Chamber and committees

There is also a flipside, which is that we have colleagues in the third sector who are involved in projects, planning and other priorities, and we might not be aware of what those are. Therefore, it is a two-way street. I completely agree that we want to make sure that we are as well aligned as possible in that regard.

Members will be aware that the United Kingdom is actively considering whether it should use what are known as article 16 powers in relation to the Northern Ireland protocol. That would, in effect, be the UK unilaterally saying that it does not think that the agreements that it reached and signed with the European Union are fit for purpose. Given what has been emanating from discussions with the European Union in recent weeks, one would have reason to believe that Lord Frost and his colleagues are actively considering pursuing that course of action: unilaterally repudiating an agreement that I think I am right in saying was described as “oven ready” and a huge negotiating success.

There will be consequences if the UK proceeds with that approach. Brexit has already caused economic damage. Members are well aware of the estimates that have been made by neutral organisations, which have assessed the quantum of damage from Brexit as being at least twice that caused by the coronavirus pandemic. UK exports to the world’s biggest single market are down by more than 15 per cent. The Scottish Government’s view is that anything that leads to yet further worsening of relations with the European Union and of the impact on our economy would be a hugely retrograde step. That is my first observation.

My second observation is that for the UK Government to be considering doing such a thing without any active or serious consultation with the devolved Administrations of the United Kingdom is yet another sad example of how taking back control from Brussels also means taking back control from Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. That is a retrograde step.

We have tried to flag that up with Lord Frost, as have a great many people in Northern Ireland, because the matter relates specifically to Northern Ireland. The danger is that turning away from the agreement that was reached might lead to a worsening of community relations in Northern Ireland—that is a euphemism for the potential return of violence. That is not in anyone’s interests, and all of us should ensure that that does not happen.

In answer to your question, Dr Allan, we are very concerned about the UK’s aggressive approach to diplomacy. We are very disappointed that it has taken that approach without any active consultation with devolved Governments across the UK. I, and colleagues in other devolved Administrations, have called for discussion to take place before any precipitous decisions are made on article 16. I very much hope that the UK Government will step back from its threatening position, which also undermines the belief of European Union decision makers in the UK as a trusted partner that will deliver on what it agrees. That is to our detriment, notwithstanding the fact that we did not agree to Brexit and do not wish the Northern Ireland protocol to be treated as it is being treated by the UK Government. We are caught up in the backdraft of all that.

Do we know whether the UK Government will proceed with article 16 and repudiate the Northern Ireland protocol? No, we do not. It might have been a negotiating tactic to try to get some concessions from the European institutions—which, I might add, have signalled very loudly that they are willing and open to making improvements to arrangements where they can be made.

I simply leave with you the thought that, should the UK Government go ahead in using the article 16 powers, it is widely expected that the European Union will consider countermeasures to the UK’s aggressive approach. That means that there is the potential for tariffs to be imposed by the European Union on products from Scotland. That is not expected to happen immediately, given the time factors that have been built into the process, but it is entirely possible that, should the UK Government continue with its aggressive approach towards the European Union, we, our businesses and our exporters might be caught up in the consequences.

I therefore use this platform to appeal to everybody to keep cool heads. Let us try to maintain good relations with the biggest single market in the world and to improve, not worsen, the relationships between the UK Government and the European Union. The same point has been underlined by a great many people in Northern Ireland, and I hope that the UK Government listens to them, too.

The situation is in flux, given that the United Kingdom has only recently left the European Union and that the institutions that were in place to manage the interrelationship between EU institutions and member states—in this case, the UK, which is now a third country—have been changing.

Committee members will be aware of the role that was played by UKRep—the United Kingdom permanent representation to the European Union—which was extremely well staffed with extremely competent officials with understanding of the full breadth of the work of the European Union and its institutions. That has now changed. There is a UK mission to the European Union—UKMis—and how it reports to the United Kingdom and, by extension, the devolved Administrations is also subject to change. Those things are not in our power. We did not choose to leave the European Union or to downgrade our representation to European Union institutions, but we are having to deal with the consequences of a changing—and, in my view, worsening—situation.

As to how we deal with that, a central team in the Scottish Government’s directorate of external affairs works closely with Scotland house in Brussels and with Scottish Government lawyers—I have excellent examples of my colleagues in both those fields sitting next to me. They work in support of the policy directorates across the work of the Scottish Government in considering the Government’s policy to maintain and advance EU standards where appropriate. The team supports that work as part of DEXA’s on-going business to enable policy areas to understand the international context of their work. The team ensures that policy areas consider where alignment might be possible and how it can support ministerial decision making in considering alignment alongside the range of information and other priorities that the Government must consider in reaching policy decisions.

