Chamber and committees

The next item is a discussion on our work plan. This is the first opportunity that members have had to explore and express, on the record, ideas or initial reflections about what our work programme should cover. As I said, members have been given a series of papers and briefing notes on the committee’s remit and the work of our predecessor committee, including its legacy report.

After we have had our initial discussion, I will ask whether the committee wants to organise a business planning day. It is generally good practice for a committee to host such an event—certainly in the first year of a new session, perhaps towards the end of the summer recess—in order for members to get to know one another a little better and to hear from external groups or guests about the work that we choose to undertake.

Again, I will go round the table and ask everyone to offer some reflections. I will start with a few from me. I note the postponement yesterday of the United Kingdom and European Union summit due to changing UK circumstances, as well as the letter that we all received from the Deputy First Minister regarding the interministerial standing committee, which will meet tomorrow.

I will mention a few other topics. I think that all members will recognise the importance of the work on broadcasting that was done in the previous session. In the light of Ofcom’s recent decision on STV and the further BBC cuts that have been announced, we might need to revisit the issue.

Some work was done on wider support for the screen sector. We should be conscious that the Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto that included a proposal to separate Screen Scotland from Creative Scotland. It would be useful for us to understand the sector’s response to the proposal and its expectations of how it would work.

There is also an opportunity to resolve some of the ambiguity about the games industry, which receives some support from the culture budget and some from the economy budget. There is a bit of an ambiguous relationship in that regard.

On a related point, there is often a huge amount of debate about social media and artificial intelligence in relation to age limits and phones in schools, but, in my view, there is now a very powerful impact on broadcasting, journalism and access to culture, as well as the requirement for the Scottish Government to develop a disinformation strategy. I want to know whether there is an appetite in the committee to consider how we might fit such issues into our work plan.

Our predecessor committee took some interest in the fair work agenda in the culture sector. The Scottish Government brought together an independently chaired fair work task force, which reported its recommendations in December, and it will be important for the committee to stay on top of how the sector and the Government are implementing those recommendations.

The Scottish National Party also committed in its manifesto to introducing a culture bill. I think that it is reasonable to expect that that legislation will be co-developed with the sector. If that is the case and we can get early indications from the Government about its intentions on timing, the committee will have an important opportunity to provide a space in which the sector can, on the record and in public, express its view, or multiple views, on the direction of travel for that legislation.

On the other side of our remit, the Welsh First Minister yesterday noted that he believes that there is an opportunity, given the changing UK political context, to seek improvements in the relationship between the UK Government and the devolved Governments. It is fair to say that, in exploring such issues, our predecessor committee never buried or ignored the fact that there were significant political differences on constitutional questions, but those differences should not prevent us from finding common ground if it exists—and it does exist, because there were opportunities to find common ground. I think that we should continue in that spirit, and I would like to know whether the committee has an appetite for stronger joint working with our counterpart committees, particularly in the devolved Administrations and the devolved Parliaments, in advance of UK-wide interparliamentary work.

Finally, the context of the change of leadership at UK level may also alter the dynamics. We have already heard that the UK-EU summit is going to be postponed, but I think that it is fair to say that most people would be surprised if there was any fundamental change in the current direction towards having a closer relationship with Europe. In fact, the new Prime Minister, whoever that might be, might want to go further and faster.

The UK European partnership bill was announced in the King’s speech. That is already part of the UK Government’s programme, and it will be important for us to understand what the Scottish Government’s expectations are, to what extent it is involved in the shaping of that legislation, and what the implications could be for the devolution settlement and the Sewel convention.

Those are my initial thoughts. I will now hand over to members. Every member is welcome to offer any reflections.

Thanks for that. I will reflect on one of the things that you said, which was about the EU legislation tracker. I have had one early conversation with the clerks about how that works. The previous committee’s legacy report hinted that taking a different approach to that issue might be a more efficient use of time. I agree that the density of the information that was provided sometimes did not enable the best and most relevant scrutiny. The function of looking at EU legislation that might have an impact is important, but if we are to do that, it must be more focused so that we use our time a little bit more effectively. I would welcome members’ views about their expectations of how that should work. If any member wants to explore how we might improve our practice as we progress, that will always be welcome.

Thank you.

We will move into private session for the last part of our discussion.

09:58

Meeting continued in private until 10:09.

The next item is the choosing of a deputy convener. Members will be aware that Parliament has agreed that a member of the Reform UK Party should be the deputy convener of the committee, and Senga Beresford is the member of the Reform UK Party on the committee.

Does any member want to nominate the deputy convener?

The purpose of the next item is to decide on the committee’s representation for the next meeting of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe. As explained in the papers that have been circulated, the committee is responsible for Parliament’s representation on a number of external bodies. The suggestion is that we return to most of those later in the year, but one body, the congress, has a meeting upcoming in October. That will be the last meeting under the congress’s current mandate. At that point, we will have to decide representation on the subsequent mandate, which relates to meetings from March onwards.

Keith Brown was a member of the predecessor committee in the previous session and was the representative on the congress. I therefore suggest that we simply agree that Keith continues in that role—I think that he is willing to do so and to take part in the meeting in October—and that we then consider all the external bodies together at a later time. Unless any discussion is required, is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I welcome your points about international development. Thank you for raising that.

Heaven forbid!

Thanks very much. In relation to the national performing companies, I covered the Finance and Public Administration Committee last session, for a brief period—

I was in that evidence session, which came just after the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee had taken evidence on the same issue; the committees took slightly different angles. There is a clear expectation that we will have a responsibility to hold the Government to account on that, as well as on some statements that it made around that time, to ensure that it follows through on its commitments.

It is important to recognise the legislative competence point but also not to see it as limiting how we think about the consequences of matters that we cannot legislate on but whose impact on devolved matters the Government needs to understand. It will be a factor to consider, but it should not inhibit us from discussing the issue.

Thank you all very much for those initial reflections. As I said, this is by no means the last opportunity to shape the work programme. It will not be set in stone as a result of today’s conversation. There will be significant further opportunities to discuss.

Before we move into private session, I invite members to agree that we should organise a business planning day later in the summer recess. Many committees try to do that toward the end of the recess, as members prepare to return to parliamentary business. Can we agree to that today?

Members indicated agreement.

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the first meeting of the Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee in session 7 of the Scottish Parliament. We have no apologies to record for today’s meeting.

The first agenda item is the declaration of registrable interests that are relevant to the work of the committee. Members are aware of the requirement to make oral declarations. I will start, and then we will go round the table.

I have no registrable interests in relation to the committee’s remit. However, the voluntary section of my entry in the register of interests notes that I am a vice-president of the European Movement in Scotland, which is an unpaid position for which I receive no other benefits.