sector that the creative industries generally have a significant problem with achieving anything close to fair work principles, particularly the parts that are dominated by freelance and insecure working.

The issue is referenced at several points in the report, but did you consider whether there is a need for a more substantive and clearly defined role for Creative Scotland in raising standards in the area? Creative Scotland takes the issue seriously, but some of its ways of working and decisions have actually repeated or entrenched the precarious working conditions that exist throughout the sector. Did you consider whether to make a more substantive recommendation on Creative Scotland’s purpose in relation to fair work?

In thinking about how the situation will develop, we can all anticipate that new technologies will exacerbate some of the precarity issues and the lack of consistent employment rights for people who work in the sector. Is it your view that we should consider your report alongside the task force’s report and give equal weight to the recommendations and see how they fit together?