���˿���

As a result of having read the paperwork in advance of the meeting and listening to the questions and answers, my question has changed slightly. It is partly triggered by the deputy convener talking about the need for pragmatism. My concern is about accountability through the legislation in respect of knowing what we are voting for, given the huge powers that it will give to Government at both the UK and Scottish levels, and the difficulty for us in working out what they might be and testing that. My initial question was going to be about the uncertainty and the damage to relations with the EU. However, the fact that things have changed since the bill was introduced makes things even harder, because the uncertainty is greater. It seems to me that we do not know what we are voting for.

In respect of parliamentary precedent, given the huge scope of the bill, should we as parliamentarians support it? We are being asked to vote for something before we know about the negotiations. We do not know the context of what will be in the negotiations, and we are, in effect, being asked to support a bill that could be anything without being able to scrutinise it. I would be interested in feedback from the panel on the precedent for that at the UK and Scottish levels. Would Jonathan Jones like to come in on that precedent and uncertainty issue? Is the bill bad in terms of accountability?

I will ask Dr Fox the same question. Should we have concerns about certainty and the lack of accountability?

That was helpful. The concern about what “conduct” and the making of “any provision” might mean and our capacity to interrogate that has come across very clearly, and I thank the witnesses for their answers to my questions.

It would be good to get that list. I think that about 20 per cent of our historic buildings or sites are not able to open at the moment, so it would be useful to get the scale of the issue. It is a fundamental issue, as it is not just one or two areas that are affected. Dealing with the issue is significant in terms of rebuilding tourism and restoring our culture.

I recently asked about employment issues in Historic Environment Scotland, and it came out that there was a real issue in terms of gender and pay. What are you doing to improve opportunities in the sector, particularly for women? I think that women were doing okay in band C and one right at the top but, in all the other bands, women were doing less well in terms of employment opportunities.

I echo that point. I was looking at the annex to Historic Environment Scotland’s written briefing, which refers to key performance indicators. Most of the KPIs have a green status; some are amber. However, the rating for improving or maintaining the state of Scotland’s historic sites and places is red. That really stands out. That issue has been quite a big part of our discussion today.

We used to talk about the need to spend to save as a way of helping future investment, but you are talking about the need to spend to save as a way of avoiding losing buildings. It would be very interesting to get your take on that. The evidence that you gave us is that the historic environment is not just good for who we are. The sector also brings £4.4 billion into the Scottish economy. For example, half our international tourists come to see heritage and 60 per cent of the heritage visits are to Historic Environment Scotland sites.

Will you give us a sense of what you need to do to deliver on that? You have gone through pandemic-related income reduction. You talked a bit earlier about flexibility and the levers that you need. Will you say a bit about public sector funding and then a bit about the flexibility that you want?

To be clear, it is not an either/or: you need continued capital investment in buildings and a bit of flexibility. The short-termism of funding is coming across really strongly, given the impact that that has on the whole of our heritage. I will come on to museums and galleries in a second.

Okay; thank you. I want to put that same issue to Sir John Leighton and Lucy Casot. In your written submissions, you both talk about short-termism. I think that the word “projectism” was used—that is, one-off annual spending.

One of the things that we have been taking evidence on is the contribution of culture to health and wellbeing. Both your submissions make quite powerful points in that regard. Will you say a bit more about that? Sir John, your organisation’s submission mentions the need for

“determined leadership from the Scottish Government.”

We have asked cabinet secretaries about that and their response has been to say, “It is coming at some point”. What leadership and investment would be needed to transform what you could deliver?

It was good to read the report. I have a couple of questions about how you effectively market the BBC to people in Scotland. The “Ofcom Annual Report on the BBC 2020-2021” highlighted that

“some audience groups have lower satisfaction with the BBC, such as disabled audiences, those in Scotland and those from less-well-off backgrounds.”

To what extent are you reaching out to those audiences? We have talked a little about different ways to access TV. I am interested in future viewers, and younger people in particular. What is your strategy to address those issues in a Scottish context and the diversity issue in audience ratings?

The other side of that is career opportunities for young people. You have talked a bit about production in Scotland. Can you give me a sense of production across Scotland? Obviously, a lot of the production is in Glasgow, but what about the rest of the country?

I want to pick up the particular issue of BBC News. To what extent is that focused across the country or mainly on Glasgow? What are the opportunities for young people to get into the sector—into journalism or behind the camera?

It would be good to get that feedback to compare with the stats that your team gave me earlier. Thank you.