Seòmar agus comataidhean

Creative Europe is much more programme oriented. It is not the same as restoring mobility for all young people, which would include all younger people who are interested in creative pursuits. We need to appreciate that being part of Creative Europe is viewed as very important in the creative and arts community—the established creative and arts world. However, wider mobility is the big prize for all young people, including those who are just curious to travel in order to live, learn and experience.

In the wider sense, that mobility would fundamentally ease the issues for our younger artists and particularly our breakthrough artists, for whom being able to travel and tour in mainland Europe was always seen as an essential part of their career development. Many have reported that they are unable to travel or that the costs are prohibitive, so the offer of free mobility would increase their chances of career development.

The prize is there, and the good news is that the offer is still there, too. The offer is there for both. I know that, because I went to the Commission and asked. It said, “This is not one of those areas: if the UK said that it wished to be part of programmes like horizon, that would not be viewed as cherry picking.” Therefore, although I would wish it to be otherwise, even if the UK was to remain outside the European single market and outside the European Union proper, being part of Creative Europe and a mobility agreement is on the table, and I think that it should be grabbed with both hands.

First, I say good morning to committee members and to my officials who have joined the meeting.

We are very much at the start of the discourse about reparations in relation to climate change, and we are very much at the beginning of a discussion about the relationship of the developed world with the developing world and, in particular, those parts of the globe that are already seeing catastrophic climatic change. That includes very low-lying countries, particularly in the Pacific. We are just at the start of that process and, obviously, we will have further discussions about that.

Committee members will be aware that Scotland is a co-chair of the under2 coalition, which brings together sub-state Governments from around the world. That is one of the forums where we work with other Governments on how we can best co-ordinate our domestic activities. However, I am sure that the issue of our relationship with parts of the world that are facing the catastrophic effects of climate change will play an ever-greater role, and I am happy to ask my officials to update the committee on what the initial steps are. We have a long way to go on it.

The challenges are everything that we have learned thus far because, as far as I am aware, the big picture is not going to change. There is no substantive difference between the two main UK political parties that are standing in the current general election in relationship to the European Union. Neither is suggesting that we rejoin the European single market or rejoin the European Union itself, which means that the hard Brexit will remain just that.

As far as small and medium-sized businesses—and, indeed, all Scottish exporters—are concerned, there needs to be an understanding that the big picture is not going to change with a pro-Brexit British Government. The Scottish Government will do what it can at the margins, because that is the only area where we can have an influence, given that we are outside the single market and we have this hard Brexit arrangement. We will beat the drum and we will make the case, but it remains a fact that, under a Conservative Government or indeed a Labour Government, the UK and Scotland as part of it will have hard Brexit done to us, regardless of the fact that we did not want it to happen in the first place. The damage to our economy and our exports will, unfortunately, remain in place, even though I would wish it to be otherwise.

Of course, there is another option, which is to rejoin the European Union, and that is still a debate that is being had in Scotland. I am sorry that it is not being debated among the UK parties, but the Scottish Government’s position is still that we would wish to rejoin the European Union as a member state, which would obviate all these issues.

I am delighted to speak again to the committee, this time about national outcomes and our international work. This is our first opportunity to talk about that since publication in December 2023 of the first annual report, “Scotland’s International Network: Annual Report 2022-23”. That publication followed a recommendation by this committee that I was glad to accept. I would be pleased to hear feedback about how that report has met your aspirations and about what members would like to see more of in the future.

Officials in the network offices and at home in Scotland are now undertaking monitoring and evaluation to inform our next annual report, which we will publish later this year. I want to continue refining and improving reports, which are an important part of how we ensure accountability and transparency in how Scotland’s international network delivers.

I believe that the network makes a significant contribution on behalf of Scottish businesses and organisations and in support of Scottish interests. The most recent EY investment attractiveness survey showed that for the eighth consecutive year Scotland has, outside London, been the most attractive destination for foreign investment in the UK. That is in large part due to the excellent efforts of officials in Scottish Development International, the Scottish Government and partner bodies at home and overseas, to promote Scotland to the world.

