I am pleased to close on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. I will support the amendment in the name of Meghan Gallacher.

When it comes to the culture sector, Scotland is truly able to punch above its weight on the world stage. We have heard that today from many members. Culture is a fantastic area; the international footprint of Scotland is renowned and continues to be so. We have heard comments about Brexit, but international individuals are still coming to Scotland and we are still sending people to other parts of the world. I look forward to seeing that continue.

The Scottish Government’s international culture strategy follows publication of its 2020 culture strategy. The strategy includes the opportunity that the Government wants to promote. It is the first time the Government has published an international cultural strategy of this kind. I welcome the fact that, today, in our debate, we get the chance to talk about the positives of the sector.

Certain aspects of the strategy—for example, the value of the international cultural exchanges and knowledge exchanges, and the engagement with the cultures of many countries—are vitally important. The strategy talks about the bodies that we have in Scotland, including Creative Scotland, Museums Galleries Scotland and the British Council in Scotland. All those have important parts to play, along with Historic Environment Scotland, which looks after hundreds of significant sites across the country. We know that many of those sites have suffered of late because of the pandemic, but they are now starting to develop and move forward.

The strategy highlights the generation of £4.4 billion for Scotland’s economy and support for nearly 70,000 jobs across Scotland. That is good for us and good for the sector. It is important that we analyse that and look at what we can achieve, as we go forward.

As I said, the pandemic had a massive impact, as the sector told us when it came to committee. It talked about areas of concern and the closures and difficulties that it has to deal with. The Government has had to listen to that, and we have to acknowledge it when we talk about what is happening in the process. Conservative members understand the importance of the sector and the opportunities that we need to give it to ensure that we continue to have fantastic worldwide potential that expands and goes forward.

We have heard many contributions to the debate. The cabinet secretary talked about the importance of the cultural sector, funding and the realisation that we need to have opportunities. However, they need to be funded. He has heard, as we all have, that there are still areas of real concern across the sector.

My colleague Meghan Gallacher talked about the deep-rooted culture in this country and our need for a business model that is successful and inspiring. VisitScotland has a chance to do things, but closing its information centres is the wrong direction to go in and the wrong message to send out to our communities and the world at large. Funding is vitally important.

Neil Bibby talked about a sector that is struggling. He said that it has had a crisis and a perfect storm. We on the committee have also heard that. People have come forward and told us about the power that we have, the way in which it is managed, and the fundamental problems that the sector faces. All those issues are important.

The convener spoke about Scottish Opera and the RSNO. They are great, but—as was alluded to—they are footnotes in the strategy. That needs to be looked at. We cannot talk from the rafters about the things that we have if we do not give them our full support. I am inspired by those organisations because they work really hard to achieve on many of the issues—sometimes, with one hand tied behind their back.

Jamie Greene gave a good speech about how the Scottish Government cannot put its head in the sand: it cannot blame other people. It has been running the country for 17 years. The running costs of the Edinburgh fringe, its affordability for performers and the availability of accommodation are very important to any organisation. The Government has heard from the grass roots about where we are on that, and about how cutting funding for local government has had a massive impact on many sectors.

Jackson Carlaw gave a passionate speech, as we would expect, and showed where the priorities should be and how we should realise them. We have five phenomenal national companies that give us opportunities and real pride, but they need to be supported, as do the ideas that we are trying to achieve in the coming years.

It is worth looking at our international culture strategy. I repeat many of the things that have been said in the debate. The Scottish Government has a role to play in that. The strategy boldly claims that independence would open new opportunities. We have heard that many times before. In reality, we know that that could be an issue when it comes to funding. The United Kingdom’s international influence and its broad financial shoulders could be risked in that process. We already know that.

It is right that the Parliament debates what Scotland’s fantastic culture sector is built on. It has a worldwide reputation. However, the strategy fails to show the ambition that the culture sector wants and needs, following years of being treated as an afterthought. At the moment, the Government is playing with some of that; it is attempting to show that there are opportunities, but at the same time it is giving individuals, companies and organisations a difficult strategy to manage.

I want to see ambition, but that ambition needs to be realised and to have opportunities behind it. It cannot be the strategy that makes things happen; the public and the processes need to make them happen.

The creative sector is innovative and sustainable, and it has a strong cultural impact, but the Government must turn that narrative into reality. It must provide support and put its money where its mouth is if it is going to ensure that the strategy, our culture and the environment around it are to succeed. We want all that to happen, and we have the ability to make it happen, but it needs to be endorsed by the Government and the Parliament. If we can do that, success will breed success.

Good morning. You have all touched on the complexities that you have had to deal with, which, as you have indicated, are mainly logistical or bureaucratic. You have also said that managing those complexities has been a burden on your businesses. My question is about how you are coping with or managing that burden. In previous sessions, we have asked witnesses about how they are managing to keep track of the changes that are happening in the EU and the impact on the various sectors. I know that all of you will probably say that the situation has led to added costs, and you might well have had to take on new people to deal with the new rules and regulations. That financial cost has had a knock-on effect on your own bottom line and what you are trying to achieve and, as a result, you might have lost commercial opportunities.

You have all explained that situation, but I think that it would be useful to get a flavour of the burden on your sectors. I know that it is a burden in financial terms, but managing the situation will be a people burden, too. How have you coped with the new regulations? Have you been able to manage things with the staff that you have, or have you had to increase numbers to deal with things on a day-to-day basis and wade through the logistical and bureaucratic issues? It would be good to get a flavour of that from each of you.

I am pleased to speak in the debate and congratulate my fellow member Foysol Choudhury on bringing it to the chamber.

