Chamber and committees

I am quoting the head of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, who wrote to the Prime Minister saying that the deal was “desperately poor”, generating

“huge disappointment and a great deal of anger about the failure to deliver on promises made repeatedly to the industry.”

We do not want to omit key parts of the facts about the negative impact that Brexit has had on the fishing industry across the piece.

No, you cannot, because I am speaking through the chair. In doing so, I am finishing my answer by saying that, as soon as any formal positions are outlined by the European Union or the UK Government, I will be happy to update the committee on them. I have seen none so far. I have no doubt that issues around fisheries will come up at some point. That is what Mr Kerr has reported to the committee today, and I do not disagree with that. However, the issue as such has not formed any formal part of conversations that I have had with the UK Government or, indeed, with European Union interlocutors. I do not doubt that it will come up as an issue formally at some stage, but it is not formally part of discussions at present.

I think that it is fair to observe two things. First, there has not been significant progress between the UK and the European Union so far. Secondly, preparations are under way in Brussels, London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast for forthcoming meetings in which more substantive progress can be made. That is the stage that we are at.

I observe that the UK Government has been taking the issue more seriously within Government, which is welcome. There have been changes to the machinery in the UK Government to deal with that, including a new Cabinet committee on Europe, which the Prime Minister chairs.

Clearly, the UK Government is thinking about what is coming up. It would be remiss not to draw attention to the changing geostrategic peril that we all feel in Europe at present, and that dimension will perhaps loom larger in everybody’s considerations, here and in the other capitals, of how we work together.

What can I imagine will be coming up? I can imagine that both the United Kingdom and the European Union will be focused on advancing shared interests in defence and security. We would very much welcome for there to be a joint statement on co-operation in that area.

I note that, overnight, the European Union has announced a very significant defence package, which is not open to the United Kingdom defence sector. That might change, were there to be a co-operation agreement between the UK and the EU. That is strong encouragement for that to happen. I think that there is goodwill on all sides to make progress in that area.

For the Scottish Government’s part—I think that you have heard me make this point before—we have, for the longest time, advanced the need for what I call a food, drink and agriculture agreement. The terminology is important, because people might understand what that is as opposed to a “sanitary and phytosanitary agreement”.

For those of us who have been speaking with our food and drink sector and our rural stakeholders, it seems that the general view is that it is very important that we should have such an agreement. We have been impressing that view on the UK Government and sharing it with European Union interlocutors.

There are other areas of common interest to the UK and the European Union: greater co-operation on energy and on law enforcement; addressing irregular migration; and perhaps having something like the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention for example. All those things might feature. Both sides have particular issues that might well be raised as part of the process. There is an expectation that the European Union is very keen to make progress on youth mobility, and we would share its interests in that. We will no doubt come back to that. There is also an expectation that fishing issues will be discussed, although there are no details about what that might involve. We very much hope that the UK Government will push for business mobility and mobility for touring artists.

We expect negotiations after the forthcoming summit to continue over the summer. We are not aware of discussions between the parties as yet on the timing of the next TCA Partnership Council or on the spring round of specialised committees. I think that we are at the cusp of making progress. We have been making our priorities clear, and no doubt we can go into that in detail.

In fairness to my opposite number in the UK Government, Nick Thomas-Symonds has been impressing on me and colleagues in Wales and Northern Ireland that the UK Government wants to take the priorities of devolved Administrations seriously. We are taking that at face value, and we very much hope that progress can be made on those matters as well as on the other areas that will be discussed.

I am getting to that. Notwithstanding the fact that Creative Scotland is an arm’s-length organisation, it has been working with the Scottish Government to explain the process that it is engaged in, what financial quantum would be required for multiyear funding to be introduced and the range of organisations that could and would be financially supported as part of that change. The process has been made clear to the Scottish Government, but we are not involved in Creative Scotland’s operational decisions around that process.

As I think that the member is aware, organisations have applied for multiyear funding. Creative Scotland knows who they are, how many of them there are and how much support they want to receive. The Scottish Government has been involved in the conversation, because we support the introduction of multiyear funding and we want to work with Creative Scotland to make sure that the process works well. We want the funding model for regularly funded organisations to be broader and deeper with regard to the number of organisations that are supported—that would mean significantly more organisations being supported—and the scale of funding than is currently the case.

That is why I do not recognise the characterisation by others of the funding as being spread so thinly. However, we are now getting into the territory of recommendations that I have not seen, which the board of Creative Scotland will consider later in the month, and the announcement that it is yet to make. I will be looking closely at that announcement—along with, no doubt, Mr Kerr and everybody else—in order to be satisfied that the process is as foundational and transformational as I hope and believe it will be.

No, I do not accept that. I suspect that we will come back to the issue when we actually have the facts before us rather than supposition.

If I may be allowed to finish, convener, Robert Wilson said:

“The point of the review is that it will cover the whole culture sector”.—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 9 January 2025 c 30.]

I agree with Robert Wilson: it will.

I have looked at Robert Wilson’s quote. To quote to Mr Kerr the evidence that Robert Wilson gave to the committee, he said:

“The point of the review is that it will cover the whole culture sector”.—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 9 January 2025; c 30.]

The review that we have announced will examine Creative Scotland’s remit, its functions and how it can best support the culture sector’s ambitions. It will be for Dame Sue Bruce to agree with ministers the review’s remit. That will be informed by the responses to the surveys that we have launched this week.

I am telling the committee that the position is as follows: the review will examine Creative Scotland’s remit, its functions and how it can best support the culture sector’s ambitions, and it will be for Dame Sue to agree the remit of the review. I will repeat what the chair of Creative Scotland said to the committee, which was:

“The point of the review is that it will cover the whole culture sector”.—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 9 January 2025 c 30.]

I can think of other examples. Often, they are not in the public realm because of the commercial sensitivities for some organisations, so I hope that Mr Kerr appreciates that dynamic as part of my answer. However, whenever organisations are suffering distress, I would wish the Scottish Government to know about that. We are aware of the organisations that have given evidence to the committee and outlined the constraints under which they are operating, and there is constant discussion between officials and those organisations. However, if committee members are aware of other organisations in that situation, I would wish them to raise that with me.

If the history is ever written of the nature of the challenge to the culture sector here, elsewhere in these islands and internationally, during and since Covid especially, one of the things that we can be very appreciative of is the work that has gone on, mostly behind the scenes, with a significant number of organisations that we view as part of our cultural firmament. We have done everything that we possibly can to ensure that those organisations have been able to continue. My great hope is that, now, we are beginning to see significant change—this goes back to the point about foundational change—in the nature of funding for culture and the arts, which includes, among other things, our national galleries, national libraries and national museums.

However, Mr Kerr could, equally, say to me that there are challenges with regard to other parts of the cultural estate, including local museums and libraries—