The Scottish Government has now laid its report on the review of the national outcomes before Parliament and I am pleased that the international outcome remains in the proposed set of outcomes, albeit with a slight shift in focus. The slight changes that are proposed relate to the twin crises of the climate and biodiversity emergencies. The word “globally” replaces the word “internationally”, reflecting the fact that it is an outcome not only between nations but in relation to the land, sea and air that we all share. The words “show leadership” have been added, in recognition that Scotland has much to offer partners across the world in the transition to a growing greener and fairer economy.

Members of the committee are likely to recognise that no data has been published for the “international networks” indicator in the set informing the current international outcome. The committee has heard from a variety of expert witnesses that it is very difficult to carry out quantitative analysis of diplomatic activity such as networking, building relationships, exercising influence and deploying soft power, and that countries the world over, including those with far larger international footprints than Scotland, struggle to do so. Professor Juliet Kaarbo of the University of Edinburgh and Professor Stephen Gethins of the University of St Andrews, among others, gave evidence to that effect.

We will do our best to capture that analysis but, in our experience, drawing together data to meet the analytical rigour that is needed for the national performance framework has been challenging. Knowing that to be the case, there is an opportunity for us to do more to present and highlight qualitative data in a different format to demonstrate the impact of our international work.

Earlier this week, we published a significant report that looks at our contribution to international development from 2021 to 2023. The annual report on the international network is another excellent example and I look forward to presenting the next iteration later this year. It will lay the groundwork for future annual reporting on Scotland’s international strategy and will take a similar approach to the wide sweep of our international activity. In that way, we can balance strong performance on hard measures, particularly those on the economy, with a narrative about how the work of diplomats and trade and investment experts helps us to meet our objectives and to deliver impact at home.

I know that committee members visited Ireland to learn how it approaches similar questions and am pleased that Scottish Government civil servants based in the British embassy in Dublin were able to host and facilitate your engagement with the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs.

The committee also heard from the heads of three of our international offices last year. I hope that there will be more such opportunities to share how our international activity contributes to achieving outcomes for Scotland.

That is a very well-timed question because, as Mr Ruskell knows, I have taken on the day-to-day responsibility for international development which, until recently, was held by other colleagues. Therefore, his intervention is well timed to make sure that, as I begin acting on those responsibilities in a day-to-day way, I think about how we help to mainstream—to use the jargon—an understanding of what it is that we do and how we are doing it and ensure that this is not something that just sits in a box called “international development” or in the department of external affairs of the Scottish Government but something that impacts on the broader work of the Scottish Government.

I must say that we have had significant buy-in from other ministers in other parts of the Government on the wellbeing agenda, which Mr Ruskell highlighted, but how do we link that to what we are doing furth of Scotland? One of those areas where we are trying to be joined up relates to our immediate northern neighbourhood. We have been talking a bit about international development and a relationship with the global south. We also have a view towards the global north in our immediate neighbourhood, and there is a very strong environmental dimension to that. Scotland is the most northerly non-Arctic country in the world, and we are doing a lot to work with our northern neighbours to deal with the shared challenges that we have in terms of the environment but also in areas where the Scottish Government has devolved responsibility—and wellbeing is one of those areas.

Through our approach to Arctic and northern co-operation, we are bringing together Scottish universities, for example, to work with other northern seats of learning, to ensure that we are doing everything that we can to co-operate with one another in the field of remote health, wellbeing and education. That involves much more than just the department of external affairs in the Scottish Government. That is an example of where it is not just my responsibility; we will have ministers who have responsibilities in and for areas such as the environment, energy and health who are part of that wider Scottish Government approach to things.