Before Mr Ruskell manages to catch the convener’s eye, I have a confession to make in relation to the work of the committee on that very question. I put on the record that, during the early stages of devolution—between 1999 and 2001—I advised members of this committee’s predecessor on the very question of the scrutiny of the European legislation that was before it. I think that I am right in recalling that not a single member of the committee now was on the committee then.

One of the big differences between how the committee has worked recently and how colleagues worked then is that a considerable amount of time was taken up with what was known as the sift of European documentation, which related to how the committee could continue to understand what was coming from European institutions and what it—and, by extension, the Scottish Parliament—needed to understand about particular European Union regulations, directives and so on to ensure that the Parliament and the Government were best informed.

During the past 20 or so years of devolution, the committee has taken the view that that was not an efficient and effective use of its time in maintaining optimal scrutiny of what was emanating from Brussels. Having sat on the European Scrutiny Committee in the House of Commons for 15 years, I can attest to how much time and effort were spent looking at the papers that emerged from Brussels, often with not tremendously great effect. However, because it might be helpful, I flag to the committee that European memoranda on European proposals, regulations, laws and so on are extant; they continue to be produced. Therefore, if committee members, the clerks or anybody else wishes to spend a lot of time—it takes a lot of time—doing the individual or collective sift, as was done previously by this committee and the European Scrutiny Committee of the House of Commons, they will still be able to do so.

The last word.

I will have to defer to David Seers on that question. We are keen to make the three-year funding approach workable. I ask David to comment on the detail of that.

Thank you, convener, and good morning to you all, including Sarah Boyack, who is joining us remotely. Convener, I also thank you for this, my first taste of the pre-budget process and the opportunity to discuss the culture sector.

As the committee will be well aware from the evidence that you have seen, the Covid-19 pandemic has hit the culture sector harder than most. In July, 70 per cent of organisations in the arts, entertainment and recreation sector reported a decrease in turnover, compared with 31 per cent of businesses in the overall economy.

Since the start of the pandemic, the Scottish Government has provided £175 million to the culture, heritage and events sector. That is far more than we have received, or are still due to receive, in consequentials for cultural recovery from the United Kingdom Government. The provision of that support has been a lifeline to Scotland’s venues and organisations, in particular to the freelancers who are such a crucial part of the creative economy.

The culture sector is not alone in facing a fragile recovery; the same is true of travel and tourism, for example, with the premature end of furlough as a support from the end of last month. However, the impact of the pandemic is such that it will take some time for cultural activity to return to former levels, with the added factor of the new barriers that Brexit is causing to artists working in one of their biggest markets—the European Union.

Despite that, culture has continued to play a vital role in people’s lives during the pandemic through its positive effect on mental health and by bringing people together in different ways. We have seen an acceleration in online performances and an increase in the proportion of people, particularly among the under-45s, who engage with culture digitally.

As you heard in your earlier evidence-taking sessions, the pandemic gives us an opportunity to view things with fresh eyes and perspectives. We are preparing plans for cultural recovery and are not merely seeking to return to the status quo. As so many cultural organisations and freelancers have demonstrated during the pandemic, there will be new ways of doing things—for example, new opportunities to build world-class businesses in the screen industry, which has such potential to grow in terms of employment and skills; new opportunities to reconnect communities across Scotland using the convening power of culture and events; and new opportunities to enhance Scotland’s international profile through cultural diplomacy and exporting our best cultural products and services. Our cultural recovery plan will be at the heart of economic and social transformation to ensure that we build a fairer, greener Scotland with equal opportunities for all.

As your predecessor committee heard, the final budget in the previous session of Parliament was intended to stabilise core funding for the culture sector in the midst of the pandemic. We are now at a different stage where, with many cultural organisations not yet being out of the woods, we can nevertheless start to plan for recovery. The first budget in the new session of Parliament, for the coming financial year, will exist in the context of that transition. We have committed in the programme for government to three-year funding deals for culture organisations that are core funded by the Government in order to aid their recovery, and further decisions on that will be taken as part of the budget to be announced on 9 December.