At this early stage of my speech, I commend the excellent work of organisations such as the Brain Tumour Charity and Brain Tumour Research. In addition, I pay tribute to the phenomenal courage and resilience of patients and their families, who we regularly meet in the Parliament. It is good to have that exchange.

As the motion says, brain tumour awareness month is March, and it is dedicated to raising awareness of important brain tumour research and shining a light on patients across Scotland. That is not merely vitally important but essential, especially given, as we have heard today, the current situation with the diagnosis and treatment of brain tumours.

Early in the previous session of Parliament, I became aware of the tragic case of a constituent in Dunfermline, Mark Richardson. It was an awful situation. Back in 2017, when opening my members’ business debate on brain tumour research, I spoke about Mark, who had been a popular manager with Diageo and had a stepson and two toddlers. Once again, diagnosis was the problem. Mark was having blackouts and eye problems, and none of it was being followed up. Tragically, Mark died in July 2016 at the age of 32. He had experienced neck pain and an eye bleed. He had been to the optician, but nobody found that he had a cancerous brain tumour the size of a golf ball.

It is seven years since that debate. I said at the time:

“Brain tumours are a cancer of unmet need.”—[Official Report, 7 December 2017; c 28.]

Here we are, seven years later, saying exactly the same thing and calling on the Scottish Government and the NHS to focus on diagnosis and treatment. We need investment in research to improve diagnosis, find more effective and less harmful treatments and, ultimately, find a cure. In recent years, I have been whole-heartedly behind ensuring that we do that. Nearly a decade on, we are still struggling. Mark’s story made such an impact on me that I became much more involved in the Brain Tumour Charity. I have held round-table meetings, met consultants and had patients here in Parliament. MSPs have come to drop-in events. I was extremely humbled that, back in 2019, the Brain Tumour Charity nominated me as one of the influencers of the year.

I commend Beatrice Wishart and congratulate her on what she is trying to achieve, and I look forward to supporting her cross-party group. I urge the Scottish Government, brain tumour charities and health professionals to continue to work together to ensure that individuals are supported and protected throughout their journey. The Scottish Government must ensure that all brain tumour patients have access to a clinical nurse specialist or a key worker who carries out assessments of patients’ holistic requirements following their diagnosis. Signposts must be in place for the patient to access local support. Patients with brain tumours should have the option of discussing palliative care with consultants at the point of diagnosis.

I reiterate my pledge to do all that I can, in my position as a member of the Scottish Parliament, to fight individuals’ corner and maintain awareness. Maintaining awareness and ensuring that we keep brain tumours high profile will give many of those individuals hope for the future.

In her statement, the minister talked about a tobacco and vaping framework and about improving the existing register of tobacco and nicotine vapour product retailers. Nations such as the Netherlands take a more concise approach to the issue: all fruity flavours and aromas that might appeal to young people and those who are new to the habit are banned, and only tobacco flavours are allowed. Is the Scottish Government considering such measures under the tobacco and vaping framework?

I thank the witnesses for their honesty—it has been good to get that flavour. You have all adapted or stopped doing things not only because of the pain that you have mentioned but because of the loss that you would suffer, and you are trying to keep track of changes to EU legislation to continue to adapt. You talked about bringing in a new member of staff to tackle that.

As organisations, have you managed the situation by bringing in an expert so that you get a much better and freer flow in relation to what is happening and so that you understand the legislation? In the past, I think that you have just tried something and it has failed, but you have to take that risk. However, it is about managing the risk for the future and seeing what you can achieve. It would be good to get a flavour of what you see coming in the future, based on what you have seen in the past.

Does anyone want to jump in?

To ask the Scottish Government how it plans to spend the £295 million in Barnett consequential funding arising from the United Kingdom Government’s 2024 spring budget. (S6O-03241)

The Scottish National Party Government consistently misleads the public about the amount of funding that it receives from the UK Government, but the facts speak for themselves. In 2024-25, the Scottish Government will get £43 billion in a block grant and will receive more than £2,000 per person for public services, but that advantage has been completely squandered by the SNP Government, which, due to its wasteful spending, has had to raise taxes on hard-working Scots. Does the cabinet secretary really think that spending money on independence papers while cutting national health service funding in real terms is the correct priority for the Government?

In October, Creative Scotland is due to decide on £87.4 million-worth of applications from 285 organisations, many of which are in the cinema sector. That gives an indication of the extent of the culture and creative sector that exists across Scotland. How can we ensure that the many applicants who aspire to enter cinematography who do not receive funding are not discouraged from entering the sector or the industry?

You have said that the two sides seem to have more success in coming to an agreement when there is a little bit of a lighter touch in the dialogue, rather than the formal objections and obligations, because they are much more strained at times. The lighter touch seems to work for both sides and we manage to get a better understanding or even a slightly better process out of all that. Having other individuals in the room who have a role to play—the diplomats and others that you indicated—rather than just the politicians, seems to have more success. Do you see that as being one of the major features going forward?

Thanks for the comments so far. As you have identified, this review gives us a chance to take stock of where we are, the deadlines that are coming up, some of the processes and the whole idea of governance and enhanced co-operation. Elements need to be looked at and could be expanded, but if that is to happen, there needs to be agreement once again about structures and commitments. That agreement could be quite limited in some respects, but it could be quite wide-ranging in others.

Jannike Wachowiak, you talked about dates and timescales around the elections and the time that it takes to make things happen. Once again, there will be a gap between where we are and what will eventually become the norm from 2025 onwards, in reality. Things might be slightly different to how they are now in many respects, depending on the political will and the level of involvement.

It would be quite good to get a flavour from you of whether you see there being barriers to enhanced governance or co-operation in the future or whether there will be some opportunities? I do not mind who answers first.