The short answer to Mr Ruskell is that I will reflect on his international development point and on how we ensure that there is wider understanding across Scottish Government. In the area in which I have had day-to-day responsibility for a longer period, we have already been doing that in relation to our northern neighbourhood, but I want to make sure that we do that for both areas of responsibility.

I am always open to suggestions as to how we ensure the best understanding of decision making and priorities. I am pleased that people want us to do more—that is a good thing. It reflects the fact that people feel that, even though our budget is relatively small compared to that of other international development partners, Scotland’s input is still welcome.

I know that because, for example, the Zambian President is in Scotland at present—I am sorry, but I think that I said Zaire a moment ago; I meant to say Zambia—and we have projects in that country. We know from him, his Government and civil society partners in that country, as we do from our other partner countries, that Scotland’s contribution is valued.

However, along the way, having that good relationship with our partners and explaining how we make the decisions that we do is an integral part of maintaining that high level of trust and welcome for engagement, and that is something that we are keen to maintain with our charity and third sector partners as well as our partner countries. The fact that we have Government relations and Government visitors here from those countries as well as an on-going relationship with the third sector in those countries is proof that things are working.

The first thing to state is the obvious, which you have already heard from those who have given evidence to you: the TCA is a significant step backwards in our economic and trading relationship with the EU compared with the benefits that the UK enjoyed as a member state.

The evidence that you have heard in the inquiry has illustrated that already. Brexit has generated bureaucracy, costs and delays and created complexity for Scottish businesses. There are barriers to trade, which have exacerbated recruitment challenges and held back investment on a significant scale. The UK economy is now 2.5 per cent smaller than it would have been in the EU, and the gap could increase to 5.7 per cent by 2035.

Things can be done, which Scottish Enterprise—the national economic agency of the Scottish Government—deals with, as do Scottish Development International and our colleagues in the Scottish Government office in Brussels. There is a constant effort to work out how we can ameliorate the challenges. However, there is only so much that can be done.

Our relations with the EU are a matter for the UK Government, which sought a hard Brexit. We now have a hard Brexit and hard consequences. We will do what we can around the edges—we will perhaps come to that when we discuss the TCA, with very specific examples of where slight improvements might be sought.

On the big picture, though, unless the UK seeks to rejoin the European single market or join the European Union as a whole, we will continue with all these disadvantages. We will work together with business and with exporters and importers as much as we can, but there is no getting round the hard facts: Brexit is Brexit; it is bad; and it will continue to be bad.

Okay—fine.

On the point about relief in the sector that we are turning a corner in funding, a significant number of people in the sector have been very kind about the fact that we have been able to secure increased funding for culture while, unfortunately, because of budgetary constraints, that is not the situation elsewhere, in other parts of Government. I am grateful for the support of people in the sector in being able to make their case. It is important that we do everything in our power to ensure that the sector thrives.

On the difference between sustaining and developing, Ms Forbes echoes a point that Donald Cameron made at the previous evidence session that I attended, about organisations that may perform a very important community role but that might not be on a trajectory to be financially self-sustaining. Such organisations may clearly have an important community or wider role to be supported.

I am very alive to this point. There is, indeed, a tension between sustaining what matters—which may or may not be self-sustaining or profitable in a budgetary sense—and developing the sector writ large. I underlined this point in my opening statement, and I am trying to find the wording that I used. I am very keen—as, I know, Creative Scotland is—to consider how we can help cultural and arts organisations to build in the resilience, financial sustainability and, importantly, capacity that they need to thrive.

We can do a lot more of that, because it is different from what Skills Development Scotland or Scottish Enterprise might offer in the wider economy. However, given the experience that we have gone through with the changing nature of society and its interaction with the culture and arts sector, we need to help the sector to manage its room for success more effectively. We need to think anew about how we make that happen. That is where joining up our financial capabilities and additional funding streams will be the answer to Ms Forbes’s conundrum.

I have just confirmed, again, that it is cumulative, so it is just over £40 million additional.