I am sure that the committee is only too well aware of the challenging outlook for all public expenditure and the tough negotiations that I and my Cabinet colleagues will face before final budget decisions are taken. I will welcome the committee’s views on future priorities in our discussions this morning and in the letter that you will send me as a conclusion to the pre-budget process.

In all candour, I cannot answer that question. I am not privy to the report that is being presented to the board. That is an example of the separation of powers, if you want to call it that, in the culture sector. I will be very interested to learn what the conclusions are. I will want to be assured that everything is being done to ensure that the restoration of the sites can proceed at pace. I am keen—as I am sure Dr Allan is—to ensure that the appropriate safety standards can be maintained for visitors to those sites. I cannot give a sneak preview of what the board might learn, because it is for the board to learn before me, my colleagues or, indeed, committee members. However, I will endeavour to ensure that you have as much information as possible as quickly as I and you can receive it. That might be in response to a parliamentary question, or we can write to you to share that information.

That is a great question. I have to be absolutely clear that, as somebody who has been in the Scottish Parliament only since May and who has been a cabinet secretary for only a few short months, I do not have personal insight into the 10-year horizon that Mr Cameron talked about. However, I spend probably more than half of my working day on Teams calls with colleagues across Government discussing how Government is joined up, and I certainly get the impression that there is a genuine effort across Government to try to make that work, whether it is in relation to the economy or elsewhere.

We are about to embark on that in the cultural sphere. I can reflect on the fact that there is a sincere effort to make that approach work in other areas. I give Mr Cameron the assurance that I am keen to ensure that it works, and he will want to be sure that it is working. Only when we can come back and he can interrogate the extent to which it is taking place will I be able to answer that question. However, I can say that my intention is to try to make it work, and perhaps bringing the insights of a relative newcomer will be helpful in that.

It bodes well that everybody who I speak to seems to think that it is a tremendously good idea. If people were not aware that there are benefits in working beyond the culture and arts silo, we would be in difficulty. The fact that people recognise the health and education benefits as well as the possible benefits for the justice system in certain settings makes me optimistic that, if we can harness the awareness and willingness to do something, we can really make that approach deliver. However, the member will need to satisfy himself that that is what will actually happen once we have launched the strategy and we are getting on with delivering it.

I again go back to the symbiotic relationship between the committee and the Government. Perhaps I am a hopelessly idealistic newcomer in this regard, but you need to know that the work that you do influences people like me and my civil service colleagues. Your considerations are important because we have different time constraints and time limitations. For example, the thoughtful approach that you were able to take recently in your focus group work was absolutely invaluable. I leave that thought with the convener and deputy convener. It is a way in which you can influence the Government and ensure that it delivers. I am keen to work with you on that as we jointly try to deliver a joined-up approach.

I would add to that, because another little yellow Post-it note for us to take away in relation to our cultural recovery and renewal strategy is about exactly the point that Mr Golden makes: co-operation. It would obviously be a good thing that, right across the Scottish Government, we think about how culture and the arts is mainstreamed in all our thinking. However, there is absolutely no reason why we would not encourage that broader understanding to also involve local authorities, which have a delivery responsibility and which, as my colleague has just pointed out, spend a significant amount of money on culture.

The short answer is yes. Expanding on that, it behoves us all to support those who are delivering this—whether that is the management of museums or other cultural organisations—to reimagine the cultural recovery that we are all in favour of. We should not simply seek to go back to where we were pre-Covid; we should realise that much has changed. You made the point that we are enjoying and consuming culture in ways that we did not do before, and that should make a difference to our thinking about our policy and budgetary approach. We are alive to that and in the middle of that process. When we come back to the committee at the stage when budgets have been agreed and processes have been gone through, I will be more than content to share with you and reflect on the extent to which we have been guided by an awareness of those changes.

In passing, I note that I have been keen to say to civil service colleagues and cultural organisations that we are not the only people in the cultural and arts world who are going through this. Every other country in the world is having to grapple with the impact of the pandemic and many countries have experienced a similar impact, with a lack of public access to facilities, a drop in income and concern about how one recovers or intends to recover. I have been keen to impress on everybody who is involved that we should be trying to learn lessons from elsewhere as well as from here. There is not a monopoly on common sense in Scotland, so I am keen to work out the best way in which we can learn and emulate best practice from elsewhere. Given that we are in this process, I will be happy to feed back to the committee on what we have and have not learned, to ensure that we can do this as well as we can.