Chamber and committees

Thank you very much. Unless there are any final questions for Stephen Gethins, it is time to move on to Simita Kumar, who I thank for her patience.

Would Jenny Young be okay to lead off on questions for this part of the meeting?

Of course, the minister will be very welcome to give us further information in writing after the meeting. I call David Green.

I do not think that you answered the question about whether the 25 per cent commitment is in real terms.

Finally, the 25 per cent commitment applies to the international development fund, but you said that there will be an increase in the climate justice fund. Is there a commitment to a commensurate 25 per cent increase in the climate justice fund as well, or is there a different target in mind?

The final question is from Senga Beresford.

Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the second 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 only item of business is an evidence session on the Scottish Government priorities regarding Europe, external affairs and international development.

I would like to welcome to the meeting our witnesses: Stephen Gethins, who is Minister for Europe, External Affairs and Energy, Simita Kumar, who is Minister for Equalities and International Development, Rachel Sunderland, who is deputy director, international relations, population and migration, Katherine White, who is deputy director for international development, and Elliot Robertson, who is head of the European Union secretariat. I thank you all for attending and thank the ministers for providing some written evidence in advance.

I ask the ministers to make some opening remarks for, I suggest, up to three minutes each—do not feel that you need to use all three minutes—after which we will move to questions. I offer you the floor, Mr. Gethins.

I know that Pauline Stafford is waiting to come in, but I will try to pin down some of the financial commitments that David Green was exploring.

I am sure that we all understand that the Government is not able to specify exactly what will be in its budget for subsequent years—we know it does not happen that way—but is it the Government’s expectation that the 25 per cent increase is more likely to be smooth over the course of the session, rather than it all happening toward the back end? That would make a pretty substantial difference to the actual amount of extra money going in.

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 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.